Gregbard

• Current time: Monday, September 9, 2024, 21:23 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines for moving articles

You moved theories of religions twice without prior discussion or announcement. There were indications that the move could be controversial, so you should have done so.

See Wikipedia:Moving_articles#Before_moving_a_page Next time I will report your behavior on an appriopiate notice board. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an over-reaction. We have a proposal to rename another category, and this is consistent with that discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did n't u explain that with a link to the discussion on the talk page before moving? Andries (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Overreaction? May be, but my time on Wikipedia has become very limited and your edit is not something I can undo myself, so I am not as patient as I used to be. Andries (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kellogg (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Kellogg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Clerk

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Clerk. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48 --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Attorney

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Attorney. Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48 --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sub-categories

Edward Bullough

I see you have undone my removal of the category Academics of the University of Cambridge on the basis that this is not a sub-category of an existing category.

This is not correct. Please view:

• Category:Fellows of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

You will see that this is a sub-category of:

• Category:Fellows of colleges of the University of Cambridge

This in turn is a sub-category of:

• Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge

This is entirely correct as any fellow of a Cambridge College is ipso facto an academic of Cambridge University. Under Wikipedia convention a categorisation should only be made at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but is a "fellow" synonymous with "faculty member" in Britain or are some faculty members fellows and some not? If it's just another term for faculty member then you are correct. My main concern was listing this person as a faculty member. Please do revert me if that is already accounted.Greg Bard (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fellowship of an Oxbridge college is not in any way connected with Faculty membership. To be a member of either Oxford or Cambridge university requires one to be a member of one of its colleges; there is no such thing as direct membership of the university. Those who are employed within the university (as opposed to studying at either undergraduate or post graduate level) as an academic will all be fellows of one of the constituent colleges. A college fellow is ipso facto an "academic of the university."

A further diffusion (as per WP:Diffuse) of the category Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge by faculty, i.e. Faculty of Mathematics, Classics, Engineering etc, would be possible. I embarked on such an exercise about 3 years ago but, following a Wikipedia discussion, it was deemed to be "categorisation too far" and was all reversed.

I hope that assists. --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Politician articles

Hi Gregbard. Is there any way that you could avoid (for a lack of a better term) spamming the infoboxes of politician articles with citations? I've noticed this a few times and it frankly makes the info contained in the infobox hard to read. Usually the cites can be in the actual written prose (birth/death dates, term dates, etc.), which is a better alternative in my view (these dates should be mentioned there anyways as the infobox merely reiterates what is in the article for better accessibility). Thanks, Connormah (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see that the MOS is to put the citations in the text rather than the template. It seems to me to be the better way to account for this information. Not all of the actual information in the template actually makes it into the text. I know some such templates even provide for a references section. I've done over a hundred this way, and I would be hard pressed to change it at this point. However, I will see what I can do. At some point in the future, I will revisit all of the ones I feel mostly responsible for, and with the AWB, I will be straightening things up. I will make that one of my areas of attention. Greg Bard (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a bit of a try on John Marvin (Connecticut politician), and while I was, I really had a hard time of it. Then I checked Wikipedia:INFOBOXREF#References_in_infoboxes, and, as it turns out, the policy is not to prohibit references in infoboxes at all. I really believe this is for the best. A) The infobox is at the top of the article, so subsequent refernces can be invoked with the abbreviated <ref name="refname"/> form, and B) the individual datum is on a line by itself rather than among other text, making it far more easily organized and read in the source code. Greg Bard (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Abhinivesha

Abhinivesha has been deleted as a copyright violation, as the material is copied from Audi, Robert, ed. (1995). Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-521-40224-7. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Hernández–Capron Trail

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hernández–Capron Trail, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/florida/Brevard-County-History.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Hernández–Capron Trail, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you wish to resume editing, it may be necessary for you to demonstrate your understanding of these policies and reassure the community of your willingness to comply. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You were long ago advised of copyright policies on Wikipedia. You have been the subject of a WP:CCI since 2013 (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330). I started working on your CCI in sympathy to what I believed was your concern that it had been sitting without completion for so long, but as I do routinely checked your recent contribs to see if the issue is resolved. With what I found at Hernández–Capron_Trail (one example at Talk:Hernández–Capron_Trail), I feel I have no choice but to block you pending some plausible indication that you understand and are willing to comply with our copyright policies. At this point, barring some very good explanation for your continuing to copy such content, it seems that the WP:CCI will have to be expanded to include your recent contributions, and it is not fair to ask the community to bear this burden. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this is unwarranted. I have been cooperating with the advice given to me, as you can see directly in my most recent edit to Hernández–Capron_Trail. All of the questionable material has been removed. So this is unwarranted. I am at a library, and as a result ALL of the computers here are also blocked. This is an over-reaction, and would like to continue in my cooperative efforts to deal with any issues that arise. If I am not unblocked immediately, I will be stuck at the library (the only place I edit these days) for three hours, just awaiting a reply. Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about your cleaning up after your copyright violations; this is about your not doing them. You were warned over a year ago to stop. I have just identified another copyright issue from you that postdates your CCI. On 27 February 2014, you created the article Mark Sension with the following:

Source	Source text	Article text
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=30091962	Mark St. John was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a representative to the colonies from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Mark St. John (Sension) and three others were to provide a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land.	Sension was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a deputy to the General Assembly from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Sension and three others were tasked with providing a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land

This content is clearly not compatibly licensed. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to block editors who repeatedly violate our copyright policies; you were given an opportunity when the CCI was opened to correct your practices without being blocked, but instead you have evidently continued. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen, I am a prolific contributor. I have a LOT of articles to respond to when issues come up -- hundreds. I'm not over here resisting attempts to respond. I am responding consistent with what I am being told. That's just not the type of editor that you block. If the issue here is that I am not responding immediately, all that I have in my power is to ask for your patience. As you can see from the long list of articles which a bot generated, that the vast majority of them are not issues, and of the ones that are, only a little bit of effort is needed. Again. I am a cooperative, and long-standing editor. Please, lets take a step back here and lets look at these with a little more patience. Greg Bard (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)