Misplaced Pages

User talk:GRBerry: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:56, 10 March 2009 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 editsm →your opinion please...: remove extraneous [← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:32, 8 April 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11) (bot 
(59 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=May 2010}}

<!--{{administrator}} <!--{{administrator}}
]--> ]-->


<small> ] • {{tl|ChristianityWikiProject}} • ]<br/> ] • </small> <!--<small> ] • {{tl|ChristianityWikiProject}} • ]<br/> ] • </small>-->


I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. ] I've also signed up for single user login. I was also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects might be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. However, I am not now active on any project. ] I also signed up for single user login.


{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
Line 17: Line 19:
|archive = User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11 |archive = User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11
}} }}
'''Email advice:''' When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. ] <!--'''Email advice:''' When able to be active on Misplaced Pages, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Misplaced Pages". If at all possible, I will respond on Misplaced Pages, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. ]-->


{{tocright}} {{tocright}}
Line 33: Line 35:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
''In Q4 2008 voluntarily resigned as an admin. I do not currently have access to the administrative tools and also am not actively editing nor do I intend to be actively editing again.''
</small> </small>


;New sections belong at the bottom, not here. ;New sections belong at the bottom, not here.


==Merger discussion for ]==
== ] ==
] An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;]&mdash;has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, ] (]) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

== SWIFT Portal ==

Hi,
As you feel you that the portal is not of sufficient general interest- can you please explain based on what reasons do you declare this? 20 years ago women's rights wasnt sufficient general interest - today it is a leading topic.
Also i would like to understand how can the UN have a portal and not SWIFT - they have similair goals but on different subjects! Both are created by nations / national banks intended for countries / financial institutions welfare. Without it[REDACTED] wouldnt be receiving the donations is so fervantly was 'advertising' a month ago!

'''I would appreciate a clear explanation''' because for the moment I have feeling that there is positive discrimination since only 3 people do not believe SWIFT is interesting enough!! FYI Anna abstained from the vote from her lack of understand of the complexity behind SWIFT (which I appreciate her honnestly) - how can one base their understand of SWIFT on SWIFTNet E&I - this is the same as saying understanding the UN through UNDP. The only reason I requested a DR was becuase the reasoning for the deletion (and for some reason no email was sent to me!!!) were weak in the first round and I STILL BELIEVE that there is no substanial reason for the deletion.

How can a DR be conducted by three people with only yourself a slight knowledge (with no disrespect meant) of SWIFT. How can information on a subject where little is written about it come to light if it being repressed. Furthermore what says that if this information is placed in the article in wont be AGAIN deleted? Can you ensure that this wont happen?
Non of this information is advertisment as was critisied in the first place - just as a demonstration of the limited knowledge people have of SWIFT. It is the same as saying the UN portal is 'more like an advertisment' - is such the case?
I feel strongly about this because wiki is supposed to be open and unbiased - I do not believe in adverisment but in the general dissemination of information. I do not know your position if you are a core admin or a volunteer however I assume you must have alot to review, however as said, I would appreciate input to better mold the portal so that this information can be posted (unfort i believe the article to not allow the broadness a portal does) and suit both your and my expectations.
Thank you for your time. ] (]) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi again, I feel that you are ignoring my comments and I can understand when much has to be done and many people will try to plead cases in many times that have no real value. However I feel strongly that the topic of the SWIFT portal is a valid one baed on the reasons I have provided and will try to re-summarize in the following. Furthermore new information has to come to my attention which I believe you would not able to ignore.
I have tried to discuss with the three admins who felt that the SWIFT portal was too narrow. However i provided a defence of which I still have not received a response. My defence still lies in the fact that the UN has its portal - SWIFT, albeit being smaller, serves the same role as the UN but to a different community. SWIFT is a non-profit and non-commerical organisation involved in Standards for the financial community and collaborates with ISO and the UN CEFACT for the community as a whole (e.g. the BIC codes being used to pay salaries and wages are an example). Based on this reasoning how can one have a portal and the other not? Furthermore it has come to my attention that microsoft has its portal - if this is the case than I would have to declare that the deletion of SWIFT portal would be positive discrimination. How can a profit and commerically orientated company be a valid portal topic and how is this not too narrow? A valid logical response would be appreciated.
Thanks ] (]) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

== Dwellers of the Forbidden City ==

Hi there. :) I noticed that you had participated in the deletion review of the module ], and helped to overturn the initial deletion. I just wanted to let you know that today, the article was successfully turned into a Good Article. :) ] (]) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:Nice work since then. And nice to see DRV participation bear signigicant fruit. ] 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
::Indeed - in fact, I nominated it specifically at GA because of all the drama that had gone on, and I wanted to see if we could turn it around. ] (]) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, just wanted to thank you for your help clarifying the issues in the discussion there regarding OR. Much obliged. - ''']''' '']'' 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

== FfD to delete Time cover image ==

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on ], I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg .
If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... ] (]) 14:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== Indexing deletion discussions ==

Where is the policy that says ? I can find no evidence of it on AFD, IFD, CFD, or MFD. —] <sup>(])</sup> 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:See ], in particular:
<nowiki>
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Pages_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3APages_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Miscellaneous_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3AMiscellaneous_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_deletion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion/
Disallow: /Wikipedia:Deletion_review/
Disallow: /Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review/
</nowiki>
] 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::Also see . The DRV regulars realized that the robots.txt solution wasn't also capturing DRV, so we added {{tl|NOINDEX}} to our log pages to achieve the same result. ] 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::DRV has been in ] since . Are you saying that robots.txt works for every page except DRV? —] <sup>(])</sup> 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::::{{tl|NOINDEX}} was created in August 2008, and added to ] the same months. I'd had (off wiki, for obvious reasons) private conversations going back at least to March before that about trying to close the indexing hole exposing DRV, but not directly with the admin that edited Robots.txt. Apparently we've had duplicate coverage since that September edit you just found, which hadn't been noticed until this discussion between us. Since we appear to have redundant coverage, we probably don't need the template on the DRV logs. I've taken the template back out of the log pages, and we can test in a few days. ] 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good, thanks. —] <sup>(])</sup> 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== Good Germans DRV ==

Hi, Would you be good enough to review ], which seems to be in line with what you suggested, though your remarks that were a hair short of affirmative support for bringing the article back to Misplaced Pages. Regards, ] (]) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:They were a hair short because I don't believe that just bringing it back is a good idea, further work is needed to make it really belong here. I am not in a position to do that work. If you are in a position to do it, just do it and ask for partial history restore; you can use the history visible at to see prior versions and specify which parts of the history you need. ] 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
==]==
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>]</sup> 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== I hope I didn't misquote you... ==

I just quoted my memory of some advice you gave me a few years ago. I hope is correct.
If my memory is more or less accurate, but you think consensus has changed, would you let me know?

Thanks! ] (]) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

== Invalid IP request ==
<undelete>
Please undelete "List of artists signed to Atlantic Records". I would like to read it!! Thanks! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:#There has never been an article at ].
:#I am not currnetly in possession of administrative tools, and couldn't fulfull the request even if it was valid. ] 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

== your opinion please... ==

I'd be very grateful if you could find the time to read ] and offer your opinion on its talk page.

In a recent {{tl|afd}} one of your challenges was that the article lacked biographical details. If I understood you properly, you meant details about the subject's birth, education, early career, and so on. While I agree articles are more balanced if they describe the full course of the subject's life, not just the most notable aspects, I have questions as to whether the absence of biographical details should be grounds for deletion. My essay cites a counter-example.

FWIW, it seemed to me that the nominator in that {{tl|afd}} had adopted a position diametrically opposed to yours -- that biographical details served merely as ].

Thanks in advance! Cheers! ] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not concerned about biographical details, I'm concerned about independent biographical sources. The two are different. An editor engaged in original research from primary sources would find it no big challenge to learn many biographical details about people with just the sketchiest of starting points. We do not want extensive details (see ] and ]). Nor do we want editors publishing the results of their original research from primary sources (see ].

:We do want editors to write articles about people for whom biographic sources can be found. Such biographic sources are ''secondary'' sources that are substantially biographies. They are writing about a person as a person, not merely mentioning a name in conjunction with a news event. They are not resumes and news reports on events that happen to mention participants. In the absence of biographic sources, it is impossible to write a policy compliant biography, and the attempt should not be made. If someone was involved in an event of significance, cover the event, only cover the person if there are biographic sources that are secondary sources, independent of the person and their employer/agents/publicists, and reliable. If those biographic sources don't exist, don't create an article at their name.

:The problem with almost all of the articles titled after people associated with Guantanamo is that they are not written using biographic sources. They need to go away.
:*A couple years ago, I thought that the answer for the detainees was to try to merge all the detainees into ]. I've since realized that the list itself is a problem - these people should not be named in the encyclopedia unless there are biographical sources about them that are 1) reliable and 2) independent. For the majority of them such sources do not exists. I think that we could have an article on the ], because the list and its (in)completion has been the subject of many sources, but the contents of the list should not be on Misplaced Pages, only linked to in one or more of the relevant sources.
:*For the various people involved in the legal and paralegal processes, the same problem exists. I hadn't realized until just recently that we had any such pseudo-biographies. We should have a good article on the legal and paralegal processes, but we don't need or want pseudo-biographies on the people involved in them.
:] 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

== Oi, you. ==

Something low drama on ANI for once:]. I seem to recall you being involved in some religion wikiproject or another. Most of articles could use some work. Any idea on how I can easily figure out which ones are worth saving and which ones to prod?--] (]) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:I'm tempted to say "oy veh", but I can't spell it right because I don't actually speak that language. I've seen some of the drama threads related to this, and I seem to recall reading a (related?)[REDACTED] article some time (months?) ago. It is the sort of thing I might be interested in actually doing should I have lots of spare time (hah!) and a local opportunity (unlikely to hear of one if it exists). But I don't actually know much.

:I redid the search as a phrase, and only for articles/templates:
:#] survived AFD,
:#] shouldn't be prodded - there are some real claims to notability there, but the article needs a major rewrite
:#the wall of publications in ] should probably go, yielding a weak stub but there is enough scholarly work with citations (Google Scholar) to offer hope
:#I don't know enough about Islamic scholarship to have a meaningful opinion on ], but the only Google scholar citations I found were to a book that he translated instead of wrote, so I'm doubtful
:#Given which professorship he holds ] would probably survive an AFD, and his google scholar results are comparable to Ochs.
:#] and ] are not part of the problem; at most an internal-spam link would need editing out
:#] appears to have an external spam link
:#] is a false positive
:#], ] are false positives but the use of ''The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning'' as a source in each may not be worth keeping
:#] survived an ] last month, or I'd have suggested prodding. Perhaps push the ] that said he would be working on it?
] 21:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:32, 8 April 2022

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. GRBerry has not edited Misplaced Pages since May 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.


I was also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, Meta, and (although I speak no German) de.Misplaced Pages. Messages intended for me on any of those projects might be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. However, I am not now active on any project. GRBerry diffmeta diff I also signed up for single user login.

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 11. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by bot in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

In Q4 2008 voluntarily resigned as an admin. I do not currently have access to the administrative tools and also am not actively editing nor do I intend to be actively editing again.

New sections belong at the bottom, not here.

Merger discussion for University of Windsor Students' Alliance

An article that you have been involved in editing—University of Windsor Students' Alliance—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
User talk:GRBerry: Difference between revisions Add topic