User talk:ImGz/Archive07

Welcome back!

I LOL'ed. Love the big blinking text, it makes me feel loved (or seizure-ish). Thanks (and jesus what a cake)! Hopefully now all that damn IRL stuff (besides my vacation) will stop interfering with my wiki-time. --ImGz (t/c) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) + more redundant overuse of (par)(en)(theses). woo.

And just to make your return perfect, your favorite editor is also back with us... – iridescent 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Arden Theatre

I just added an article on Terrence J. Nolen, perhaps you can help fill it out.~Historicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gamma Phi Beta

I noticed that you changed some of my work. I had organized the notable alumnae based on their chapter designation. It seems pretty logical. Any reason why you changed it? Thanks! THDju (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapter designations aren't obvious to somebody who isn't greek. To Note: The rest of the NPC alumnae are also organized alphabetically and to keep consistency within the group all of the articles should be changed if that one were to be changed as well. Before that kind of change is enacted consensus should be reached on WP:FRAT since that's a substantial amount of work to do. --ImGz (t/c) 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It makes sense, from a panhellenic standpoint to group by chapter then alphabet but since that is not the status quo, at least they are organized. Thanks. THDju (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have fun

Have fun on your vacation. I hope you have a good time. :) Best wishes. Acalamari 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am definitely having a great time and I hate the idea of leaving on Thursday. On a different note: Since I'm mostly busy IRL until then would you, or anybody else, mind keeping an eye on Jaclyn Reding? The article has had problems with OR and before and somebody has found a foreign language source for the info. Since there are no english equivalent sources I keep reverting, but this seems to be a long standing problem for this article and I'm not here.. --ImGz (t/c) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course! I've added it to my watchlist for the time being. :) When you're back and are watching it more often, let me know. In the meantime, have fun. Acalamari 00:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm back now so you can take it off your list. --ImGz (t/c) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Philadelphia

Hi. Any news on the group? I haven't hear of you guys having meeting recently. --Mblumber (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, as far as I know, no. I wasn't involved/planning on going to the last meeting, been too busy, and as far as I know nobody is really interested in organizing more meetings. --ImGz (t/c) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been involved in organizing Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC and meta:Wikimedia New York City, as well as local projects like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art.

I am also interested in coming, and so I think would be the meta:Wikimedia Pennsylvania folks. Also, we should have Wikipedia:Geonotice up and running again around Jan 10, so now would be a good time to start planning. I would be glad to help with on-wiki coordination; the key thing is just to avoid confused voting as at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 7, and for someone to just set a time and place. It would be great if we could do something at Drexel!--Pharos (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the meetings, wikipedia or media wiki, for a while, nor was I involved in the planning for #7. Quite frankly I am too busy to be involved with this right now, but thanks anyway. User:TexasDex would probably be more interested in this than I am. --ImGz (t/c) 22:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year! Acalamari 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the New Years Wishes! I'm not sure why this didn't show up in a big orange box for me. :) Happy New Year to you as well. --ImGz (t/c) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: KKG talk page

Hi Immortal. You've made your opinion known at this point on the subject of Bruce Ivins' inclusion to the KKG article. I think it would only be fair if you would step back and allow the conversation to happen before refuting each person's comments/opinions on the matter. Again, I'm only thinking to protect the issue from the appearance of bias one way or the other.

Also, HTML markups are perfectly valid...in fact, right above the editing box are shortcuts for this very purpose.

Lastly, I don't know why the bot didn't pick up the RFC, but please trust me that -just because it's been done before- putting such a request on the Frat Project is about as inappropriate as putting the RFC on the Crime & Justice project or the Bio-Warfare or Terrorism Talk pages. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, nevermind, the bot placed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RFCsoc/manual 207.237.33.133 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing else I can add to the conversation at this point, and so I won't, but I am certainly not going to rescind myself from further conversation. Just because I feel that it does not belong in the article does not mean that it doesn't, it is my opinion and I have made that quite clear. Just because I have this opinion does not mean that I can't contribute in a neutral way to the article.

Yes, but you should be sure -as will I- that each user's posted opinion does not become an immediate opportunity to point out why you or I think they are wrong or right. we;ve both been clear, now let's let other's get a word in...Let's be sure to both maintain civility and keep the matter open to suggestion...so that there may be a true consensus. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikiproject is an acceptable place for further conversation about this topic. People at the wikiproject have experience with fraternity and sorority issues, which does not mean that they strive to eliminate negative information. It is the appropriate wikiproject because the discussion covers placing information within a fraternity article. I am sorry if you feel that this could potentially bias the article but the purpose of the wikiproject is to improve the Frat/Sor articles so they are neutral and factually accurate. If you feel that the wikiproject isn't unbiased then you can express your concern then but at this point nobody has commented even though your edit to the wikiproject talk page was reverted.

If you believe that truly to be the case, you wouldn't mind my creating similar notices at the places I mentioned, as well as others: bioterrorism, terrorism, national security, sciences, biography, sociology, the USPS article, crime and punishmend, mental illness...these are all places where a relevant opinion on the matter would be valid and appreciated. (Although I must reiterate that I think keeping RFC's in their place avoids the involvement of meatpups and avoids all bias, but if this is the direction you want it to take, so be it.) And, for the record, there has been one comment in favor of Ivins' inclusion since you posted the quasi-RFC on the WikiProject page. Which you immediately responded to with a contrary opinion (which was already known...see above paragraph). 207.237.33.133 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the HTML markup it is generally not used on wikipedia, we have markup of our own for example <li> is replaced with * <br> is a space and <b> is '''text''' <i> is ''text'' etc. etc. click the boxes and you can see the markup displayed in the article you are editing. Also RfC's take a while to be picked up by the bot so it's not a surprise that it took this long. --ImGz (t/c) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I find HTML easier to use, but if the specific Wikimarkup is easier for you to read, I'll try to remember that. Thanks for the suggestion, though, and thanks keeping an eye out for the proper RFC...I understand there's been some sluggishness there. 207.237.33.133 (talk)

Lastly, I must point out that I do not have a Wikipedia account for a specific reason and I use a variety of ever changing IP's...however, I have edited many many articles (one of which made it to FA), and though you might not be able to see my entire history or editing experience, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", and I trust you will be able to respect my opinions and suggestions just as much as if it were from Jimbo himself; just as much as I am respecting yours. I know he would agree on this. In short, I appreciate your remembering that we both have the same goal: to make this Wikipedia article as efficient and fair and within all standards as possible. 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)207.237.33.133 (talk)

I'm afraid I don't share your belief in regards to the wikiprojects. Placing information that says 'guy xyz had an obsession with frat/sor' in the frat article seems to be most correlation with the frat project. If you feel that results are biased, as I said earlier, bring it up then because as of right now there's no input to judge either way. As far as my response to the other commenter in hindsight it added nothing to the conversation but my response wasn't saying that his opinion didn't matter, it was saying that the page has about the same amount of page views now as it did a year ago. Editing under an IP is your prerogative, not mine and my responses would be no different if you choose to edit under a username. And a point: If I didn't respect others opinions I would not say 'lets get more opinions' or be engaged in this rather lengthy conversation. --ImGz (t/c) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To argue against including encyclopedic factual information related to a specific subject -information which has been well-documented, reliable, and relevant (if given proper weight)- while at the same time placing an RFC in one WikiProject while arguing against placing the RFC in the blatantly correct place and in other highly related WikiProjects...this leads me to wonder why you are taking such stances. That the article does not include ANY info about Bruce Ivins, (nor about Tamera S. Wade, for example) makes the page read more and more like information is selectively being included or omitted. And that's indicative of bias. If your opinion is 100% unbiased and you are not interested in the promotion of KKG but in the true accuracy of this WikiArticle, then be bold and find consensus with me as to how the info could be included fairly. Bottom line. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Never said an RFC was not the correct place to post this. I said the first place to go would be the appropriate wikiproject and then if consensus isn't gained RFC is the way to go. Even the RFC page has something to this effect. As far as consulting a wikiproject is concerned I genuinely believe that most opinions will go against mine it is not a matter of me saying to myself 'well golly gee this here wikiproject is gonna agree with me and this will be solved to my satisfaction right away.' I've offered why I believe it is unbiased and I've never said that you shouldn't notify those wikiprojects if you so choose. Please do not assume that I am taking a stance against having this information in there. period. I said I personally don't think it's necessary to have in there since it's more appropriate, in my mind, on his page. I also said that I would like more opinions on whether or not this is appropriate on the KKG page as well. This is not censoring and this is not placing bias on the article. If you genuinely feel that I have a bias against this article I would invite you to take a look at the KKG history. I believe that I'm the one that added the hazing section and referenced it, and continuously revert, along with others, attempts to censor the article of the information. As for the Ivins information I personally would like to wait and see what other people think, or at least until more than one person has commented on this situation before attempting to find an agreeable solution. As for Wade? Hadn't heard of her until you mentioned it and I googled. --ImGz (t/c) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well then all the matter needs from both of us is a little time to see how things shake down. I also want to note (though this may be premature) that any RFC is not a vote...as I'm sure you know, it's not a matter of majority rule. So. Now that it appears that the RFC is up on the RFC page, we will wait and see. Thanks again. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: how would you feel about including the information somewhere in the article not as Bruce Ivins' interest in KKG per se (although that is what I would see as most direct), but more along the lines about his relentless and very public editing of the Wikipedia article itself? In this way, the info is there for those interested, but it's kept in some perspective. Does that sound more fair to you? 207.237.33.133 (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that that mentioning the obsession in conjunction with the editing would be more appropriate for the KKG article. --ImGz (t/c) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Since that's how it was identified in the NYTimes article I sourced and referenced, we could paraphrase from there. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I've been a little busy this week but should be able to respond during some of today and can actively edit most of this weekend. --ImGz (t/c) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I've been more than fair and patient, and I want to come to consensus so we don't wind up in a silly edit war. I suggest the section of the article marked "Hazing" be changed to "Controversies", and then include two subheadings: one with the info about the hazings and another with the info about Bruce Ivins' obsession and relentless editing of the KKG Wikiarticle. If you have a better idea on how to include this in the article, please suggest it. Thanks again. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been patient and have given every opportunity to come to consensus. Most people feel it should be included. If there's no other input from you, I will include the info as described directly above. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please wait until the RfC is over with, my guess is that it will be 5 days. There is no harm in waiting to see if other comment are included, in the meantime we can discuss what material should be added. I agree with the format that you suggested above. --ImGz (t/c) 16:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your advice and help, and, in re-reading the talk page, I'm sorry if I came across as antagonistic. (There can be a lot of hostility and 'sense of ownership' issues on Wiki...I spent WEEKS working on getting fair info into Nancy Reagan's article -info which still remains out, despite generalized consensus towards it's inclusion.) I think the KKG article reads well and am glad you've made some input to the new sections. 207.237.33.6 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:WP:OWN

Dear ImGz.

Please see Talk:Linnea_Sinclair for the opinion of another Wikipedian. And please also see Wikipedia:Own#Resolving_ownership_issues, which I found most appropriate. I do think your accusation was a little premature. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See my response on the talk page. --ImGz (t/c) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

File:City hall and clothespin.JPG

You're invited to the
Seventh Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
March 15, 2009
Time: 3:00 PM

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)