User talk:Gordonofcartoon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:43, 7 August 2008

Welcome!

Hello Gordonofcartoon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tyrenius 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

You may be able to help

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infoart and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Tyrenius 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I thought you might have a clue! Still, better to play it safe, I reckon. The arts could certainly do with some help... Tyrenius 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Hayter

Hello Gordon - I have an interest in the edits you did to the George Hayter page. Could you email me at personal email address redacted Thanks, Steve --Stevob19 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for help with InfoArt cleanup project Tyrenius 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democide

Please do not edit the comments of others, even if you believe the statements in them to be false or misleading. Doing so is considered disruptive to the discussion and an ongoing pattern of such behavior may be grounds for a block. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware I had; I got involved in a messy cut-and-paste and must have lost something in the process. Sorry. You can see from my edit history that I don't do that kind of thing. I see where you mean, and have corrected it. Gordonofcartoon 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack and warning template

You accused me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Iantresman of placing a "bogus" warning template. However, I do not see any guidelines for what is and isn't appropriate except for WP:COI. Clearly, Ian Tresman has a conflict of interest in editing articles on catastrophism and Velikovsky, so what's wrong with posting a warning to his talk page? Please respond on my talk page. --Mainstream astronomy 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was a specific template and thank you for showing one to me. There should be better descriptions for how to do this. I wasn't aware of any procedure for warning or that pointing out that someone is selling self-published pseudoscience is a conflict of interest can be construed as a "personal attack". Where I come from "hawking" is used synonymous with selling, but I researched it a bit and found some people do consider it to be denigrating. --20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, misunderstanding, then: here (UK) it has a strong pejorative edge to it. Gordonofcartoon 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your previous comments. Here are the replacement warnings.[1] Just to make sure, he's also posted the information to a close Arbitration case.[2], other article talk pages,[3], the and even the Physics Project page,[4] I do feel that what should have been a simple warning, has turned into harassment. --Iantresman 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shape memory coupling

Thanks for fleshing this out a bit, I've removed the AfD and tagged it with a materials stub. Cheers! - superβεεcat 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing apologies

Thank you for your comment on discussion page re removing warning/information tags on Laura Vlasak Nolen and missing source information. Although it appears I made contribution to that article, I was merely replacing text which I had accidently deleted in my first Wikipedia page-creation outing, for an altogether different article. The text to which you refer/warn was created and edited by someone else -- I only restored the original text. Thank you in any case for your note, which I will bear in mind when I create future pages.

DYK

On 20 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aspergum, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Ovenden

Hi - there's lots of references via Google, but I can't find a really authoritative reference, so will leave your revert.Tony 13:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Tony[reply]

Your e-mail

Hi. In reply to your e-mail of August 16, I am afraid I cannot do anything since you did not suggest any specific action to take. In the event of any future problems, please use WP:DR or post on WP:AIV, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:SSP etc. as appropriate. Also, I prefer communicating on-Wikipedia unless private information is involved. Thanks. Sandstein 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not terrifically helpful. I asked you, in your admin capacity (with information that was private because it a) was personal opinion and b) can only be verified by CHECKUSER) to monitor a dispute and a user where there are long-standing contentious editing issues (like a long-term breach of the WP:AGF guideline). Isn't that what admins are for? Gordonofcartoon 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salamis Island

I cleaned up the article a bit. I would rate the article at mid-importance. However, if you feel that it should remain at low-importance, then go ahead and maintain that standard. Deucalionite 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mid looks good. Sorry to bother you with it, but I thought it should be rated independently rather than by an anon who doesn't seem to be very objective. Gordonofcartoon 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salamis

I'm not sure what can be done if they wont protect the page, but I'll continue to keep an eye on these articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlaze (talk • contribs) 13:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Thx. I guess they really need someone who can read Greek to cleanup and source them. As you see, the latest is from 85.75.8.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she has added a sourced infobox, but the main texts are still unreferenced and at the level of "It is a nice place with the beaches next to the pine-trees and make an interesting combination". Gordonofcartoon 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might be back as User:DCBMSNB See Ampelakia page and other pages: Special:Contributions/DCBMSNB ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky with it: brief visit as anon 'bad hand' to remove the merge tags, then back as registered user to continue editing. Gordonofcartoon 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's User:Dsjgfwutvgeyxg U, who just vandalized my user page as well as vandalize all the Salamis pages. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce

Hi,

If you wish, you may consider the line obiter dicta. The consensus was clear in any event. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The consensus was clear in any event

It was, but I thought the conclusion was supposed to be based on quality of argument, not majority vote. Of the Keep votes, one was an unsupported assertion, and three were based on the same misunderstanding about the ODNB. Gordonofcartoon 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The view of majority was not a misunderstanding of the ODNB -- it was an understanding different from yours, perfectly consistent with policy and logic. Your view is not compelled by policy, and was in the minority of one. Hence, the result. My concession to you that you need not consider my extra sentence binding in any sense was simply an effort to avoid needlessly semantic games. The argument and the numbers of your opponents were both superior in that debate; under the circumstances, no other closure of the AfD was reasonably possible. It is to your advantage to accept this truth. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan Origin of the Jats

Thanks so much for your suggestion about putting the article on "Request for Comment" - something I had never tried before and didn't know how to do. I have done so now and am waiting to see what sort of response may follow. Cheers, John Hill 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of Harry Potter

As far as I'm aware it's called being bold. I feel the approach that best encourages progress is to do something proactively, then if anyone has disagreements, to discuss them properly in the awareness that the onus is on me to sort out any issues that arise, and/or be responsible for putting it back the way it was if consensus decides I was wrong. Asking for consensus before doing anything engenders bureacracy, which Wikipedia tries to avoid. The only thing that requires consensus before change is policy. I'll be delighted to take part in any talk-page discussions which crop up, and I have already ensured that the redirects and WPHP banners are appropriately updated. If there's anthing I've missed I will, of course, be anxious to put it right. Happy-melon 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware it's called being bold

True, but that needs to be tempered by thinking through what effects that might have. Main trouble is, List of Harry Potter parodies already exists, and it was convenient to have this overview and some separate articles for major ones - Trotter, Grotter, Wizard People, and Henry Potty and the Pet Rock etc - because merging the whole lot, in full detail, would make far too long an article. Gordonofcartoon 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does, and of course it did. I am aware of the existence of the list, my first thought was to merge them all in there. Having decided, as you note, that that would produce too long an article, I chose the title "Parodies of Harry Potter" as a suitable substitute. By redirecting the old articles to the individual sections of the new article, no readability is lost. One thing I have forgotten, which I will correct now, is to place a "see also List of Harry Potter parodies" on the new page. Henry Potty was overlooked in my search for parodies, or it would have been merged also. I will now hold for any comments from WP:HP, but if no objections arise I will merge that also, as well as complete the alteration of internal links. Happy-melon 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PKIOPADDE

Gordonofcartoon I am not a sockpuppet. Why you misjudge me ? Please answer to me . - unsigned comment by PKIOPADDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Answered at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Float954. Gordonofcartoon 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Balchin

I see Tyrenius added info on citation at the top of this page. Anyhow, a reply is available back at my Talk page. Rgrds, Ian Cairns 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It doesn't cover the point I mentioned, though. I know how to multiply cite; I just wondered if there was some way to indicate a primary reference that's used throughout. Gordonofcartoon 02:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now covers the point.... Ian Cairns 08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GordonofKhartoum

Thanks, Gordon. Your comments about Horrobin are appreciated, and your acknowledgement of my non-sockpuppetry! Smiles Brigantian 14:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Appears in Edo

RE: Yakofujimato's comment about why this film has to be a hoax (one of many that don't amount to much) - "The suspicious cast listing also includes bizzare, almost comical descriptions such as 'The Hunchback', 'Boy in Soy Sauce Shop' and 'Man in charcoal shop'".

I found this - Oshidori utagassen, thought you'd like to see it, especially as you commented on the character names. Maybe that one's a hoax as well? Pufnstuf 04:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art extraordinary AFD

AfD nomination of Art extraordinary

An article that you have been involved in editing, Art extraordinary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art extraordinary. Thank you. BTfromLA 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gordonofcartoon 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya Project Revert

Gordon, you just reverted my changes to the Maitreya Project page. Now I am really confused. I am accused of bias and therefore, in good faith, remove the content I have posted on this article, and then you, an accuser, revert my deletions so that the supposed biased content is visible again. Can you please explain? I am tempted to undo this revert and remind you of the three-revert rule policy page if you are tempted to persist, however i'd like to discuss it first.

Simmonstony 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because there was no consensus to blank most of the article as you did, and with the conflict of interest issues under discussion at WP:COI/N, you should not be making major edits to it. Gordonofcartoon 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus was that the content i added was biased, so i removed that. I fail to see problem there.

The problem is that you should not be doing it yourself. Gordonofcartoon 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordon. Just for the record, and not trying to upset you at all, I just wanted to point out the following from Wikipedias COI page:

"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: 4) Reverting or removing their own COI edits. Cleaning up your own mess is allowed and encouraged."

Simmonstony 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This is a relatively new addition to the guidelines [5] that I was unaware of. I generally just read WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 12:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts State Police

Good luck trying to deal with those two. They'll just revert you constantly without discussing. Sasha Call 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they will. But now it's on the table at WP:COI/N and more editors are getting involved, such behaviour will likely end up in blocks. Gordonofcartoon 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another IP adress used only to edit the page, and an account used to harass me after I got involved. It might take some more time to grab all of the IPs used just to edit that page, plus the Boston Police Department article. Sasha Call 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gordon,

I just wrote a similar note on Sasha's page. I wanted to apologize to you both for being immature, and stupid. I am relatively new to wikipedia, however that is by no means an excuse for my actions. I not understand how serious this place truly is, and will work to improve it, not make it worse. You have my word that I will 1. learn the fair use rule, 2. never revert without discussing, 3. never personally attack/harass another editor, 4. Never create unencyclopedic sections of articles. Finally, I will never edit from my IPs, or another username. Once again Gordon, I was immature, and dumb, and it will never happen again. (I have removed the irrelevant pictures I took and some of the unencyclopedic sections of the article) This apology is sincere.

Regards, Ryser915 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryser915 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! The verifiability guidelines here look at first rather heavy and pointless, but when you get into it, you find that they're the only way to make Wikipedia content reliable when anyone can edit. It does mean, unfortunately, that we often can't use material that's perfectly true (which I'm sure is the case with your additions to Massachusetts State Police). But it's a necessary downside when no-one can check the reliability of personal knowledge. Gordonofcartoon 13:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayter-Bazaine (on the wings of a dove)

Could this be of use to you ?

Lunarian (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that

Your post on conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moneybomb. — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to John, I really hope that he will drop the legalistic wankery and settle down to be a productive user, but if his behavior on other sites is any indication, that is unlikely to happen. Hopefully he will adjust to the our policies, but I expect this to end in AN/I eventually. Burzmali 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Lynn

I think AfD is the most pragmatic solution. I would have proposed it myself, but I try very hard not to do that when I am helping the author. However, this one proved to be unable to understand the help. Perhaps someone will pick it up and turn it into a decent article, but I favour userfication here as the outcome since it is pretty obviously a vanity page. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I agree with you about userfying. Quite commonly newcomers, especially ones with some celebrity, feel affronted that their own authority on statements isn't automatically accepted. It sometimes works to explain that Wikipedia's open editing means Wikipedia has to work on authority of source rather than authority from identity. But as you say... Gordonofcartoon 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility reminder

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Unnecessary obscenity is offensive to many people.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Discussion rather than prejudgment is preferred. John J. Bulten 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of good faith applies only to the point when bad faith has been adequately demonstrated. You were blocked for disruptive editing and breach of WP:POINT.

As I said before, the best advice is that you drop any assumptions you might have that playing the system via technicalities of the rules works here. It may work in Scrabble or getting breaks under the US tax code. But here a quasi-legal approach - gaming the system in ways such as trying to alter the underlying rules to permit inclusion of some content - is viewed as wikilawyering, and will not get you the result you want.

And that includes trying to invoke procedure for trivial violations of policy as counter-attacks against those who have warned you for far worse long-running disruption.

Treat the above as the clear and specific explanation you want of why you were blocked. Gordonofcartoon 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to treat your explanation as clear and specific because it does not cite specific edits nor demonstrate how the edits match your description. Since you brought it up, WP:AGF says: "Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, or attack others or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout .... Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith." I still politely await that warrant and evidence.

I am unable to treat your explanation as clear and specific because it does not cite specific edits nor demonstrate how the edits match your description.

That's because you're making a category error. You're demanding an answer in terms like (say) "Bulten's misconduct is a breach of WP:NOR subsection iia in the discussion as unfinished for reasons unknown between User:Testew and User:Cunard in October 2007". That is not where the misconduct lies: the misconduct is your trying to conduct discussion in such obfuscatory and quasi-legal terms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Accusing me of forgetting my block falls under several categories, but most notably this one, which also applies to talk pages and permits removal of contentious unsourced talk. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Saying you forgot your block was assuming good faith; it would have been bad faith to assume you deliberately chose not to mention it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Percy Grainger

Hi Gordonofcartoon, It’s not that I doubt the accuracy of Percy Grainger’s idiosyncrasies’s, but the claim that any person is a white supremist in any Wikipedia article should have at least one citation. I would say that each paragraph needs at least one in text citation, especially because of the very bizarre subject matter. If all these facts can be found in Bird, I suggest that they be cited to Notes and references 4. It would be much better however if secondary sources could also be added to strengthen the section. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mifepristone (Bruce Rusty Lang, MD)

Hello Gordon, I appreciate your input, suggestions, and editing help. I'm a novice Wikipedia contributor. I've posted some basic info about myself at my User page, FYI. You mentioned "conflict of interest" regarding my posting on RU-486. Again, I appreciate your critique, and any advise or help. Thanks! Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can help except to point you toward the departments handling this kind of thing. The issue is that the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines (see WP:COI) strongly discourage creating articles about yourself and adding material connected to your own direct financial/corporate/professional interests. With the latter, it's especially the case if there's any perception of promoting a viewpoint and/or introducing it into the article with undue weight (i.e. occupying more of the article than its importance merits). You're doing the right thing to raise it at Talk:Mifepristone and allow other editors to assess it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times obituaries

Hi, I was intrigued by your comment here that the subject "didn't merit a Times obit". Is there an index of Times obituaries online? Or do you happen to have one handy (on CD-rom or some such)? (What I wouldn't give to have such a resource!) --Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it depends where you are. In the UK, many public libraries give online home access to subscriber reference databases just on use of your library card number as password. Here (Exeter area) we get all these, including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Times digital archive (full-text search from 1785-1985). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how I envy you! --Paularblaster (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever want anything specific checked out, let me know. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very kind. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RS Wenocur

ok, fine why is RS Wenocur not notable -- meets nearly all criteria. Alfred Legrand (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my reasons at the AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Johnston Forbes-Robertson

Hi, I remember reading this information about Forbes-Robertson & Mary Anderson over 20 years ago in college. At the moment I can't remember where I read this information. It might have been in Diana Forbes-Robertson's book about her aunt Maxine Elliott. It might have been a theater book or article about Miss Anderson. I've read so many dozen's of books since then and there was no internet at that time for quick catalogging. I may be able to find an internet source(or my original source) for verification. Or hopefully the book I originally got the information. I know I'll remember the book if I see the title. Thanks for your concern about Johnston Forbes-Robertson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.100.208 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taze Russell at WP:COIN

Hello Gordon. You've made some comments as part of this COI report. The editor whose actions were commented on, User:Pastorrussell, has joined the discussion. It is possible that concessions could be made now that we have his attention. I don't have time to dig further, so I guess it is up to you if you feel it is of enough moment, to see what further request could be made. Since nobody else has commented, the report will probably be closed unless you have a further suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Back from break: medical troubles. I may take a while to get up to speed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend

Your turn. Thanks for your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ebiser COIN

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Grotter

It's not original research. The author clearly stated that his work is supposed to be parody. This is backed by the Legal disputes over Harry Potter page.

And I was using examples to prove the point. Since when is against Wikipedia to use examples? Don't be so anal-retentive and demand research for EVERYTHING.

However, Wikipedia has a tricky past when it comes to parody. They are unable to tell what's a parody or what's not (for example, they stubbornly believe Epic Movie spoofs X-Men: The Last Stand when they actually spoof the entire film series as a whole), or wether it's "relevant" to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the OR is that it's a novel synthesis: advancing a viewpoint at length by putting together a set of examples that have never previously been cited in relation to TG. It's not merely a nitpick, but well against two core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please

Hi, we worked together on the User:Infoart project a little while back. I understand that you edit art and artist based articles. One of the Infoart subjects, Ryan McGinness, which I watchlisted has very recently had a lot of information added. I contacted the editor expressing my concern that the article was no longer as "encyclopedic" as it was, despite the added content. I had a reply acknowledging the concerns and requesting help in including the material appropriately. Since there is a potential conflict of interest noted and as I am unfamiliar with what can be included in a living artists article I wonder if you could advise me or the editor the best group or project to help them with the article? Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend mentioning it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts; they do a lot of this type of collaboration on development. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply to my talkpage. I have forwarded it to Maria215. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page messages

Would you mean {{Uw-chat1}} or {{Talkinarticle}}? -- Avi (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the classic {{talkheader}}. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Bettison Talk

So you don't believe that expressions of opinion pertinent to the subject matter on talk pages are legit. OK, so that's a valid opinion, and tells me all I need or want to know.

Sign your edits, 86.151.158.135 (talk · contribs)

As I said there, expressions of opinion that are just bellyacheing about issues related to the topic, and of no pertinence to actual edits to the article, are unwelcome per a variety of guidelines: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, WP:SOAP, WP:BLP#Non-article space. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Aaaaa.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Aaaaa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was just cleaning up re another image of equally disputed source that I didn't originate either. Whatever happens is fine. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent entry onto my talk page.

I'm not sure if you can tell when I reply to a message you left on my talk-page or not, so decided to reply here. I appreciate the attempt to SHOW that Wiki can be edited by anyone by referring me to the Five Pillars....however, rapid-fire & frequent deletion of other editors content by certain individuals who evidently are completely safe from reprimand for this type action proves that's not so.

A prime example is the recent action that I suggested at having a certain admin's actions looked at, for doing this MULTIPLE times to MULTIPLE editors. The alert that I posted was ridiculed & trashed faster than it took for the named admin to find someone to ban. As far as I know, nothing was ever even said to him, even though several other people in the past have also reported similar behaviour from the individual.

So, your attempt to show that anyone can edit Wiki is unfortunately only words on cyber-paper. In real life situations, it doesn't hold water. Hopefully Wiki will realize this sometime in the future & actually start restraining the few individuals who are abusing the authority that has been trusted in them. 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to format your posts properly. You provided a list of situations where Vsmith took the correct action over self-promotional edits. I thoroughly explained that "anyone can edit" is within the constraints of creating an encyclopedia of stated editorial standards. Anyone can edit, but if material is not encyclopedic, anyone else is free to edit or remove it. See "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity press ... or a web directory.". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went by the format of several other wiki-pages that Smith isn't interested in policing....each contained an "External Links" section for reference, as do a LARGE percentage of the pages on Wiki. In order to make it exact, I even copy & pasted the format & just changed the data to fit the page.....he deleted the entire section. For a site as interesting as Magnet Cove, I just can't see why an individual who has nothing real to contribute to it, is allowed to constantly keep the article in question as basically a stub. Posting a link to an article that has a large amount MORE information that what Wiki currently offers is not "self-promotion"....it isn't like I make any money when someone visits the place. I've studied Magnet Cove for years & the info on that site is simply a gathering from many sources, put into one place for easy reference for anyone intersted in learning more about it. Doesn't matter now though really. My intention was to gradually introduce the content into the actual page, not just the external link section. With the knowledge that I have about the place, it would have made a fine Wiki-page eventually. But now, seeing how easy it is for a Wiki "admin" to simply delete others contributions as he sees fit, I have no interest in expanding the page. Smith can do it if he wants, since he obviously knows what needs to be on the page & what doesn't. Strange to me thatit's VERY uninformative though. I seriously doubt if any opinion I have will ever be seriously considered....the response to the alert I posted about Smith proves that...but it's a shame that Wiki allows actions that actually KEEP relevant information from being posted....I would think that Wiki should WANT it, since it claims to be an encyclopedia. Maybe some day, some one with a little pull here will figure that out & put a rein on self-appointed content police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By formatting your posts, I just mean don't indent paragraphs (I've corrected your above post) because doing so does

This

I'll reply at your Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as your suggesting on my talk page about expanding the Magnet Cove articles, as I also explained, that was exactly what I was starting the process of doing. Smith however, felt the proper thing to do was to revert everything as quick as I could post it. I see no hint that he will stop trashing other peoples contributions & work, nor that there is any interest in preventing him from doing it. It's a shame that individuals are allowed to do this. It keeps usable content off of Wikipedia. I'll keep watch on the pages & see what content Smith ever adds to the very short entries....my guess is none. I'm not going to bicker with him about it and I've already tried bringing his actions to the attention of the community. The reaction to that was pretty much a joke.

Since he has appointed himself as the supreme protector of all geology content on Wiki, probably best to just let him add the content & delete all else. If anyone ever finally gets the hint that he has caused trouble for MANY other editors besides me & puts a halt to his unjustified actions, then I may share what info I have with the community by expanding the pages that he's determined to keep as very tiny entries. Until then, I see no reason to try further.

It's also very curious that a VERY similar entry to my previous one has been made to the page & Smith hasn't touched it....hummm. Maybe he just hasn't had time to find it. Strange....I can change a single word there & he finds it within minutes, deletes it, labels it spam, & issues a ban. Sorry....not interested in playing those type of child-games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very curious that a VERY similar entry to my previous one has been made to the page & Smith hasn't touched it....hummm. Maybe he just hasn't had time to find it. Strange....I can change a single word there & he finds it within minutes, deletes it, labels it spam, & issues a ban.

I added it, and it's not very similar. I added information that was referenced to a reliable published source (a Geological Society of America book). You added a link to a personal website that has very little information and none of it referenced. If you don't see the difference, I can't help you. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware who added it & it's no surprise at all that Smith won't touch it either. As I've said several times already, perhaps SOMEDAY those who agree with actions like this will wake up & see that roaming the halls of a library, tearing pages out of books simply because you don't agree with them, isn't a very productive method of passing on information.

Here's a wild idea too. Wouldn't it be neat if people actually tried to ADD info to Wiki, rather than spending 90% of their time scribbling out paragraphs in the encyclopedia. Of course I'm sure that many self-appointed content-police are after those stars next to their name. It's MUCH harder to actually ADD content than to simply DELETE it, so they are taking the easy way. Smith is one of these & it shows also. He's upset MANY people by trashing their work....usually just answering their "Why??" with a smart remark like "Because". It's sad that others take up for him like they do.....& others that are guilty of the same. That's the idea that I had of Wiki when coming here, from articles on the internet. I hoped it wasn't true, but looks like it is.

There's a HUGE difference between an honest try at improving Wiki, even if it isn't exactly what another editor thinks is right.....and simple spam & vandalism. Smith has trouble telling the difference between the two & it shows in comments made to him. But if that's the way Wiki likes to operate....go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are generalists: other specialise. Quality control - keeping substandard material from being added - is just as important a role as adding material. I've explained several times why what you (and the others in question) added was unencyclopedic. If you add encyclopedic material complying with Wikipedia's editorial policies, no-one will stop you. It'd be a lot more constructive if you grasped this rather than continuing to gripe about some nonexistent injustice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo

I've responded on the talk page. I'm going to be away for several weeks but I still consider this matter unresolved. Whynot77 (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree that the dictionary isn't terrifically informative in that it doesn't say who finds the term offensive. My concern is not so much the accuracy of the sources as such, but whether they've been chosen selectively (i.e. WP:SYNTH) by an editor with an overt view that his personal experience makes him the best arbiter of sources on this topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Rydberg COI/NPOV issue

Can you tell me if any action is pending on this? The person who is promoting his vanity press books has pretty much turned the article into a joke -- it's now a "Rydberg Tribute" page. There's no point in continuing to try to inject balanced assessments of Rydberg's work, or even to question the unverifiable, do-it-yourself "translations" of old, foreign language works that have been put there, because the editor with the COI is exercising absolute ownership over the article. Rsradford (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. The identity of the anon editor is this case is pretty obvious, since the author of the vanity-press Rydberg books posts from those same IPs under his real name on a number of Internet fora, invariably promoting Rydberg and his books. He's simply trying to drum up more sales by preventing any balanced assessment of Rydberg's work in the Wikipedia article. Before I try to involve more editors, I'd like to know whether it's permissible to look outside Wikipedia to determine the identity of an anonymous troublemaker like this? Rsradford (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one

[6]! Ty 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FÄCT

I don't think anyone else caught this, but I sure did! :) A Sniper (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - with all those accented characters available that you normally never get to use, I couldn't resist it! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch it upon first read, but when I did see it I must have giggled for five minutes. Clever. A Sniper (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR

Hey, saw you reverted an editor im helping (User:RealWorldExperience) on the PowerBASIC page here. I know nothing about the subject area, and it would greatly assist in this users development, if you could explain to him what was wrong with his edit. Thanks. Five Years 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for your input on the issue. Five Years 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBASIC

Gordon, I'll be happy to get you the reference materials you need. There aren't tons and tons, but I should be able to get most everything that exists. Stay tuned. PowerCoder (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep stuff on the article's talk page during medcab stuff, so right under me :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Factor

Just a note to thank you for creating the article The Jesus Factor -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring at MigrationWatch UK

As I have tried to emphasize several times the paragraphs I added do not conflict with WP:SYNTH. I already stated my reasons. These paragraphs were accepted as such by a consensus of the editors.

WP:SYNTH states" "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position."

I am not trying here to build a case using various sources. I am indeed laying out Legrain's position. I can sum this up as follows:

1. The LeGrain article explicitly mentions MigrationWatch and thus when it refers to "intelligent advocates" it is referring to Migrationwatch and other such organizations. 2. x is a type of A. Expert Bob claims all type A have characteristic p. To then say that according to Bob, x has characteristic p is not novel or an original synthesis. The reason for the ban on the synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is because it reflects an opinion that is new. The opinion I quote is that of Legroin. It is not new.

Given that it is not a violation of WP:SYNTH, given that the paragraphs are based directly on secondary sources and given that they are based on the consensus you should not delete them before obtaining a consensus from the other editors. As I stated earlier in Talk:MigrationWatch UK I have sought to create a balanced article that puts both sides of view. The immigration debate is very contentious. The best NPOV path I can think of is to let both sides speak for themselves. That is what I have tried and continue to endeavor to do.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MigrationWatch UK

Over at MigrationWatch UK, User:Moonshineblue has done a major edit to the article, which seems fairly neutral, and is accompanied by a patient and logical explanation on the Talk page. Unfortunately ClueBot reverted their change! Could you take a look? I'd always been nervous about labelling this group as 'right wing', and Moonshineblue's new version seemed to address that point carefully. Since you've followed this article more, I'd be interested to hear what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

No worries. Generally full protection is reserved for a highly active edit war, in which groups of editors on either side are continuously reverting. If the users break the warning, or you want me to informally mediate over any dispute that develops on the talk page, let me know. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for stubbing the Lotte Motz article and requesting protection. I am disturbed by the subsequent comment by Jack the Giant-Killer, which suggests that he intends to begin re-inserting his knowingly false, deceptive, and unsupported edits into the article as soon as a mechanism for doing so is made available. Is it possible to get a run-down of how future revisions to the article are to be processed, so I can forestall further malicious sabotage of the sort we have just gone through? Rsradford (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Mitty

Hi Gordon. Yes, contribution by IPs used to evade a block can and should be removed. Thanks for alerting me, Gwernol 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I will remove the archive box. But I really do not want to get involved. Rgoodermote 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mannix

I appreciate your courteous response to my edits on the Lozzi question. What I would like to do is to arrive at a means of making it clear that there is more to the issue than the inevitable conclusion a newcomer might come to by reading the unaugmented statement from Lozzi that he heard her deathbed confession. The fact is that there's an enormous amount of doubt about the veracity of Lozzi's statement. This doubt is not exclusively based on the fact that he dates the "confession" from a time period where Toni Mannix was demonstrably (and citably) suffering from Alzheimer's, but it is the only basis that has a place in Wikipedia. (Comments on Lozzi's general history of unreliability are common but not appropriate here, however well-founded they might be.) With a statement which on its surface is so seriously impactful on the conclusions one might draw, it seems to me important that the statement be contextualized in a manner which does not denigrate the quoted person but nonetheless suggests that the circumstances of the statement mitigate against taking it at face value. How does one provide such context without referring to the illness (noted elsewhere in the article) that might undermine the credibility of either Toni Mannix or Edward Lozzi? It's almost (not quite, but almost) like letting O.J. Simpson's declaration of innocence be the only arrow toward a conclusion presented in an article about the Simpson/Goldman murders. Suggestions? Thanks again. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Baait

Hi, I have reverted your change of 30 June 2008. Please refer to the discussion page [7] of the article. Sirius86 (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I won't revert it again because of the three-revert rule. But equally you removed it on the basis of an unsupported assertion that it's unreliable. If it's wrong, provide reliable third-party sources for better figures. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marburg72

I noticed that you were wondering why he claimed it wasn't a personal web page. Although perfectly capable of dropping big chunks of Wikipedia policy on various talk pages, and my attempts to explain to him, he has relied on Personal web page for his guidance in this case. [8]. You might also be interested in knowing that there is an RfA concerning him at [9]. Please note that I am not suggesting that you take any specific action (and to explain that statement you might want to look at [10] and [11] where he has raised various acccusations of sockpuppetry (I seem to be the puppet) and meatpuppetry. And then there's [12] - COI complaint by another editor because he keeps adding his personal web page to articles. Doug Weller (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey in the Jar

Thank you for your contributions here and here. Whether the anonymous editor will accept these arguments or not remains to be seen, but you have certainly made the case against inclusion. Again, I thank you for taking the time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Max

Hello. would you mind commenting in the discussion section as to whether you believe the anonymous blog should be an external link? the RfC asked if it should be a source, and outside editors said that it shouldn't be. instead of being removed completely, though, it has been moved to an external link. could you comment on whether you think it's appropriate to keep as an external link? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Personal Attacks:

I have not said anything about Blechnic. I don't know what language you think I was writing in, but I have developed my own code, which is what I was writing in. What I actually said was "Reminder: Work on Jamie Howarth's page today". I visit the Mesodermochelys page a lot, ergo it was a convenient place to put the reminder. I sincerely apologize if you misinterpreted it. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any input on this?

Do you have any input on what to do further about Mountdrayton's continued changes of "English" to "British" in categories and text? It's getting awfully WP:POINTY, in my opinion. I've commented multiple times at your entry on the user's talk page, to little effect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you almost simultaneously posted on my talk page about this ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F Henry Edwards

See further comment on my talk page.

Mountdrayton (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Tunnard

Incidentally, on a more interesting note, all I know of John Tunnard is what is contained in the article. I am a little puzzled by the reference to his having worked as a fisherman during his concientious objection, which would have been unusual. Have you any comment on the accuracy of the statement?

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says. I couldn't say whether it's accurate, but the ODNB is well acceptable per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ODNB source. I shall accept it for what it is worth. The difficulty with ODNB entries is similar to that with obituaries; the writers may be good on the main content, but they are rarely specialists on the technical aspects of conscientious objection, and rarely seek advice on this aspect.

Mountdrayton (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall accept it for what it is worth

Well, you have to. Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If you think the ODNB's unreliable, tough. It's a source generally viewed as reliable, and that takes precedence here per WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misunderstand me. I merely queried, in as friendly a way as I could, a statement that appeared, on the face of it, odd. You have provided a reputable and normally reliable source, and, clearly, as things stand, I have no grounds for seeking to amend the article on that point. That ought not to prevent me from retaining some private doubt on the matter, and I would have hoped that you would not be offended by my sharing, as a matter of courtesy, that doubt with you. Conscientious objection has been described in some very strange, and, indeed, misleading, ways in some otherwise highly reputable publications, but a number of authors have gratefully acknowledged advice on setting the record straight.

Mountdrayton (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Görner

Thanks for the response, saves me having to issue a warning :)

If you can check the status of the source concerned, it may be that more information on it's on Google Books?

It would be much appreciated if you could help review other links to other scans and digital archives of copyright material. Linking to material whose (C) status is unclear creates risks for the Wikipedia project.

For example there are many links to Google Books in Wikipedia which need checking or redirecting, given that a proportion link to (C) material, where the permission Google has is unclear. Some Google Books links are of PD material , which means such a process cannot be done without a human eye.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Anderson (stage actress)

hi, I for many years knew Miss Anderson had a family after she got married 1890. I just didn't know the sex of the children she had or what became of them. I quote many a website that have referenced written sources. Alas even written sources are not always canon if that's what you're looking for. Yes Gillan's website is a labor of love as he states in the intro pages to his website. His site is very informative his data is up to par(else I wouldn't quote it) and we're lucky to have it. Why not try emailing him, he seems friendly enough, to see where he got the information before belittling his site. I have learned a lot from his site in the time I've known about it, learned about other stars I never heard of such as Clara Butt and it's helped me find information much quicker than if I had to peruse numerous books in a school library. Koplimek (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 630: / Line 630: @@
 [[User:Sfan00 IMG|Sfan00 IMG]] ([[User talk:Sfan00 IMG|talk]]) 16:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
-==[[Mary Anderson (stage actress)]]
+==[[Mary Anderson (stage actress)]]==
 hi, I for many years knew Miss Anderson had a family after she got married 1890. I just didn't know the sex of the children she had or what became of them. I quote many a website that have referenced written sources. Alas even written sources are not always canon if that's what you're looking for. Yes Gillan's website is a labor of love as he states in the intro pages to his website. His site is very informative his data is up to par(else I wouldn't quote it) and we're lucky to have it. Why not try emailing him, he seems friendly enough, to see where he got the information before belittling his site. I have learned a lot from his site in the time I've known about it, learned about other stars I never heard of such as Clara Butt and it's helped me find information much quicker than if I had to peruse numerous books in a school library. [[User:Koplimek|Koplimek]] ([[User talk:Koplimek|talk]]) 14:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)