When moving pages please ensure that you create disambig pages/fix incoming links etc. GiantSnowman 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any reason why you aborted your attempt to AFD the footballer? GiantSnowman 19:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atalanta. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

in working on User:Doug Weller/Draft:Goyim Defense League? I think the network's recent activities have made it notable.[1][2] Doug Weller talk 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Doug Weller. The subject certainly meets the notability criteria. And the draft seems fine. I'd suggest you hoist it up at your convenience. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello The Gnome,

I hope I don't come across as too grumpy here, but - can I convince you to withdraw the RFC you made? As others have pointed out, it seems designed to ensure that if any change happens, it happens exceedingly slowly, or that the proposal entirely fails for being uselessly vague. With all respect, you should not have been the one to reopen this discussion - that burden should be on advocates of a change. Procedural listings are fine when the locus of action is obvious (e.g. AFD), but not for this case. I'm in favor of removing Portal links but I can't even blame people voting against this proposal because it doesn't say what it's going to do, which is a major violation of what would make a good RFC.

Finally I recognize that you were probably trying to do a good deed to kick the process forward after JBchrch said he wouldn't be filing the next round of the RFC himself, but you know what they say about no good deed goes unpunished... SnowFire (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Seeing how it's playing out, I have to concur. Could you please withdraw the RfC before it becomes any messier? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Thanks for the input, SnowFire and Sdkb. I'm withdrawing the RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already explained to you several times why copy editing articles in a manner that leaves uncited paragraphs or changes direct quotes is counterproductive. The question is why do you keep doing this again and again? On a separate note inserting footnotes to the lede goes contrary to WP:LEDE. I believe that an editor with 15 years under their belt should know better than that. If you continue to copyedit articles in a disruptive manner I will have no option but to go to ANI.--Catlemur (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First of all, Catlemur, calm down. I'm at a loss as to what you're on about. First, I added wikilinks to the article's opening paragraph: Nothing in WP:MOSLEAD against that; on the contrary, it's standard practice. Second, the change for which you're complaining (and threatening me with "going to the administrators' noticeboard") is dated 17 February 2022: After your explaining here, on the 26th, the error of my editing, I simply let your correction in place. There has been no editing from my part since that time except for this one, which is entirely unrelated to your previous objections. There has been no change from "direct quotes." I have, as it happens, Wilson's tome, among other authors' works, on the Thirty Year War, and do follow strictly the sources' texts.

A final note, in case that is the crux of your complaint (I'm guessing, perforce): The phrases shouted by the conspirators while rushing into the dining room as well as the responses by the conspirators already in the room are not consistently denoted across the aforementioned works. The relevant articles, and particularly the article on the assassination itself, should reflect that, instead of offering as definite merely one source's content. -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, why are you talking about wikilinks, when the issue I pointed out in your most recent edit to the Trčka von Lípa article was about footnotes? Then you proceed to claim that a diff from 4 March 2022 is dated to 17 February 2022. The crux of my complaint was never the change of direct quote, but lets address that as well. I also have Wilson's book an you can see here that it is indeed a direct quote. Now the argument that the phrases shouted are documented differently in various sources is a fair one, but you cannot go about changing the quote without changing the accompanying footnote. I will repeat my main point for what seems to be the 4th time. If you want to split a fully cited article's paragraphs for whatever reason, add the accompanying footnotes so that no paragraph is left uncited.--Catlemur (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is, for me, getting tiring. Let's try to go gordian: Do you find anything objectionable with the article Assassination of Wallenstein, and particularly the section titled "Massacre," as it now stands? -The Gnome (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea why you keep changing topics. Had I had any objections about the Assassination of Wallenstein I would have raised them. Just please stop disrupting the referencing of articles I have written, that's it.--Catlemur (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best I can fathom from this exchange is that, in the course of me changing (trying to improve) the text format of the articles in question, e.g. separating sections, etc, some referencing might have been lost. I do not understand how this happened but I trust your testimony that this was indeed the case. Well, I'm sorry if this has happened and the only further contribution I intend to make to these Wallenstein-related articles is consolidate the information we have about the details of the killings, as such, on the basis of available sources. By the way, as you know, I'm not the first contributor to suggest you adopt a calmer tone of coversation here. (See the same suggestion by The Banner.) For instance, the admin. board should be a kind of last refuge and not an authority to which we resort so easily. Anyway, one indication for the reason you're getting excited about all this could be your words "articles I have written". Though I sincerely salute your eagerness to safequard the articles' accuracy, titles, and so on, I remind you that we do not own any Wikipedia article whatsoever, no matter how important our contributions to them. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with text conversations is that its impossible for people to understand what my real demeanor is. Both The Banner and you have incorrectly assumed that I am angry for one reason or another. I mentioned ANI only after I had to repeat the same thing 4 times only for you to completely miss the point I was making. I assumed good faith repeatedly but after some point it just becomes a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Since you implied that I am practicing article ownership, I will clarify another obvious thing: If you continue to disrupt the referencing of articles I have never edited without an adequate explanation I will still go to ANI. Farewell.--Catlemur (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not imply anything; merely offered a potential explanation for your evident anger. You're of course free to do as you choose. Intense work, such as the (actually admirable and many) contributions you've made to historical articles, often makes the parties behind them intolerant of what they perceive to be low-quality work of others. But maybe there's some other cause; I don't know. In any case, your repetition of threats is hereby and categorically rejected as offensive and unacceptable, and, as a first step, I demand that you refrain from any further, direct communication with me. Anything you want to raise in the future that is related to me and my humble contributions here take it to the authorities. I have no time for squabbles. Fare thee well. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the second time you claim others are evil based on nothing. Be aware that going to AN/I can result in meeting a boomerang. The Banner talk 10:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TG, would you look into the John Lott move and the loss of the archive? A new one has just been created but I believe a previous one was lost. As an example this edit/discussion is not in the current archive [3]. Thanks Springee (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Greetings, Springee. I see that the archiving was performed by lowercase sigmabot III. I believe you should take this up with Σ, its operator. This is a rather important issue, since we place full trust in bots to perform such routine tasks automatically. -The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What a royal mess that discussion has turned out to be. An episode that's truly disappointing to the people who admire and support the Wikipedia project. For the record. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello The Gnome. I didn't even realize that the John Lott page move editor was an Admin. I note that, despite the protests they did not respond in any constructive way or even with respectful dissent. I wonder whether it's worth nominating them for desysop or at least a stiff sanction of some sort? What do you think? SPECIFICOtalk 12:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, SPECIFICO. Is one episode on its own enough for the removal of admin privileges or even for a sanction? I don't know. The rejection of such a nomination would perhaps make furher ones more difficult. It might be better to try and reason with that specific admin in his talk page. Thanks for the input in that issue. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's surely not a good use of our real-life time to pursue a desysop. But they had several opportunities to respond and chose not to do so. There's no doubt in my mind the project would be better off w.o. such behavior empowered by the Admin tools. Who knows what they might do next? I have not looked at their history. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have put in to said admin a request to reconsider their stance here, SPECIFICO. -The Gnome (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from "The Best Sex Ever", which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Already did. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a non-atypical dispute over the content of a BLP with two other editors, one of them found it appropriate to place a DSA on this page. So

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

No mention of r/chessmemes

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlsen%E2%80%93Niemann_controversy&type=revision&diff=1112511256&oldid=1112496985

BUT no mention of r/anarchychess

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlsen%E2%80%93Niemann_controversy&type=revision&diff=1112514544&oldid=1112514195

Fair?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AviationFreak#Good_compromise!

Thewriter006 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is about the Carlsen–Niemann controversy. As I mentioned elsewhere, our personal experience and knowledge does not count as a reliable source, here in Wikipedia, and without reliable sources we are nowhere. I do not want to participate any further in this sorry pseudo-saga. Better await the dust to settle. Godspeed. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm looking for some help to review a draft article for the online poker room operator GGPoker. I'm not sure if you saw my posts to Wikiproject Poker or Wikiproject Gambling, since it looks like you're a member of both, but full disclosure: I work for NSUSLab, GGPoker's platform developer and have a financial conflict of interest, and I'm looking for feedback on this draft article for GGPoker from editors with relevant experience. The initial draft was declined, and it has since been edited but feedback has been difficult to come by.

If you could provide any feedback, positive or negative, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time! Chris H (GGPoker) (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added Age to Template:Infobox boxing match, and updated the documentation following the result of an RfC you started (Template talk:Infobox boxing match#RfC about fighter age).

I've put ages into the infobox on the article Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao. --- Tbf69 P • T 14:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ι do not see the RfC closed yet, though, Tbf69 . -The Gnome (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Legobot archived it, hence I believed it was closed --- Tbf69 P • T 22:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A request for a formal closure has been tabled. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The RfC has been de facto closed. The contestants age is to be present in every article's text and infobox. -The Gnome (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, The Gnome. Thank you for your work on Murder of Rita Curran. User:PopePompus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good article! There are some sentences which contain longish phrases identical to news accounts. It is *possible* that someone might flag these as copyright violations. You might want to reword some sentences that seem to contain significant copy-pastes from news articles. Other than that quibble, it looks very clean.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|PopePompus)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

PopePompus (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Re|PopePompus)) Thanks for the remark. I checked the sources once more. The words within quotation marks are mostly public statements by persons involved in the affair. As such, they are not copyrighted, and, besides, they are very few. Perhaps there are some longish phrases that are close to identical to sources' prose but I've already amended as much as I saw fit to do. If anyone feels the text can be improved in his area, one should by all means give it a go. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All our thanks for improving the statements of the journalist of El País about European Super League: your edition is excellent and shows the concern of many AraceliLaLiga (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, AraceliLaLiga. I do personally have an opinion about the ESL project in all its dimensions, e.g. the existence within the EU of a market closed to competition, the evident need to protect the well-being of football clubs beyond the most rich and powerful, the fans' (customers') sentiments on the matter, and so on. In any case, I'm obliged to clarify and state that my contributions to the relevant lemma are not, in any shape, manner, or form, affected by personal considerations. All I'm trying to do, in my limited capability, is improve the text in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've got a weird situation where the unreliable internet sources like findagrave are reporting his death but the mainstream sources are not. I asked about thearticle.com, a right wing source that publishes mostly opinion pieces. Please see this thread. IMO this kind of thing makes wikipedia a laughing stock so I'm not going to revert your update, but if anyone does revert it they have policy on their side. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the input, MaxBrowne2. I was unaware of the discussion to which you linked. I consider the author of the report on Eley's death as a quite reliable source herself. The fact that her report was published in a relatively little known outlet should take a back seat in our consideration, since the text has been accurately posted up. (Besides, there is nothing political about the report. Some editors seem worried about "right-wing bias" but that would be entirely irrelevant in the context of a chess master's death.) Plus, there has been no doubt raised anywhere about our subject's passing, since the report was published. The best course, I believe is to allow the current text to stand and keep looking for additional sources: For all its sporadic explosions of fame, the chess world remains a rather esoteric universe. -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, speedy keep is not possible when there are delete !votes besides the nominator. Could you please revert? Thanks JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, JoelleJay. Done. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just for information: That AfD ended with a Keep decision. -The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello The Gnome

Hope you don't mind my dropping in on your Talk page, but I was after a clarification of your comment about my proposed compromise wording and didn't want to clutter up the thread with multiple sub-discussions. Are you suggesting that the Info Box section on the Big Three should have no dates at all but should have footnotes with a description of who declared war on whom and who signed a formal alliance with whom? Or are you suggesting that it should have no dates at all, should have no footnotes, and all discussion of who declared war on whom, and who signed an alliance with whom, should be in the main body of the article? Or are you suggesting something else?

Also, like it or not, there is a sentence in the lead which currently says, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union." How do you think it should be worded? Thanks. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Aemilius Adolphin.The 1st choice, with footnotes in the Infobox describing who declared war on whom and who signed a formal alliance with whom, would be unwieldy for the box's short space, while that very lack of space could inhibit the transmission of complete/accurate information. To repeat my overall position: the establishment of the Allied camp is not as clear-cut as some sources have it! The 2nd choice is the best, imvho: dates and info abt joining combat/start of cooperation/agreements to be confined in the main body of the article.

The sentence in the lead contains erroneous information. It should either be deleted or phrased as follows: "The Soviet Union, in application of the nonaggression pact it had signed with Germany, invaded Poland on 17 September 1939." That should be all. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the clarification. All the best. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very happy to discuss on the Talkpage but please do that rather than edit war, as per BRD. A simple Google search will provide you with multiple instances of the film being described as a satire, e.g. [4][5][6][7][8] Evoking has a rather different meaning. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree quite profoundly with your personal assessment of what is evidently one of the greatest films of all time, KJP1. Kane, per sources, is, if anything, much more that a "satire." Before seeing your message here, I reverted your edit and left a message on your Talk Page. I suggest you start an RfD or an RfC on the talk page of Hearst Castle if you still feel strongly enough that Kane was a satire. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve undone your change. The status quo at the time, and at the article’s promotion to GA, was to use “satire”. Please do what policy and guidance suggest. Take the discussion to the article’s Talkpage and seek to gain consensus for your proposed change. The onus is on you, not me. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've now spent a day and a half, and absolute walls of text, arguing over a word. To repeat that, a single word. You don't like "satirized" and I don't like "evoked". You're now working on your response. In my judgement, you likely won't achieve the outcome you want. What will occur is the generation of further walls of text. So, my suggestion. Choose another word. From the list I've suggested, or one of your own. If I possibly can, I will support its use. Then we can both head off and do other, more productive, things. KJP1 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I try to put across my point of view, supported by sources, policy, and guidelines, to the best of my ability, and, after making sure I did, possibly through numerous postings, I then try to distance myself and allow the conversation to develop. This is my way, KJP1, especially when it comes to discussions of any level that I've initiated myself. It's time to abide by that way, so I do not visit anymore the RfC page. I may do so after enough time has passed to look up the outcome -The Gnome (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You’ll see that is absolutely no agreement with your viewpoint. Perhaps you could now attempt a gracious retreat by acknowledging this, and moving on. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no intention of getting back to that issue, KJP1. I've already moved on. This thread is now closed. -The Gnome (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest in personal attacks, this one with a double shot in both text and edit summary, was removed. -The Gnome (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I contest your accusation as unfounded and insulting. And I challenge you to provide your evidence. My often expressed take on the infamous "infobox wars" stands: The positions taken by both sides is often extravagant and sometimes funny; but the hatred exhibited by some editors against infoboxes, in general, verges on the pathological. You already have a chequered past, so I'd suggest you keep calm, and assume good faith from your Wikipedia colleagues. You're already bludgeoning one ongoing discussion abt infoboxes. -The Gnome (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please avoid phrasing like borderline pathological when discussing other editors' behavior, especially if you're commenting on a topic that already breeds difficult discussions. There are plenty of ways to communicate your point without using language that will only raise the temperature and can easily be read as uncivil. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no way I'll use again that phrase, seeing the reaction it caused.

P.S. I wonder if there is a way of getting away from the constant friction on infoboxes. Methinks, we should either do away with them completely or allow them uncontested. But I have no idea how that can be achieved. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello The Gnome - I came across this image of Father Gapon at Bloody Sunday that you uploaded in 2016. I was wondering if you can tell me where it is from? I can see the URL referred to, but that isn't working (for me, anyway). I'm trying to discern if it's a legit photo or if it's a sketch that has been turned into a photo (I'm a High School History teacher). Many thanks for your help. Gripgirl Gripgirl (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, Gripgirl. I honestly cannot remember. I'll try and dig into my archives, though. I'd almost forgotten that particular image. -The Gnome (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! Gripgirl (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original url must've been forwarded to me by someone, perhaps in education, but I just cannot trace who. And it seems to have gone dead on me as well. -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, The Gnome

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]