User talk:GregNorc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Editable user pages
Well, it's the same reason that any other page is editable, Greg. This is a wiki, and all pages are created equal (except protected ones). There was some discussion about protecting user pages a while ago, but there wasn't a consensus to change how things are done. Most users don't mind if others make fixes or corrections on their user pages. Andre (talk) 20:41, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, feel free to clutter up my talk page. However, Wikipedia:Village pump is a good place to ask questions. Andre (talk) 01:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] MK ULTRA
I removed this article from WP:FAC because it's already a featured article. Andre (talk) 02:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, then you want Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. Andre (talk) 15:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Keeping track of my user pages...
Firstly, user pages should show up fine on your watchlist. Secondly, if you want one of your own pages deleted, use the {{db|fill in your reasoning here}} tag to state that you own the page and want it deleted. Andre (talk) 21:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Vandalism
I try ;) The best way to get the community's attention would be to list the user at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Also, if the edits aren't clearly vandalism but seem suspicious in some way, you can list the user at Wikipedia:RC patrol. Happy editing, -- Hadal 21:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, since the ViP page is so clogged I think it'd be best if you limited your reporting to those users who are particularly persistent or malicious. For example, those you've noticed returning over the course of several hours or days, or perhaps a user who decided to move a bunch of pages to inappropriate titles. You're free to use the {{test}} templates: admins don't have any special authority over non-admins, they just have a few extra tools that make handling troublesome users a bit easier (like the ability to block them). -- Hadal 21:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Re: editing your user page
Hey, my pleasure. Your user page said not to edit it, so naturally I had to find something on it that needed fixing :P --Jeff 00:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Image codes
You can't use the Image: code for offsite images, you need to upload them. Andre (talk) 12:45, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
oh. GregNorc
Yea, he's right. You have to use the Wikipedia image hoster rather than Imageshack. Plus make sure you capitalize the filename extension from .png to .PNG as it won't load either unless you do that. I had this trouble but then realized what the problem was.Riffsyphon1024 00:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your questions
Firstly, there's no way I know of to filter uploaded images out of recent changes.
Secondly, the problem with your sig is the extra wikilink. The Wikipedia software automatically inserts [[User:GregNorc| to the beginning and ]] to the end. If you take these elements out of your signature in your preferences, it should show up properly. And I don't mind that you borrowed my code :) Andre (talk) 23:26, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, as always. Andre (talk) 03:59, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] India
See Talk:India on why we dont want "third world" in there. WhisperToMe 19:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"And also, I've stated my case with facts. Quite frankly, you editing the article based on simply an opinion is not acceptable. If you can find some facts to support your opinion, feel free to post them on India's talk page, but simply changing an edit based on your feelingings is NPOV, and could be constued as vandalism. I'll hold off reverting your edit to see if you can produce said facts."
Since you aren't able to find the appropriate section: Talk:India#third_world.3F - under NPOV conventions, we let people come to their own conclusions by using a set of data. Notice "their OWN conclusions" - we shouldn't force a conclusion down their throat. We should let people come to their own conclusions. WhisperToMe 19:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In case you don't realize, it's not just me. It's asawatham (sp?) too - You do not understand the concept of NPOV.
What we do is we provide data - The GDP, the GDP per capita, and the like. We let people come to their own conclusions using that data. WhisperToMe 19:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Greg, still an opinion. India has a lot of modern infrastructure but not all parts of India have it. India's economy is growing larger and larger but not everyone is reaping the benefits. WhisperToMe 20:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] America's Army
Hey Greg, as someone that currently edits the America's Army article I wanted to inform you of a current RFC on one of the user's (anon IP) that also edits the page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/62.52.37.xxx. Thanks K1Bond007 01:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, GregNorc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Spinboy 03:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gmail password harvester
gmail-abuse@google.com, I think. That's the only abuse contact I could find. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cyrus Farivar
The circumstances of the article's creation do not invalidate an article on the topic. That's just a statement of fact. One of the things that an admin closing a VfD needs to do is take into account if votes have valid reasons. The circumstances of an article's creation are not a valid reason when other people have contributed to the article. Snowspinner 23:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
In the recent VfD discussion for Cyrus Farivar you wrote: I've never heard of a notable subject having to add themself to the wikipedia, maybe you can enlighten me. There are a small number of admittedly self-initiated biographies which I've come across, but the one which immediately comes to mind is Jesse Liberty, which also survived VfD. For reasons which I cannot explain, his is the only article I've come across thrice using Special:Random. Eerily strange, I know. Hall Monitor 17:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please do not remove VfD headers
Regarding Cyrus Farivar, please do not remove VfD headers while there is an open discussion. [1] Once the discussion has been closed, the user who completes the discussion summary will then remove the header with the result of the debate. Hall Monitor 00:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not ignore edit summaries while parading around self rightously. -GregNorc (talk) 00:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- As the manual says, Be Bold. I was, don't scold me for it. Why invite more argument when there is no need? I'm removing it AGAIN. If you don't like that, fine. The discussion is already over, leaving the banner is just leading to more votes which are not even being counted. -GregNorc (talk) 00:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say he wasn't ignoring the edit summary, but rather acknowledging that while your explanation for the VfD header deletion was on the talk page, that didn't make it right. There's a process, and circumventing it doesn't do anyone any good. Jason 00:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- There is a major difference between being WP:BOLD and circumventing process. Please allow for an admin to appropriately close the VfD discussion before pulling the VfD header from the article. While you are quoting guidelines, you should also refer to WP:CIVIL, which is an official policy. Thanks! Hall Monitor 16:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Request
I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cyrus Farivar
I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page, and I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and the legitimate majority view be carried:
Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:
decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax
the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05)came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?
mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact
a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational
refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world
a bad precedent
The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.
IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc.
Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.
I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.
I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).
Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote
I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error.
My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.
Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- You don't know what you're talking about -- I've been following the debate on Farivar for months. Farivar's article about Wikipedia on Slate is the reason that I know about Wikipedia, so yes, I'm aware of the debate.
Morton DevonshireYo
