User talk:Hgilbert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

--/Archive --/Archive2 --/Archive3 --/Archive4 --/Archive Waldorf project --/Archive5

Joey King[edit]

I didn't think the two changes I made were not constructive. The first was just to fix a table cell that missing its border. The second was fixing a broken link. The link went to page that been deleted. While Elissa Wall's biographical page no longer exist, a entry on her autobiography does. So, I forwarded the link to that page. The other option would be to remove the link altogether. I was just trying to be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have apologized and explained the source of the mistake on your talk page. HGilbert (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Regards to name removal in the Moncton Shootings 2014 page[edit]

The name is being removed for a good reason. It is also an unnecessary part of the article. I have removed it a fw times now, and need it to stay that way. His name does have limited usage since the incident. Please do not re-edit. Qwerty1234fghj (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Qwerty1234fghj:You should explain your reasoning on the talk page of the article. Otherwise it seems an arbitrary gesture. HGilbert (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(comment moved to article talk page)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Hello Hgilbert,

I beg to differ about unconstructiveness. My chronology is a faithful and reasonable account of this Kafkaesque affair. I know it's definitely hard to get into it but one just cannot oversimplify what is overcomplicated. If you will read the given details as well as the accompanying links to evidence you will understand this shameful sordid story hidden by lousy politicians to their respective people, both Italian and Indian. Supermario1949 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You cannot replace a carefully researched presentation with your own idea of what has happened. See WP:Truth for an explanation of our dependence upon existing sources. HGilbert (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
hi Steaveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling Correction (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Regarding the reversion that you made to my correction, I believe that it was undue. My correction was not irrelevant, i was simply correcting a spelling error. Although it may have been only a small difference, spelling errors detract from the professionalism of the page. I have since fixed the error and I hope that it will stay that way. (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your vandalism has since been reverted by another editor.HGilbert (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edit on the Park51 article[edit]

Hey, just FYI, the change was supported by the citations that were already there. I simply reworded the sentence, and there was neither any new text added or any text removed. Epic Genius (talk) ± 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Where do these contrast residents outside the city with those inside? HGilbert (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence before the one that I changed reads: Polls have shown that most Americans, including most residents of New York State and New York City (though not most residents of Manhattan), oppose it. Before my revision, this next sentence was: Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. Now, the text reads, However, many Americans outside of New York City believe that the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project. The original revision is basically saying the most American residents, state residents, and city residents, but not most borough residents, oppose the idea, but implied that most American and state residents, but not most city and borough residents, think that the developers legally have the right to proceed. It was confusing to read, so I reworded the sentence to make it easier, at least from what I understood from what the sentence said. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edits on the Evan Tann article[edit]

Howdy! As noted in the edit comments as well as article Talk Page, the material that was deleted is not mentioned in the cited sources, and none of the cited sources for deleted material mention Evan Tann. I spent much time checking the sources and searching for any other reliable sources, but none exist other than the 7 that remained after my edits. This article was written like a resume, and cites sources that do not support the contents. That violates WP:BLP guidelines which clearly state unsourced, falsely sourced and unreliable material must be immediately deleted from a BLP. The contents also do not meet WP:N guidelines. Please kindly undo your revert of my proper edits. Thank you! Zimdolf (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello @HGilbert. I agree with @Zimdolf. Please explain your reversion to the earlier, inaccurate version. Basicallyyes (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
When I edited the Tann article last month, I tried to find reliable sources, but as others said there are very few reliable sources that mention Tann. I located a few articles about the company he works for, but those were mostly about the company presenting at tech events, such as TechCrunch and TED. Tann was a representative of the company at those events, not there on his own merit. I put those references in the private life section but in retrospect it isn't private life but work. I support the deletions made by Zimdolf. If the appropriate deletions are made, then the article doesn't amount to more than a few verifiable sentences (eg. that Tann went to USC and started a small startup, which isn't notable) so I would suggest the article be nominated for deletion.Anethars (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we should stick to what is notable. I have restored the earlier version. @Anethars: if there are no sources for this, perhaps you need to wait until the person in question is more notable. HGilbert (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Hgilbert, yes, I understand and agree. Thank you. Anethars (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cato the elder cabbage lover(horrible histories sketch)[edit]

Hey, yeah I really think I prefer my version, most other Wikipedia Roman pages also call it that(Julius Caesar and Claudius) and it's what their religion was called, we don't call Judaism "ancient middle east religion"-Joy(it's my name, I'm using this for you know who I am, no I don't have a Wikipedia page but I plane on getting one, plus my anxiety causes me to worry about upsetting others with my edits so I prefer to go unnoticed hunch not having a Wikipedia account, but still planning on getting one for my "smaller" edits like grammar check I guess. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:375A:A750:2DA5:EA0A:7D35:3260 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Joy. Sorry about the revert.
Julius Caesar refers us to "Roman polytheism". I have changed Cato the Elder to this, as perhaps most accurate. Both Roman polytheism and Roman paganism simply redirect to the Religion in Ancient Rome article. I'm open to discussing this further, though!
Also -- if you ever need any help, please ask. By the way: It is reassuring to people on WP to see a registered user make edits; this allows continuity and conversation and implies there is some commitment. So I would recommend taking this step, though probably an anonymous user name is better. HGilbert (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to be sorry, it was your opinion and you where really nice about it, personally I still prefer calling the religion "Roman Paganism" but "Roman Polytheism" is also what it's called, besides I don't own the world, if everyone prefers it to be called that then fine-Joy.(Also yes going to make a Wikipedia account.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:375A:A750:2DA5:EA0A:7D35:3260 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

hey, Hgibert, I have a problem.[edit]

It's me, Joy, okay time to get real:I have an IQ of 78 I'm not smart when it comes to complex stuff like Wikipedia editing, but I tried to say not "bite off more then I can chew" but I made my Wikipedia page and while editing it I posted



but it ended up being

like this

I don't know how to make it not do that, can you please tell me how to do it?Historypersonalized (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)