User talk:Guyzero

Archives

One · Two · Three

I find barnstars to be a bit petty, but I definitely think you deserve a high five for this bit of sourcing work. I spent way longer than I should have trying to pinpoint a source which attributed the claim to something official, including searching the Honolulu Advertiser extensively, and I still failed to find it (possibly I ignored it because of the unrelated article topic). Well done! Bigbluefish (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. While the source I found is interesting, my personal belief is that the preponderance of reliable sourcing that simply say Kapi'olani is the proper justification for including that information (without caveats, what-if's, controversies, etc.) in the article. Hopefully Eclectix has enough information about our reasoning for the article text and wikiprocess/policy to make his life easier next time around. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 01:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me for your nice words. I was actually surprised at how wrong that about.com piece was - small and large errors - and we're supposed to trust it? Ridiculous. Feel free to share my brilliant exegesis with the RSN or anyone else so it doesn't go to waste! Cheers Tvoz/talk 04:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#About.com --- kind regards, --guyzero | talk 23:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - next up, do you know anything about historylink.org? It came up on Talk: Ann Dunham. Cheers again Tvoz/talk 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a source I've never heard of, my usual initial criteria is to look at the quality/editorial control system (if any) and to google around to see if any established RS's consider this new source to also be an RS.

I could find no 3rd party information about the former, but that isn't really unusual for a fairly 'new' source that appears to be still sort of establishing itself.

On the latter, I did find a few .EDU and (Seattle) local RS's that refer to this site without caveat. I apologize for not saving the links for your review -- I had to run out yesterday before making this reply -- but am happy to dig up the links that I found if it would be helpful.

The site claims to have staff members / (amature?) historians submit content/essays, but my impression is that the standard of quality is higher than about.com's method of throwing as much poor quality crap at the internet in order to sell ad-views. While clearly not as bullet proof as say, the NYTimes, though, so this is a toughie. Without understanding the application of this source at Dunham, I would generally comment that this source looks to be OK for non-controversial additions as long as there is no content disagreement from other RS's. I suspect this is unhelpful, sorry. I tried to review the Dunham discussion and couldn't make a decision myself on the notability of the addition, the application of the source, etc. Please let me know if you want me to find the RS links that refer to this source, though. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to that article, it seems that what you are saying is that if this information had appeared, say, in the New York Times, it would have been considered verifiable and therefore would have been included. But if I had provided the New York Times as a source, how would you verify that my sourcing was accurate? Or if, instead of footnoting the source, I included a statement such as "According to the New York Times, March 1, 2008, page 17, column 2, ...", would that be in any way different?

I believe that in any reasonable sense of the term, my information is verifiable because you only need to follow the links to see that it is correct. The effort required to do that is no greater, and probably less, than the effort required to verify a citation of a published source. The rules on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" would also seem applicable here, as would the use of electronic media as sources. What could be a more reliable source on the content of a website than the website itself?

Finally, the article as it stands creates the misleading impression that unfavorable information about DirectBuy can be found on infomercialscams.com. Thanks to the apparent tampering with the site, that is no longer the case.

I know it's bad form to get into a revision war and I have no intention of doing that. But I would appeal to you to reverse your decision about removing my edit.

My apologies if posting this is not the correct way to respond to your removal of my edit.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul! I responded here as you are right that something odd happened to these blogs and it'd be good to have other editors look at our conversation. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The “Do not feed the troll” pic was a little OTT. I think I might have troll paranoia.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. She did not address the court. She met the chief justice at some event. The reference article is not well written. Please accept my apologies. Dems on the move (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize -- don't sweat it. Thanks for rechecking the source. cheers, --guyzero | talk 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd help, but I need to head off for a busy day, but your article will probably fail AFD unless you describe (and source) the large number of media appearances and activities that Tatiz has engaged in lately. I agree she has enough mention in the media to be notable (at least for WP:ONETHING, which may result in a merge back to the conspiracy theory article.) regards, --guyzero | talk 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Orly Taitz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ray^Talk 21:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're a good guy and not a fighting guy. Some of the removed material is clearly interesting. Some may want the Early Life article to be very formal and stuffy. If so, maybe the Honolulu article or some of its subarticles may like it. Good luck. User F203 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm a good guy. My business cards actually list "Good Guy" as a job title, right under "Teller of Bad Jokes" and "Horrible Dancer".. =) cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"umkc source is not reliable" you said when deleting it as a source. Douglas O. Linder B.A., J.D. Professor University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law is not reliable? What research have you done to discredit him? Satanico (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your message to the bottom of the page (which is where new messages usually go). Please discuss the article at the article talkpage. Thanks, --guyzero | talk 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see your proof that births in Mombasa were registered in Zanzibar. I have seen them registered in Kenya but cannot produce an on-line source immediately. The Protectorate was included in Kenya by Order in Council in about 1921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.54.248 (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a reliable source for your preferred text. The Zanzibar text is sourced in the article. Please discuss the article on the article talkpage. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping protect and improve the "Reviews" section of Ashes and Snow. Among the unincluded negative reviews is one from KCRW: "Snake Oil from a Travelling Art Salesman". May be worth a quick look if you plan to synopsize the opposing views of critics. AtticusX (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Nice find. I'm up to my eyes atm so not sure when I'll get a chance to do something for A&S. Please feel free to let'er'rip if you want! Nice meeting you and thanks again, --guyzero | talk 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I see your point regarding why we shouldn't question everything she says. However, you deleted quite a bit of very good, and very well sourced information that I put in. I sourced information from U.S. court decisions, etc... and you deleted it. Further... I'm a little unsure why if she says something - even if its about herself, why that needs to be taken at face value. The stuff about her background is solely sourced base on interviews with her. To me, that stuff ought to be deleted then... altogether, because I haven't seen any reliable documentation, because she is clearly not a reliable source. That said, it appears that she's going to be deleted altogether, so its a relatively mute point. I'll tell you what. I'm going to make some of the changes I made before, but I'll leave out questioning her statements about herself and her family.--Beersquirrel (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think - I took out anything you specifically had an issue with. I do feel strongly that the civil procedure verdict against her go into the top, which helps preface her conspiracy theories, rather than allowing the article to simply be a voice for her conspiracies. Anyhow, as has been posted - the verdict is that this page is to be deleted, I believe, anyhow.--Beersquirrel (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, replied on your talkpage. --guyzero | talk 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comments from a partial copy of Talk:Malia Obama at Talk:Family of Barack Obama to what I believe to be an appropriate location in Talk:Malia Obama. If I misplaced it, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago I wrote a Wikipedia entry on NetDocuments which is a web based content management system. I noticed that you are a contributor to the content management system entry and thought you would be a good person to review the new NetDocuments page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannymjohnson (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to comment at Talk:Public image of Barack Obama#Events regarding your recent revert. --24dot (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the article is trying to define the term as if "Natural born citizen" is a unique phrase with a meaning that is different from the meaning of "natural born" plus "citizen." The archaic usage of "natural born" fits perfectly with the Constitutional usage, and even the modern usage as "an innate characteristic" simply means a characteristic you are born with. IOW, it seems pretty clear to me that "natural born citizen" simply meant "citizen by birth" and although I don't know of any reliable sources to substantiate that I think it should certainly be noted in the article that "having a position by birth" is an archaic meaning for "natural born." To ignore that would be to ignore what the words meant.Mystylplx (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply, but it doesn't matter as I won't revert you. I'm not sure that the article really is claiming that the words "natural born" are disconnected from the term "natural born citizen" as you seem to be implying? In any event, the article should define the entire term, not just the words within. Do folks normally source in dictionary definitions for the components of the phrase? This seems like it might be a semantic approach..? I'll trust that you've alleviated some confusion with this addition, no worries. Would be great to find an alternate source besides the advertisement-heavy encyclopedia.com. thanks for the note, --guyzero | talk 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guy, just wanted to note my observation that your recent edit to Presidency of Barack Obama, while adding POTUS, deleted State Senator. I think we don't add political office to profession infoboxes, but I couldn't swear to that. I'm not sure whether to re-add State Senator or remove the other two, but thought I'd give you a heads-up as you made the edit. It seems one or the other is called for. Abrazame (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit prior to mine[1] added State Senator and United States Senator -- I left the latter as it seemed more specific when adding POTUS. I'm happy if you want to delete both titles. Honestly, I think both President and Senator are titles/offices while "politician" is the profession. Oddly, the Presidency of George W. Bush article lists POTUS, but not Governor. --guyzero | talk 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs like John Roberts, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violated 3RR today, and abused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say anything about titles. Are you a poker player or fan? The term title is rarely used other than as you say, for something like the main event champion. 18 is certainly the number of tournaments Badger has won. Many of those are not 'titles' in the way that even you suggest the term should be used. Titles relating to poker is most certainly a peacock term. I'm not going to revert your edit but I ask that you take a closer look at the source and then look at some articles like Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth and Doyle Brunson to see how tournament victories are referenced - I didn't even look at those pages but I can tell you their victories are not collectively referred to as 'titles'. DegenFarang (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary, use the wording that is used in the source. Of course "title" is commonly used for tournaments that take place yearly, for example, which is why the source uses that term. See WP:V. thanks --guyzero | talk 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source never uses that term. And even if it did, those 18 'titles' are not yearly tournaments - they are all of his tournament victories. DegenFarang (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the source uses that term [2]. thanks --guyzero | talk 10:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I see what you mean about the awkwardness of the insertion of the bit about the second inauguration in the sentence. There is a far more detailed version on the "Presidency of Barack Obama" page - should I leave it as it is, or does it belong in the main article as well? I am new to this - apologies if I broke normal etiquette by not proposing it on the talkpage first. Thanks--Mister Zoo (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'll heed some of the advice. When reading some of the comments, it does appear that some editors are cheerleaders, some are politically leaning one way and their edits are somewhat leaning that way but not completely, and some politically leaning the other way, etc. Perhaps, it is better to leave some things unsaid even though it's clear to me that some editors are better writers and better journalistic editors than others. But thanks for the insights not to look confrontational. JB50000 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You should see the logo when you drive around the building - When one clicks the "w" in the map there is a circular thingie on the wall of the building with what looks like an eagle on it - that is the old logo of Continental - the logo should be visible while facing eastbound while driving along World Way West WhisperToMe (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to obtain or upload a photo of the building? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Have you been able to get a photo of the building? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I note that your sudden reappearance has raised questions whether you were alerted to "help" in this current conflict about links in Poker-related articles. I would ask you (and everyone involved) to refrain from restoring the disputed links for now: There is an new discussion about the appropriateness of the links as external link or reference, and I would like to see an explicit consensus first. Edit warring has not gotten us anywhere these past weeks, and has become very disruptive.
I don't know whether you were really alerted to this conflict, and personally I don't care much, as long as you don't contribute to the edit war. I would certainly welcome your constructive input to the discussions though, to determine whether the links are helpful and in line with WP:EL and WP:RS.
Amalthea 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not to edit any of the articles in question and also agree that it was wrong for me to hit the undo button on a heated subject, regardless of whether it was back to the consensus version (my perception.)

I can see why my reappearance after many months of not editing may raise questions, but can assure you that I don't have any connection to any of the editors, article subjects, or the poker industry and that no one alerted or contacted me. While I've stopped editing, I still interact with wikipedia via my watchlists and have watched in dismay how this situation has unfolded since DegenFang stripped down the Shirley Rosario article in mid-July to CSD it. I would not have delurked at all except that my perception is that DegenFang has been given way too much latitude to continue disruption immediately after coming off a block.

I'm very hopeful that the steps you are taking to resolve the content issue will solve the disruption issue. regards, --guyzero | talk 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, I certainly have read your comment at ANI and checked the diffs, and am soliciting the input of another admin regarding one of your diffs. Your comments are not ignored, even if it may feel like it (and I know the feeling). As far as I'm concerned, I don't like jumping into situations and dish out blocks as long as I believe there is a more constructive solution. I agree that you describe a problematic approach to editing (and again must point out that it only escalated because 2005 and others edit-warred as well), but I am still hopeful to resolve this constructively through the content side -- and I think DegenFarang was not wrong to challenge some of those references, they don't look all reliable to me either. I also want to point out that DegenFarang did try to get input from a neutral, knowledgeable editor at User talk:Balloonman#PokerBabes as a reference before, but unfortunately did not receive a reply. I don't see malice or pure intent to disrupt in DegenFarang's edits, as you apparently do. His approach may be wrong, but I'm not ready to abandon good faith. Amalthea 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I really appreciate that you've taken a deeper look into this matter. A big part of me regrets ever posting on ANI, I was just frustrated at seeing folks blocked over what appears to be not understanding the full history and repeated behavior. My opinion of the situation is unchanged, but I sincerely hope your effort in resolving the content will also resolve the behavior -- others have tried and/or extracted promises as unblock conditions [3], [4], [5]. Perhaps you'll have better success as you are now engaged in all the venues. Anyway, like I said before, apologies if I brought more heat than light, it was not at all my intent. thanks again and best, --guyzero | talk 10:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 03:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.