User talk:Geogene/Archive 1

Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Beagel, give this barnstar to you for your attempt to make the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and BP related articles more encyclopaedic. Many good editors have tried this but have give up for obvious reasons. I hope you have more luck and courage to keep Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Do take care though not to use offensive language, be uncivil in any way, or edit war as there are those here who would not miss the opportunity to get you banned or blocked. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts[edit]

Hi Geogene. I just wanted to suggest that you tone down your rhetoric a bit. I was observing your posts on Talk:BP, and also your conversation with another editor above about a third party. You come across as an aggressive, partisan editor, with a strong POV and disdain for other editors, and also being somewhat on the insulting and abrasive side. Having a conversation about an unnamed editor as you do above, while probably not in breach of any policy, has a polarizing effect. I'm offering this advice in a friendly way. Feel free to delete if you disagree or feel it is out of line. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Figureofnine. You are not in any way out of line. You earned my respect the other day, but I am encouraging comments on my behavior from any party here, especially anyone I seem to be having trouble with. I may not agree but can only benefit from such feedback, positive or negative, because I have a lot more learning to do about protocols here. And I hope to work well with all of you, though we do seem to be off to a bad start. I believe some of this comes down to matters of perception. All editors have POV, but we all view POV through blinders that make our own invisible while exaggerating those of others with different views. My views seem to be a little different from the rest, and that's the ultimate source (from both directions) of tension. Being direct in addressing problems with an article can sometimes seem aggressive even if that is not my intent, although I have probably crossed that line any number of times in fact. Trying to make an article more neutral can be misinterpreted as partisanship, because it's hard to objectively define what is "neutral" with POV blinders on. On the other side, that someone accused me of being part of a conspiracy to bias a Federal court case is more than a little insulting and abrasive, and frankly it seems crazy. Doing it to other people habitually merits outside attention. Even if discussing how to handle those allegations is "polarizing", I don't know how that can be helped. I may be misinterpreting you, but the gist of that seems to be that I must tolerate abuse if I want other editors to be AGF towards me. I can't accept that. But I will be toning down the rhetoric. I hope that we can all work together to write better articles. Geogene (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a constructive answer, thank you. I was concerned by your most recent post in Talk:BP. The atmosphere there has soured to the point that I personally steer clear of it, and it has tended to sour me on Wikipedia generally. Please don't contribute to that. Using the "undo" tool also generates hard feelings. It is better to come to a compromise instead of just rolling back an edit you don't agree with. Your conversation on this page regarding the transgressions of an unnamed editor concerned me even more, whatever the provocation. What you seem to be doing is working with another editor to intimidate a third party, justifiably or not. That's all. I appreciate your cooperative attitude in addressing this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you point that out I see what you mean, though I didn't intend it that way. I did hope the user we're disputing with would see things more from my viewpoint this way. The "undo" tool is just a tool, my additions get "undone" from time to time, usually for a good reason. But you're right, the fact that it pings makes it seem a little confrontational. Be advised I left you a reply in the Talk:BP thread as well that is more defensive. I think we have a opposing POV but you're a good editor, and I don't want to run you off. I don't want to run anybody off, but in one instance I feel like I was put in a situation that should get outside attention. We'll see if I can avoid being run off myself because the whole environment is souring on me too. I prefer less controversial subjects, and anything more controversial than this I avoid. Geogene (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figureofnine, I can't speak for Geogene, and I've never participated at Talk:BP, but I assure you that I personally have absolutely no desire to intimidate anyone or to create a polarizing environment. In fact, my goal in the above conversation is to create a less intimidating, less polarizing environment in which editors having different POVs can resolve their disagreements civilly and productively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom?[edit]

Geogene, you once mentioned the possibility of asking Arbcom to arbitrate on the BP and related articles. My respose was that Arbcom will not arbitrate on content issues but, on reflection, I think that the anti-business, anti-oil pressure on WP is so important to its future and credibility that they may take on the case. There are also some editor behaviour issues such a page ownership and unsubstantiated claims of COI editing that they may look at too. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would we be asking them for as far as content is concerned? I think that to address those issues would be good for Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure that the community realizes it. On the other issues, I am very interested in asking that the unsubstantiated COI claims be addressed, as I've found them to be bothersome, persistent, and known by everyone to be against the rules. In fact I believe that the community has tolerated them this long because they are generally associated with BP articles. Geogene (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding content, we would be would be asking that the article should be written in an encyclopedic style rather than be a vehicle to attack a company which some see as bad.

I thing Arbcom may well take action about the false COI claims, which have also been made against me and others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The root problem is that all editors are self-selected and so the majority of the edits will be done by the people that feel most strongly about the subject of the article. The Hitler and Pol Pot articles were written by history buffs. There are no corporation buffs, so corporate articles tend to be written by editors motivated by anti-corporate views. This is why articles about corporations can be more negative than those of genocidal dictators. I see no solution to this. WP's model is not perfect but I'm surprised it isn't much worse than it is.

I think that something BP-related will eventually go to ArbCom, and if it does I want to be part of it. I might or might not initiate such a submission, but a submission of one from me is not imminent. I will not submit something myself without coordination with you others. There might still be some other avenue of mediation that should be tried first. I doubt ArbCom will be interested in content especially after that RfC, which is unfortunate, because I have read the comments and am not impressed with the arguments presented. Today I was told I have been edit-warring, so I would best back away from this for a while. I'm not in a hurry. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you rightly point out above, the problem here is larger than the BP article. For many contentious topics there are sets of editors on both sides, leaving the 'encyclopedists' holding the balance of power. For business articles, may pro-business editors would be considered to have a COI and be discouraged from editing. This leaves the anti-business, anti-oil editors free to take over articles. I see this as a very serious threat to the authority and credibility of WP that fully deserves the attention of Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How to go about it? Geogene (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

I saw an article in an actual newspaper which I thought was going to have a significant amount of information that could be added, but apparently not. Some of what was in the article was already there in a sense, but I don't think anyone wants to go through all the specifics of how the company feels it is being cheated and I don't feel comfortable trying to add anything to that.

On the other hand, a couple of other details were in that article and I tried to fit them in, but one didn't have an appropriate section already and the other may be all right where I put it. By creating a new section, I hope I started something that could be expanded on. I figure you have an interest in seeing that the article is expanded in appropriate ways.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that was just a back-and-forth where BP would certainly like the cleanup to be over, and the government says it's certainly not over. I'm not sure that has much significance in itself. If they're out of the penalty box for government leases now, that's probably notable, as an update to material already in the article. I would really like to know if BP's going to be resuming deepwater drilling in the Gulf, and especially if they're going to try drilling the Macondo Prospect again. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on ANI[edit]

For your information, it is considered to be a personal attack to accuse another contributor of having a mental illness or condition, particularly as a debating point.

Your ANI edit here did so regarding Petrachan47.

Without attempting to interfere with the general give and take of the ANI discussion, I would like to request that you redact or strike the portions of that comment making aspersions regarding mental condition.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that, Georgewilliamherbert, but I hope that you or someone else will investigate the conduct between that person and myself over the past four months. I do not want to take this to ArbCom. I will strike it out because last time I redacted my own incivility I was accused of being "sneaky" and castigated for it for days. You have no idea. But thanks for reading that thread. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all, Georgewilliamherbert? I see that you have not corrected anyone else. It's remarkable that I can never find an admin to hear my complaints but they're never far away for my incivility...or even to accuse me of things I haven't done. And there's plenty of incivility to go around there, and there has been for months. I hate to push this point, but I resent that other editors are allowed to cast aspersions on my motivations for weeks at a time. I resent having been told, by an admin, that nobody will be willing to hear my complaints, and that I'll have to take it ArbCom to find mediation. Yet admins appear out of the woodwork to accuse me of things I haven't even done, based on my timestamps! Why is that? Why the hell should I continue editing here anyway? All you get for it is abuse, day in and day out. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this in context... Accusing someone of having a mental condition is around an 8 on a 1-10 scale of seriousness, and is easy and obvious to spot. Let us say this is a 2 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening. Trying to unravel 3+ months of multiparty argument and bad behavior on several pages, the worst of which seems to rise to about a seriousness of 6 by itself lacking bigger picture context, is about a 8 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening, possibly 9. The only factors which would make this worse would be more editors involved and sockpuppetry, I think.

Resolving that type of incident can take months of calendar time, and multiple person-weeks of effort to understand and then respond to appropriately (hundreds of person-hours).

If that is unsatisfactory to you, I don't have a good answer.

You have made a specific and possibly actionable complaint. I have not ignored it. But it cannot be acted upon without due diligence and research. I cannot at this time in any fair manner tell who started which, nor do I have anything approaching a coherent picture of who did what abuses, be they direct incivility or personal attacks, disruptive or obstructive editing, etc. A quick overview makes me think *all* of you are to blame, but that sort of initial impression is unwise to act upon.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I see that you are being helpful, and I appreciate that. I also agree, basically, with your observations above. But what I'm hearing at my end is that this situation will never be resolved. I can accept that, but I don't have to like it. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Madrid Seismic Zone[edit]

I am concerned about the amount of material you have removed from this article, which has been relatively stable for a while until your recent editing. Are these changes absolutely necessary? Have you given every deletion the due consideration it deserves before removing the material?

I trust that your knowledge of this subject is vastly superior to mine, so I'm not in a position to argue with your deletions on specific matters, but it does concern me that you, of all the editors who have passed through the article, seem to be the only one who sees a need for deletions of considerable size. BMK (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BMK. What does it means when we say that an article is "stable"? What does it mean when we mention to someone else, in passing, that the article was "stable" before they decided to edit it? I think you've been involved in the article for longer than I have, but I thought it was fairly stable when I made these edits in 2009. ([1], [2], [3] ?). I made a lot of changes in June of that year, and it returned to a state of "stability" when I was done. I'm going to take this to the NMSZ talk page and give some thoughts on why I did what I did today. That way we can discuss it with a potentially wider audience, and decide what ought to be added back. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand clearly, I am not saying that your edits were wrong -- if I thought that I would say so, unequivocally. My comment was not a passive-aggressive way of criticizing you, it was precisely what it appears to be: an editor concerned about the deletions being made to an article, and asking the deleting editor if they had carefully considered them. That you're taking your reasoning to the NMSZ talk page is fine, but, really, all you had to do was offer some assurances that your edits were well-considered. BMK (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I had a bad experience with the Stability Argument last time I heard it, but your concerns are reasonable. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate Republican primary election in Mississippi, 2014[edit]

I saw your talk page edit here. [[4]] . I agree with you. It needs work. But what an interesting race. I have been meaning to doing some work on it. I would love it if you took a look at it.Casprings (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my unnecessarily snarky tone in that post, which I have since retracted. This article [5] and my own partisan perspective encouraged me to look a little too hard for POV-tilt in the articles related to this election. But the RFC process that took place on the Chris McDaniel article showed consensus seeking and even-handedness that one would not find an article being interfered with by a campaign. I do have a sense of it being a little more about McDaniel, and his endorsements, and his battle with the "establishment". But I also must consider that that's a big part of the election's notability. I also feel like it is a little soft on the antics of some of his supporters, but I understand the desire to avoid attack pages takes precedence. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Mistake[edit]

I looked at the history on the wrong tab, and came up with March 2014. Sorry about that. Cadwallader (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. For the record, I've never seen Talk page redactions from other editors before. I think the climate there is going downhill. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on your comment from BP Talk[edit]

Hi Geogene, I've been meaning to reply to the comment you left on the BP Talk page in mid-June about natural gas being included in BP's renewable energy investments. However, that conversation was recently archived so I'm leaving you a message here.

I wanted to let you know that I chose not to make an issue of it at the time but BP's natural gas operations is part of the company's Upstream business, not the Alternative Energy division. Therefore the $8.3 billion that BP has invested in alternative energy sources has primarily gone towards biofuels and wind, not natural gas. There was a discussion on the talk page last year about BP's alternative energy investments that discusses this in more detail. You can see that here if you're interested.

I also wanted to respond to your comment about whether the information about BP's alternative energy investments merits inclusion. Because the article currently discusses (in several locations) the fact that BP's investments in alternative energy are much smaller than its investments in oil and gas I think it is appropriate to at least explain more about the alternative energy investments somewhere in the article.

Hope this additional information is helpful to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arturo. Thanks for clarifying those two points. I saw your Talk Page request regarding tar sands vs. oil sands. I don't have a strong opinion on either being preferred use. Neither is especially accurate and both seem to be used in the current literature. There are some strong opinions in the community against "oil sands" so it should have a clear consensus and be of considerable benefit to the article to make the change. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Also, if you haven't seen it, RockyMtnGuy made some informative, and I think, persuasive comments on the BP Talk page in response to my question about the Canadian tar/oil sands heading. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-attack photo[edit]

Hi, and thanks very much for your pointing out that the photo on the James Bevel page would need more data. I added it back with the photographers details from his page. I didn't know about Hudson, so have added him to the 'Photographers of the American civil rights movement' page as well, and added the movement template to his page. Please check out the changes and see if they are appropriate to what you're thinking. Good to meet you, and thanks for inspiring the addition of Hudson to the CRM photographers article. Randy Kryn 22:07 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Hudson to the CR photographers' article, I'm surprised he wasn't already there, because that's such a powerful image. Thank you for correcting that oversight. My concerns with the photo in the James Bevel article are based on the minimal usage criterion for non-free imagery (as found here: WP:NFC#7) and the non-free content "unacceptable use" criterion #7 here: WP:NFC#UUI, that applies to photographs belonging to press agencies. Basically we avoid them to the extent that we can because of their commercial value; where we do display them they have to be a subject of sourced commentary in the article, to be sure that the Fair Use exemptions in copyright laws are satisfied. I'm not certain that the current use fully satisfies the WP guidelines, but your revision of the caption to include commentary is a definite improvement there. It describes the scene and clearly links the iconic photo to Bevel through his students. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to know about Hudson's history. I wrote up a stub article for photographer James Karales awhile back, another man who took an iconic photo during the civil rights movement. Quite the picture, taken on the march from Selma to Montgomery. I wish Wikipedia could use that one on Karales' page, on the Selma march page, etc. I literally knew nothing about Hudson until your comment. I wonder if the young man in the photo is still alive (and those in other iconic photos from the era). Wonder what photos would have been gotten if everyone had a cell phone camera at the time (the dogs attacking from the students point of view)! Randy Kryn 22:22 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Raising the Flag at Ground Zero[edit]

I didn't understand your rationale for removing this image from the NYC article based on a fair use issue when it was directly wikilinked to an article with the same name and having the same photo - could you be mistaken here? Castncoot (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But my understanding is that the fair use criteria guidelines at WP:NFC apply to every instance in which the image is used, and each article in which a fair use image is displayed should have its own non-free-use rationale. The idea is that the number of places in which the image is displayed somewhere in Wikipedia is kept to a minimum [6], and only used in places where it's necessary and clearly covered by the educational fair use exemptions in copyright laws (where it's the subject of the article or a subject of sourced commentary). I don't think these requirements will be met in the New York City article, but the article about the image is fine. I don't necessarily agree with its usage in an article about a TV show episode, but that use seems to be consistent with the guidelines. Geogene (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. Image swapped. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Before Building Consensus?[edit]

Hi Geogene, why are you deleting the Ashby page? Why not improve it? Also, shouldn't consensus be built before deleting a page? Regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not an administrator so I can't actually delete articles or files, and even the admins don't just go around deleting without consensus. Normally that's a long process. I nominated that page for speedy deletion, which only applies in some situations, and would allow any passing administrator that agreed with my nomination to delete it. In this case, an admin disagreed, and instead turned it back into a redirect page, protected the article to keep us from edit warring over it, and removed the intervening versions of the pages from the page history. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not disagree: he did agree with the deletion. He also took the time to explain the whole thing to me and it made sense: Ashby is only known for that one thing. I did propose to write a real article about him and show it to him before publishing it. I would just like for the story to be told, although my stub definitely seems not to be compliant with Wikipedia: I was simply not aware of that rule. --Mondschein English (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on images etc.[edit]

I have seen you knowledgeably address WP copyright issues in other places. I have a question (not a complaint) about the use of WHO (World Health Organization) graphics as UN policy on copyright issues do not appear to be the same as US gov policy. As an example this graophic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Africa_Ebola_treatment_centers.png is currently used in the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak article. What such WHO grahics and under what conditions are useable? If you have the time, thanks for the info. Juan Riley (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, I nominated the example you gave for deletion at Wikimedia Commons because I noticed the WHO website asserts a copyright on their material and expresses a clear desire to control who uses it and for what purpose, even for non-commercial purposes [7]. Commons material must be useable by anyone for any purpose. The only way I see to use that content at WP would probably be to try to get WHO to donate some images through the WP:OTRS system. There is a Fair Use system that can be used at WP [8], but the images would have to be unreasonably difficult/impossible to replace with any free equivalent, and I think that's unlikely to be met in this case. I think the best thing to do with that article is to scour the CDC websites where most of the content will probably be US-PD. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I will not however do anything with it. Was just trying to see if WHO stuff was as "usable" as CDC. Thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doh...what is US-PD if I might be so bold as to pick your mind again? Juan Riley (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind...figured it out to be Public Domain. Thanks again from a non-lawyer. Juan Riley (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Except, lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not a lawyer. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to helpful to be a lawyer? Juan Riley (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Revert of MH 17 edits ?[edit]

Hi Geogene,

I just noticed that you partially reverted two edits from another wikipedian on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Those two edits completely removed the article's source for when the DSB preliminary report was published. Unless you have other reasons not to, would you consider reverting all of the two edits you partially reverted? (I am unsure if I can figure out how to do it myself, with a third (yours) edit there). Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fixed? Geogene (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. For the actual (PDF) report as source I tried to use the 'dsbprelim' name to avoid duplicating the reference, but that source reference in now duplicated again. Further, the quote from page 30 of the report now is missing the word 'penetrated' and now has 'impacts' which is also found in the report. I think 'penetrated' is preferable, because it implies 'impacts'. Thanks for your interest. Lklundin (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RGloucester, for this notification that is, most certainly not a warning, but is definitely a prelude to an AE. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no interest in that article, nor in that dispute. I merely figure that you should be made aware of these sanctions, as should all editors involved as such. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it before, so I'm aware that some people do use it as a warning. But I think this instance is linked to the AN/I report I made earlier today. If civility is restored in that article, you should visit it. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits on Ebola virus outbreak in the United States Karlhard (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Roadways: Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism sections[edit]

See: Talk:Solar_Roadways#Request_for_comment_because_of_deletion_of_referenced_criticism_sections

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Forrest[edit]

please email me at (contact info redacted) and I will send you whatever you what ever information you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion really doesn't matter--I can't withdraw my nomination now that there's a debate in progress. And I don't have the power to delete anything myself. What matters is whether there are reliable, independent sources on that page. Geogene (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Center[edit]

The article is properly sourced and contains historical information. Your reasoning for deletion seems to be somewhat overaggressive and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhamAla (talk • contribs)

It's a routine process...and are you representing the city in some way here? Just curious. Geogene (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JC Hall Lineillism[edit]

Dear Geogene, Perhaps you didn't read the article or the accompanying link to a larger article that was posted on JC Hall and his innovative Lineillism technique. I think that creating a new art form/ painting technique certainly merits an inclusion in Wikipedia.

I read that piece. Seems to be a local business journal dedicated to startups in Ohio. I would rather see substantial coverage in academic sources by art critics. When that happens, then it should be an article. Right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Geogene (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Art Critics have indeed confirmed it as a new and different technique. Hall is 82 and didn't feel well enough to stage a show in New York as some suggested. He had a thorough (more than 30 pieces) show that was extensively covered and written about. I fear your apprehensions are another sad example of someone thinking that accomplishments in art aren't legitimate if they don't happen in New York City. Once I am able to post more photos of his work and other articles, you will see that it certainly has merit - especially when you think about all of the lesser entries that have merited inclusion.

Alper Kucukural[edit]

Sorry, I did not notice it was a new page. Thanks for catching that. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my edit summary seemed harsh. Probably 99% of blanking is vandalism that needs reverting. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. An occasional reminder to be alert is good. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Federal Relocation Services[edit]

Hello Geogene. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Federal Relocation Services, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the note. Geogene (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineillism[edit]

I have been traveling and shooting a documentary and I just saw that you were successful in deleting my first-ever entry to Wikipedia on Lineillism. You made false charges in your push to have the entry eliminated. The articles on JC Hall were published by journalists - NOT publicists or other PR people as you asserted. This is most disturbing. I also was quite taken aback by other assertions you made. Rest assured, I will continue to work on getting Jim Hall the online credit he deserves for his work. Oldfieldsteve (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Geogene (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad COI Template Test Run[edit]

Hello, Geogene. We appreciate your concerns of possible conflict of interest editing, but if you believe that a Wikipedia user may be editing with a conflict of interest, please follow the procedure in the conflict of interest guideline.

Do not ever out an editor or personally identify them on Wikipedia!

Ask the editor in a civil manner whether they feel they have a conflict of interest related to the article.

If you are not satisfied with their answer:

File a report at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Editors there will be able to assist you.

Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's policies on harassment. Accusations of COI should not be used to gain leverage in a content dispute.

Geogene (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But will it mess up the formatting of later text... Geogene (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pings[edit]

Hi Geogene, add the following, exactly as you see it in read mode:

// Add custom Character Inserter entries, to the end of the first 2 groupings
window.charinsertCustom = { 
	"Insert": ' Mention: {\{u|+}}  {\{ping|+}}', 
	"Wiki markup": ' Mention: {\{u|+}}  {\{ping|+}}' 
};

to your common.js. That should produce two little ping templates at the bottom of the edit window. See discussion here. I hope it works for you. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks! Geogene (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question[edit]

Some things are still ongoing. Atsme☯^Consult 23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, never. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how you spell "ongoing"?

See you at the article TP. Atsme☯^Consult 00:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second request to strike unfounded remarks at ANI[edit]

Geogene, Please don't leave the personal attacks against me without either striking them or providing evidence of their validity, as I have already asked. Once the ANI has closed, it may be too late to correct yourself and that would be unfortunate. You don't want a reputation for telling untruths at the administrators' noticeboard, and it does not look good that you deserted the thread after being asked for evidence. There is evidence of a long-standing resentment against me on this very talk page, and to use noticeboards to carry out revenge is a big no-no. Please be careful to make policy-based comments rather than opinions, and always leave evidence when making a claim about another editor. Thanks, and have a nice day, petrarchan47 t c 22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's true that bullies have thin skin. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for future reference, [9], accusing me of "seeking revenge" for the remark in question, which was accompanied by evidence, is casting aspersions and a personal attack. Geogene (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification: Fringe Science topics[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Geogene (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HUH?[edit]

Georgene, I don't know if I did something horrible to you in a past life, but if I did, I don't recall it. My advise to you is to go research what a UFO is. Then when you finally realize that it just means we don't know WTF it is, you may lighten up here a bit. You are no more qualified to evaluate the goings on in a photograph than I am to becoming a Rocket Scientist by the first of May. You won. The picture has been removed from everywhere but my hometown's page as a night shot. I'm done. I wish you were too, though I will never understand your motives, and I'll never believe that this photo doesn't absolutely belong in all the articles I originally placed it in. However, I do see that I might have used more discretion in the captions under the photos, to better explain what an unexplained airborne object is with the scientific communities definition of it. Thus, you might have communicated with me and put this issue on the talk pages the photo was in, to let those in the know come to a consensus, before you just blurted out: "Looks like a Plane to me", and deleted it from everywhere. Not cool at all. This place can not only be educational, but fun as well when the established editors all work together-Pocketthis (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no 'r' in my username. But lots of people assume that there is, or should be, and that's understandable, just a little weird for me. As for the rest, we can agree to disagree and it's done. Geogene (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: Please don't take this personal. While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO. More importantly, at Wikipedia we can really only repeat what other (reliable sources) have already stated. This is why not just Geogene but a second editor chose to remove your addition of that image and its caption. And if those two had not done the removal, some other editors would surely have done it. So please try to not get upset with yourself or any other Wikipedian. After that, you could try to look for a different improvement to that article - or just do something else that you would like to do. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - First, Thank You for the nice gesture here. Now your quote: "While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO". That is your statement concerning the image?? No harm meant, but you obviously don't know what a UFO is. A UFO means "We Don't yet know what it is". PERIOD. There has been at least five opinions of what that thing in the photo is, ranging from and airplane to a drone to who knows what. That is what makes it a UFO: Unidentified flying object. You and Geogene both think that a UFO is an alien ship from outer space. IT IS NOT. It's simply not been positively identified. I promise you guys one thing: I will never post in the UFO article again, unless I'm sitting next to ET. Thanks for the pleasant but slightly uniformed post-Pocketthis (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: In my previous edit summary I hinted rather strongly (The Treachery of Images) at my point: You cannot look at and interpret a computer image and assume that it is the same as the physical object you believe it depicts. The uploader does not qualify as a reliable source and the photo itself even less so since the photo metadata shows it was processed with photoshop, which is specifically made to allow for alteration of an image. Please read on only after you have taken some time to reflect on this. OK. I try to separate my contributions to Wikipedia from my day-time job, which happens to be image analysis of astronomical data. I can guarantee you that a reliable source (e.g. a person like myself, except acting in an official capacity) would _not_ call _anything_ on the disputed photo a UFO. I would not object to analysing the photo for benefit of you and anyone else who might be interested, but again, without a reliable source for the photo, such an analysis would not change anything for the usage of the photo here on Wikipedia. Please try to accept that and move on. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.......the nicest word I've heard here in two days. Yes, (r) I thought it was the feminine of George...sorry. One last question: What is your area of expertise? I have a BA in music composition and photography. It still baffles me that you just deleted me without discussion. I never implied extraterrestrial. That was "your" perception. Our perceptions are not always correct, and they certainly aren't facts. We acquire them as we get older. Some are helpful, others hurtful. -Pocketthis (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It baffles you, @Pocketthis: Well, perhaps you could explain your mindset here: [10] and here [11]. Why did you, in your words on the Fringe board, "treat them like vandals"? Since I'm still a topic of conversation there. Here's some more recent examples of your reversions: [12], [13], and here is a recent example of your hypocrisy [14] towards reversion. Why is it that you can revert everybody else, but you make a big deal out of anyone reverting you? Geogene (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is the easiest question I've had to answer all day: "Because they both were vandals". The first guy #10, put a dead, crushed, dried up cottontail in the gallery. That page is viewed almost exclusively by grammar school kids, and the wiseguy knew it. The second one: We have a major problem on the Sunset page that's been going on for years. Everyone with a camera wants their sunset photo on that page. As you know, that is impossible. Usually I edit out a photo that gets posted in the now full gallery, however, sometimes I have to revert to let a repeat offender know that we mean business. If you go to that guys talk page, as I did, you will see he is new, and is getting flack from everyone for posting photos that look like he shot with a Brownie. I have a policy I really try to stick to about not reverting established editors. I'll do an edit, or go to the talk page, but sometimes they leave you no choice. What shocked me about your reverts of my photos was that the photos had been up for months......no problems. Then One by one, article after article, down they went in 10 minutes. No one has ever pulled that on me before, and quite frankly, I didn't know how or what to do about it. I HATE going to an administrator and bitching. That wasn't going to happen. However, when I reverted you back......well we know the end of the story. You win and me and the public loses. Please don't try and compare your massive multiple revisions of my work, with an occasional revision of my own where I truly believe one is needed.

Lets truly put it to rest now. The only reason you got mentioned in the other article, was because you got me there. Good luck, and happy editing-Pocketthis (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care why you chose to make an issue of my behavior two hours after this issue was "done", but you did, and you can imagine what I think of that. Okay, so you're admitting that you still don't understand why you were wrong here, and think you're right. Even after a lot of people have tried to explain this to you. So...why should I have asked you nicely first? What would that have accomplished? Nothing. The only thing you seem to respect is numbers, and the only way I could get that was at a noticeboard. Frankly, I saved some time, and maybe some drama. Also, the photo I reverted of yours (there is only one) had been up since early March. "Months?" That's a stretch, don't exaggerate things. You seem to have a problem accepting criticism. You aren't the only one, but that will play badly here. Geogene (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: quit telling lies about your fellow editors. This: [15] is not a "dead, crushed, dried up cottontail". It's a painted depiction of a live rabbit, and a work of art on display in a museum. You weren't protecting the children from anything, and that editor doesn't seem to have been a vandal. What were you really doing there? Geogene (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, That "vandal", that put the "crushed/dead rabbit" in that article, is user:Janbat. According to the userpage, that's an institutional Wikipedian, who is doing cultural outreach here. Really, a "vandal"? Geogene (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo, is a DEAD rabbit lying on its side in the leaves. It has no place in the cottontail article. The following is a fact: "I am around cottontails all day here on my ranch". For the past 15 years, I've been feeding anywhere from 20-50 per day, twice a day, thus the close-up shots in the cottontail articles, and the "15 for dinner shot as well". The only time I have observed a rabbit lying completely on its side with its eyes open, is if it's been seriously ill or dead. They don't even sleep in that posture. I truly consider myself an expert on these animals, and wrote a fair share of the copy in two of the articles.

As far as what the difference would have been if you discussed the image on the talk page before reverting?....Or, came to my talk page to alert me of your intentions? All the difference. You went to that photo's details page, and one by one took it down from everywhere. You could have changed the caption on at least one of them and left it. You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event. Then if you made a valid argument, I would have adjusted the captions, and deleted the photo myself. I admit, in hindsight, that I over reacted, and I apologize for that. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and at my advanced age I should be beyond those reflexes. All this now is just a waste of both of our times. You and your friend here don't like me. That's fine. There's a lot of that on a site like this. We all think we have the answers, and sometimes we don't, but we persist that we do. Ego is part of the human condition, and educated humans are the best examples of it. None of us are perfect, I'm sure not. I try to keep ego in check, but I must admit, I am proud of that photo, and to have it torn apart by encyclopedians who are jacks of all trades, and master of just some, is a far cry from due justice. Just like the guy who posted last and claims to name two of the stars in the shot, because they are relatively in the same area two of the meteors are. Yes, I've made mistakes, and yes, I have reverted hastily when it could have been avoided. However, a mass extinction of a photo from 5 articles was something I don't think you will find on my record. I forgive you. Please forgive me. What's done is done.

Wikipedia's reputation falls a bit short in the media's viewpoint as you know, and a lot of it has to do with our vetting. Of course when you advertise that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, you are in above your ankles already. However, I must admit that we do a damn good job in spite of ourselves, and our policies. I'll do my best to avoid you in the future. Been here almost 5 years and never heard of you until Wednesday. Perhaps it will be another 5 years until we speak again. Oh... one more thing: I suggest that you edit your user page, because it says you're on hiatus.-Enjoy your editing experiences here on Wikipedia-Pocketthis (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you want to protect the children from. THIS IMAGE:

It's hard to explain why you're misrepresenting this as being something horrible. I think it must be that, since all the other photos there are yours, you're trying to exclude it as some kind of competition. That's why articles like "Sunset" and "Sky" and "Storm" are all filling up with images from the Mojave Desert. Your images. Geogene (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes..that is a dead rabbit, and what possible use could it be on a site like cottontail? Let's talk about my images. Cottontail: I live with the little critters here, so I have images that would be almost impossible for anyone else to photograph. Rabbits run from humans. They don't run from me here. They love me because I feed them. Sunset: I have none in the gallery, and two in the article. Sky: I have no idea why no one else has added a photo to the sky gallery, I assure you it is not my doing. Storm: I have no more or less than anyone else. I can't help where I live. The weather patterns here are beautiful, and ever changing, and I'm lucky to live where I do, and be able to capture the beauty of the sky with my camera. Many experienced photographers post in the sky related articles. The only article that has been a nightmare has been Sunset. Before me, there was a self appointed guardian of that article, who would delete all but his own shots. Go to the talk page and read the photographer's comments about being mad that this fellow was deleting all of their photos, as well as mine. You will now find their photos in the Gallery. There wasn't even a gallery permitted on the page until this year. I was asked by them to post the photos of mine that I posted. Read the talk page. That's all I intend on commenting on in this regard. You are trying to provoke me again with words like "competition". Give it a rest. This is the absolute last comment you will find on this talk page by me. I'm exhausted. If you write more text here concerning our issues, you are writing to yourself, because I won't be back here. Even an apology from me wasn't enough for you. I just realized, after your antagonistic "competition" remarks, that I have been completely wasting my time here trying to communicate with you. After I answer your friends question below, I am DONE-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: You wrote "You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event".

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. You do not have to be an expert or a professional in a given field, in order to make good contributions to it on Wikipedia - all you need is enough knowledge to find good, on-topic sources and to quote them properly. That is a significant difference. Personally, I use Wikipedia a free writing class on writing in about eight languages (i.e. with free feed-back on what I write). If for example I were to write "photo-annalist", then someone will surely come along and demonstrate the difference between a writer of photo annals and one who performs an analysis of photos, i. e. a "photo analyst". And all of it for free. What a bargain.

On the topic of the "meteor shower event", I would much appreciate if you would take the time to describe one part of the contested image that you consider to self-evidently be part of the "meteor shower event" and not a UFO. Just curious. Thanks in advance. Lklundin (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to do the research, and add a citation. It's another to follow a photo to all of its articles, and make it extinct. No more comment on that will be made here by me.

If I understand your question above, you want me to comment on the meteor aspect of the photo, and not the UFO. There is nothing self evident in the photo regarding a meteor event. I concede that it will be argued as stars until the end of time. The only reason I say it is a meteor shower, is because "I witnessed it". It was the reason the camera was hurried outside on the tripod. When I saw a few more coming through the atmosphere, I hit the shutter. Other than what's on the image....I have no other credible argument. Thanks for the question.-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Since you like that meteor shower photo, would you perhaps consider reading about star trails (and perhaps follow its link to Wikimedia Commons for lots of photos on that topic), take another look at the photo and then reconsider your answer? Later I can then comment on how the hurrying left a tiny but visible blemish on the otherwise very well made photo (in my opinion). Lklundin (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starmus edits[edit]

I was flagged as a user who had edited Starmus articles, which is questionable seeing as how I am on the Board of Directors for the organisation. The account from which I made the edits is my own personal account, rather than our other account which has slightly more history. My son is being paid to make edits on these pages by the Starmus organisation, so I am unsure as to how to remove this conflict-of-interest flag on my user talk page without simply deleting it. Lincoln18612000 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lincoln18612000:It's just a notification that the subject is being discussed on one of the noticeboards here, you can delete that and generally anything else on your user talk page if you wish. Being on the board of an organization whose article you edit is likely to be a conflict of interest, the use of multiple accounts, sharing accounts, and being paid by an organization to edit its articles are all usually violations of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunguska event[edit]

I have set up a section on the Talk page of the article to discuss the geophysical hypothesis. Please also consider WP:BRD. TheSeven (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado/Toronado[edit]

Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I have been a Wikipedia user since 2009 and I have never been accused of being a vandal, though of course it's possible that I make mistakes, especially in the English Wiki, as English is not my first language. But was changing [[toronado|tornadoes]] to [[tornado]]es really a mistake? Until yesterday the article "Toronado" was about Zorro's horse, and after moving it to Tornado (horse) I had to fix all the redirects; now I am trying to have "Toronado" speedy deleted so that I can move "Toronado (disambiguation)" to "Toronado". As for the article Mansfield, Ohio: isn't tornado (rather than "toronado") the correct singular form of "tornadoes"? --Newblackwhite (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my carelessness I saw that as "Tornado" not "Toronado", which looked to me like the kind of small test edits vandals sometimes seem to make to test the system (I did not look at your edit history). I self-reverted and included an edit comment that your edit was definitely not vandalism. I will have to be more careful. Geogene (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the important thing is that we clarified the matter, and thanks for including that comment in your edit summary. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEXT?[edit]

Hey man, just wondering your reasoning for taking about the summary of the 6 projects the NEXT Foundation has been involved in? They are quite interesting and give people a sense of what Next Foundation is and does? Is that not what Wikipedia is meant to do? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it needs to be sourced. Reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the organization. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in news articles on the projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the news source is considered mainstream / reliable per WP:SOURCE. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've done that, all reliable sources. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardhkrishna: It also needs to be encyclopaedic, and wp:NOTPROMOTIONAL. Make sure you aren't copying or closely paraphrasing from the organisations webpage, or indeed any other non-free sources. 220 of ^Borg 23:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys, just getting the hang of it. Have added some more sources and deleted some more promotional content. Should make it quite reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of the sources added were press releases. And like last time, the article was full of WP:COPYVIOs. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi Paradox[edit]

Can you have a look at recent edits and the present state of the article: Fermi Paradox? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Fermi lunch story, specifically, I approve of the current version of it, and left a note on the talk page to that effect. I have some other thoughts about the article, but will get around to those in time. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just trying to get interested people to weigh in, and the lunch story is only part of my concern. I advocated for something short, but I accept your opinion as reasonable. I invite you, however, to have a look at the content in the hypothetical section: [16]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree the article needs improvement. But it's hard since there are so many possible explanations. You can improve each of them, but it's hard to throw any out as "undue weight" or "fringe" since almost all have been proposed in reliable sources. Even organizing them is difficult since many explanations fit into more than one potential category. So let's all keep improving, but continue this conversation on the talk page, where it's more easily seen (and hopefully joined) by other editors. LouScheffer (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammerscale (archaeology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== 2015 Chattanooga Shootings ==

How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Chattanooga Shootings[edit]

How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You can use the article's talk page here: [17] to propose changes and see if people agree with you. That's how you get consensus (they don't have to be admins). Also, be careful not to keep making the same change if someone elses' edit changes your own (as that's the three-revert rule). This will help you avoid being in an edit war. I'm not an administrator, usually you don't have to get an admin's permission before making a change--just don't keep repeating the same edits if other people disagree with you. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right[edit]

You're right. Upon inspection, I realize I did violate the 1RR rule. I don't normally edit controversial topics, so it didn't even occur to me to be wary of it. Mea culpa. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know....[edit]

...that regardless of the outcome of the case I filed at ANI, I hope you don't ever doubt your abilities as a writer who considers promotion to GA and FA as a significant accomplishment on WP. You are a good writer - don't let anyone convince you otherwise - but do listen to the criticism and always try to improve. Keep trekking forward to make mediocre articles GAs - it does count and it should never be used against you as others have tried to do to me. You are doing the right thing by improving the encyclopedia. Atsme^📞📧 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On meteor incandescence[edit]

Hi Geogene, I just wanted you to take a look at the entry that I made at Talk:Meteoroid#Adiabatic_vs_friction_heating. This is not my technical area, but the matter of meteor incandescence appears to need a more authoritative citation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Artificial Non-Nuclear Explosions[edit]

Greetings, I noticed that you removed my contribution to Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions (Eddystone explosion) as well as a couple of others, with the comment that "some of these don't belong here - looking for blocks leveled, ships sunk, etc."

I can appreciate your POV on that, but that is a personal assessment on your part. However, upon reflection, I agree that the article should be exclusive, no matter what the specific criteria are - after all, it is a list of largest artificial non-nuclear explosions; I think we can agree that a list of "largest" loses its value if it balloons to the "largest 100" or "largest 200" or some such.

My more significant concern is, on that basis, why not also remove the Silvertown, Split Rock, or Quickborn explosions from the list, which were contemporaries of Eddystone and were comparable in scale, damage and death toll? Is there reason to believe these events were more devastating than Eddystone? I'm interested in understanding your specific mindset at removing some entries while leaving others in place.

Regards, Apostle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApostleGreen (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's just personal opinion, but is "largest explosions" ever formally defined? Silverton: "The blast was felt across London and Essex and was heard over 100 mi (160 km) away, with the resulting fires visible for 30 mi (48 km)." (I doubt that, but it would make it a very large explosion if true.) Split Rock: "Approximately 1–3 tons of TNT" (near my arbitrary cutoff of 1 ton). Quickborn: I nearly got that one too, but the academic source made me think twice. (It probably doesn't belong.) Eddystone was very tragic, but most those killed were in a single room, and according to the source (findagrave) the factory was back in production two weeks later. A related issue is that, as far as I know, findagrave itself isn't considered a very reliable source. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points and food for thought... much appreciated. Cheers!

ApostleGreen (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid rumor[edit]

97kaylum1: Is the asteroid gonna hit earth on September 24, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No, that's just a false rumor. But there are always rumors like that out on the Internet so some people that edit that article talked about whether the article should mention it, and most agreed that it might be better just to not mention it at all. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page confusion[edit]

Can you move this comment to the correct section? It's getting very confusing. I think you meant it to go to one of the threads related to wording, not the one about 11 million cars in the lead. Also, might want to read this -- it was cited in the article about 3 hours ago, and VW confessed to intentional deception. They did so formally, and "went over written details provided to the participants explaining how software used in its diesel cars was able to manipulate emissions tests in the United States." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is in the appropriate section -- which discusses the first sentence in the lead. Do you have the transcript of what Volkswagen admitted to? Geogene (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript? Why would I want to use a primary source? We normally want to use secondary sources to provide us with an interpenetration. See WP:ANALYSIS. Even if we had the transcript, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Reuters is our secondary source, giving us our interpretation. Which is they got caught illegally cheating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: because I want to know exactly what VW "admitted" to, and you should be interested in that as well. Now, there's something I think I need to point out to you. When you shop around for the most salacious accusations you can find, and use them preferentially to the bulk of RS, that's a POV push. On that talk page I see you arguing with multiple editors about wording. You've argued for hours to use "cheat", "illegal", etc., over more encyclopedic wording. This is unusual. Why do you care? Geogene (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite something else. NYT, Reuters, NPR, WaPo, Telegraph, Guardian. I thought I was citing the most mainstream, unbaised sources possible. I don't think you have to "shop around" to find a Reuters article; they're like the oldest, largest news service on Earth, no? I've repeatedly asked you to cite anyone who doubts it was cheating, or doubts it was illegal, or doubts they got caught cheating. Please go over to the talk page and post your citations of which source you think are better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to extract information from sources, not words or style. The argument seems to be over what wording is encyclopedic. You seem to be outnumbered. I don't care enough to be that involved. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not outnumbered, and anyway it's not a vote. You act like you care -- at least by the duck test. All this time spent commenting looks like caring. I only came here to your talk page because I thought you should move your comment to a new section and it would be rude if I did it without asking. I really think it would help if you would cite sources that share your position, or at least admit that your wording and tone do not conform with the vast majority of mainstream news media. I would be very happy to admit I am wrong if there are in fact other reliable sources who present a different point of view. My motivation is grounded in the fact that sources are speaking with one voice here. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate being shown those citations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: I get accused of being a shill on a fairly regular basis. Interestingly, in every single instance, it was a frustrated POV pusher that did the accusing. That's more or less what I think I see here. Be careful that you don't offend me to the point where I do seriously oppose you there. Geogene (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't see the relevance. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured. Is English not your native language? I feel like perhaps this is due to misreading words somewhere. Maybe when you see these news media the meaning of them strikes you differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just don't understand that quote in context. Geogene (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. If you ever find any sources you can cite that are contrary to the ones I've given, please share them over at the emissions violations talk page. I would be grateful for them, since I myself can't find any at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

The speedy deletion article.[edit]

The man was the oldest living man at the time of his death, he is most certainly notable. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2007 because sources couldn't be found. There are still no sources. But if a few reliable sources are produced (enough for a stub bio) then it won't get deleted. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same pattern with other editors?[edit]

MarlinespikeMate and Science-ToDaMax. Typing from phone, so can't add to possible sock puppet list. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in the archived cases, I expect there are about five active socks. But I haven't seen those and don't have any others in mind. Geogene (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)/Archives/[reply]

|format=Y/F |age=300 }}

Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, Beagel, give this barnstar to you for your attempt to make the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and BP related articles more encyclopaedic. Many good editors have tried this but have give up for obvious reasons. I hope you have more luck and courage to keep Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]