This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ginkgo100. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Ginkgo100
You deleted the page created on french photographer_ "no claim to notability" is your explanation_ I know his work for years now and even he's more known in France, people in art galleries here begin to talk a lot about him_ I would like to know more about your decision_ Kind regards
Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeMcGD (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2007.
I still don't think the article really asserts why he is important. The world is full of artists, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of the biographies of every single one. I found very little in a Google search, so I don't think I'm missing anything. However, you may have this deletion independently reviewed. --Ginkgo100talk19:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, even I don't agree with it.
I tried several times to cancel our conversations. If I knew they would have been visible for everyone I wouldn't have wrote any. Can you please delete all my messages. Thank you. Kind regards.
The previous unsigned statement is from user:MikeMcGD after several reverts (returns to original version). Perhaps this was meant to mislead me in erase the above conversation, or perhaps it was simply a missplaced message. Either one, it is off topic and not welcomed. Even with fear of being label with WP:AGF, perhaps MikeMcGD would like to read up on WP:TROLL. Thank you. --CyclePat05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a misplaced message; it really belongs here. It used to be in the Good job section. In "trying several times" to cancel the conversation, a revert storm involving several editors and User:MikeMcGD ensued, confusing, I think, everybody, including this editor. This user was blocked indefinitely as a consequence of the revert storm after I bought the matter to the attention of administrators at WP:ANI. Assuming good faith, there may be a basis to restore this account, as the revert storm had, at its basis, a misunderstanding about Wikipedia processes and practices, and was not motivated by simple desire to create mayhem. Gosgood12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I support the unblock, as it's clear from his comments that no harm was meant. I don't plan to delete this thread, though; anyway, it will be archived soon and my archives don't exactly get a lot of traffic. --Ginkgo100talk16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If you read the talk page of the article on ADHD, you will see that that user's edits were clearly vandalism of this type (description taken directly from the link you provided):
Sneaky vandalism
Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.
The user Edward Bauer claims to have ADHD, and is intentionally reverting legitimate edits that users make back to his own opinion of ADHD with the intent of hindering improvement. His edits were not in good faith. In fact, he really has no business editing this page since he has no education in the subject and hasn't provided any references. --Jkhamlin20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not consider this addition to be misinformation. Please see my comments at Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, including the comments about "experts" being the only qualified Wikipedia editors. Of course, all additions should be cited from a reliable source, and controversial edits should not be made until consensus is reached on the talk page. Edit warring does not improve articles. --Ginkgo100talk20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You will have to cite that. More to the point, even if it were obviously false, it is not vandalism if it is meant in good faith. Unintentional misinformation is specifically excluded as vandalism by the vandalism policy. --Ginkgo100talk02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Photograph
Hi Ginkgo100. Thanks for stopping by the Fetus page. I was wondering if you would please weigh in here, or advise me how to proceed. If you have time, it would be much appreciated. Ferrylodge19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What's going on here?
I don't normally comment on things like this, but what's going on here and here? I am sure these are from someone else's userpage, just with some modifications. Acalamari21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was actually looking through the list of automatically generated new users when I saw Kilaowsaki's username highlighted in blue. I then clicked on the link, and saw a barnstar, which didn't make sense, and then I was sure I'd seen the userpage somewhere else. I also then found Lil' Demeo's userpage from the name on the barnstar. Acalamari22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for your input about the fetus photos. If you can spare the time, I would very much appreciate your views regarding how the fetus page should dovetail with the prenatal development page. The issue is being discussed here. Sincerely, Ferrylodge01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like it would require quite a bit more time and attention than the minimal input I have given so far. Unfortunately, I'm already working on a couple of projects, and due to the real world I am out of spare Wikipedia time. I wish you all good luck in finding an acceptable solution. --Ginkgo100talk18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It suggested that I (or, I suppose, my IP address) was responsible for a malicious edit of the History of Athens page. This is not true. Neither I or my wife (we share a DSL router) has ever edited anything on Wikipedia, maliciously or in any other way. I wouldn't really know how to do it, quite honestly. I hope this can be corrected.
Andrew
06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~
This is the edit in question. However, this edit could have been made by another person in your household (perhaps a visitor), or even by an unrelated person who happened to be assigned to that IP address at the time. Wikipedians recognize that in the case of anonymous edits, IP addresses may be reassigned after a short time, and no adverse consequences are likely to result from a warning that old. Of course, you could always create an account with a password, which would protect you from any case of mistaken identity. (This is always optional, though; anonymous editors are welcome here.) Please do let me know if you have any questions, but I don't think that warning will cause you any problems at this point. --Ginkgo100talk14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
My comments
Then what do you call it when an Admin REMOVES (and not adds to) my heavily validated and verifiable by ALL. Then only to add his own "poorly sourced" material that is NOT accessible. Plus if he is truly a good Admin he would have carried the discussion to the talk boards before just removing others hard work. Thanks. Rogue Gremlin19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fetus image
You said it would be best to replace the fetus model with another illustration, preferably a photo of a real (not model) fetus, with an emotionally neutral scale such as a ruler. However, until one is available (and it may already be either here or on the Commons), I think it serves a purpose in relation to Image:Lifesize8weekfetus.JPG. I followed your advice (sort of) and I have created Image:Image-Lifesize8weekfetus-edit.JPG to include a more neutral scale and remove the controversial hand. Again, this isn't a real fetus, but would you support my edit until an even better image comes along?-Andrew c01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I think it is much more neutral. Personally, I liked the hand image, but this is Wikipedia, not my own website. --Ginkgo100talk22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to copy your comment to the Talk:fetus page. User talk discussion got me in 'trouble' once with Ferrylodge, so I do not intent to repeat that mistake. Thank you very much for your imput.-Andrew c23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. I deleted the talk pages that were originally created for the Pterygoplichthys articles, so you may need to re-add them to WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. --Ginkgo100talk22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The editors who have been archiving the lengthy discussion on the emerging church movement seem to be MIA. The discussion page is much in need of more archiving and I seem to be the only one around on it at the moment who cares enough to take responsibility for it. Problem is I am the least tech-savvy of the editors who have worked on this article and I can not seem to figure out how to do it. Can you help an ignorant editor (me) to figure this out?Will393511:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what is wrong with me. Perhaps it is my advanced age which makes me so unskilled at such things. Maybe it is just pure stupidity. Anyway, I give up on archiving talk pages. I tried to follow the manual but failed. I know it can't be that difficult, but I am apparently that dumb. If you could archive the emerging church movement talk page I would appreciate it. We have recently had some great input on that article from some British editors but they have not talked on this page (user to user talk). I'm afraid the current discussion page that has yet to be archived is excessively long (the entire thing has been archived I think 6 times already and the current talk may need to be divided into several sections) and I'm also afraid that the current talk is largely my own ramblings. If you could help with this task I would greatly appreciate it!Will393503:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Brian McLaren Article (scary)
Dear Gingko 100:
I do have other parties involved in this issue, but I could use all of the help I can get. Between the discussion page and the user talk pages things have gotten quite scary on this article. I have been trying to make friends with Virgil Vaduza so that we can work together on the article. His harsh rhetoric has been ratcheting up and now he is trying to bait me into revealing my true identity. I feel like he is trying to take this thing outside of Wikipedia and I feel personally threatened. I have appealed to the mediation cabal and Vassanya but this thing is getting way to personal and threatening for my tastes. Can you help or advise me in any way?Will393518:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your advice. Sorry I drug Virgil onto your page (below). Didn't mean for that to happen to you.Will393521:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Will3935, you feel personally threatened? Anyone interested in this debate can go read the discussion history at Talk:Brian_McLaren. I did not ask you to reveal your identity; another user did because you are flaunting your credentials all over the place trying to intimidate other users into agreeing with your edits in an article. Now that you are in minority and you can't get two or three people consensus, you are making up imaginary threats. Get your story straight...you are now just making stuff up and are way in the la-la land my friend! I do not care who you are and I have no interest in finding out. I never ONCE broke any Wikipedia rules or threatened anyone here. You have a pretty thin case to make against me as far as I am concerned. --Virgil Vaduva20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:RFCUsername
As I have already grossly and crudely threatened elsewhere, Ginkgo100: if you don't move your excellent draft into "production" pretty soon, *I* will. Waiting this long to put those improvements into effect was merely my courtesy to the author. Waiting much longer for the dangled pretties, only to have them heartlessly withheld, would require more patience than I possess. I'm champing at the bit; soon the reins will not hold me back. Be warned! -- BenTALK/HIST01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Humblest apologies! In my defense I claim real world obligations and simple forgetfulness. I'll correct my error immediately. --Ginkgo100talk02:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! It both looks nicer and is easier to read than the previous version, thus it combines beauty and utility. New readers henceforth may not know whom to thank, they may not know that there even was a revision, but they will find it a less tiring process to understand than it would have been without this change, so I thank you on their behalf. -- BenTALK/HIST19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that I stole your non-smoker userbox and made a minor modification. You can see it here. I hope you don't mind! --Nemilar05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My Bird died as i mentioned yesterday, and would really like to dedicate something very small for him on the section, he was very special to me, and i would really appreciate it if you let me add this subsection for him.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. I would recommend finding a pet memorial website (try searching for "Rainbow Bridge") or making a blog of your memories of him. Sorry for your loss; I know what it's like to lose a pet, but this isn't the right place for his remembrance. --Ginkgo100talk15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Only if it is encyclopedic and good quality. Pictures on Wikipedia are only for illustrating articles. The picture you posted was not very good quality and didn't add anything to the article. Please find a more appropriate site for your memorial; you will only get frustrated here. --Ginkgo100talk15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's no problem! Our rules are hard to learn—it took me a long time to get the hang of things. New users are always welcome, and please don't take it personally. You're not in any kind of "trouble" either—I just wanted to let you know why your contributions were reverted. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk14:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of the "Live Free or Die (cellular automaton)" Article
I see you deleted the article based on the basis that it is an expired prod. But I don't see how that is justifiable reason for an article to be deleted for. The entry would fill a role as an article over an expired prod. historically being very useful. Kind of like articles on old no longer used corsets fill a role of historic means. Don't you agree? Lord Metroid19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored the article per the proposed deletion policy: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request." Proposed deletion is only for uncontested deletions, so it's really just a housekeeping tasks. That's why they're so easy to contest both before and after the fact. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to report a couple of socks to you, but first a little back story. I started Designer Whey Protein and Biological Value a while ago. As you know, because you blocked him, there was a sockpuppeteer operating there. A sock came complaining on my talk page about the Biological Value article, I went out of my way to notify a ton of science experts to work on the article (over 50 which took a while becuase I didn't know where to find them), not knowing he was a sock. Anyway Yankees identified him as a sock and tagged him, so I moved on and started the Michael Jordan FAC which I've been planning for months. I decided I'd try to get back to the article, get the tags off of it, and see if I can get an expert to work on it later.
However today Designer was tagged for deletion and as spam by a new account and an anon, who have admitted they are the same account. I argued it shouldn't be deleted as it has 106,000 google hits and there are surely non-notable indepent sources which could be used to verify it's existence. I tried to provide some but they were admittedly weak and it will probably get deleted. I've been extremely busy with the Michael Jordan FAC, so I'm not going to argue for it anymore (Although Bill Phillips mentions it in his Supplement review and I'm sure there are of articles in bodybuilding mags talking about it, as it was the first brand of Whey protein to hit the market and be successful). This isn't about the afd as I'm sure it will get deleted and I don't really care about it anymore. However, all of a sudden this was left on my talk page:[1] and I'm not sure what to do. I'm telling you all this instead of reporting on the official page as you are already familiar with it, I notified the other two admins who blocked socks of the original sockpuppet. Bssically my interest in those two articles in reaching negative integers and would like to be left alone by all these socks and single purpose accounts. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla9918:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote that before the next edit by Quartet; you could see how that could be confusing. I archived my talk page and hopefully will be left alone by the socks. Quadzilla9908:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Userbox
Hi. I have been looking around on the userbox-related pages, and I saw your name. It was in the health section. I have just recently created one that has not been created before, and I was wondering if you would help me about how to make it a proper userbox that other Wikipedians can use. I'm not that clear on how to do it. If you would like to see the userbox, it is on my userpage. Thanks for your time. YazzaMatazza04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, this is how:
Move it to User:Ginkgo100/Userboxes/Title, replacing "Title" with the name of the userbox.
Thanks. I just commented on the talk page but don't have time now to expand myself—hopefully soon, & hopefully with help from good editors! --Ginkgo100talk20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO little did you realize that when you posted this originally, that you were about to start expanding ;-) (for those unfamiliar with the reason why, check out her user boxes.)Balloonman18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
OMG LOL! ;) You "break me up"... digestion would also break it up too! One step ahead of the ingestion. --CyclePat21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets of SummerThunder
Greetings! I noticed you placed the sockpuppet notice up on User:Brushcome. There may be another such sockpuppet afoot in the form of User:Hoursenter. I call specific notice to the fact that this individual is making the same edits to the same articles that the prior user did. Can you address this matter as well, or can you advise me where I should refer this matter to if there is a better forum? Thank you, —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not logging on daily these days, so indeed it's better to bring these issues to another forum (although you can certainly also let me know, since I'm familiar with the case). Post such problems at WP:ANI. --Ginkgo100talk16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fishes
There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tagging
Hello Ginkgo100. When tagging a sockpuppet as blocked[2], please don't use an indefinitely blocked template like {{indefblockeduser}}. This places the page in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, whence it is manually removed by maintaining administrators. The sockpuppet templates themselves include notation for blocked users: {{sockpuppet|Example username|blocked}} (suspected) or {{blockedsock|Example username}} (confirmed). Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:05:49, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I couldn't find a recent example in my contribs where I made this mistake, but I do occasionally have "brain hiccups", and offer apologies for any confusion they cause. --Ginkgo100talk15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Need help with page move
Hi Ginkgo. I need your help. The "Bolivian ram" has two seperate articles, each with edit histories. I'm trying to move it properly from Mikrogeophagus altispinosa (the older article with older edit history) to Mikrogeophagus altispinosus (the one-day old article but this is the correct Latin name of the fish) but I can't do the next step since I'm not an admin. So, I'd really appreciate it if you would
The reason I created aquaria categories for each state is so that this category could be placed in the visitor attraction category for each state in the same way that the zoo category for each state is handled. Just lumping everything into the aquaria of the US category does not achieve this purpose (of being able to easily look up attractions on a state by state basis). Hmains03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it appears this is a good situation to make an exception and place the article in both a category and its sub-category, since there is a good reason for it to be in either. This would also apply to other states which, like Colorado, have only one or two other such facilities. --Ginkgo100talk00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to make an exception. There is no reason to single out such states for special treatment. The number of aquaria in a state is not relevant to a category scheme. Having one is an artificial distinction proving nothing. Hmains01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There are more than one purpose behind category schemes; another is to find similar articles on a topic. I use categories for that purpose quite often. In this case there is no harm being done. --Ginkgo100talk20:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you follow the ADHD article and you are an admin, I want to bring to your attention the user Ned Scott. I placed an NPOV tag on the page to alert those possibly misinformed by the neurology statement in the article that elements in this article are in dispute on the talk page. Ned Scott removed it with a bogus reason. I have replaced it, but he will probably remove it again. It is appropriate for it to be there. I hope you would have a chat with Ned Scott about this. Thanks --Jkhamlin18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless some administrative action is required, an admin doesn't have any more authority on the matter than anyone else does. If he wants to "chat" with me then he can, but he would be doing so as a user and not as an admin. -- Ned Scott18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow up: This Ned character seems to be engaging in several violations of TOS including vandalism, personal attacks, and others.--Jkhamlin18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What? In no way have I vandalized anything. Maybe I shouldn't have called you a troll in an edit summary, but given that you called ADHD a scam I'm not really sure what to think of you. You're reaching, buddy, but you still won't be able to find anything that will get me blocked. It's really poor taste to try to do that just because someone disagrees with you. -- Ned Scott19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was confusing. Of course you can use the templates. I just wanted you to be aware that I didn't write/create most of them myself. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk20:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Templates
I think you've misunderstood. I mean that I've tried to use templates that you've created (at least it seems like you created them, since they start with {{Ginko100/Userboxes/yadda,yadda}}) and they just turned up as redlinks. I was asking if you could tell me why.—Joe Jacard (Talk-Desk) 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. I didn't create most of those userboxes either; I just host them (see WP:GUS). In your example, you misspelled my username, and you also left out the "User:". That might be the problem. Try copy-pasting the text to avoid typos. Sorry for the confusion. --Ginkgo100talk21:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
DYK
On 7 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fish development, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
i think i got a message from you which this is what it said:
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Gaia Online page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ginkgo100talk 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was almost four months ago. Since you are not logged in, you must have gotten a message intended for someone else who was using the IP address you are using now. I'm sorry for any confusion. You are always welcome (but not required) to create a free account, which will prevent you from receiving messages intended for others. --Ginkgo100talk00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Watch It
I saw your questioning of my speedy deletion nomination. I will say this. I nominated that article for speedy deletion because it had no sources, was incoherent and almost appeared to be a hoax. Obviously you have different opinions about this but the tag I believe was justified. Xtreme racer03:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ginkgo. I need your help again. Recently there were a lot of merging/redirecting and page moves involving several related pages about Synodontis nigriventris (upside-down catfish). You can see the discussion here at WP:AQF. Quite confusing, but it's almost done except for the last step which we need an admin as it requires a deletion. I just wonder if you could:
Done, and you're welcome. I agree that in this case, the scientific name is the best article title. I'm always happy to do these moves. --Ginkgo100talk01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about that, I figured it would count as absolute nonsense or something like that, but the prod is fine.--danielfolsom13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Without Conscious Thought
I'm a bit confused. How is Without Conscious Thought notable due to MAINZ (of which I haven't heard of)? I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to understand so I won't tag similar articles in the same manner. -WarthogDemon23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed the article and found that it stated that the Music and Audio Institute of New Zealand had invited them to record an album. That sounded possibly significant, so I googled MAINZ. It's a real institution, so I erred on the side of caution, as I always do with speedy deletions. Note that A7 says "no claim to notability" (my emphasis), not "no valid claim to notability". You can feel free to prod the article, and AfD it if the prod is removed. The problem with speedy deletion is that it is so speedy -- there is no chance to object or discuss, so it should closely meet the criteria. At least that's my interpretation of the deletion policy. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
For a heavy speedy deleter, I'm actually not much of a deletionist. Most other admins would have deleted it; it's a difference of opinion. But I really do feel that a lot of things are speedily deleted that shouldn't be.--Ginkgo100talk23:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
