User talk:LGagnon

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

Contents

Sigh[edit]

I've blocked AOluwatoyin a couple of times. I don't quite understand what else you want here. I told you that if you wanted help, just ask me directly on my talk page. I would recommend toning down your message here. You aren't helping your cause any with it. It comes off as hostile. And reverting others comments like you say you are going to is probably going to get you blocked. Again, it doesn't help you any. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

bias[edit]

LGagnon, I appreciate your concern with keeping wikipedia npov. However, your editing of the Ayn Rand article seems to indicate a strong negative bias. Some of your edits and concerns I agree with, despite my being an Objectivist, and therefore likely to have a favorable view of Ayn Rand. I think good criticism and controversy inforamtion shold be included. I think many of your edits though are very npov. I suggest you take a step back and think about this before proceeding.Ethan a dawe 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

Philosopher[edit]

What are your thoughts on "Lay Philosopher" versus "Non-Academic Philosopher?" Someone is suggesting this in regards Rand and others? Ethan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw[edit]

Any more anything from AOluwatoyin and I am going to block him indefinitely. Honestly, the legal threats should've gotten him blocked indefinitely but someone beat me to it. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And it looks like his comments on Jimbo's talk page were reverted. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And I do apologize for not being up on this more. I've been hit by more yahoos than usual lately, including someone who said that they "liked me" and who turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not making excuses. But not enough hours in the day to stop everyone. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You have got to me kidding me[edit]

Look at this and this. Good grief. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to readers: Please be aware that the two examples accessible by the links above were not written by the same individual but by two different editors. --142.161.184.39 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point since you admitted on my user page that you are the same person who added to the box first posted by wolfstar. As we say in Wisconsin, it's the same difference. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, A writes a piece about C the contents of which C insists are libellous. B indicates only that the piece ought to have been published because it speaks the truth. Is B guilty of libel? Of course not, he didn't write the piece in the first place. A murders C. B testifies that C was a bastard and "deserved it". Did B murder C? Of Course not. Are you starting to see the difference now? I hope so because clearly it's not the "same difference". Just out of curiousity is this why you are called Cheeseheads? --209.115.235.79 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. My point was that you obviously agreed with it. So you were basically agreeing with a sockpuppet who has been blocked 7 or 8 times. It doesn't exactly speak highly of you. So what's the difference really? --Woohookitty(meow) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I blocked AOluwatoyin indefinitely due to sockpuppet use. If anything else, it makes blocking these socks easier. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism: most vs some[edit]

Hi I noticed that you changed the Objectivism article to state that most academics rejected it, I started a topic on the talk page to discus this point.--Dylan Lake 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FAR...[edit]

Hi there, because the "Writing style" and "Fandom" sections of Chuck Palahniuk are not refed and are possibly OR, I've listed it at WP:FAR. Thanks, Mikker (...) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Randall Flagg[edit]

Just wondering, do you think the article is good enough now for a Featured Article nomination?--CyberGhostface 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Cults in Our Midst[edit]

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I present to you this award for your hard work on the Randall Flagg article. CyberGhostface 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Chuck Palahniuk[edit]

Your recent edit to Chuck Palahniuk (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Stephen King short stories[edit]

Template:Stephen King short stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --CyberGhostface 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler redirects[edit]

Should I make spoiler redirects for Walter's and Marten's redirect pages? Someone new to the DT series might look up Marten or Walter and find out he's Flagg before they get to that part.--CyberGhostface 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I put Category:Critics of Objectivism on CfD, but I think I should've told you first as you created it. I did this mostly for consistency with the decision on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 13#Category:Critics of Islam.--T. Anthony 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a song with this![edit]

Trampton 06:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

ARI[edit]

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Zinn paragraph is most definitely not NPOV[edit]

Your Zinn paragraph is not written to express a summary of different views concerning whether or not the Supreme Court is politically motivated. It offers no differing viewpoints from a variety of sources and chooses to emphasize only one interpretation. Its only goal is apparently the injection of a Marxist critique concerning the structure of the United States' federal judiciary. That is definitely not NPOV.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

BoBo 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The addition of a Marxist critique to a description of what most in America regard as a necessary democratic institution in a three-branch government system (see the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me) is in and of itself controversial. Therefore, you should've taken a more cautious, objective and common-sense approach to introducing the topic you wish to present. It appears that you only wish to introduce ideology and not have a balanced discussion of the politicization of the judicial branch.
BoBo 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

I just wanted to inform you that in your signature preferences, I believe that you may not have "raw signature" checked. Make sure that to check that box so when you sign your ~~~~s, it will work in the way that you intended. Cheers! —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

Grunge music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. NSR77 TC 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Just popping around today and thought I'd say "hi" since I saw you also go to a UMass. Nothing more to say, really. Looks like you've done some good work, so keep it up! — The Storm Surfer 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For removing dubious yet funny info from the Noam Chomsky article! :)

Hey, thanks for removing the book "Scandalous Hegemony" from the Noam Chomsky page. I didn't even notice it! [1]--Jersey Devil 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Candyshelf.jpg[edit]

Hi LGagnon, please add the original link to the picture on burningwell.org since I wasn't able to find it there. Regards, --Flominator 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg[edit]

I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource image[edit]

Hi, I'm a new administrator at Wikisource, and a more experienced admin has been talking me through some admin tasks. See here. I made a mistake in that I dealt with the first part, where he was telling me about deleting images from Category:Orphan media, before properly reading the second part. I assumed that the second part related to other images. The reason I'm mentioning it to you is that an image uploaded by you was in that category, and he suggested that I might want to chat with the uploader before deleting it.

Anyway, I went ahead and deleted it before realizing that that was the image about which he had said that I might want to chat with you first. It had no licence. If I've done the wrong thing and if it's public domain or available under some kind of free licence, please let me know. Apparently it's possible to restore things that I've deleted. The image, in any case, was not being used. I'm posting here because you've used this account more recently than the Wikisource one. Regards. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg is now a Good Article[edit]

Just thought you'd like to know that Randall Flagg has now passed Good article status.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CrimethInc. images[edit]

Yo, I was wondering if you were the same individual as Flickr user LGagnon? And if so, is there any chance you would release your CrimethInc.-related images under a free or Creative Commons license? I'm thinking specifically of this image, but any others would be fantastic also. Regards, Skomorokh 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. In any case, if you do have/know of any other usable images, they would be most appreciated. Thanks for your response, Skomorokh 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guts in Playboy[edit]

Hey, in the Haunted article you wrote about 'Guts' being in Playboy in March of 2004, and that Chuck offered another story to be in Playboy as well but it was too gross and got turned down. Do you happen to know what the other Palahniuk story was that he submitted to Playboy? Thanks in advance!!! Also, your political views and interests are spot on good sir. -Tubeyes (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism[edit]

I hope you continue to assist working in the Libertarianism article. I've made significant edits which most have been removed trying to bring context. They barely let me keep what I added on the word's origins. Thanks q (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of space combat flight simulator games issue[edit]

I was just browsing around and came to one of my most favorite lists, the list of Virtual Boy Games, now I kinda liked it better with the red coloring but hehehe, what I am messaging you about is that I have a problem. There is a heated debate about changing the article of List of space flight simulator games to the "Chronological list of space flight simulator games", and moving the date to the first column instead of the second. Seeing as how you have done many more lists than I and seeing as how your lists have stood the test of time, I seek your advice ehheeh. I don't like the chronological organization of the list because the year has no bearing on the game whatsoever and I just do get why we need the list to revolve around a piece of information that in many lists is excluded all together. If you could take a look at the list List of space flight simulator games and give your comments here at the Wikiproject Video games talk page I would be really happy. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but I feel strongly name should be in the first column. Anyways, we got an administrator to facilitate the situation and the direction of this conversation will determine the fate of this page, so if you could give your two cents, I would be very grateful. Thank you so much --Kirihari (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cel-shaded video games[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated List of cel-shaded video games, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cel-shaded video games. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Alternative rock[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kurt Cobain[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Kurt Cobain/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion[edit]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:POVabout[edit]

I have nominated Template:POVabout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Music documentary films[edit]

I have nominated Category:Music documentary films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Documentary films about music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alternative musicians[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Alternative musicians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychological Criticism[edit]

I noticed in the "Atlas Shrugged" article that on the 24th of May, 2006, you added a bit that has since changed into it's own category. It speaks of Nathaniel Branden's belief that the book may be harmful psychologically. There is a problem with neutrality in that he was fine with the book until his romantic and business relationship with Ayn Rand exploded in a rather a bitter fashion. Given the number of Rand critics, could you find a different person to address the psychological issue? And one that has a psychology degree from an accredited university, since Branden did not? It would help in the "neutrality" issue, and mean that I don't have to take it down. After all, no critic is ever truly neutral, but surely we should draw the line at posting things from exes, right? *smiles*

Oh, and please know, in spite of what I said on the talk page of "Atlas Shrugged", I won't actually take anything down until you've stopped by to discuss it, or until a bit of time has gone by in which you've had some opportunity to respond. It did, after all, take a long time to find you!

I am in no way attempting to upset you, or to arbitrarily remove any work. I've plenty of disagreement with Rand, and plenty I agree with, just think the ex's comments are not needed.

Alexandria177 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering! As it happens, I discussed it with some others and came to the same conclusion that you explained to me. So Branden's criticism is still in the article. Alexandria177 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday![edit]

Proposed deletion of As Good as Dead[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article As Good as Dead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of alternative rock artists for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alternative rock artists is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative rock artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:View from the Green Monster.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:View from the Green Monster.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Objectivism[edit]

Hi. The above category, which you created, has been nominated for WP:CFD here. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TM 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Palahniukchoke.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Palahniukchoke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC on cross-namespace links from Jimmy Wales to user:Jimbo Wales[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jimmy Wales#Rfc: Links to user:Jimbo Wales. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Anime series[edit]

Category:Anime series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)