Jump to content

User talk:TheGracefulSlick/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

DYK for The Rickshank Rickdemption

On 9 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Rickshank Rickdemption, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the season three premiere of Rick and Morty was first aired unannounced as a part of Adult Swim's annual April Fools' joke? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Rickshank Rickdemption. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Rickshank Rickdemption), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk) 00:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Eastwood After Hours: Live at Carnegie Hall

On 17 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eastwood After Hours: Live at Carnegie Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the album Eastwood After Hours: Live at Carnegie Hall features a concert that celebrated Clint Eastwood's contributions to jazz? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eastwood After Hours: Live at Carnegie Hall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eastwood After Hours: Live at Carnegie Hall), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Gamblers (surf band)

On 23 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Gamblers (surf band), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Gamblers' "Moon Dawg!" single is considered by some to be the first surf rock record? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Gamblers (surf band). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Gamblers (surf band)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Elephanto

I declined the speedy on Elephanto. A quick google search showed it's legit. [1] Often a good idea to do that search before tagging articles as made up to avoid WP:BITE. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing other editors comments at talk

Perhaps you are unaware that it is verboten to change the comment of another editor at AfD. This is true even when the editor in question has made an error, as was the case at [2]. Proper procedure is to flag it with a comment, perhaps pinging the editor to return and make the correciton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Please check carefully before reverting material, here: [3], you seem to have reverted without actually reading the Salon article, in which Horowitz is quoted as speaking specifically about this arson attack. Especially bad form during an active AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

our names

The Graceful Slick, how do you feel when people call you "slick". I know I didn't much like it when someone called me a "peasant". Did someone call you "slick" before you came up with The Graceful Slick? But seriously, is it okay to call you slick, you know- for short and "you know- we rule the world, Daddy" (~Daddy Yankee~). Oh wait, I know how I'd feel. Someone did call me a peasant! So I fixed it to the eloquent peasant. Thanks for the compliment and I'll see you around. the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • the eloquent peasant I prefer for people to address me as Grace or TGS. Gregory is the only one who calls me "Slick" -- mainly to be condescending. To answer your questions at the AfD, WP:BLUDGEON is when an editor constantly comments in a discussion to pressure other editors to agree with them. I was referring to Gregory, not you. And "Oi" is kinda like saying "gosh" or expressing disbelief; it's a British/Australian thing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I know you weren't referring to me. :) You did name yourself "slick" even though slick is not a noun by putting an adjective in front of it. Anyway, I don't think anyone'd be able to figure out Grace from the GracefulSlick. Bludgeon must come from beating a dead horse. I know he's commenting a lot but I think it's because no one likes to see their articles deleted. It'd be condescending if you hadn't first named yourself that. So for me now if someone calls me a peasant, it won't bother me 'cause that's what I chose for myself (after) I'd been called it. Thanks for explaining the Oi, etc. Take care TGS. the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Its noun form is #11 and it is derisive when used in its noun form, per the Urban Dictionary and I know it can be derisive but it all depends on the tone in which "slick" is said (but text doesn't give us tone). the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
the eloquent peasant, correct, I technically did name myself that but in actuality my username refers to Grace Slick; Gregory is aware of that which is why I believe he aims to belittle me. I would agree that no editor wants to see their article deleted but 2016 Hurghada attack was not created by him, nor did he seriously edit it before this AfD. He has a long history of bludgeoning AfD discussions. If you want to have something entertaining (and frustrating) to read, I can provide diffs of the several AfD discussions starring Gregory. He can be a solid editor -- unfortunately, his own personal beliefs interfere with the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL. No! My life is frustrating enough but thanks for offering! NOW I know who Grace Slick is. the eloquent peasant (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • the eloquent peasant no I -- nor anyone else -- would consider deleting the Arena bombing article. There are several policies that "draw the line" for us: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:ROUTINE, WP:10Y (you get the point). That is why I strongly urge you to consider supporting an outright redirect at the AfD. The incident does not establish a notable long-term societal impact like, say, the Arena bombing does. Since it is covered exclusively in news reports without significant post-analysis, it is a NOTNEWS article and can easily be accommodated at terrorism in Egypt or a list of terror incidents. I wouldn't necessarily consider deleting the 2017 article yet -- I treat each subject separately and it's still too soon. Send my regards to the Syrian woman; I've always wanted to speak to a person native to the Middle East for the cultural edification but umm... there is a lot of white folks where I'm from.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for answering even, after I deleted the Manchester bombing comment I made .. I deleted it because I thought it was in poor taste to even try to compare the two. Your explanations are very helpful. I changed my vote to "redirect". The Syrian lady was pleasant. the eloquent peasant (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
It was fine, you were just trying to understand the threshold so it is understandable. I am going to strike your original vote in light of the change and to avoid duplication notices. It was nice talking to you! Stop by if you need help with anything and I'll see what I can do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have time, please review and redirect the Hurghada attacks to Attacks on the Tourism of Egypt. My sincere thanks for your time. the eloquent peasant (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Level C I really wish you could have asked me or someone else to review your draft. The state of the article as it is now will require enormous cleanup. I suggest you ask an admin to userfy it for you so you can have time to improve it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Peace

I hope that you will withdraw and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson and we can both return to peaceful and civil editing.

  • @E.M.Gregory: I'm sorry I did not notice this sooner. I will not close the AfD at this time since other editors have offered differing opinions. While I'll admit I was wrong to reopen the case in the manner I did, I only closed the AfD in the first place because I felt pressured by you. This has no place at an AfD [4] and these comments are highly disrespectful [5] [6]. At no point have I ever mentioned or believed that attacks on Israelis should be considered less important. I know why you did it -- to muddy the waters at the AfD -- and you succeeded. If you truly want to commit to civil editing, close the ANI thread and remember to act more WP:CIVILy at deletion discussions. Otherwise, I'll have to defend myself at the ANI thread by displaying these diffs and more for the community to address. It would be a shame because, when your not WP:BLUDGEONing AfDs, your a useful editor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Look E.M.Gregory, you can say you haven't bludgeoned any AfDs and pretend you didn't hear several editors telling you to limit the amount of comments you post. That is fine with me. Aside from a recent PROD you removed that needs to be addressed, I'm finished with nominating terror attacks for deletion for awhile as a result of your behavior. I suggest you close the ANI thread, if not for my benefit but your own. Believe it or not, I dont have anything against you and don't want to see you blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Is that how it works? I mean, that I close it because I opened it? I thought someone else had ot close it, well, actually I didn't think about it at all. But, are you sure that my closing it would be proper procedure?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory I participate at ANI regularly. The community would not have an issue with it since you opened it and no sanctions have been considered yet. You should explain in your closing statement that the issue was resolved or no longer requires attention at ANI. If you are a little skeptical, feel free to ask an admin or experienced editor but I'm confident that a closure by you is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought that we had decided to shake hands and back off. But I woke up this morning to find myself under attack. Are you quite sure that you want to open your own behavior to the kind of mud that your have just flung at me? Are you here simply to to insure that editors who disagree with you are voted off the island?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory:, please spare me from idol threats. By all means, sling away. Remember, don't fire until you see the whites of my eyes. Or -- and I strongly recommend you choose this option -- you use this as an opportunity to carefully analyze sources from now on. As far as I am concerned, I held up my end. I admitted my mistake with the AfD and agreed to let you keep articles about non-notable incidents. But I do not recall giving you a free pass to commit BLP violations; correct me if I am wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Will-O-Bees

Do you have any information about this New York vocal trio of the 60s? They were clearly associated with Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, and recorded original versions of songs later covered by the Monkees, Mama Cass, etc. - but there is very little published info about them. I'll try and put a stub together, but if you have access to better sources, let me know. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for London Fog 1966

On 13 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article London Fog 1966, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that London Fog 1966 features the earliest known live recordings by the Doors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/London Fog 1966. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, London Fog 1966), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
positive psychedelic impact
... you were recipient
no. 1457 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacob C. White Jr.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jacob C. White Jr. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacob C. White Jr.

The article Jacob C. White Jr. you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jacob C. White Jr. for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jacob C. White Jr.

The article Jacob C. White Jr. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jacob C. White Jr. for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Alt-left

The main concept behind the edits to the alt-left article was that the term had no political exclusivity. In point of fact, I've heard the term be used in articles as a derogatory term for progressives, but it is likely also used for other factions of the political left that are left-of-center. This is typified by one of the earlier edits which mentioned its origins during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Some of the refs do seem to contradict one another, creating a confusing "chicken or the egg" situation as to which ideology originated the term and which one co-opted it. Unfortunately, Mark Miller's removals of the lead text and the paragraph that reference its origins within the Democratic Party/left to refer to other ideologues to their left undercut this explanation as a uniform slur against certain factions of the left. I think that it's important to explain the full origins of the term and how it spread between the two parties. TVTonightOKC 19:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The term does not refer to the left in general which is what is being claimed.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Mark Miller Bernie Sanders was fed up with the status quo and sought to tear it apart. Hillary Clinton and her 'Clintonites' wanted to cast Sanders supporters as not just unreasonably radical but deplorable white men who just can’t bear the thought of a female president. The Bernie Bros were exactly the people center-left Democrats were describing when they first said alt-left. They didn’t just mean the “antifa,” or anti-fascists.[1] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Molly Roberts | Washington Post, The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.3c6bb74f5a36 Liberals did. , August 17, 2017

Bernie Bro

Hello TheGracefulSlick! I just found that cited article, which referenced Bernie Bro. The article seemed to make the illusive link to alt-left and its origins. Is neutral point of view violated when using actual sources describing the wiki subject matter? Have you checked the citation? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Let us eat lettuce: yes I certainly did. You cannot use an opinion piece, even from a reliable news agency, to call these "Bernie Bros" "childish", "sexist", and "racist". The content you included was not encyclopedic in style nor was it WP:NPOV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, would an edit removing those terms, but still citing the article - is this okay? and using alt phrasing such as the word 'deplorable'... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Let us eat Lettuce: the content already provided sufficiently defines what a "Bernie Bro" is without calming them racist or deplorable. Since the basis of your edit was to include these terms, I do not know what you could use the source for.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, The purpose of edit is to make the illusive link to alt-left and its origins. I never heard of the term Bernie Bro before today. Not using word 'racist' - but instead, 'not just unreasonably radical but also deplorable white men'... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Let us eat lettuce: have you considered asking for a mentor? No offense, but by the look of your talk page and its several warnings, I would say a part of the problem is a competency issue. Although we should be careful addressing all topics, politics is one issue that we cannot afford to make too many mistakes on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, a mentor, no. I am learning how... With this, I am attempting to add the basic content that establishes alt-left as a legit wiki. Aren't you part of that one as well? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should wait for the AfD to conclude. I have explained why the content you included is not appropriate so I think we are finished here. If you need help with anything in the future, feel free to stop by.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
VG! watching the alt-left AfD. btw, I like your handleTheGracefulSlick. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Indecision

I admire your back-and-forth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Van Thyn. It demonstrates an engagement with the process and a willingness to reconsider that, alas, often does not happen. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sitush I apologize for the back-and-forth though. Both sides made some good points so I cannot in good conscience choose to keep or delete. Unfortunately, I believe some of the "keep" votes were cast because the subject is a woman. While I obviously encourage more articles about women, that alone should not excuse us from ignoring the legitimate WP:GNG concerns with the article. But the information found by SusunW also brought up the possibility of more diverse sources. So, as I said, I just do not know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a problem. What I don't like is people who kneejerk stuff, as often happens with old-timers involved with WP:ARS. Remember the old saying: "I used to be indecisive; now I'm not so sure". <g> - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Blanking page

Can you explain why you blanked March 2017 Île-de-France attacks, here: [7]?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad ping

You may, or may not, wish to return to ANI and ping the proper editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ACC needs help!

Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!

Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 04:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I was going to reply, but I think we came to the same conclusion! I am 100% guilty of the same thing, for what it's worth. Here's a goat! :D

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Originally I had this written in my comment, but, it wasn't pertinent to the proposal so moved it here. Enjoy.

On a more personal note; I'm a relatively simple person, you don't need to waste your time being sharp with comments like these; Are we passing it to you now; I hope not. We argued once, I am not going to argue with you every time we interact. I will, however, rebut assertions. Presumably, the same runs the other way with you. I can understand if you're feeling sour from our previous interaction, but, I can go from telling someone to fuck off to siding with them in a matter of minutes. That has actually happened at AN/I once. I also don't think I accused you of intentionally missing any editor from the AfD. You missed one person, had you missed four or five and they had voted the same way that might be suspicious. Missing one is not. You don't need to defend yourself from an accusation I haven't made and then ask me to AGF. I did AGF. I simply pointed out that you missed someone if you were pinging from the AfD. I don't mind if you don't want the other two editors from the RfC pinged, but, I don't think it's going to tip the balance anymore anyway.
Lastly, I'll help you out (and anybody else reading this) with a technical issue that you had (and everyone seems to have). Resigning won't fix broken pings; you have to remove your comment (both the pings and sig) and save it without them. Then edit again, put the ping back in with a new sig, and then save it again. There is a way to know whether your pings are actually being fired off properly. If you go into your preferences and go to notifications, you can turn on notifications so that you get pinged if your ping fails (Failed mention; Notify me when I could not send out a mention to someone) or succeeds (Successful mention; Notify me when I send out a mention to someone). Just tick the web box and you'll be pinged when you fail or succeed to ping someone. I use both, so am notified both when I get my pings out and when I don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologize Mr rnddude. These discussions on terror incidents have put me on edge lately. It is not you; rather it is months of incivility and accusations making me incredibly tense even, in this instance, in response to an innocent comment. I get a lot of shit for attempting to enforce the criteria for events, and I haven't ignored it as well as I should ever since I was accused of having lower standards for incidents with Jewish victims. I'll try to improve upon my behavior and, again, I sincerely apologize for the snark. By the way, thank you for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of my proposal instead of outright rejecting its merits; I will certainly apply the constructive criticism to future AfDs and RfCs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • :) No need to apologize, I am quite happy to let go of any hard feelings that I have at any given moment. I can understand your frustation. You go through the same routine arguments and no matter how much you improve the quality of your argument, people either don't read or don't care. EventCrit arguments are extremely difficult to pull off though, many people just go to eventcrit and say a) meets GNG and b) has international coverage. That is enough (for some) because "lasting impact" and "enduring historical significance" are much more difficult to measure. On top of that, when you hear the words "terror attack" it doesn't have the same routine ring to it that "murder" or "killed" does. I'll leave the rest of that, however, for the article itself. That aside, you don't need to improve your behaviour on my account though: when they go low, kick 'em in the balls cause it's still slightly higher :P. I do, again, apologize for being uncivil towards you in our previous interaction. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hiram Scott

Hello! Your submission of Hiram Scott at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Elisa.rolle (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Notre Dame attack

In closing that AFD you somehow enclosed dozens of following AFDs in the same blue shading. Could you please take a look and perhaps do a little reformatting? Thanks Edison (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Edison my apologies. I think I know what I did wrong and addressed the issue. Thank you for informing me!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your message

Hi and thanks for your message. My perspectives on how things should be are summarized at WP:IPCOLL. I have a lot of optimism as to what part Wikipedia has to play in helping the two sides understand each other.

Of course, it's not really applicable to the point you raised, because that's not two narratives for the same events, but different people focusing on different events. I have usually shied away from deletion discussions of the nature that I believe you are referring to, mostly because whether it's unbalanced or not it usually matches the weight of real-world media coverage. We could speculate as to whether and why the real-world media coverage is unbalanced on this and many other topics, but that isn't likely to be productive.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I was unaware of that page; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Your optimism actually genuinely surprised me, and I am relieved you find there is a way for both sides to understand each other.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That's nice to hear. I wrote the background section at WP:IPCOLL; if you have any comments on it they would be gratefully received. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidence submitted for Arthur Rubin case

Could I please ask you to move your comments regarding the scope of this case from your evidence to the talk page (either in a previous section or a new section, as appropriate). The scope of this case is not relevent as regards to the evidence submitted by people, hence why this request has been made. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please remove your disappointment that Arbcom have sought fit to chase me once again. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

My proposed remedy to remove tools was lost in all the shuffling. Anyway it is better if someone else proposes it. Would you mind? Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac I created a proposal with a remedy that I believe addresses the issues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Grace, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. (BTW, my username is "ansh", not "ashe" :P) Cheers, ansh666 23:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Buckingham Palace AfD

Hi, Grace, My reasons for !voting the way I did are four-fold

1. I believe the GNG, especially when combined with SUSTAINED, override NOT. I view NOT as more about the contents of an article than as deletion criteria. Most of the articles that fall under the scope of NOT lack sufficient notability to stay, so it's a bit of a circle.
2. My searches pulled up articles from August and September, which to me indicated both present and possible lasting notability, key word possible.
3 It was a non-strategic nomination. I don't believe 1 month is enough time invoke SUSTAINED, especially when RS posted on the subject as recently as 2 days ago. 3 to 6 months usually provides enough time to actually determine whether something has lasting notability. Also, waiting has a tendency to not get semi-procedural "keep" !votes from editors attending the discussion. If something has not been reported on for 60 or 90 days, you can take the wind right out of the sails of editors who say "It is too early to determine whether or not lasting notability has been conferred by RS".
4 I don't even particularly care for WP:Sustained, in part to its weak wording. It was pointed out by EM. Gregory that declaring so soon after an incident is committing Crystal Ball, which is again why I think it better to wait some months. No one is writing the shortest word about the 1986 Olympics, yet they are certainly notable. Holding everything up to the same standards as 9/11 or JFK's assassination I think to be a little unreasonable.

I hope I didn't just prove my insanity :), and thanks for asking me, L3X1 (distænt write) 13:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hiram Scott

On 25 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hiram Scott, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bluffs near where Hiram Scott died in 1828 bear his name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hiram Scott. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hiram Scott), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing is against policy?

Hi, are you saying canvassing is against Wikipedia policy, I did not know that and why would it be? Please don't try to get my in trouble for something I didn't know about. Also I have upgrading my article with reliable sources, so it should be more acceptable now. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: please see the canvassing policy. Blackmane (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Davidgoodheart I was too blunt with my warning, but yes canvassing is a big no-no and you did it with two different editors. Your messages were written with intent -- an intent to persuade the editors to react in a certain way. I am not going to report you; just do not do it again now that you are familiar with canvassing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for understanding that I did not know and I will know for next time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lydia Zvereva

Hello! Your submission of Lydia Zvereva at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Be Careful What You Fish For

Be careful what you wish for, such as give me policy, or give me death, especially when 'wishing' on a terrorist related discussion, on the anniversary of "a day that will live in imfamy". … … … ps … Never forget, during times of stress, "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me". Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Clovis shooting

I see your point, but unless I put such articles on my watchlist & then revisit the nom ain't gonna happen. As a Brit I'm surprised that this is considered a 'mass shooting', I thought the bar was (tragically) much higher in the US. Which is why I nominated.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

TheLongTone I'll watch the article and nominate it myself in about six months if no lasting impact is established by then. Would you like to be pinged if such a discussion takes place? And, yes, I believe, to be considered a "mass shooting" by the FBI, four or more people must be killed indiscriminately but some editors sometimes use another other definition: a shooting which results in four or more casualties (deaths and injuries) overall.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if you nominate it again let me know. How this got kept is beyond me...TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

ARS

In my experience, members of WP:ARS tend often to disregard common sense and wikilawyer to the extreme. I've come to the conclusion that they're often timesinks, which is when I walk away. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Very true Sitush. Unfortunately, I need some of their support at AfDs or else the inevitable outcome is "no consensus" -- in other words, "no progress". Take this AfD I am currently dealing with: a complete timesink when my rationale, in my opinion, is well-constructed. Perhaps I should come to the same conclusion as you and walk away more often.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not sure of the no consensus = no progress formula. (I've never been able to explain my thoughts about this very well but my gut has always told me that a no consensus outcome should result in deletion rather than retention. I would appear to be in a minority but, imo, the onus is on those seeking retention to establish that the article does in fact comply with policies, guidelines etc and, if in doubt, it should go. I don't understand why the conservative approach adopted for BLP issues should not apply more generally. It is far, far too easy for people to game retention and there are some very respected Wikipedians who, knowingly or otherwise, achieve that effect with what appear to be rather non-compliant comments that, for example, "there must be sources out there somewhere". One of them is currently an arbitrator. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Lydia Zvereva

On 1 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lydia Zvereva, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lydia Zvereva (pictured) was the first Russian woman to earn a pilot's license? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lydia Zvereva. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lydia Zvereva), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 04:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox on Biographies

Hi Grace! Out of curiosity, can I ask why you don't like putting infoboxes in biographies you create? I have noticed quite a few people like you that don't and I am curious why? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 no particular reason. I suppose I like letting the text speak for itself and no one has ever had an issue with it; I even wrote a biographical GA (Jacob C. White Jr.) without an infobox. However, there are several cases where I do include infoboxes for biographies: Harmonica Fats, Jim Zapp, Roy Hall, etc. I wish I had a more definitive answer for you but it is rather hopeless to try and analyze my insanity!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Self-aware insanity, the best kind!  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Marseille stabbing

Hi the article should be delete. Have you got an opinion ? --Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Limey and their albums

The AfD has been closed before I could make this comment, but just to let you know... I went to the British Library today and had a good look through Music Week, NME and Sounds from the mid-70s... I found out that the Silver Eagle album you originally put up for AfD was released in February 1977, but I couldn't find a single thing regarding the band during the time periods that I believe the two albums were released – no articles, no interviews, no album reviews, not even an ad in any of the magazines promoting their releases... no wonder the band never troubled the nation's consciousness with such a poor advertising campaign by RCA. If the band itself ever comes up for AfD again the focus will have to be on verifying the sources that duffbeerforme came up with, because it doesn't look like the music press of the time will provide us with anything. Without doubt the albums fail notability, seeing as there appear to be no reviews at all of either of them. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I understand that you are a deletionist with a grudge. But stay off my talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

BabbaQ I understand you are an inclusionist without a clue. But stay off my talk page. If you are not here with civil intentions or with a drive to improve your behavior, you are sadly not welcome. I hope you can turn that around soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad edit

This edit made impossible to revert an earlier edit where the genre was "fixed". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing people

I got into a spot of bother recently re: publicising AfDs of missing people articles. The argument was that there is no project and thus such nominations can fall under the radar. For that reason, I mentioned my latest nomination at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously, which is a central point of some merit for those that have an interest in such articles. Of course, it has meant that I'm "losing" the argument at the AfD but it is a practice that you might consider if you nominate any more such things yourself, as I see you have done in the last weekk. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, apologies for the belated response. I will absolutely mention any nominations related to missing persons to that page but I think I will hold off on any new nominations for the time being. I am afraid I have not made a new friend and should let them have time to cool off. Just curious, do you have this list watchlisted or do you specialize in missing persons articles? In the short time I have interacted with you at AFD, I find your responses thoughtful, even if it you were in the minority, and would certainly encourage your regular involvement in crime-related AFDs in general.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why I hatted the discussion

I follow 2017 on my watchlist. I saw a provocative edit summary and investigated the edit associated with the edit summary. When I looked at it, the first thing I saw was one editor accusing another editor of lying (on TRM's page, you said he was "well composed". Far from it if you asked me). And another editor being hideously sarcastic. The discussion needed to stop. It was going nowhere and, had it continued, it would have resulted in a lot of vitriol from TRM and Jim without changing anyone's mind.

I am not going to respond to criticisms about my behavior on TRM's talk page. If you want to discuss my behavior, that discussion belongs on your talk page or on my talk page. pbp 01:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 you mean this??? "Provocative"; good grief, that's all it takes? Let me ask you this: if Jim Michael "assured you" that your friends "would mark you out as unusual, unwanted and unpopular" for having an intellectual conversation about a recent tragic event, and you know for a fact that is not true, what would you call it? An untruth? Obviously, TRM was offended by the fallacious insight into his social life by someone I presume he has never met (nor would he ever want to), and let him know it was a lie. Want to send a warning about civility or appropriate talk page behavior? Send it to Jim for that distasteful remark, not the person who stood up for themselves.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If you believe Jim deserves a TP warning, be my guest. I'm not defending what he does. Heck, I'd probably support you if you started a discussion to T-Ban Jim. The nice thing about the hatting remedy is that it prevents either side from escalating. Additional discussion between TRM and Jim is clearly not going to change either's mind. As for how I'd word it, I might have left out the "Another lie" fragment at the beginning. Or maybe I'd have just ignored Jim.
I'll admit that my original wording of the hat might not have been the best. Maybe even warning him on his talk page wasn't the best (though that was your idea). But I stand 110% behind the idea that the discussion was unproductive and needed to be stopped. That is irrespective of blame for how it got there.
pbp 02:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89 yet you never condemned Jim's behavior. I'm sorry but I call a spade a spade, and I call what I saw as an opportunity to remind TRM of his restriction just to watch how he would react. Caveat emptor with you: you are seeking out drama with TRM and I do not approve. This isn't even the first time you two had issues, and I can recall your proposals at Arthur Rubin's arbcom case that were contrary to the evidence provided just to drag TRM through the mud. Please let go of whatever grudge you have with him. He isn't going anywhere.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, you saw what you want to see. Whatever. It's not what actually happened and you're going out of your way to defend an editor who can't get along with anyone and will eventually have to be indeffed, but whatever. pbp 03:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, this has been unpleasant. He gets along with me just fine. And I do recall a stream of support when he returned from his block. I'll always defend a fellow editor who works in the encyclopedia's best interests. And like I said, TRM isn't going anywhere. Goodbye.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You are causing me much grief Grace

Hi Grace, I will be as respectful and as honest to you as I can as I am that type of person. I will also admit that I have been wrong with two things that I have recently done thus being canvassing and sock-puppetting, which I only recently found out about as I never did read what rules are on this - honest I didn't! I will also admit that some of my articles were not well sourced and did warrant deletion. That is as far as I will go on that, now I would like to say that of some of my articles which I have spent much time on and that you have had deleted is causing me much frustration and upset. Recently I have not written a single article on a missing person and I don't see why I should if someone is just going have it deleted. Writing articles on missing people is something I really like to do, which is now being taken away from me, and I am seriously considering giving up editing Wikipedia completely, as who knows what might get deleted next. The fact you state on your page "Welcome to my talk page my brothers and sisters" indicates to me that you are a warm person and that you care about others. So then tell me please (this is NOT a guilt trip - honest!) how do you feel that you are really upsetting me and that fact that I may give up editing Wikipedia completely in the future and that you are a major reason for that make you feel, and do you care at all about how I feel about this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart I am sorry you are feeling frustrated but I do not feel I should be to blame. If you take the time to read the nomination statements and delete votes at those AFDs, you will understand why there has been near unanimous (excluding you) support for deletion. Instead of quitting Wikipedia, you can understand what constitutes for a notable subject: secondary coverage, persistence of coverage, and the depth of said coverage -- all of which is discussed in WP:EVENTCRIT. As other editors have said before, if you believe those conclusions at AFD were mistaken deletion review is available. Other than that, I do not know what else to tell you; if I have reasonable credence that an article fails notability guidelines -- and editors agree at AFD -- it may be time to look at the editor writing the articles, not the one nominating them for deletion in a standard process. It truly is nothing personal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

International reactions to...

Grace I would stick with low key events for deletion candidates. A lot of the deletions you are doing I agree on but there is this line that I wish could be explained better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 will do. Honestly, I did not believe the Charlie Hebo shooting was so drastically considered more significant than any of the other incidents -- some of which resulted in a much higher death toll and response -- I nominated and saw deleted. Apparently, according to some editors, it is a grade below 9/11. I unfortunately believe editors are voting based on the notability of the shooting rather than the reactions; regardless, I will take your advice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe people are getting confused with Je suis Charlie which can also be considered a reaction to the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Confused

Hi TheGracefulSlick, am I correct in assuming that this edit was a mistake, as the edit you reverted was to correct style and not to add content? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes DeFacto, it was a mistake. I meant to remove the Charlottesville attack from the list because there was no consensus for its inclusion. I will readjust the style when I have more time later today if it is not fixed by then.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of J. P. Crawford

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article J. P. Crawford you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Judy Johnson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Judy Johnson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of J. P. Crawford

The article J. P. Crawford you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:J. P. Crawford for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of J. P. Crawford

The article J. P. Crawford you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:J. P. Crawford for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Judy Johnson

The article Judy Johnson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Judy Johnson for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Judy Johnson

The article Judy Johnson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Judy Johnson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alton C. Parker

On 22 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alton C. Parker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alton C. Parker was the first black police detective in Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alton C. Parker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alton C. Parker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Litter

Checking that page after listening to "Action Woman" last night, I noticed the reference in the infobox to "David Strange". Rechecking today it seems it was a name you added here. Who was he? I don't think it was vandalism, but it may have been an error. Anyway, I've replaced it now with Bill Strandlof's name. If I've got it wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bongo Joe Coleman

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bongo Joe Coleman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bongo Joe Coleman was distinguished by a drum set fabricated from 55-gallon oil drums? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bongo Joe Coleman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bongo Joe Coleman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TheGracefulSlick. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Markelle Fultz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All-Pac-12 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nighthawk

I have my suspicions that Nighthawk is a sockpuppet of another editor, who he sometimes follows into battle. Some of his reverts seem to be antagonistic. I'll keep an eye on what follows. Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick/Archive_2&oldid=1139351939"