User talk:GabrielF/Archives/2014/February

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman

Thanks for the work you're doing on Steve Stockman. It's a daunting task you've taken on. --Alexbook (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. Thanks for the work on that article! One comment: On removal of the citation to Stockman's bankruptcy, first, that's not a citation to an "offline" source. The source is the actual online official court record (it's just that you need a PACER account to access it). Second, to my knowledge, Wikipedia does not distinguish between online and offline sources anyway -- in bios of living persons or any other articles. Third, the PACER court source is much more reliable than anything else we could possibly cite. Famspear (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: The Wikipedia rules on the use of court records, similar to the rules on use of primary sources, are a bit confusing. I think the general rule should be that we rely mainly on secondary sources, and use primary sources such as court records as a "backup". Also, Wikipedia's official guidelines don't clarify that there are all kinds of court records. The main danger in using court records is the use of transcripts of trial testimony. Trial testimony can be full of falsehoods, obviously, and citing to a trial transcript may give a lay reader a false impression about the reliability of the record ("hey, it's an official court record, so it much be true"). By contrast, citing to the actual case docket in a bankruptcy case, showing the style of the case, the date of petition, the name of the court, and the case number, is pretty much conclusive that there is or was such a bankruptcy case. There's no real "research" or Wikipedia editor "interpretation" involved in that. So, the danger of moving into the area of prohibited original research (as that term is used in Wikipedia) is relatively slight. Indeed, there is even less interpretation than would be involved in reading a secondary source such as a newspaper report about the bankruptcy. Famspear (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So much for "refactoring for readability," eh?

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this.GabrielF (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Risk Pool

So I finally had time to look at your user page, and lo and behold, you started this article. Nice work; Russo's one of my favorites ever. I think this was the first novel of his I read.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like I wrote that about 5 years ago. This is a good reminder that I have yet to read his most recent books. Not as exciting an article subject as controversial politicians but I'm very glad you liked the article. GabrielF (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bridge of Sighs is fabulous. Actually they're all fabulous...Straight Man...Lovely. More exciting, if you ask me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought Straight Man was hilarious. Haven't read Bridge of Sighs yet.GabrielF (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI too

See here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, GabrielF. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Time To Protect

Drmies' page, I believe. Doc talk 07:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Soda Stream

Not clear of the situation but you reverted the talk page. Was wondering why? 202.171.253.84 certainly shouldn't have edited other peoples comments if that is what happened but in effect you have removed his. The main I wanted to ask is if you have done anything to report his conduct?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

He made a personal attack on other editors and his comments had no value.[1] I put a final warning notice on his talk page and if he does it again I'll report it at WP:AIV. I don't see the point in engaging with someone who is just out to make personal attacks - it's better to just ignore them - so I tend to rollback without comment.GabrielF (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
		For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :)