Gaius Octavius

Leave a message, why don't ya?

Wikipedia's LGBT Community

Hi, Gaius Octavius! You've indicated through various means (a userbox, membership in a category, etc) that you are part of the Wikipedia LGBT community, or are interested in Wikipedia's LGBT related pages. Welcome! You may not know that Wikipedia has both an LGBT Notice Board and an LGBT Studies WikiProject. If you haven't yet done so, take a look at both of them. They sorely need attention and participation! Some things on the "To-Do List" that merit particular attention include: Identifying topics/pages that need attention Identifying problems that need addressing Adding the LGBT template to appropriate pages Categorizing LGBT pages Please feel free to participate in any or all of these activities! And if you feel like it, add yourself to either the Noticeboard Members or the WikiProject Participants - or both!

Glad you're a part of Wikipedia - and Thanks!

This invitation posted here by SatyrTN -- talk Please remove it if you so desire.

• I appreciate the offer. I'm more of a supporter of the LGBT community than an actual member, but I'm always happy to help out with progressive causes. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

The consensus was against you and the anon re: the link. Simply calling it "inappropriate" is not an argument. Threatening me with a "vandalism warning" is only you being unnecessarily irritating because it isn't. Armon 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. If you feel that I am mistaken, please cite the appropriate archive. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously that's your opinion. Please read WP:EL and show me how it's supposedly inappropriate. Armon 08:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, please cite the archive where consensus was reached. I haven't been able to find it. As for WP:EL, I would advise you to read the section on reliable sources. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Depending on 3RR rather than defending your deletion is not a good way to settle an argument. Please keep in mind 2 things. 1) 3RR doesnt apply to vandalism and 2) if you've been editing without logging in, as your last edit summary suggests, 3RR does apply. Admins can see your IP, so if yours is 67.55.7.195 I suggest you self-revert now.

I'm still waiting for your rationale for deleting the critics' link. Armon 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My rationale is this: The link is highly POV'd against Michael Ignatieff and provides no new information. While official sites are to be included as per WP:EL, no such policy exists for so-called "Opponent Sites". In fact, they are generally not included, as can be seen on the Bush, Harper, or Blair articles. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're referring to the wrong policy. I pointed you to the correct one. That link may, and likely does, not meet WP:RS but it's irrelevant unless it's a source for the actual article. It's informative and on topic to the reader interested in the positions of Libs against his leadership bid. As for your point about the Bush, Harper, or Blair articles, they are already elected leaders so they're in a different league and have whole articles devoted to criticism such as Criticism of Tony Blair Armon 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to self revert now? Armon 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes or No -shall I file the report? Armon 09:17 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Woah. 3 comments before I've replied. A little impatient? And in the future, please include 4 tildes, not 3. I've added a time and date as per your contributions log. As for the request to self-revert, I think I'll pass. It's a 3-revert rule, if you recall. In any case, I fail to see the logic of your arguments - you're saying that the Stop Iggy link deserves to be included even if it's not reliable. I don't see how this makes any sense. If there are valid criticisms on the page, please include them in the article on Ignatieff. There are already several criticisms of Ignatieff on the page (Iraq, Lesser Evils, etc...) and they are all sourced (unlike on the Stop Iggy page). Even in the "Criticisms of Tony Blair" article, there are no POV references - every link is to a newspaper article. Not one is a link to a "Stop Tony" site or similar. So the Stop Iggy link is not only biased, it's also without precedent. That's why I don't feel it belongs. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology

OK, I feel the need to apologize for the exchange above. That was completely f***ed up of me, and your rationale was sound. << armon >> 12:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Canuckster's edit

Salve Gaius. I noticed that you reverted Canuckster's edit at [Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006]. I think that this was definitely appropriate. However, when looking at the edit myself (and considering my own revert, before you did) I checked to see about the claim that Ignatieff's stint and U of T was "nonexistent". All that I could find was announcements of his hiring to commence in January but nothing that he actually did. The election obviously cut that short so perhaps Canuckster is correct to remove that. On the other hand, he had accepted the position already and most likely would have served in it for some time had the last parliament lasted longer. I'm not sure what the mention should be actually but it is something to think about. Thanks. --JGGardiner 00:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Quomodo vales? Interesting questions about Ignatieff - I'm not certain either as to how much he's done at U of T. He's officially listed as the Chancellor Jackman Visiting Professor in Human Rights Policy, and was scheduled to teach an undergrad course and supervise grad students [1], but I doubt that's going to happen. Mind you, many profs don't ever teach (mine, for instance) and visiting profs seldom do much but write. Still, it's not a bad point. Any thoughts? -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 00:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well he was certainly appointed to the position, which is worth noting in his article. But I'm not really sure that if he ever actually took it up or not. So for now I might change it to "appointed" on the Ignatieff article and drop the reference to it on onther articles. That would probably be my interim solution. --JGGardiner 00:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually contacted the UofT Board of Governours last week and was told Ignatieff is not on their payroll and no longer has the title. Canuckster 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Gaius, thankyou for your comments at Talk:Michael Ignatieff and Talk:Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. I really appreciated your comments and opinion. Thanks again, Gaius. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed your user page...you might be interested in this and this colourful block log. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff article

Hi, I wonder whether you read the material you deleted[2]? I spent a lot of time making sure it was well cited with credible sources and that information is quite an important part of Ignatieff's life over the past few years. Could you please participate in discussion at the talk page or peer review before blanket deletions?Canuckster 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use the talk page and peer review process. It is combative to summarily delete cited material. Also, please be aware of the 3RR rule. Canuckster 21:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster has been indefinitely blocked after a checkuser showed he is a probable Ottawaman sock. Sarah Ewart 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gaius, thanks for keeping an eye on the Ignatieff article. It's been difficult reigning in this sockpuppet army of Ottawaman / Neutralizer / etc. - Finnegans wake 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and Dinosaurs

I have reverted your recent change to the SP article and refer you to participate the talk page on this exact matter. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete references.

Please add your citations, and don't delete previous citations when adding new information to an article. They all count. The Fox story has been denied by Emanuel spokesperson. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois has been offered the White House chief of staff position, and is reported to have informally accepted the offer. Emanuel spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg has contradicted such reports, denying the acceptance as of November 6, 2008.

---

• I removed them because they were out of date - a rumour < an acceptance. If Rahm's people have denied the acceptance, then they can both go back in. But without the denial, it would have pointless to include the original reference. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reason it's not pointless to keep prior citations, is that they may be used for other purposes in the article, and when they're gone, there's more work for the editor. The offer is no rumour, by the way. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• By that logic, no reference should ever be removed, in case someday, somewhere, an editor might want to use them. And every reference imaginable should be listed. If a reference isn't being cited, it should be removed. Simple. Worst case, go to the archive.-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Also, please indent each reply - makes it easier to seperate comments. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oh yeah - "the offer is no rumor, by the way"??? I never said the offer was a rumor. I stated that HIS ACCEPTANCE was rumored, as per the source. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emmanuel

I appreciate the message but I don't think Misc/trivia info is tenable on a high visibility article such as that one, looks like the name detail got moved to personal life, the info on West Wing inspiration seems to have been lost but when I moved it it was in there twice, I forget what the other piece of trivia was.

I wouldn't get too attached to article on the Emmanuel, Obama etc as so many others also have great interest in those article so anything you put in will get shifted around a lot meaning your probably better off editing other articles if you want to see your contributions make a difference. But you probably knew that already.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Barack-obama-mother.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Barack-obama-mother.jpg. Since you were interested in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 86.166.86.153 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Carrion crawler.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Carrion crawler.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Beholder GPL.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beholder GPL.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!