User talk:SQGibbon

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

Backgammon[edit]

Maybe you are right that it is trivia. By the way - I do not like Hume, but here is the quote from A Treatise of Human Nature Book 1, Section 7: Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepiolo (talkcontribs) 17:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cowboy Bebop Edit[edit]

Hi, I apologize for not citing any sources to support what I wrote. Would it help if I cited the manga and specific examples within the anime series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleFang (talkcontribs) 21:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Stipe Miocic[edit]

It doesn't say "what makes him notable", just "relevant to the subject's notability". Having such an 'ethnic' name and Cro Cop being an MMA legend certainly makes it even more notable. During his last fight it was mentioned at least four times. Also, especially with athletes, ancestry and ethnicity get mentioned more often than not (e.g. Swiss soccer internationals). In the lead, yes. And I've never encountered any edit warring over this. You must admit the rules are somewhat vague. Looking at the article's edit history, your stance is so uncompromising it looks personnal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.244.159 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

(Response copied from IP's talk page)
Hi, let's go through what MOS:BIO says specifically:
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
Using that criteria then we should only mention America. He became notable while as an American living in America.
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
And here too what makes him notable is only that he is a professional MMA fighter. If he was not a professional MMA fighter then he would not have an article regardless of the fact that his parents are Croatian. That he is Croatian has contributed nothing to his being notable. It might be part of what makes him popular among certain fans but that's not how Wikipedia determines notability.
The problem that happens throughout Wikipedia and why these guidelines exist is to try to stem the rampant nationalism that plagues Wikipedia. For some people if there is the slightest connection between their home country and a celebrity then they want it mentioned in the lead. This is inappropriate as the leads would become unwieldy (for instance I can trace family roots to France, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Sioux at the very least. That means when I become famous should my article call me French-English-Scottish-Irish-Sioux-American? Not appropriate for the lead). Instead we limit it to just the most basic facts of citizenship at the time of notability. Note, this doesn't mean we don't mention their background elsewhere in the article, just not in the lead. And no, this is nothing personal. I know absolutely nothing about this person or MMA. My entire "job" on Wikipedia is to patrol new changes looking for vandalism and making sure edits are in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular I look for edits that are pushing an agenda like political, religious, nationalistic, etc. These are real problems on Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It says 'relevant', not 'what makes him notable'. It's not the same thing. Nationalism? Again you're being too rigorous with your definitions. The rest of your response shows you really are influenced by emotions. If someone was replacing 'American' with 'Croatian', I'd understand. Removing 'of Croatian descent' is simply removing additional (and interesting) information. NOTABLE information which commentators mention often, even usually while INTRODUCING him. He himself is quite vocal about his roots, yet you're making it a personnal mission of yours to delete this? I'm sorry, but you're the one with an 'agenda'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.244.159 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, seeing you're appealing on Miocic's talk page, it's not me (User:Zhmr, forgot my password) who you're edit warring with. I've only changed the pronunciation and exchanged (so only one time) 'Croatian-American' (what I found) with 'of Croatian descent'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.255.199 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Soputa[edit]

Sorry to be 8 months late in reply. Soputa was not really a town in the time of WW2, more of a native village. There was no such thing as a "Citizen" of Soputa, nor of any place in Papua-NewGuinea. Natives wre and still are very tribal, there was no notion of citizenship amongthe natives anywhere at that time. While it is true that the article in question was about Soputa, it does mention the epic battles there, but the batles were around the village in the jungle, and McGuinness was working in a casualty clearing station in that jungle. The villagers probably did not know any of the combatants by name on either side, and they probably did not care, most likely they justbwanted all the combatants to go away. That said, a memorial to anyone would not have occured in any mind in Soputa. But the battles were critical to the survival of Soputa, and to New Guinea and therefore Australia. The battles were part of the Kokoda Track campaign which at one point the Japanese were within sight of distant Port Moresby. McGuinness' bravery in refusing to leave his wounded to the barbarity of the Japanese did a lot to maintain the morale of the Australians in that area, and helped keep them fighting because they knew that they would not be abandoned (as did happen elsewhere). He did it again at Eora ridge. I knew McGuiness well when I worked as a doctor in the war veterans hospital in Sydney. He never spoke about his war record nor of his Military Cross. I learned about it all from his colleagues and from patients in the hospital who were looked after by him in New,Guinea. McGuinness was not only a brilliant and dedicated doctor, greatly respected by his medical colleagues, but revered greatly by those he saved, and he helped save Soputa. Cheers Historygypsy (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Historygypsy (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Historygypsy[edit]

Hello SQGibbon, so nice of you to reply. Allan McG. died much too young in 1972. Those whom he helped and saved are also long since gone. He reached the rank of Temporary Lt. Colonel. He was the chief physician of Syndey Hospital, Attending Physician of the "Repatriation (War Veterans') General Hospital of Sydney" (now a general teaching hospital) and the Chief Censor (Examiner) of the Royal College of Physicans of Australia and New Zealand. Allan lived and breathed for medicine, his only pass time was gardening. I worked with and for a great many outstanding doctors in Australia, The UK, New Zealand and Canada, but I never met anyone who matched his dedication nor his encyclopedic knowlege of medicine. I guess that he will never be remembered on Wikipedia, but thanks for your very kind offer of help."Sic transit gloria" Historygypsy (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historygypsy (talkcontribs)

Demi Moore[edit]

Forgive me the unsolicited response to your reversion, but her ethnicity being in the article is not in itself problematic (quite common, actually)—it's the source. Similar to IMDb or other user-edited sources, there's neither identification of contributors nor apparent editorial oversight at ethnicelebs, meaning it fails WP:RS. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I figured it probably wasn't a reliable source as well. I know putting this kind of ancestry information in articles is common but on a personal level it seems like there should be a limit to how far back one goes. We go back far enough we're all from Africa. Obviously there's a difference between that and where our parents are from. But where is that line? How many generations? If it's 10 generations is it worth mentioning? It would be if it makes a difference in how the subject perceives themself or how others do but often these kinds of edits often just seem like trivia as they don't mention why it's important to note that someone's ancestor is from a certain country. We don't worry about noting eye color unless it's somehow a notable feature so why worry about great, great, great, great grandparents if there's nothing notable about it?
Oh well, such is Wikipedia. I'm not on a crusade or anything, just one of those things I think about from time to time. SQGibbon (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No disagreement there; unless there's something directly notable about a specific ancestor or group, usually going further back than one's parents is overkill. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Lacey Von Erich[edit]

Lacey has a new daughter, and I tried to update the page, and include the Twitter post she posted about it as the source. Something got hung up. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.28.189 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

encyclopedia vs website[edit]

You recently scrubbed a few contributions to the SCSU website based on the observation that the article is supposed to be encyclopedic--not the school's webpage. I'm not challenging you. I want to know more so I can understand how to avoid the mistake in the future. Is there a wiki article about that difference? What are the signs you look for?Gulliver1swift (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rickson Gracie Controversy[edit]

May I please request why my addition of Rickson Gracie's challenge match against Hayward Nishioka was removed? It is found on Hayward wikipedia page. I used the same source. I thought this to be significant as Rickson claims to be undefeated and Hayward Nishioka under Judo rules did defeat Rickson. No name74331 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)NoName74331

Your opinion on UFC 205[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SQGibbon. You have new messages at Talk:UFC 205.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

lightbulb listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulb. Since you had some involvement with the lightbulb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

WT:MMA Styles Discussion[edit]

You seem to be fairly active in editing MMA bios, so I figured I'd bring this to your attention to get your feedback. Hope you check it out. Thanks! TBMNY (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song). Since you had some involvement with the Fancy Pants (Lady Gaga song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter James (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

MPeople stuff[edit]

Hello I refer you to the page i created on Wiki several years ago on MPeople's single (Itchycoo Park), sometime ago you removed the page for this song as it is a cover version of a Small Faces song and features only on their page and you thought that by featuring the MPeople version underneath the main Small Face Single of Itchycoo park would be 'messy' as there are four other covers. I argue that the MPeople version was a number 11 hit in the UK. You have alloweed their previous cover version of 'Someday' and 'Don't look any Further', so why not Itchycoo Park? Please explain. User: Ebuaki

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SQGibbon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Harpo Studios[edit]

Please have a look into the talk section of this article. Thank you. --Ju52 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Family Ties dispute[edit]

Dear user SQGibbon,

I am writing about an edit I made to the "References in Other Media" section of the "Family Ties" article. I added a paragraph, detailing references made in the TV show, Psych. You deleted it, though I was unaware exactly how this worked - I reposted it, and only later realized that I was involved in what is apparently called in this forum an "edit war." This is the first time I have edited a wikipedia article. It was not my intention to get into such an "edit war" with anyone. I am unaware, generally, how editing wikipedia articles works and simply assumed that the edits didn't "take" for whatever reason. That is, until I received a warning message earlier today. It has taken me some time to try to figure out exactly what the problem is (or at least where to find the history and list of grievances against my edit). I posted a lengthy reply somewhere on here. I have no idea if it was posted in the right place, etc. I am posting here because it seems you are the editor whose appreciation of my edits was sufficiently low to warrant removing my edits altogether, summarily and without discussion (thanks for that - civil discourse in the new millennium and all that, I guess).

At any rate, to remind you, here is your comment (now that I've been able to find it): "Some of this is puffery and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The rest is unsourced and much of it is original research WP:OR. We need reliable sources discussing all of this and then cite them. (TW))"

Here is what I wrote in reply to your issues (a detailed reply would be helpful):


Regarding edits by SQGibbon 18:02 on 1 June, 2018

Disclosure: I have not edited an article in Wikipedia before, and so am not very versed in the general rules and regulations for doing so (I was under the impression anyone could edit if they provided true information). Thus, I am not versed in how these discussions work either. It took me a while to figure out how to use the "talk" feature even to get to this point. I'm not entirely sure I'm writing this in the correct place. If need requires it, you may refer to me as "Newbie editor."

SQGibbon is removing material I contributed to the "References in Other Media" section of the "Family Ties" article.

The reasons listed are as follows: "Some of this is puffery and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The rest is unsourced and much of it is original research WP:OR. We need reliable sources discussing all of this and then cite them."

Reply: I fail to see how the references here are any different from the others, excepting in that they are more detailed. Let's think about the statement above:

"Puffery" = please define and explain (with specific reference to the edited material, please).

"doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" - please explain; what is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and WHAT should be excluded from an encyclopedia entry and WHY (again specific references to the edited material in question along with justification for the irrelevance of each would be appreciated)?

"the rest is unsourced" = do you mean that these aren't quotes from some secondary material? If I quote an article or interview, I will need to cite that material. However, each of these references is to a direct or indirect reference to "Family Ties" within an episode of a TV show (Psych). Each instance is referred to the specific season, episode, and original air date. So please explain to me how any of these fail in the citation department.

"much of it is original research" = if you mean to say that I myself hunted down each of these references, then you are correct - it is my original research. Please explain why it is bad for me to do my own leg-work to locate information that is not reported anywhere else and which is, by the way, easily accessible to anyone who has access to these episodes (or their scripts, which are all online). And if you're worried I'm not getting proper credit for my "research," I'm fine. I don't desire the recognition. This information is free for whomever would like to benefit from it without having to track this down, unless they want to (in which case, they can do so just like I did).

As a final word, I'd like to know by what authority my edits are being removed? My understanding is that wikipedia articles are open to contribution by anyone. Misinformation should be discouraged and removed, but if an edit provides additional information that may be of interest to some readers, why would you remove it (for any reason)? You cannot say that the information provided is irrelevant because that will be relative to readers. For instance, I have exactly zero interest in any of the other "references in other media" listed in this section. I suspect I am not alone. I think there will be many readers who couldn't care less about the references I've included. That's fair. The question I have is why my references are removed and others permitted to stay, given that they are of the same nature (excepting, again, the fact that mine are more thorough - something that is generally taken to be a virtue rather than a vice).

Thank you

71.38.163.164 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Newbie editor


UPDATE:

SQGibbon,

I saw the reply you gave to my inquiry. I already mentioned to one of the other editors, TimeFlight, that I read the Wikipedia section on puffery and conceded that the use of the adjective "fantastic" was out of bounds, and I'm happy to have that removed from the entry. I still do not understand why any of the rest of this was deemed invalid. Mostly, it seems to revolve around citing published work on the subject. However, I would like to dispute this. As a professional academic, I know how publication and citation works. The fact of the matter is that the references I have provided are nowhere else cited in print. The references I have given are directly to the shows/references in question and these can be verified by literally anyone (either by way of watching the episodes - I have provided season, episode, and original air date for each - or through the episodes' scripts, which are also all available online). At any rate, if every single reference needs to cite some published work, then there are other statements in this very article that do not comply (e.g., the claim that immediately followed my paragraph, states: "Family Ties has also been referenced on Family Guy." There is no reference to the fact that some journalist somewhere said this with proper citation. Why? I suspect because it's fairly easy to verify, if one wanted to; just like the references I provided; these aren't the kinds of things that require extensive citation). Likewise, there are plenty of citations that lead to dead links (e.g., the very NEXT entry in this same section has a citation that leads to a permanent dead link). Consistency. I sincerely regret that I ever attempted to add any interesting information to this article. I will certainly not do so again. I am aware that there are many fans of both of these TV shows, and that this is the sort of information that would be valuable to those people (certainly, a minority). Since I actually had these facts more or less at my fingertips (I've recently introduced my daughters to the show "Family Ties" and they're already big fans of "Psych" so we watched ALL of the episodes with "Family ties" references this week just for fun - all of the episodes referenced in the article), requiring very little actual "research" (and only for things like the original air dates, etc.), I thought I would perform a service to those other fans. Had I realized that there are literally people who, for lack of anything better to do, patrol pages like this to make sure no one adds a value-laden adjective here or there (and who will summarily remove one's contribution as soon as it's been posted) I certainly would not have bothered. This has been a truly frustrating experience. "Open source" just got a lot more scare-quote-y (yeah, I know that's not a word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.163.164 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Commas[edit]

Thanks for pointing out MOS:COMMA — My professors always red-lined my punctuation when done this WP way, so the academic method stuck, I suppose, and I didn't know there was another way.Lindenfall (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SQGibbon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)