User talk:Gorgan almighty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Wow

All I ahve to say is excellent job with this page, it looks really snazzy.

[edit] Vandalism by 209.158.179.181

Hi- Last December you made a comment on user_talk:209.158.179.181 about future vandalism in Wikipedia articles. Someone has hit up three articles on the IP address. What, if anything, happens now? Stude62 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd closing

In the future, remember to tag the talk page of the article with {{oldafdfull}} to note that it has been previously nominated and the result. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Yisroel Eiss

Thank you.

The reason given for the deletion was the the article was written in a completely unencyclopediac fashion and contained first person references. I have and will try to change this original reason for deletion.

As to your other concern, I added a request for sources to the original authors talk page (I'll add it to the article's talk page as well). I also hope to get around to looking for sources myself, but only through the net.

I do believe ample time should be given to find sources before the page is deleted.

Thank you again, Yodaat 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks. Sorry for getting worked up about it.  :) Yodaat 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: stop for a moment:

Done. Yodaat 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Converts from Judaism

I have initiated a discussion regarding a category you created earlier today. Please see this CfD. I have concerns about individuals you included, concerns about past discussions of related categories, and concerns of the category's title. Your imput would be appreciated. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
List of messiah claimants
Hillsong London
John Paul (actor)
Random access memory
Hypocenter
Marymount High School
Geoff Bullock
Macaroni Penguin
Demyansk Pocket
Technology during World War II
Linux Mark Institute
Mahmud Ghazan
List of religious leaders with Jewish background
Cahuenga Pass
Battle of Halbe
Son of man
Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Honolulu
Mary, Mother of Jesus (film)
Connecticut Colony
Cleanup
Data Processor
Jonah
Desposyni
Merge
MSN Hotmail
Our Lady of Sorrows
Deep linking
Add Sources
Tragic hero
Sonny Moore
Book of Job
Wikify
Lau Kar-leung
Linux Software Map
National Human Genome Research Institute
Expand
Robot Chicken
Melamine
Book of Isaiah

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chanter

Could you please outline your concerns with John Chanter? I had asked someone to check it over (an experienced editor) and they said it was fine. I can understand the references (although the one cited is extremely reliable) but I would appreciate knowing your concerns about style. Thanks. Frickeg 23:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[1]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply re Ram Dass

Hi, just wanted to be sure you know that I replied on my talk page yesterday (about 20 minutes after you posted your note). Cgingold 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Popcat

1. This is a category page template, not an article template.
2. The "growth" classification was added without consensus and is being removed. —David Levy 12:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom

I have made substantial edits to TTI Telecom and left detailed comments about the sources at the AfD page since you commented. When you get the chance, please take another look. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability reform barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For your patient and well-reasoned efforts in helping to achieve a much-needed reform of WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Essay-project-note on WP:USRD/NT

Can you please give me some detail as to how {{Essay-project-note}} - a template that was created via discussion at WT:BIO has anything to do with WP:USRD/NT. Particularly, I'm concerned that none of those at USRD, or any other WikiProjects that are listed in Category:WikiProject_notability_essays (though I did see WP:ACADEMICS had mentioned something on WT:BIO about it. Not all of the projects deal with people at all (such as WP:USRD, WP:TWP for WP:STATIONS or the like. Personally I understand the rationale behind the template, but not everyone reads up on WP:BIO or uses it as a global discussion board for notability, this should have been discussed at WT:N instead.

The template was removed from WP:USRD/NT. If you can provide that this template must be on the page, please place a rationale on WT:USRD/NT that refers to WP:N WP:USRD/NT has no biographies of living persons so there is no reason that a proposal discussed on WT:BIO should decide who gets the template.

If you have questions, please contact me. Thank you.  — master sonT - C 02:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm finding it impossible to assume you're acting in good faith

You've been falsely claiming a consensus for your vision of bio for months. I've taken you to task and asked for proof of this, at which point you've disappeared each time. You've consistently been dishonest and misrepresented previous discussions, apparently on the theory that no one will check your claims. Now you have the audacity to claim that I have no objections to the change after the last several months. How the exactly does this work? Which argument of mine have you ignored or sidestepped that suddenly convinced me to support you?

I was out of the discussion for all of 48 hours. It's completely unethical for you to make this claim without even the slightest effort at verifying it. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I deplore your efforts to bend the truth. I would point out that I have never made an edit to BIO or any other policy/guideline/essay that did not have reasonable consensus, and had no active objections at the time. Most of the edits you've claimed in the past that I made "against consensus" were in fact made by other editors who commented in favour of the changes in the relevant discussions. Since no objections were raised at the time, and consensus seemed to have been reached, those other editors took it upon themselves to inact those changes, as I would have done, but didn't. An example of this is the notability guideline reforms, to bring the sub-guides inline with the general notability criteria. Although I was involved in those discussions, it was Kevin Murray, as well as several others, who inacted those changes. I believe they were right to do so, as consensus seemed to have been formed, but it was they who did it, not me. This is very different from what you claimed later on, that I had gone round effectively vandalising the notability sub-guides against consensus. If you don't believe that there was consensus for those reforms, then go look at the talk page archives yourself or ask Kevin Murray to confirm it for you. It is not my job to dig though the archives and pull out old discussions for you.
There is no requirement on Wikipedia to inform every Wikipedian on there User Talk page when a new proposal is proposed. Discussions are visible to all on the relevant Project Talk pages. It is your job to watch these pages if you wish to be involved in discussions. You could at the very least watch the Village Pump, and follow links from their to the relevant discussions. If a change is made that you don't agree with, then propose that the change to reverted and state your reasons. Don't claim that there was no consensus simply because you weren't involved in the discussion.
I am a great believer in establishing consensus, and I believe that was sufficiently done in this current case. This is very different from the way you seem to operate. As far as I can see, your attitude is that any amount of people can discuss it on the Talk page as much as they like, but if anyone dare inact the changes on the actual guideline, you'll revert and claim bad faith. I am very concerned about your ownership issues.
I assumed that you had no further objections, because you didn't raise any objections to the latest proposal. If that assumption was incorrect then I apologise, but it seems to be clear the consensus is against you.
—gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)

Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an excellent example of creep that is being pushed by a few people for rapid acceptance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I never said I supported all the notability sub-guides that have ever been proposed. A while back we successfully got rid of some and merged them into BIO. That was a good move. But the fact that those were WP:CREEP doesn't necessarily mean that all notability guides accept WP:N are creep. I personally believe that there is worth in keeping BIO (with the "Additional criteria" section replaced as we've discussed). I believe WP:ORG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSIC and possibly a number of others should be demoted to essays, but I know we'd have a strong fight on our hands there, so I'd rather take it one step at a time and leave things like that till later. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that ORG and BIO are necessary evils that let people vent their ideas; a place where we can contain and monitor the expression of special interests, without having a multitude of special pages to monitor. Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackle

can you take a look at Blackle and perhaps ban 24.203.205.195, it's the same guy who tried to post a video a while ago and was banned for it. MyTigers (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Hi Gorgan almighty, I was just wondering why you believe that your religion is the right one. What drew you to that specific religion? I’m doing research for my thesis and I’d like to get a discussion going. Get back to me. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)