User talk:Gestrid/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Jenny Ortega IP

Blocked that IP, but a range block isn't feasible because he's editing on too wide a range. I've protected that specific page instead, and you can report additional pages he targets to WP:RFPP if necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Citation templates

The suggestion is appreciated, and even someone reading my userpage I find endearing. ;-)  Thing is, I genuinely enjoy typing out refs manually and seeing the end result look exactly the same as with the templates—it's a 'gotta-feel-in-control' kind of thing. Plus the look of them (the {{ brackets and the | or whatever it's called to separate fields) I just cannot stand. A plugin would essentially be helping to autocomplete something for me, which irks me to no end. But, again, I appreciate the consideration. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Gestrid. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

If you are seriously interested in the development and improvement of our ailing AfC and NP systems, you may wish to consider joining the work group. However, the group is essentially made up of highly experienced users who are already very familiar with the way Wikipedia works, and who have time to be genuinely active on the project. Click the R&D tab at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers to learn more about what we are doing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nudity in film

@G.rid, you may remove my edits in the nudity in film page.আইশ্টে হায়লেশ (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia in classes

As part of my new position at Falwell Library, I've been going through the database of questions-and-answers that the Research and Instruction staff compile every time someone contacts the library with questions. Earlier this year, they responded to some student questions regarding an assignment to improve a Wikipedia article, a fact that quite interested me. As a student, have you ever experienced, or heard friends talking about experiencing, such an assignment? I'd love to come into contact with any faculty that use Wikipedia in the classroom. If you feel like chatting off-wiki, send me an email (and leave {{ygm}} at my talk, since I don't check that address very often) and I'll respond with my work email address. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I haven't heard of any students at Liberty being given assignments to improve Wikipedia articles, though I wouldn't be surprised if that does happen. I'm in quite the wrong major (Computer Science) to know anything about students getting assignments like that. I do know that other universities have entire classes on making Wikipedia articles, but only because we've had to deal with them (in the nicest way possible) at the Teahouse. There's a reason why WikiEdu exists. — Gestrid (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! In graduate school, I worked somewhat with the librarian who was part of the now-largely-defunct campus ambassador program, although I've never participated with WikiEdu or helped at the Teahouse. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

San Juan de la Cruz University

Dear Gestrid Can you please take a look to the talk page for San Juan de la Cruz University. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taesulkim (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: I'll take another look at the article. — Gestrid (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: I've got someone looking into your claim, but it will probably take a while. This is a complex copyright case to someone unfamiliar with the school. — Gestrid (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please take a look to the links for the University? Only www.sjdlc-university.ac.cr is working http://www.universidadsanjuan.ac.cr/ has been deactivated by FBI IC3 Since you are Wikipedia Editor, please fix the link at your earliest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taesulkim (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim:  Done Out of curiosity, how do you know it was the IC3 that took it down? On a separate note, please remember to sign your talk page comments. I'm leaving instructions on your talk page about how to do that. — Gestrid (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The University filed a complaint with IC3 earlier. We can provide the record if you need it.Taesulkim (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Taesulkim: No, you don't need to provide anything else at this point in time. However, if anything else comes up a Wikipedia article regarding the university and Hardeep Singh Sandhu, it would be best to contact Wikimedia Legal via email about the matter, making sure to include as much detail as possible. (Wikimedia is the nonprofit that keeps Wikipedia running.) You can contact Wikimedia Legal privately through email at legalwikimedia.org. I can assure you that the Legal Team will not disclose any private information you give them unless they absolutely must do so (ex. US law requires them to, etc.). They are under a strict non-disclosure agreement. — Gestrid (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been very helpful! Thanks indeed. I will keep the email just in case.Taesulkim (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade impending

• In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage

• Wikicup: WikiCup winners

• Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?

• Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content

• Featured content: Cream of the crop

• Traffic report: Un-presidential politics

• Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities

• Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented; article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald

I've just started a discussion on the talk page just now. 2600:1000:B018:1E5A:D865:42F0:A2:D426 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw that. However, if someone is discussing whether or not to add content to an article, the content is usually kept out of the article until a consensus is established. Also see WP:NOCONSENSUS. — Gestrid (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

John Sackar

Gestrid I have seen your recent sockpuppet investigation and respectfully ask that this be removed. I have sent an email to the Wikipedia contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org from my Supreme Court of NSW email account. I can do little more to verify my identity as I do not want my personal information public. The edits to make the page correct are of no real significance to anyone but myself if you consider them carefully. Hence, I ask this information to be edited as requested and your sockpuppet investigation to be removed. If you require further verification of my identity and have some suggestion about how to do this personally with you, I would be obliged to assist. Thankyou Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Because of recent edits on that page, I don't believe I should remove that request. For all I know, you could be the same editor administrators have blocked multiple times. (One block was for making legal threats, and the other two were for abusing multiple accounts.) The request will either be declined (in which case I would likely start a formal sockpuppet investigation, depending on the reason for decline) or will help verify whether or not you are who you say you are. I apologize if this is an inconvenience.

As for you sending me verification of your identity, I'm afraid I'm not qualified for that. There's a reason we have dedicated people for things of that nature. Your request will be processed as soon as possible. — Gestrid (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have done all that I can to verify my identity. Do you know how long the administrators at info-en-q@wikimedia.org will take to respond? I do not want any inaccurate and incorrect information to be public for any extended time and therefore wish that the matter be resolved swiftly. Thanks Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how long that will take. Most people (including most of the 1,000 or so administrators here) don't have access to that email inbox, as it receives a lot of confidential stuff that normally wouldn't and shouldn't be viewable to the public, so only a user with access to that email inbox would know how long it might take, and they likely wouldn't talk about anything like that publicly. Users who have access have signed a non-disclosure agreement and verified their real-life identity with the Wikimedia Foundation. Users who have access to check-user information had to do the exact same thing, and they are the people that will look into the thing I posted at SPI.

I have gone ahead and added a note to my request saying you sent an email to OTRS, which operates the email inbox you sent an email to. — Gestrid (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that many of the editors on English Wikipedia are American (like me) and are likely asleep right now. — Gestrid (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou for your assistance Gestrid. I hope they resolve the matter swiftly. Regards Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the multiple reversions of the personal attacks or other disruptive edits on the talk page of User:Ted Milson Coombe. Since they were bad enough to have been deleted, I am glad that I didn't have to read them. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Donner60: You're welcome. The page and their edit summaries were definitely WP:NPA. I won't go into details about what was on there, but the user basically deleted everything that was previously on their talk page and replaced it with a lot (about 27,000 characters' worth) of NPA stuff. They also kept saying that they would continue to revert unless I ran and got an admin. So I went to the #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect IRC channel (Yes, that's still a thing.) and used the !admin ping to get immediate help. I don't think they saw themselves getting blocked within 15 minutes of them posting that. Another thing: Looks like their account has been globally locked (That's not a typo.) on all Wikimedia projects for Long-Term Abuse. — Gestrid (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate your efforts on this. That is the kind of thing that can stay up for many hours, even a few days, if no one takes action and the target is offline for some time. Donner60 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Donner60: You're welcome. I usually watchlist a user's page if I see a need to do so. That's the only reason I noticed so quickly. — Gestrid (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental caries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental caries. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 for Lords International School System

Hi Gestrid -- I have declined the speedy request on this article because all educational institutes are excluded from the A7 criteria. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I apologize. I did not know that. — Gestrid (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 regarding educational establishments is one of the most fundamental aspects of CSD which every patroler is expected to know even if they find some other notability or deletion guidelines rather awkward to entangle. Also, being short, is not a criterion for deletion. My I suggest therefore, that before you do any more patrolling, you really do take a moment to read the tutorial and WP:OUTCOMES because this is a user right that can be lost as easily as it was gained. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: I've requested and gotten the NPR right removed until I have more experience in the required areas. — Gestrid (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Folding@home

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Folding@home. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gestrid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,

Theyve been at this for months, they keep jumping IPs to avoid block. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris "WarMachineWildThing": Perhaps you could try applying for Rollbacker permissions to help revert their more obvious vandalism. Not to mention, you'll also be able to use Huggle if you do. — Gestrid (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

They are hitting you now. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed. — Gestrid (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your help and I'm sorry you got dragged into this 5 months of crap. I will be serving a self imposed Indefinite block as 5 months of this is enough and since they jump IPs so much ANI is pointless and clearly they are not gonna stop. Again thanks for the help. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Re:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess edit

I'm actually surprised that that is what was interpreted. The only reason I made the edit was, ironically, to create a neutral point of view. Calling something "the greatest" (instead of "one of the greatest") is very opinionated, so I changed it to "acclaimed"; also, like most other pages I mentioned some of the reasons critics gave. You can message me again if you need further clarification; in the meantime I will not do anything.Mumbai0618 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

@Mumbai0618: The reason I reverted that is because "universally acclaimed" says that everyone everywhere agreed on that, but that may not have been the case. However, saying that many (not all) critics agreed considered it the greatest entry in the series is true. The problem was the implied claim that all critics said that, but that may not be true. I hope that makes sense. — Gestrid (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Yes, I was the one who made the edit. I would like the IP address to be hidden.Mumbai0618 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

@Mumbai0618: I just got an email from the Oversight team (the people that take care of deleting stuff so not even admins can see it). The IP address has been completely removed from view. In the future, I suggest that you setup an email address to use with Wikipedia so you can privately email people about things like this. I suggest you setup an email address specifically for use with Wikipedia. That way, you don't give away your real email address when you reply to an email from a Wikipedia user.

I also apologize for initially removing your post about this, but I didn't want anyone who saw your post to investigate and find your IP address before it was hidden. I didn't have any way to communicate with you about this before now since you don't seem to have the ability for users to email you enabled. — Gestrid (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An apology on the Julia Benson article

Hi there, I would like to apologize to you because you're right on the article on Julia Benson, she is born in Winnipeg. I would like to say I am very sorry because mistakes happen. If you can accept my apology then it won't happen to warn me again. I also added citation source for her date of birth as well. Please read my message I am very sorry, please accept my apology message if it's accepted the it won't happen again to warn me again. Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's ok. Just make sure to check citations for stuff like that in the future. If you happen to find a conflicting reliable source saying something different than what something cited in an article says, it's best to bring it to the talk page first to discuss it. That way, you can avoid situations similar to this one in the future. — Gestrid (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my apology. It's been solved. I'll do better than that in next time to avoid future warnings. Thanks again! See you later. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Editnotice requests

You should be able to create editnotices on your own talk pages through Wikipedia:Editnotice. I'm happy to create them if I'm wrong. Please let me know. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. i have deleted all of your separate requests and insteead created Template:Editnotices/Group/User:Gestrid and Template:Editnotices/Group/User talk:Gestrid. However it's not working quite right at the moment because I see that it is also displaying on this talk page, so I'll see how to fix that shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everything.....

Thanks for everything, your assistance and friendship will be missed. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry to see you go like this. You will be missed, and I hope you do decide to return sometime in the future! — Gestrid (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

THQ

I think you accidentally the wrong section on THQ. TimothyJosephWood 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@TimothyJosephWood: Yeah, I did. Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it now.— Gestrid (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse comment to A.s.jones

Hi there Gestrid, and thanks for your help at the Teahouse. I hope you don't mind if I comment on this, but I think you were a bit harsh to call out A.s.jones' inexperience publically in the Teahouse (here). His comment was perhaps incomplete, but nothing in it needed correction, so your suggestion might have been better placed on the editor's User Talk page. New users can be sensitive to criticism, so generally it is better to handle them in private where possible (or as close to private as Wikipedia allows). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: You're right. I'll be sure to do that in the future instead of posting a public comment like that. — Gestrid (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I've withdrawn the statement. — Gestrid (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gestrid: and thanks for not taking offence. Keep smiling --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Rules for new Barnstars approval.

Hello, Gestrid, I decided to turn to you for advice: I'm not familiar with the procedure of the finalization of the process, which is giving a new Barnstar the status of the officially approved one. I received 6 supports for the Mineralogical Barnstar, but I suppose, that in the end it should be written "done" by some 1 or 2 persons, and only after that it can be recognized, as approved Barnstar. But who these persons should be? Do I have to apply to the Senior Wikipedian, or to Admin (one of them has given a support already), that they have completed the approval of the Barnstar, or “done” from the participant in WikiProject Awards will be enough as well? Or 6 supports (I saw the approved Barnstars with just 3 supports) are enough for final approval automatically? So, what should I do next, to write "done" myself? It sounds for me a bit strange, but I could not find an instruction in regards to such situation anywhere. Probably it will be a good thing to organize clear rules for this process, to make it completely comprehensible for the coming authors of the new Barnstars, and also include in these instructions your recommendation in regards of the invitations to join the discussions of new Barnstars, which you provided to me in your letter, to avoid confusions during the work of the new authors on their Barnstars? Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Chris. There's nothing 'official' about a barnstar. Anyone can create one if it's appropriate, and it doesn't need a community consensus. That said, if you're creating yet another barnstar for an existing project, it would of course be courteous to let them know about it. Making rules for barnstar creation would be instruction creep, and we already have thousands of pages of guidelines and advice essays. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy (again)

Hello Gestrid, You helped me in the past and I thought I should reach out again. It seems that recently someone(s) have completely re-written the JT LeRoy page. It takes out the conflict and controversy of the subject matter, all of the others that were involved or hurt. I'm wondering how to proceed to get it reverted back. I left a message on the Talk Page. Is there something else that I should do? Thanks. Msturm 8 (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Msturm 8: After looking through the article history for a little bit, I'm not seeing anything in particular that shows that they've completely removed all controversy. Can you point out some specific diffs where they've done that? — Gestrid (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gestrid, Thank you for following up on this and taking the time. The topic of JT LeRoy is controversial. It wasn't just Laura Albert, it involved her sister-in-law Savannah Knoop and her partner Geoffrey Knoop. All the mentions around them for the most part have been removed, and it looks like a page on a writer who has a Pseudonym. The issue at hand is fraud. (I would capitalize that but don't want to seem like I'm yelling.) This page makes it seem like it is about writing and 'an avatar'. It is almost entirely from the point of view of Laura Albert. There have been deletions of comments made by Susie Bright, Ira Silverberg, Asia Argento, Geoffrey Knoop, and everyone else who was included and cited (in major publications like the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle). The information that I'm explaining is all a google search away. It had recently been revised by someone who I thought did a very balanced job between the two sides, if there is such a thing. (Are there two sides on someone exploited or ripped off or frauded?) Laura Albert claims there are because she had a troubled childhood. It is all supposed to be okay. So in other words, the whole controversy has been completely white-washed over. I spent some time on it, and I'm sad to see that someone came in and quickly reverted it all back. Thank you so much for your help. Msturm 8 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify the above, it had been recently revised and I thought it was a good job. Then just in the last week someone came in and removed all the aspects that I mentioning. The one's that deal with the less flattering aspects of the scandal and fraud that involved hundreds (or more like thousands if you include readers) of people. Msturm 8 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Gestrid. I was wondering if there is a record of the JT LeRoy page that existed until very recently. Is that stored somewhere? Or permanently deleted? A quick reading of the last version with the one that exists would show all the evidence that was needed. The titles have been changed. "Controversy" and "Fraud" has been taken out. It's all just says, "Laura Albert about her Pseudonym" and "Media Discussion about the Use of a Pseudonym." Laura Albert lost a trial in New York City for fraud. It was proven to NOT be a pseudonym. I don't have a photographic memory of the last version. But I know many citations were taken out, as I mentioned already from the NY Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian as well. Respected and researched papers. As you might have seen, Pacific Ocean has disclosed that she is working with someone older 'who has followed the topic for a long time.' I really have little doubt that she is the person who perpetuated the abusive fraud on many people. Thank you again for your time and help. I really appreciate it. Wikipedia is often the first place to go to get information on this topic. It is the first thing that comes up when you google JT LeRoy. It is important that the facts and history and not misrepresented so badly. Msturm 8 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here I am again, and I think I answered my own question. It's a diff. that you mentioned. Thank you. Yes, so there is a record. So okay here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JT_LeRoy&diff=753763155&oldid=750986739 if we look at 22 November 2016‎ 76.21.32.54 (talk)‎ I'm not trying to suggest that everything in it is perfect. Editing was in order, but if you compare it you can see that the whole Dr. Owens section is out as well. All of the information that actually explains the scandal, how it occurred and went down. What it was about beyond being a 'pseudonym'. Msturm 8 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)