This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gonzonoir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Lifetime is not about to be deleted. Yobot and SmackBot are replacing existent occurrences to minimise problems. You can still use Lifetime to new articles, although I would recommend you to use the new susbt-only {{ltm}} to save bots' effort in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to any talkpage stalkers: I've been reading WP:RFA and concluded it would be wise to identify the account I used when I first visited Wikipedia. I made around a dozen edits before losing interest; when I wanted to return I couldn't remember the password, and created a new account. The old account was User:Molly Doonesbury, which has a clean block log and received no warnings. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I was just wondering why I can't find the page I created (and that you edited) on the first page of a google or yahoo search for congenital ..., like how most wikipedia pages show up when you search for an item. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmlevy 99 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - glad it helped.
As for Google search. The new article has been indexed by Google: you can find it if you search for "Congenital dyserythropoietic anemia " wikipedia in Google. But it may take a while for the new article to gain PageRank, the score Google uses to decide where in the list of search results to rank each web page. If there are other heavily-trafficked pages matching the search term, it could take some time to climb to the top. (I created an article a couple of months ago and it's still being held off the Google Search top spot by a blog post and a biographical database :) ).
There's only really one (above-board) thing you could do to affect the Google ranking, but happily that one thing is good Wikipedia practice anyway: find some other Wikipedia articles that should contain wikilinks to Congenital dyserythropoietic anemia and "build the web" by creating those internal links. Try this:
Search for the term in Wikipedia: you'll find several other articles that already mention congenital dyserythropoeitic anemia.
Click on one of the results, and click the "edit" link at the top of the page.
Find the place in the text of the article you're editing that mentions CDA.
Add double square brackets around the text "congenital dyserythropoeitic anemia" in the article.
Preview and save your changes: you've just created a wikilink. Now it's easier for other readers to find the new article; the more inbound links and readers the article gets, the quicker it will climb the Google search results.
call me Mr Grumpy, but we are not here so our articles show up on Google searches. We are here to build an encyclopaedia. Please keep that in mind. If you want to masturbate over your Google presence, can you do it elsewhere? Your Wikipedia talk pages are part of Wikipedia. SimonTrew (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood - the person I was discussing with had a technical question about why a new article wasn't appearing in Google. It was an article on a scientific topic, not a biography or company profile; no one's personal Google presence is at stake. The advice I gave was on how to insert wikilinks to deorphan the article, part of "building the web" - a Wikipedia guideline. Perhaps you'd like to retract your "masturbation" comment? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I did very much go wrong there. My sincere apologies. I was searching an article for translation with absolutely no reference and notabilty and the only thing that came up was your name. Rather intemperately I then left the message I said, oh great you have a Google hit. It was out of anger and frustration which I can only apologise for. I am very sorry. I thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I am sorry I was in such a bad mood, and should not have done it. Thank you also for your very temperate reply. SimonTrew (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem - you're obviously not a troll, so I was a bit boggled to get called a wanker out of the blue ;) If you let me know which article you were trying to source/establish notability for, I'd be very willing to help if you'd like. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! I hope it works out. I did fact-checking in real life for a while, so phoning people up is always my fallback :) I've known several archivists very sympathetic to the WP cause; here's hoping you get one who's willing to send an official email. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you Spanish? I'm learning English at the moment so I think it's a good idea to practise English by translating articles here. --Jeneme (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm British - I took a couple of years of Spanish in school, but am nowhere near the standard for contributing to an encyclopedia. Just let me know if you ever want help copyediting something you've written or translated. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
On October 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Child Is Born (book), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Regarding your revert, why did you revert it?
He made a claim. I told him to supply supporting evidence. He supplied it.
Albiet he doesn't know the difference between {{xxx}} and [http://xxx], and it sounds like a dubious site, but it is supporting evidence for his claim.
Inexperienced editors may not produce ideal results, but it isn't vandalism ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes - I was indeed too quick and failed to assume good faith. I was on recent changes patrol; the edit involved the replacement of the contents of a maintenance tag with an apparently abusive URL, sans edit summary, by an editor with no previous contributions (I guess s/he is on a dynamic IP). I'm also not sure that mitsubishisucks.com meets our reliable source requirements. But I made the wrong call, and my edit summary was unfair - apologies. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"I'm also not sure that mitsubishisucks.com meets our reliable source requirements." - Indeed! (As I said: "and it sounds like a dubious site".) However, one has to be a little careful - at least he responded to the request that was made of him to supply supporting evidence! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
unfortunate
that article could of helped allot of people, unfortunately you have deleted it. Now many people in serious need will need to sift through a massive amount of data to find the information. However feel good since you wiped out an article that you probably know nothing about the subject but are following the rules as you see them. What you don't get is how the stages of change work, if someone saw that article that is at the point of asking for help and found a centre close to their home that worked for them they might of gotten help, or they might slip back into pre-contemplation and not look for help for a long period of time, hopefully it won't be to late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew1962 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) oh by the way, my "original research" involved me being a patient at 6 of the clinics I listed.
I'm sorry you're disappointed. As I said on your talk page, the Top 10 drug rehabs in the world article was deleted as original research designed to promote some businesses, which means that it didn't fit Wikipedia's remit as an encyclopedia of neutral, verifiable content. If you contact StephenBuxton, the admin who actually deleted the article, he may be willing to send you a copy of the text you wrote. Then you can try posting it at one of the other resources I pointed you to: on one of those, the information will be just as available to people who might need it as it would have been here. Best wsihes. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I've changed the CSD for this one to “vandalism”. Very strange citation from “Elvis Malkovitch” (known to Google…:) and the general style indicate that this article was produced with the well known random essay generator. Skarebo (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds wise. I was innocent of the random essay generator til you just mentioned it, and assumed the article writer was operating on some special cognitive plane all of his own... Gonzonoir (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick note that since the license switch, any GFDL-only licensed text added to Wikipedia after 1 November 2008 can no longer be accepted. Best, – Toon17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carolyn Stait, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi,
Just noticed that your friend had put up a Good faith edit on your userpage.Pls ask him to use the talk page instead, because typing on another users userpage is recognized as a form of Vandalism by huggle.
Thanks...
AruNKumaRTalK11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I will. As you may have seen I removed the template warning you'd added to his talk page, since (in the context of a conversation I had been having with him) I believe the edit was indeed intended in good faith, and was not unconstructive. Thanks for looking out for my userpage, though! Gonzonoir (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The "unconstructive" part: it was a toss-up between the bit where you used the article to report on the digestive issues of teenage named individuals, the bit where you claimed an Australian child ran for president of the United States, the bit where you falsely attributed a criminal record to a named minor, and the uncited attributions of coprophilia to named living people. Any clearer? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Undid a bit of sneaky vandalism to your talk page
Hi there. A somewhat problematic editor, Special Operations (talk·contribs), has left a question at the top of your talk page. At the same time he made some rather "nonconstructive" alterations to other parts of the page. I took the liberty of repairing these and gave him a final warning. Favonian (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
lol, Glad to hear. Which reminds me, would it be a bother for you to copyedit "A Rugrats Chanukah." I'm hoping on getting it at FAC after Dan Povenmire's nomination ends and also hope to get it on one of the days of Hanukkah, which is just a month away. Thanks in advance! :) The Flash{talk}00:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I, ThinkBlue, hereby award Gonzonoir the Copyeditor's Barnstar for a phenomenal copy-edit on Ethan Hawke's article, as it was promoted to Featured article status, without it it wouldn't have passed, but your work made the difference, so thank you, it's really appreciated. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry for my late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late, late, reply. I've been quite busy and been wanting to thank you for quite a while now, so now I get to do it. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've you're not busy, which I'm pretty sure you are, is there a way that you can copy-edit Brad Pitt's article, in your free time? You did such an awesome job with Ethan Hawke, I was wondering if you can do the same with Pitt's. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I may not get to it today (I'm doing fast-paced, relatively brainless stuff on here to decompress from RL), but will definitely have time before the weekend. (Though feel free to ask someone else if you need it done sooner.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, RL is RL, it's understandable. Though, would it be cool if you did it after another user copy-edits the article? See, I didn't know if you were going to reply to my message, cause I saw your contributions and you hadn't logged on since Nov. 19, so I asked another user. I left the message in case the user declined to go over the article, but the user agreed. Would it be cool if you did it after his? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)16:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gonzonoir, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Robert Gray (writer) has been removed. It was removed by JamieS93 with the following edit summary 'declined PROD, article has been deleted via [[WP:PROD]] in the past, so please initiate an [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussion instead'. Please consider discussing your concerns with JamieS93 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to proofread again?
Hey,
you helped me with the article Gymnasium (Germany) a time ago. I've included some new stuff in that article (Wiki is quite addictive, isn't it?) and I hoped you probably would like to proofread it again and aslo tell me if I presented both sides in a fair light. That would be very nice of you. I am done with the article now, so that will be the last time you'll ever have tro do this. Thanks.--212.201.82.174 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - yes, I'll gladly proofread. I'll start on it tomorrow. Sopry for the slow reply, I've just been finishing up a project. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Gonzonoir. You have new messages at Andyzweb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sure. Essentially, the notability criteria are a set of rules we use to decide whether a subject qualifies to have an article in Wikipedia. Our goal, as an encyclopedia, is not to include articles about every subject imaginable: instead, we can only accept articles about subjects that have already received a certain level of coverage in independent publications. So, for example, we don't have an article about the Sunday League football team I play for, because it hasn't been written about in books, newspapers, and so on, but we do have one about the Premiership club I support, because it's the subject of thousands of books, news stories, and so on. This rule - that subjects merit an article only if they've already received substantial coverage in reliable sources elsewhere - is called the notability guideline. I nominated NSGP Championship for deletion because I couldn't find any books, newspaper articles, or similar that mentioned the NGSP Championship - meaning it didn't appear to meet the notability requirements.
Now, if you think there are books or news articles about the NSGP, and that I'm therefore wrong about it failing the notability rule, just let me know where to find them and we can add references to them in the article. But if you agree that there are no such books or newspaper articles, but you want to raise the NSGP's profile and/or provide information for people who are interested, you should take a look at this list of other sites that are rather like Wikipedia but don't share our notability rule, where you could contribute an article without having to worry about this rule.
Lastly, I see you've been around on Wikipedia for a while, so sincere apologies if you know all this already and I've misunderstood your question. Just let me know if you have any other questions. All the best, Gonzonoir (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I looked at that link, however they are all themed wikis (i.e Star Wars) is there any that isn't themed where i can post about the NSGP championship? Peter-27 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw those, but can't seem to create a template/infobox on those and i want one like i have on the current wikipedia article. Peter-27 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
These other sites are rubbish, they don't even have the flags!! I'm guessing there is no way i can keep my article on wikipedia due to a lack of notability? Peter-27 (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the articles' status is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSGP Championship, but if a consensus is reached there that the subject doesn't meet notability requirements then they will indeed be deleted. You could ask for help achieving the effects you get here in, say, Gaming Wiki, by going to their help pages. You could also ask a Wikipedia administrator to copy a version of the articles into your userspace til you can find a permanent home for them elsewhere. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What i could do is still create the articles on wikipedia, but not saving them - just going in preview mode. Then i could screenshot from there into the NSGP Forum. Would that be allowed? Peter-27 (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'm ashamed to admit to having never heard of him (I'm kind of a Luddite for someone who spends the vast majority of life online), but it made a nice change while on New Page Patrol to see an article that actually had references :) Gonzonoir (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for your copy-edits. You asked me to provide a source for "A common misconception has portrayed Gymnasien as schools for the gifted"... again I don't have one. I just realized somebody wrote in all articles about the German educational system that Gymnasium was a school for the gifted and nobody corrected it. So i thought that it must be a very common miscopnception english-speaking people have.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, might I ask you, what "grading" on a curve means. In Germany grades are supposeed to follow a bell curve, but we don't have standardized test, so we don't have this "90%=A, 80%=B, 70%=C", still grades follow a curve. Could this still be called "grading on a curve"?--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there - so long as teachers are advised to grade their students so the marks for the cohort are distributed around a curve then yes, I'd say that's grading a curve. But I'm not in statistics or pedagogics, so your mileage may vary :) Gonzonoir (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media. A licensed station is one which has permission to broadcast from the appropriate government agency, such as the Federal Communications Commission in the United States or Ofcom in the United Kingdom. In some countries, very-low-power stations do not require a licence. I am not sure which agency in Indonesia is the broadcast regulator, but if you can find the agency, it may have a list of the country's broadcasting stations on its website. One difficulty in writing articles about radio and television stations is that the government may refer to a station by its callsign (WABC-TV, for example) or the name of the company, while the station may refer to itself by a marketing name (770 Top Radio, perhaps). - Eastmain (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Christmas
Spitfire would like to wish you a very happy Christmas.
I can't tell what it's supposed to be about in order to rewrite it, which is why I added the deletion tag. If you want to contest the request for deletion, place {{hangon}} on the article and add an explanation of why it should be kept on the talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for being understanding. Let me know if you have any questions about working on Wikipedia. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You post a Speedy Deletion tag on the EAAE - European Association for Astronomy Education topic I was editing.
I am the webmaster of this organization and the topic was being edited when you tagged it.
Please read the talk I have put in the talk page and remove your tag.
~Thank you for your attention.
Alexandrejcosta
You had sent me some sort of msg saying that the Fliqz page is "unsourced" yet all the statements now have sources.. wht is the gist of your complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSharpDude (talk • contribs) 10:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I posted on the article's talk page that sentences like "some have seen as controversial" needed to be sourced, but the point's been mooted by the article's speedy deletion for failure to assert notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
About "Samruk-Kazyna"
Dear Gonzonoir.
It is a big National holding of Kazakhstan. English Wikipedia have same emptiness about Kazakhstan. I have desire to fill emptiness.
I know Russian. I have same problem with my English.
Ther is a Article "Samruk-Kazyna" in Russian Wikipedia.Самрук-Казына
Thanks, Седой бумер, for contributing the article. It's a good start, and it's great to have people trying to fill gaps like these in English Wikipedia. I added the "confusing" tag just because I think it needs clarification, not to criticize the article: I hope someone who reads both English and Russian (and knows more about corporate holdings than I do) can come along and expand it further. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline: we have time to get it right. If you know any editors who are fluent in both English and Russian, please do ask them to take a look. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
So yesterday I asked Scott MacDonald to restore Michael Heisley, since I had three good sources. I come back this morning, to find he has restored it, go to source, and find you have added not just three, but twelve, inline. Wow. I am not worthy. GRuban (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Heheh, thank you! I did this just before lunch - I'd been working on more recent unref'd BLPs, and for a change thought I'd go back to the oldest ones. When I looked at the Dec 06 category the Heisley article was one of only three there; I assumed they must have been left alone because they were tough to source, so I was surprised by what an "easy win" this one was! Good on you for getting the article restored. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've always wanted to put an image in a section header,
Hi there. I have reviewed this article. Apart from a couple of edits i undertook myself, i don't have many questions, but there are a couple of issues about article scope. have a look at the review and i will keep an eye out. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I still haven't, I'm afraid, but I am hoping to on Saturday. Are you able to keep the review on hold for another three or four days? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I went yesterday and found another interesting source, tho' it makes the "contemporary reception" issue if anything less clear. I will come and add it to the article, and discuss further on the talk page, tonight (or tomorrow at the latest). Gonzonoir (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
