User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Re:Is this kind of comment actually ever a more effective use of time than just notifying them?

Saw your comment, and I wanted to reply without derailing the thread. In answer to your question, they don't pay me enough (such as it were) to do other people's notification work for them, and if you lack the courage to tell someone your dragging them before the admin inquisition then in my opinion you've got no faith or confidence in your position which speaks volumes as to whose really causing the trouble in the article(s), don't you think? Its not that hard to say "the problem's moved here, please come and discuss it" any more than it is to notify users of xfd or rfc or rfa discussions, and yet somehow no one wants to, and if editors and contributors can't be bothered to take ten seconds to leave a message then I won't be bothered to do it for them. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It was a rhetorical question, and the answer we're looking for is "no". It is rarely if ever more productive to start an ANI thread with a distracting side bar about procedure, rather than taking 15 seconds to copy/paste a template. Failing to do so is rarely if ever a grand political statement about having the courage of your convictions. It usually means they didn't realize, forgot, or in this case, did notify them but did so without using our handy dandy template. Kindly take my word for it dear janitor, I have about ten times as many edits to ANI as you do. I've seen a thread or two in my time. GMG^talk 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Courage? Couldn't it simply be neglect or indifference or apathy or ignorance? I think it could, but, in this case, Flyer22 Reborn notified JMccoy13 19 minutes before you told them to do so and added "Once you've done that, then we will consider your request". Or am I wrong? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. In all honesty, its just not worth it when you can do it yourself (although honestly I'm a little surprised that at this point we do not have a bot to do this sort of thing). That being said, I can still dream of the day when editors will actually follow procedure, right? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: I didn't see one on the user talk page, hence the post. If I was mistaken, then the responsibility is mine to bear, and I shall take my leave for 24 hours as a measure of reconciliation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Chill out man. Not everything is a referendum on the state of the world. (I've had probably plenty enough of that today already. See above.) Just...use common sense and don't be a jerk. GMG^talk 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

G.H. Sheldon Wholesale Bakers page - marked for deletion.

Hi GMG

Thanks for reaching out. The page I have created is not promotional, and not intended to be so. I am working on it, as it is about a UK business containing only factual information.

Please can you provide any guidance on what you believe to be promotional?

Thank you.

Sheldonsbakery (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sheldonsbakery. The short answer is, basically the entire article is promotional from top to bottom. The long answer is, since you appear to have an outside connection with the subject given your choice of username, should review our policies on conflicts of interest, and while you are welcome to help us build a better encyclopedia in other ways, you should ideally not be editing in areas where you are conflicted. GMG^talk 13:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

I am following the layout and content of similar articles. My sources come from the company website and news articles. I shall continue to edit, including references from external sources in the hope that it will pass review. Sheldonsbakery (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CSA Steaua Bucure?ti (football)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CSA Steaua Bucure?ti (football). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please admonish this editor

Since you are already involved in on Category talk:Jews, please tell Triggerhippie4 that handing out commands or saying that editors should be barred from editing (for no other evident reason than that he they disagree with him) is not acceptable. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do hope you realize neither of you have done anything here other than escalate tensions, and this entire situation could have probably been avoided if one or the other had tucked their feelings away and approached things with a cool head from the get go. Going forward, hit the preview button, ctrl-f "you" and delete anything that contains it before publishing. You'll find you get much more joy, and much less frustration out of editing. GMG^talk 10:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being so helpful. Next time I need somebody to enforce WP:CIVIL, I'll know whom to go to. Instead of giving out good advice, you might insist on Wikipedia guidelines, for a change. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

CIVIL is policy, not a guideline. You could even call it one of the pillars of the project. GMG^talk 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How to fix NPP forever

Make an edit filter, and prevent any editor with less than 50 edits from creating a new article with the word "solutions" in it. I give it 95% that if an article includes the word "solutions" it's going to have a very G11 time. The other 5% are probably articles about solutions in mathematics and/or physics. No independent good faith editor ever wrote:

NFQ Technologies is a Lithuanian and German-owned international software development company that builds web and mobile solutions for the travel, logistics, aviation and retail industries and also develops the proprietary platform ONGR for accelerating large-scale e-commerce projects.

It's just not a thing. Because it's a vaguely positive meaningless word designed to be vaguely positive but meaningless. It is the king, no... emperor of advertorial jargon. GMG^talk 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• support ! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ha! Funny and true. If it would not be too big of a hit it would be fun to make a logging filter and see what it catches Jbh ^Talk 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NPPbrowser gives nine articles with "solutions" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oooh. Science. And I wonder how many of them are already in CAT:G11. GMG^talk 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. There's a real gem. "Solution" x 4. "Solutions" x 2. Based on those two numbers alone you could just about auto-delete this via bot. GMG^talk 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please look into this

The creation of a separate page was to expand on different segment of the organisation. SIM Global Education, the brand and provider of private education and SIM Group. It is normal to port over information 1st and build from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macustan (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Macustan. I mean, half or more of the content was just copy/pasted from the other article, and it was almost entirely unsourced except for the official website, which we generally want to avoid as a source anyway. Besides that, it was essentially a course catalog of the type I would expect to find on an official website, to the point where I was very surprised to find that it didn't actually appear to be copy/pasted from elsewhere online, at least according to google.

If you are determined to try to get this article published, I would recommend that you review our tutorial on writing your first article, and submit a draft using the article wizard to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Blink To Speak is not a promotional product

Hello GreenMeansGo

Blink To Speak is a new eye language devised for helping patients who have an alert mind but a paralyzed body. This eye language guide has been given away to patients for free. Asha Ek Hope is a non-profit organization that helps ALS/MND patients all over India. This is an initiative supported and led by them.

Since the language was conceptualized and developed by TBWA, it is important to credit them. It is no way to promote the organization. I have edited the content of the page, to focus more on the eye language rather than the creator, TBWA\ India.

I request you to reconsider your opinion.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshia.jain (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arshia.jain. Wikipedia is not a means to promote people, places or things, even if that thing is a helpful invention by a non-profit organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such contains encyclopedia articles, and not patient brochures. Such content should be hosted on the organization's website, rather than here. GMG^talk 16:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello GreenMeansGo I understand Wikipedia is not a means to promote things. Hence, the write-up is more informatory than promotional. It is for people looking for solutions to their communication struggles. Many ALS patients create their own versions of eye signs and use it with their family or caregivers. This page is intended for them to find if their caregiver ever looks for an existing eye language. And to understand it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshia.jain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a form of promotion, and should be done on the organization's website, and not on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 17:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• As the admin who deleted three separate pages about Blink To Speak (two different users' sandboxes plus a template), I confirm that it was clearly a product-promotion piece and was written in blatant marketing speak, neither of which are acceptable on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of our good friend Boing. Boy is that a generous deletion rationale right there. But admittedly quick on the trigger. I'm just glad I didn't accidentally recreate the article adding the G10. GMG^talk 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I must be in a good mood today, as I've also given the author a final vandalism warning rather than just blocking ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm SamHolt6. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sam Wakoba, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

SamHolt6 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing of note to this message, I just unreviewed the article, added a COI tag, and reviewed it again.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be super useful if they would give us a box to uncheck if we don't want to get an automatic notification. There's a similar option on commons for when you're nominating like a dozen images in a row for speedy deletion. Or you know...let us add a tag to an article that's already tagged as long as it's not a duplicate...and you know...prevent us from adding duplicate tags, because for some reason we can do one half the time but not the other. GMG^talk 19:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Sarah Frey

On 24 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sarah Frey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sarah Frey (pictured) is the United States' most prolific pumpkin grower? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Frey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sarah Frey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• lol. Damnit Ritchie. You realize the reason I stay away from these things is because I like writing and not reviewing right? You're driving me into QPQ. I've probably got five articles I could nominate for GA right now off the top of my head. I just don't want to review five GAs. GMG^talk 00:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for helping with my URL/website issue! :) SunnyBoi (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey no problem at all SunnyBoi, and thanks to PrimeHunter for fixing my fix. GMG^talk 15:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank's for your help on IRC, in articles, and basically everywhere. You're a great contributor with many substantial articles that you've created, and a lot of experience. Vermont (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks man. Still waiting for that GA notification on your talk page. :) GMG^talk 21:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

re: Urgent.ly Wikipedia page

Hi --- no need to be rude, we're just trying to update the page about our company. It is possible to be constructive instead of simply deleting everything.

I'm 100% on board for making the entry factual and objective, but the current Wikipedia entry is not even accurate. We are not (and have not been for years) a mobile app company. We have more locations, employees, etc than are listed here. So in the interest of access to accurate and objective information, we will continue to update our page. If you have specific pieces you think would be better phrased differently or removed altogether, we welcome your constructive and specific feedback.

22:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Urgent.ly

@RebeccaDay93: You need to first read our guidance on conflicts on interest, and be careful to abide by them. You need second to recognize that this is a project built by volunteers, and your edits on behalf of your employer are generally not welcome. There are many sites on the web for them to promote themselves. This is not one of them. If a egregious error of fact is overlooked, you may request that it be changed by a volunteer on the talk page. But you are not welcome to edit on behalf of your employer, because doing so undermines and exploits the volunteer project that volunteers have built together. GMG^talk 23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: where can we request to have things changed by volunteers? This page is an incorrect representation of our company and is distributing incomplete, outdated, and/or incorrect information to the public. Seems like something the community should be interested in rectifying.

Hey RebeccaDay93. You may make a request on the article talk page, by including {{request edit}}, along with what you would specifically like changed, and what independent published sources support those changes. Note that if the proposed changes can only be supported by unreliable sources, like official websites and press releases, your suggestions are unlikely to be accepted. GMG^talk 12:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holocaust denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Holocaust denial. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I really need to look into adjusting my notification settings. Seems like it's 90% Nazis and Donald Trump all the way down, neither of which I have a particular interest in. GMG^talk 12:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to reach out

Hey there,

I see many edits have been done on the Eric Netsch page. I am curious if they follow all the rules now or if further edits need to be made. If I make one for the company Tapcart (www.tapcart.co) is that also going to be suggested for deletion? The owners feel they are notable enough to be placed on wiki. Smaller companies than them have made it. All advice is much appreciated.

Thanks! --Nickybetsch (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nickybetsch. Unfortunately for them, the opinion of the owners doesn't factor into whether they qualify for an article. This requires that subjects meet our standards for notability, which generally requires sustained in-depth coverage in independent and reliable published sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books, and excluding things like press releases, official websites, or any type of sponsored content such as native advertising or other advertorial pieces in otherwise reliable publications.

Beyond that, we would very much prefer that they keep their opinions off of Wikipedia, since, as is the case currently with the Eric Netsch article, trying to make an artificial Wikipedia article (i.e., one that is not written by an independent volunteer) usually just ends up wasting a lot of valuable volunteer time trying to clean up the mess.

At the end of the day, we have thousands of people who donate their time every day to help us build a better encyclopedia, and if the subject is notable, one of them will eventually write about it. You're welcome to join us in writing about topics you are interested in, rather than ones for which you are paid. But trying to circumvent that process for pay greatly increases the chances that the work will be deleted, and actively discourages volunteers from writing about the subject, decreasing the chances that they will get a legitimate Wikipedia article in the future. GMG^talk 11:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. --Nickybetsch (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

biography on Ross Cunningham (footballer)

please can you explain how I include references on the page. sorry im pretty new to this thing and I just want to put my knowledge about football to good use — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossCunningham989 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello RossCunningham989. You may want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners. GMG^talk 13:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with page creation

Hi GreeMeansGo, you tagged the page I created "SIGWATCH" speedy deletion because it seems to be promotional. While I contest the classification as promotional (I left a contestation on the talk page), I now understand that it might have also been because a conflict of interest (although you did not mention this). So sorry about that! I have left a full disclosure about my belonging to the organisation on my user page now. Thanks so much for your assistance - could you please send me the draft html code per email so I can rework it and create a new draft page that I can instead request someone with the right permission and authority to review in order to resolve this. Best wishes (Solberg7836 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC))

Hey Solberg7836. I have moved the article to a draft, and it is now located at Draft:SIGWATCH. As a draft, you can usually continue to work on it without the risk of immediate deletion. When you think you are done, you can click the submit button and it will be added to a queue of drafts for experienced volunteers to review, and offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 17:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MaineHealth

Extended content

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on MaineHealth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cburnham89 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw your speedy deletion on the MaineHealth page, I removed the mission statement as I can see how that can be perceived as an advertisement. Is that the specific area you were referring to? I tried making some changes to improve but not sure what specifically it was flagged for.

Thanks, Cburnham89— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cburnham89 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cburnham89. The article was tagged for deletion for being unambiguously promotional in a way that would require it to be fundamentally rewritten in order to comply with our standards for neutrality. If you have an outside connection with the subject, you should carefully review out guidance on conflicts of interest and be careful to abide by it, as failure to do so can attract a lot of unwanted attention. Having said that, the subject seems likely to be notable, if an article is written in a way that is neutral and well sourced. You can request that an article be written by a volunteer at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. GMG^talk 17:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the speedy deletion on the Genohm page

Hello, can you please give me more information about how did you find the page promotional? In stead of deleting it why don't simply participate to improve the text ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadjem007 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nadjem007. As to what part of the article is promotional, the short answer is all of it. The long answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a means for you to promote your company, and that you need to review our guidance on managing conflicts of interest and be careful to abide by it.

As to why I do not help rewrite it for you, to try to turn it into an actual article rather than an obvious advertisement, the answer is that we get hundreds if not thousands of similar advertisements every day, and it is a strain on our volunteer time simply to identify and delete them. It would be much appreciated if you did not actively work to further strain that limited resource. GMG^talk 12:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello GreenMeansGo, Who told you that I am working for that company? Who told that I am not volunteer? Well It's much better to spend a little bit of your time explaining to me what I did wrong (one time), instead of spending your very precious volunteer time deleting all the pages that I will creat. Because I still don't know why this my text doesn't fit Wikipedia recommendations.

...You...do realize LinkedIn is publicly available don't you? And no. I will not spend my time training you how to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement. The only recommendation you need from Wikipedia is to go advertise your companies elsewhere. If you one day decide to come back and write about topics for which you are interested, rather than writing for self promotion, I'll be happy to help. GMG^talk 14:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Feminist Perspective of Rhoda

Hello, I am a student at wingate university and I posted the link to my two articles of the Rhoda page. I understand that you flagged the comparison to Mary Magdalene (because it is not very necessary), but I do not understand the feminist perspective article? I would like that one to stay just as a suggestion to other readers on Rhoda. if its okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey WilliamColeEdwards. Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate the efforts you're putting into these, but I'm afraid they're a little bit misplaced. Generally, information about Rhoda or information about Mary Magdalene should go into their respective existing articles as appropriate, rather than creating spin off articles comparing the two. The exception to this would be if the comparison between them in particular was itself the subject of sustained in-depth coverage across a wide variety of published sources, such that it would uniquely qualify under our standards for notability.

So for example, the play Hamlet has its own article, but there has been such an overwhelming amount written about the play itself, that Critical approaches to Hamlet also has it's own stand alone article. But this kind of thing is comparatively rare, and you have to go to the likes of Shakespeare in order to find examples of it. GMG^talk 17:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand why that should not be there! I apologize! I have deleted the link to that page. however, can the link to the Feminist perspective stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well William, we kindof have to look at the whole context here when deciding how and when to make stand alone articles. In this case, Rhoda (biblical figure) is only a short three paragraphs long article, and content should really be added there first, since presumably that's where readers interested in Rhoda are going to look first themselves. Then if certain sections of that article get too large, we would at that point look to spin off stand alone articles for particular sections, so that they don't overwhelm the rest of the article.

Also in this case, for example, it looks like nearly all of what you are adding is based on the Chambers source, which can be perfectly fine for adding content to existing articles, but we shouldn't be basing entire new articles on a single source, because it's difficult to tell whether we're representing the topic neutrally (without anything to compare our source to). Also with only a single source, you can't demonstrate that the subject (in this case feminist perspectives on Rhoda, rather than Rhoda herself) definitely meets our standards for notability, because meeting those standards necessarily requires that a subject be written about in more than one source, in your case, you would need a fairly wide variety of feminist scholars dealing with Rhoda in-depth, but you can gather those sources through adding content to the existing article for Rhoda, and then once they're gathered, we can look at whether they amount to enough to have a stand alone article. GMG^talk 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand! I did try to edit the Rhoda page but that made people unhappy until they finally edited my work down to the small last paragraph. That is why I didn't want to add it directly to the Rhoda page. I along with my professor (who is a biblical scholar) will continue to edit and add sources to the Feminist perspective page so it meats the requirements. Would that be okay? I would just like that small link to stay there so possibly other feminist biblical scholars can edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well William, getting your edits reverted occasionally is normal for any Wikipedia editor, but tends to happen less often as you start to get the hang of the way things work. One of the most difficult things for new editors to get a feel for, and probably one of the reasons why your edits were reverted, is that unlike almost any other form of writing, Wikipedia is the one place where you don't write about what you, William Cole Edwards, personally think. Here, that's called original research and is explicitly not allowed. Instead, what Wikipedia does is simply restate what is written in reliable published sources, without going one inch beyond what the sources say.

So in my experience, if you're having trouble writing something without going beyond what the sources say, it's usually an indication that you need to go out and find more sources, so you can say more on Wikipedia, because you have sources that say more themselves. So it looks like this book and this book might be good places to start, although you might have to access your university library system to get the full texts, and if you look for scholarly commentary you are likely to find a good deal more.

But one thing is for sure, writing for Wikipedia, and doing it the right way, without personal commentary or opinion, is always much easier when you start with a whole big pile of sources to choose from. GMG^talk 17:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Curious again.

Sorry, if you have seen this before me, and had different impression. All I know is that I reported them using WP:TW, but fortunately now I am checking my contribs I came across this weird diff. I didn't remove yours manually. Do you have clue why it happened that way?. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? That's very strange indeed. I didn't even notice. I normally don't monitor my UAA reports once they're made. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter all that much as long as it gets the job done. Twinkle works in mysterious ways. GMG^talk 18:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I see that. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha!

Classic. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I just...I just don't understand honestly. If I really had basically no interest in writing articles...I think I would just go play video games or...have really awesome landscaping in my yard or something. Grow a vegetable garden. I definitely wouldn't hang around just to shoot the shit on noticeboards and ArbCom. That's just...all the weeds with none of the juicy tomatoes. GMG^talk 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent metaphor :) stores away in lumber room of brain —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm weird, but I like weeding. Gives a feeling of accomplishment. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the better metaphor is the folks who weed the community garden, the folks who plant and water the vegetables, and then that one guy who shows up on the weekend and does nothing but tell everyone else how they're doing it wrong. And when someone suggests they grab a hoe or a spade, they complain that it's a community garden, so they have the right to hang out just like anybody else, and after all, their hands are too delicate to do any digging, on account of the fact that the only way you get digging hands is to actually dig. GMG^talk

I can dig it. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

community ban on use of administrative privileges

Just an fyi, banning an administrator from using administrative privileges has come up before, as I mentioned in the discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Db-g0

Just a little heads up, I created Template:Db-g0 from the one on your userpage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching) You might want to tag that {{humourous}}...there are certainly plenty of people here (whether logical constructs or otherwise) who have the sense of humour of a British rail pork pie. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy is fun. I still have a big leather bound edition of Descartes sitting around on a shelf somewhere. I actually tried to get a paper on the treatment of positivism in social work textbooks published when I was in grad school, but wound up screwing up and getting a degree and a job and now it's just sitting on an old laptop hard drive somewhere in a drawer. It's still probably publishable, although it would need updated for the last decade worth of sources. GMG^talk 10:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Q11

Meh, A10 re CT_scan#Medical_use would have probably worked for me.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GreenMeansGo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, my previous account is already declared on my user page. GMG^talk 06:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to redirect to this account.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done And yeah, A10 probably would have worked on that article. But A1 was just plain wrong. GMG^talk 11:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Marlon Bundo

On 29 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marlon Bundo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a children's book illustrated by Gerald Kelley parodies another children's book written by Charlotte Pence about her pet rabbit Marlon Bundo (pictured) by portraying him as gay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marlon Bundo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marlon Bundo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hah! Top spot and everything. The bunny has finally hit the big time boys. GMG^talk 12:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

RFA questions removed

I added to your RFA questions section but then removed what I put in because I am not experienced like those people who participate there.

Tell me about you being approached for paid editing. Company? Individual? How did they contact you? What did they want you to write? What was the offered pay?

Good luck! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Vanguard10. i was referring to this thread on my talk page a while back. GMG^talk 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Phew

Just putting this here, because I've got nowhere else to put it and probably no one that cares to listen anyway. That Nazi comment on RfA. Phew boy. That got me in the gut, and right before I tried to lay down for bed too.

I...I remember the first time I was spit on. I was in seventh grade. Someone I'd never met took a big draw from the water fountain and just spit it all over me. I...presumed it must have been a mistake. Like he got choked or something. He looked me in the eye and walked away, like I should have known what it was I did wrong to deserve that. I had no idea. And that was my introduction into modern race relations in the US.

I...I wasn't born in Germany; I was born in West Germany when there was still a wall and everything. I was barely old enough to remember that checking our car for extra stray wires was a thing, because being a US citizen living in West Germany, it wasn't out of the question that someone would try to blow us up to prove a point. So, when I came back to the states I wasn't really used to our particular type of racial tensions. I was completely naive to the point of stupidity, and I was only starting to get used to people trying to blow me up because I was American, and not distrusting me because I was brown.

Turns out, most white people think I'm Mexican. Mexicans tend to think I'm Puerto Rican, and visa versa. By that I mean that I'm not taken off guard anymore if someone just walks up to me and starts speaking Spanish, and I have to ask them in broken Spanish to please speak English. Black folks tend to think I'm half black. I'm not, I'm just brown. I look like my mother and she looks like her mother. We're Cherokee. Somehow we missed that whole thing where Jackson marched half of us to our deaths on the way to Oklahoma. My dad's white. So is my sister, my wife and daughter. If...you've never been a brown dad in a grocery store in rural Kentucky with a white baby in your cart, well...good for you then. It's not always a pleasant experience.

I...I do reserve the right to defend bigots, because I'm better than them. And that's something that someone who is better than them would do. I don't want to be their enemy. I want to be their friend. Because those type of people are looking for enemies, and when they meet a friend that doesn't look like they do, they're dumbfounded. I want to dumbfound them. I want nothing more than to befuddle them and make them think differently than they do, because the way they think is wrong, and toxic, and I'm tired of it. GMG^talk 04:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate your sharing this. The context is really clarifying in terms of understanding where you're coming from in your perspective on how best to deal with bigots; and (would that it went without saying) you have all my sympathies for everything you're describing above.

That's really the thing I most wanted to say. If you want to discuss further about the implications for how we handle things on the site, ping me, happy to discuss, but this didn't necessarily seem like an invitation to debate policy just now! So I just wanted to acknowledge and say I appreciate your sharing this with us. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm. Well that's all an unpleasant scenario to wake up to then. I'm glad it was enlightening for somebody. I think it mostly just needlessly offended everybody else. I...didn't look super deep into the details of the scenario from so long ago. I just...sortof felt like saying I'm pro-Nazi was...unfair, and it was disturbing. I apologize if I've taken an overly flippant attitude to everyone. I am sad to have offended people that I deeply respect. That was never my intention and I'm sorry. GMG^talk 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'll clarify myself. Maybe I'll immediately regret posting this. At first I was deeply embarrassed, because I had shared a deeply shameful part of my past, and wound up just making a lot of people angry, people I respect, and people who I will continue to respect, even if they oppose me in the strongest terms possible.

I read Letter from Birmingham Jail a long time ago. I reread it last night actually before I posted this thread, and I've read it today a few times over. I dug up this thread from BLPN from February. Am I wrong there, to explain to that person no differently than I would explain to any anonymous someone at the Teahouse? What happens when that person looks at my user page and sees that I describe myself as racially ambiguous? Does he think that I railroaded him because of who I am? Or does he think that I explained things like I would to anyone else, because I don't have to hate back?

I should have never opened this can of worms to begin with. But since it's open, I feel like I should at least be maybe understood on an uncomfortable topic, that nobody really likes talking about anyway, or at least that I should hopefully not be despised for choosing my words poorly. But there is no law, and there is no policy that can force me to hate back, and if there ever is, then it is an unjust law and I have a moral obligation to consciously break it. I take King at his word on that. I'm not saying that I was right two years ago. I was still comparatively new to the community. I don't think that Obama was disarming white Americans before the coming race war and I don't think that's okay to put in an article. I was pig headed and wrong. But I do think that we should tell people they're wrong because they're wrong for the reasons they're wrong, based on the strength of their arguments and their foundation in sources, and not based on who they are. That is exactly the standard that I expect myself, to be told when I'm wrong, and why I'm wrong in a way that helps me be better. That's why I don't say probably lots of things that I might have said two years ago, and it's the reason I'll hopefully be a better editor in two years than I am now.

I'm honestly tired of pages like  Talk:Identitarian movement. I'm tired of explaining the same things over and over again. But I will continue to explain them so long as people show up and ask. To the best of my ability, I won't insult them or belittle them because they believe things that are wildly out of synch with what I believe. I'll tell them why they're wrong for the reasons they're wrong and not because of who they are. If I fail in that standard, then I hope that someone will explain to me that I'm wrong. But it's wrong to use immoral means to achieve moral ends. We don't accomplish anything, including building an encyclopedia on the wheels of inevitability; we do so through the tireless efforts of people willing to be coworkers. I will be a coworker, even if someone happens to hate me. If they are disruptive, then they should be treated according to their disruption, and not according to who they are or what they believe. That is the only point that I was trying, and failing miserably to express. I chose my words incredibly poorly, and I'm disappointed in myself for doing so. GMG^talk 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

GMG, I may not be your favourite person right now (since I am oppose #1), but I did want to express my moral support for what you're going through, especially about this so-called Nazi remark. I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're supporting bigotry. Without having looked into it in full detail, I think some people are reading too much into that one situation, and some others have a dangerously slippery-slope approach to "we don't want people who have point of view X editing". I *do* think this is a particularly unfortunate (and in the end overwrought) example of the pattern I commented on in my oppose, however: a complex situation where you see one (important) angle, and double down with increasing stridency on your point, rather than reflecting on and explicitly acknowledging why it is that others seem to be focusing on a different angle. That, combined with your plain speaking, gets people primed to take offense, to feel the situation is going off the rails, and to take a single-angle, tunnel-vision approach themselves. Anyway, I didn't come to lecture or moralize, but to genuinely express moral support for someone who is a nice guy doing his passionate best. And, to be explicit: I'll support you as admin, whether now in response to overall consensus, or a few months down the road (which would make me more comfortable, but that's beside the point). Martinp (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Martinp. No worries at all. Thanks for the comment. I kindof use my talk page for... pretty much randomly opining on Wikipedia stuff all the time. I've got no one else to talk about that kind of stuff with other than other people on Wikipedia. I guess I should have known better that this wasn't the best time to spitball on Wikipedia philosophy or off the wall ideas for policies, like I normally do. Old habits die hard I guess. But you're certainly welcome to put me on your watchlist and let me know when I've next formulated the worst idea ever for a new CSD criteria. I reckon that kindof thing happens about every few months, so it shouldn't take long. :P GMG^talk 21:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it's my comment that you're reacting to, I thought I would clarify here. I believe you have demonstrated that you don't have the temperament to be an admin based on your emotional response to something that was inherently a non-political activity - the blocking of a troll vandal who wanted to insert anti-Obama conspiracy theory into an article. This merits an indefblock, but aside from that, your response to it was the problem. The fact that you saw fit to bring in your own personal story with racism is inappropriate, because this block wasn't about you at all, but you made it personal. An admin needs to keep a cool head under fire and separate himself from editing or blocking disputes. Empathy is important, but I wonder why you need to strenuously find commonality with someone who would not do the same for you. Sometimes, a troll is just a troll, and a block is just a block. Your own experience with racism doesn't give you special license to dispense with dispassionate thoughtfulness in dealing with charged issues. Andrevan@ 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well Andrevan, I'm sorry you feel that way, and I wish there was something I could do that would change your mind. But there probably isn't. I expect that what I was trying to get at, and very badly got at, was that in an area already covered under discretionary sanctions, TBANs are preferable to blocks whenever possible as a general rule. But that doesn't mean it's the case every time. I chose a bad case to argue that with, and a bad way to argue it, and an indef was perfectly appropriate and within normal discretion. I should not have started this thread at all, and was mostly just taken back by the diff that surprisingly brought back some hurtful memories that I had mostly forgotten I had. I'm probably overly comfortable bantering on my talk page, and this was a poor time to do that.

I'm sorry that I've probably mostly just managed to waste a lot of good people's time. And I totally expect that this will spiral down over the next few hours to an obvious withdrawal. But I would like to think that most of what I do here isn't arguing over blocks, but doing my honest best to help people however I can. That's the reason I wanted the tools, and that's what I intended to use them for. But I'm sorry that I didn't warrant your confidence, and I doubt I can be of much help to you, but if I ever can feel free to ping me. GMG^talk 03:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"In an area under discretionary sanctions, TBANs are preferable to blocks." There's a statement, but it's not the statement you made in the diff I posted on your RFA. The problem with the statement you did make is that it wasn't about TBANs or blocks. The statement you did make is that you believe that your past experience with discrimination and racism somehow was relevant to the conversation of blocking a vandal. I have also been spit on before, but I don't bring it up on Wikipedia, let alone when discussing unrelated blocks of disruptive editors. Seriously, it's awful and it sounds awful, racism is truly ugly and tragic. You can say that these were hurtful memories to bring up, which I totally empathize with, or that you almost forgot you had them (which I don't understand at all -- I'll never forget my memories of that traumatic experience), but the fact remains you are standing for RFA and this interaction is in your not-so-distant editing history. The comment you made on your talk page is lurid and disturbing, but I wonder what point it was intended to serve? I think you're a well-meaning editor who has made many good contributions. If your RFA passes, I hope you remember to take a deep breath. If not, I hope you consider that, when it comes to insane trolls, you should not feed them, or defend them. They aren't newbies who mean well but are being bitten by a tough process, they are intentional hoaxsters who need to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Even if you feel you must argue that TBANs are preferable to indefblocks, don't veer into the horrible experiences you may have had with racism, as they are not relevant. That doesn't mean you're a neo-Nazi or have neo-Nazi sympathies. It is purely a comment on your temperament as an admin. I'm sure you do lots of great work here and I hope you continue to do that. Andrevan@ 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well Andrevan. You're right for whatever little that's worth on my part, and thank you for the well reasoned and overall emphatic explanation. It is hypocritical of me to argue that we should be judging people based on what they do, rather than who they are, and base that argument on who I am. It's also overall, probably letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, even as I argue that that's not what we should be doing. Come what may, I will make a conscious decision to do otherwise in the future. GMG^talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

GMG, I've been reading some of the concerns expressed in the oppose votes - primarily because a few were by editors I consider wiki-friends who have earned my respect. From there I did some random spot checking to see what I could learn before I voted and eventually landed here. While I'm not brown, my family is a colorful lot, and I can relate to what you said. I'm old mature enough and worldly enough to know that prejudice and bigotry are not limited to race and that the motivating forces in human nature are very complex. I see individuals, not race, social status, religion, nationality, education, etc. I've been that way all my life, dating back to early childhood as the member of a yankee family who invaded Texas which is how we were made to feel (almost a century after the Civil War ended). Before Dad moved us south, I was scorned as the "spawn" of a "mixed" marriage (Irish father x Italian mother) in Providence, RI, (Dad attended Brown, which is the only brown in my immediate lineage) so I was often called either a "wop" or a "mick". If that wasn't enough scorn in a child's life, I grew-up having to defend my handicapped sister against ridicule and physical attacks - some kids can be very mean and so can some adults - so I grew-up as a scrappy kid. The majority of my friends were people of color, and that hasn't changed over the years. During my first few years on WP, I was stereotyped and placed into just about every pidgeonhole one can imagine, simply for trying to adhere to our written policies, specifically NPOV and BLP. Like you, my first impulse is not to reject but to befriend in an effort to introduce/influence others and help them see things from a different perspective, more as fellow human beings rather than as a particular body style and paint color. Some people have become so irreversibly entwined in their own preconceived notions and first impressions they don't even realize that what they're doing is just another form of bigotry. Anyway...thanks for sharing your story, and thank you for volunteering at RfA. I wish you luck and minimal grief during the process. Hmmm...for some reason "process" brings to mind processed food, and procession ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone whose interaction with you consists of a few (generally dissenting!) votes in AfD, I wanted to add another voice against those thinking that defending a bigot indicates, in any way being one. Wikipedia frequently becomes a howling mob, and having another admin willing to defend their victims is of benefit. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll bite (photo 2)

I assume it's your daughter? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Totally. She was diagnosed with a Cystic hygroma at 36 weeks, which is fairly unusual. And of course we looked up the Wikipedia article first thing, even before calling my sister who is an OBGYN, and immediately found pretty much the worst case scenario. But the diagnosis meant that we had a whole surgical team standing by and my wife had to have a C-Section. So I had to go into the other room with the surgical team and then bring back my phone and show my wife what she looked like. She might be aggravated at me one day if she realizes her picture is on Wikipedia, but gee fizz. If that prevents a single other couple from having their hands go numb when they get a similar diagnosis? Totally worth it and if she has a problem with it when she grows up, I figure I can always nominate it for G7 on Commons. GMG^talk 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing; replied via email. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hang in there

It looks like this is going to be a nail biter. Some RfA's are a walk on the beach, and some are more like dinner with the Inquisition. As one who went through the latter kind I wish you well and appreciate your work here, however this turns out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, the vote total at the end of yours and GMG's currently (153/42/8) are almost the same. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the key difference, however, is the rate at which the support percentage is falling. Whereas Ad Orientem got to this point after seven days, GreenMeansGo's RfA still has more than 3 days remaining. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think he will pass. I hope GMG won't withdraw. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say, GMG has been rude and sarcastic on talk pages I've seen. Not any more than hundreds of other editors but thank the Lord none of those others are Admins. Eacn new Admin should be better than the average Admin -- that way each new one raises the level of Administration. He would likely do OK as an Admin, but it's not clear that GMG meets that test. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As you can't measure "better than average", as you have no average value to compare against and no scale against which to make such a measurement, then it's clearly not much of a "test". Eric Corbett 23:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Very generous  ;) I think you just replied to one of the most unnecessary talk page posts ever made in the history of WP! :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty high bar (or a low one depending on your point of view), which I don't think Specifico comes anywhere near reaching. In general though I think that GMG's RfA is an excellent example of the extent to which WP is subject to mob law. Not what he signed up for, I'm quite certain, but an interesting example nevertheless. Eric Corbett 13:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And I was just about to say, EC is obviously way better than average, even if we can't measure it. [1] SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Very true. :-) Eric Corbett 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well Ad Orientem, I appreciate your encouragement. But I wonder if we haven't wound down to a good time to withdraw. A crat chat, even if I'm still in the discretionary zone after two more days, which is far from certain, is going to be pretty controversial, and I wonder if it's not just needlessly wasting even more community time than I already have. GMG^talk 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not Ad Orientem, but that would be my advice, which I took during my own last RfA. There's nothing to be gained by continually exposing yourself to the negative comments of others, along with the very real danger that it will begin to get to you, if it hasn't already. Eric Corbett 14:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not to withdraw is a personal choice. Unfortunately the !vote trajectory is not encouraging and with two days left to go it's likely that things will continue to deteriorate. I hate looking at an RfA as a mathematical equation, but yeah... the numbers just don't look good. Additionally holding out past the point where you have any reasonable hope of passing might provoke even more opposes, or be held against you in any hypothetical future RfA. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that's that then. Although I think you're probably being a little to optimistic to think that that is an RfA you ever come back from. GMG^talk 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done the paperwork and closed your RfA. For further thoughts, I suggest email, otherwise I may upset people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, but it has helped reassure me that flying the Black Colors is the right thing to do. You asked for the Mop and the Voban, and instead you got a tour of alt.virtue-signal.ain't-I-great.and-don't-you-suck.

To use a somewhat strange analogy, Wiki has a case of type two diabetes. You know how that goes? You get some (initially repairable) damage to the Beta cells, and some of them shut down...then the rest slowly die of overwork. Anmccaff (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welly looky there, it's Anmccaff. I figured you'd forgotten about us. Welcome back. GMG^talk 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nahhh. Take a look below and see what happens to you, you stick around for a goddamn decade. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"Hopefully I'll meet you out there on an article soon."
... you were recipient no. 1646 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was away the last hours, - sorry to see what happened, and you on medication. All the best for your health, and family! - I would like to take you by your word about meeting at an article. Today I had the death of a woman whom I have admired for a long time on my watchlist. I struggle to get her In The News. All refs were practically dead, all writing (with love by JackofOz) needs to be sourced otherwise. All help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sending you both well wishes and would love to join the effort on the entry if I could be helpful! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, - you are helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey all. Sorry for doing a poor job at replying to everyone. As I've tried to say as much as possible, thank you all for your support and sorry I wasted your time. You all know hopefully that if there's anything I can do to help, you can always ping me anywhere. GMG^talk 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I spent little time, sorry, didn't even manage to check the broken link in the precious archive, fixed now. Article work, article work ;) - I nominated her for ITN, but more sourcing and formatting still needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Email

When you have a mo - TNT^❤ 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I can't put it any better than the descriptive text of this barnstar This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. - TNT❤ 15:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo part of my email again publicly - I won't disrespectfully ask you to stick around and continue contributing after that, but I hope you do - TNT^❤ 15:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I very much hope you stay as well and that you make a speedy recovery from your back issues you mention above. Your content contribution of FA and GAs is ultimately of more lasting value than many admin duties anyway... without the quality content that makes up much of the pedia, and the diligent editors such as yourself who go out and research and develop it, there wouldn't be much to administer. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconded - I stand by my Support vote, even with what was brought forward. I thank you for every contribution you've made to the project thus far, and I hope to see you continue that effort in the future, if you so choose. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the support. Let's go build an encyclopedia. I've always found that fun personally. GMG^talk 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note

At the risk of treading where I'm not wanted, I did want to leave a note saying how much I do appreciate you as an editor, and that your demeanor in what I'm sure was a stressful experience was nothing less than graceful, and that it did nothing but increase the amount of respect I have for you, regardless of my stance in the RfA. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I landed on the side of posting it publicly since my criticism was so public. Anyway, all the best, and thank you for all that you do for this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just want to add on that we hope you will overcome your stress, continue to be a good editor, work on level-headedness and apply again in 6 months or a year. Andrevan@ 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, forgive me if I am found to be overreacting but I find this remark in the grand scheme of things rather insensitive and condensending; who are the "we" here anyway? Alex Shih (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite being in the opposers' column and someone who probably ought not to show up here, I have to concur with Alex. Whilst I am certain that it wasn't your intentions, I'm afraid that the the bit about level-headedness wasn't necessary and condescending by a mile.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, all this is nice and well fellas. Unfortunately, since any follow up RfA regardless of time frame is almost guaranteed to start out with Have you stopped beating your wife "have you stopped being a Nazi", it kindof renders the "come back and try again later" bit still ostensibly polite but probably largely meaningless. And anyway, the time to sympathize with or defend me, and/or attack one other was about three hours ago. I withdrew so we could go get some work done instead and stop wasting time. So lets go get some work done instead. GMG^talk 18:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Point taken and not to belabor anything. I apologize if my comment came off condescending. Nobody thinks you are a Nazi or sympathize with Nazis. The concern is about temperament, which I do believe you can improve. I will leave you alone now. Best of luck. Andrevan@ 22:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you are a Nazi or sympathize with Nazis. Sorry Andrevan... but I suspect you need to reread the RfA. GMG^talk 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, that’s certainly not my view of you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

...I'm...going to make the conscious decision to not quote anything at all here, and just move on. Thank you for your service to the community. GMG^talk 00:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

...and coming from the young man in the twenty second row, that response defines precisely why your RfA should have been successful. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Time for a stiff one

There are some moments in life where there is only one civilized recourse.

There are some moments in life where there is only one civilized recourse.

This was a dreadful RfA. I'd take the rest of the day off and sample some of the finer things in life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's some practical way that I can buy you a drink, I'd like to do so. Happy to share a paypal address by email? I'm very disappointed that this RfA didn't fly. GoldenRing (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries GR. And anyway, I'm on some god awful medication for my back at the moment that I can't drink on anyway. So it looks like I'll have to take a rain check. GMG^talk 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice

Hi. I'm Protonk. You don't know me from Adam. Like some other people you've never met or interacted with I showed up to your RfA and decided based on what I read of yours and/or what other people wrote about what you wrote (which is often the case as in any discussion about a user) that you should not be an admin. That's...a hard experience to go through. Even my RfA which was pretty uncontroversial and forever ago engendered serious anxiety and concern for me. Total and near total strangers summing you up is stressful. I won't offer more sympathy, not because you don't deserve it but because sympathy from a total stranger who--by all appearances--just got the outcome they wanted at your expense is at best valueless.

I implore you to think carefully and long about why a bunch of total strangers showed up to your RfA with strong and severe opinions about you. I suspect you've already given it some thought and I can see that other editors have offered their thoughts to you. In thinking about it, consider that the answer may not be one which flatters you or your conduct. You'll certainly find or be offered answers that do. Those answers will come as a balm and will almost all seem to stem from a place of understanding and nuance, especially when compared to categorical rejection. They will, to the last, have a grain of truth or more. Many will feel clever or speak to a platonic detachment which feels so appropriate to our mission here. The most potent will make you feel proud of your iconoclasm.

Those words are poison.

"I...I do reserve the right to defend bigots, because I'm better than them." The pause you telegraph here is instructive to me. It indicates that not only did you consider your words by writing them in the first place but you considered your consideration. Consider it a bit more. The idea that we're better than bigots therefore we can consider their ideas without being captured by them (because we're not ignorant, stupid, biased--take your pick) is as seductive as it is wrong. We all came from the same dirt which we'll all return to. There are bigots who founded colleges and bigots who won wars just as there are bigots whose crowning achievement is shooting up their Keurig. I live in America so I've had to spend much more of my time than I expected in the last year marching against nazis. At one of those marches I ran into some asshole very proud of his white genocide shirt that didn't even have the right 14 damn words on it. I don't flatter myself that I'm better than him. Doing so only accomplishes two things. First, it allows me to dismiss the threat he poses without engaging it. Second, it leads me to believe that whatever challenge he is facing and failing I am overcoming from the start. The thread between both of those is there is work to be done on ourselves and with others at all times. You have work to do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

You might object that the work you've set out to do is outlined in the end of the paragraph I quoted above. Engaging with racism in the way you describe can be useful but most contexts on wikipedia (including the one spurring the comment you made) aren't a personal and private intervention. What you say and do is not just for the consumption of an intended audience of one. You're finding that out rather rudely right now but so might an editor engaged in a dispute with someone who is promoting racist views on wikipedia. They might be surprised to discover you've set out to "be [a] friend" to bigots, as a rule. They would rightly expect you to treat them fairly and just as rightly feel unfairly treated when you act to demonstrate your friendship. They won't know that deep down you don't harbor the same feelings as the bigot (how could they!) and fundamentally it won't matter. They also won't know your intent in establishing this friendship (again, how could they) nor will they (I suspect) feel validated that you've 'dumbfounded' the other editor. From their perspective they'll have only seen an administrator who treated them unfairly and in doing so offered comfort to a bigot.

I hope you'll read through your RfA when you're able and seek out those who offered strong criticism. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not on a mission to find and cure racism. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I do believe in the presumption of respecting basic human dignity, and I would do my best to treat the fascist as I would the black panther, the communist as I would the priest, the misguided teenager as I would the Pulitzer prize winner. I've met all types on Wikipedia. If they can learn to get along, and play by our rules, and not be disruptive then they're welcome to stay. If a consummate moderate cannot learn to get along, play by our rules, and not be disruptive, then we should show them the door just as well.

If you mean to say that my words were woefully inadequate at expressing that sentiment, then I agree with you wholeheartedly, and that's already been well demonstrated. If you mean to say that being an administrator means that need to abandon the presumption of human dignity, then I'm not cut out for it, and it's a good thing I didn't get it after all. GMG^talk 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say what I meant to say. I don't think I'll offer more except this: it is possible that every single editor who came to your RfA and found your comment both serious and disqualifying was misguided as to the mission, blinkered by social justice or insufficiently attentive to the plight of the oppressed. It is possible. But it is also possible that some of them had real concerns. I leave to you which seems more likely. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I take the concerns seriously, and I'm not at all trying to accuse anyone of being blinkered by social justice or anything similar. You seem to be saying that I handled things badly, and my statement was poorly advised and poorly communicated. I agree with you. GMG^talk 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am emphatically not saying that. Nowhere did I say that your statement was poorly advised or poorly communicated. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid we may be talking across purposes, and I'm missing the point. Do you think it was well worded and well advised? Because on that we would certainly disagree. GMG^talk 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this comment was worded very well, given what I thought you meant to say. You established your perspective by talking about your childhood. You explained your bonafides with respect to how you live IRL. You made and justified your claim that you were unrepentant about defending bigots with an appeal to the preceding paragraphs. It was as well worded as one could expect. What I'm saying is it betrays a lack of judgment I found both serious and disqualifying for reasons I explained above.

In your reply you give me a promise of your even-handedness in dealing with every editor and then indicate that your original comment was meant to express this sentiment. If that were the case I would say the original comment was poorly worded. But I don't think that's the case. I think you're expressing two separate sentiments. One in the comment where you say "I don't want to be their enemy. I want to be their friend. Because those type of people are looking for enemies, and when they meet a friend that doesn't look like they do, they're dumbfounded. I want to dumbfound them." and another above. They're not two attempts at describing the same thought; they're two different thoughts and I should have no reason to think one not reflecting the other is a result of poor communication. Protonk (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The strict construction you insist upon in reading these comments suggests either a failure of understanding context, or a failure of good faith, on your part - it's conversation, not a policy statement, and it no way deserves the most immoral reading possible, which you seek to impose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is linked in my signature. Protonk (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason to tell me what I already know - at any rate, the matter belongs, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If that were the case I would say the original comment was poorly worded. That is the case, which is why it was poorly worded. I have no particular interest in Nazis. But they exist, so I do happen to come across them on occasion. The particular instance I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote was related to this editor, which had a run in with a current admin, who felt that they could apparently be as dismissive as they pleased with editors who disagreed with them ideologically, and because of that, it bounced around from ANI, to RFEA to BLPN. I caught it at BLPN, and instead of piling on with flippant disregard, I did my best to explain how the editor's concerns conflicted with policy and practice. Because I did so, it stopped bouncing. The editor didn't get their way, but they had an explanation for why they didn't.

If the situation were backward, and the editor had been a radical black nationalist, or...I dunno...a radical anti-Catholic Nativist time travelling from the mid 19th Century, I would have attempted to do exactly as I did in exactly the same way. The only difference between what I originally wrote, and what I subsequently wrote, was that the original post dealt in the particular, and the subsequent explanations dealt with the general. That I chose to move from the particular to the general, and not visa versa was a mistake. I felt it would be poignant, because it is more difficult to apply the general principle in the case of someone who probably actively hates you, and it's much less difficult to apply that principle to someone who hates someone else instead. GMG^talk 12:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As I mentioned above, my advice is for you to find the folks who read the comment as I did--folks, I might add, who aren't ideologues or neophytes but are long term editors, admins and other folk who you've worked with before and those you haven't--and seek to learn from them what they found so troubling. Not to to seek to explain to them how you think it is innocuous. It's clear you do. I hope you'll do so. And I hope in doing so you won't start as you did with me, lecturing (in the very first line of your reply) an admin who has been on wikipedia a goddamn decade about the mission. Protonk (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you wish to appeal to your authority, is no reason why anyone should accept what you say - your view was not even a majority view of experienced editors, support or oppose. He did not lecture you. You may have lectured, here, though, as your appeal to authority suggests. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you want from me? Do you want me to say that I said some stupid things? I said some stupid things. Do you want me to feel bad because I offended a lot of people? I feel terrible. I feel awful and publicly embarrassed in a way I've seldom if ever been. Do you want me to apologize? I have. Do you want me to get feedback on what a piece of shit I am? I've gotten at least a little bit. I was opposed by people who offered to nominate me and who have encouraged me to run for months. I was opposed by a crat who thought I was such an exceptional piece of shit that they couldn't possibly be neutral in a crat chat. Do you want me to take that seriously? I do. I'm sedated enough right now to make a horse sit still and I still haven't gotten a full night's sleep.

Do you want to curse at me and feel superior because you passed an RfA once? Please don't. Please go build an encyclopedia instead, because I don't want to argue with you. I just want to go and check the copyright status on three more fucking images please. Thanks. GMG^talk 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Protonk's is quite the impression they wish to give; or, indeed, the path to follow. But as for all that bollocks about "I've been here a decade": I'll just leave your last 100 edits in eighteen months here. At least they managed to keep their tools. "Legacy Admin Alert" :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfair

Sorry your RFA failed. In my opinion that's completely unfair. Still, I hope you'll continue to be the great contributor that you've been so far. Kind regards, Yintan  19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I promise that I will continue to strive to be as mediocre but persistent as I've always been. There's no shortage of work that needs done. GMG^talk 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. It is making me doubt my willingness to work here, though. We'll see. Cheers, Yintan  19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the last thing I want is to be the RfA that scares people off of RfA. And it's not like I carefully chose my words throughout in a way that leaves me blameless for giving people the wrong impression. The encyclopedia will still be here tomorrow, and so will I. I hope you are too. GMG^talk 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Sorry about that mess. The fact that you were able to keep a cool head throughout is truly a highlight; Possibly the greatest thing I've ever witnessed on this site. Compliments on civility are not damaging, and no matter what anyone else says, that is an indisputable fact. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 20:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. And thank you for all your help with new editors that I seem to keep coming across. GMG^talk 21:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not much more I can add....

...but that I'm sorry you had to endure what you did. I'll spare you the patronizing and simply say that I thought what happened sucked out loud. - ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries Atsme. Thank you for the kind thoughts. GMG^talk 07:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(Another) barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I really appreciate how you went through a grueling RFA even with a lot of oppose !votes. It would be hard for any editor to keep their composure in any RFA, let alone one with a lot of opposition. Keep up the good work ethics and civility, and I hope you'll run again soon. epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no promises epicgenius. At least I got some honest criticism from it. I certainly can't fault anyone for pulling their punches. GMG^talk 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

la renaissance sur rouages

I look forward to your next RFA, hopefully as GreenMeansGoOnWheels! (power~enwiki~on~wheels) 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks power. No promises on a rerun, but there's still no shortage of work to be done. GMG^talk 07:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Perhaps it's insensitive for me to say so (and if it is, I apologize for my lack of tact), given my vote, but I'm truly sorry about that RfA: if I could have found a place to put it, I'd have noted somewhere in my comments that you've always been a fine editor, and an exemplary gentleman, in all our encounters; yet I cannot help but feel that saying so would have just been twisting the knife more. All that aside, though, I hope this doesn't sour you on Wikipedia: we need good editors, excellent editors, and (let's be honest) you're one of the best, GMG. I certainly hope we don't lose you, but I'd understand if you decided that your family takes priority. One last thing: if I'm ever in Kentucky, how's a beer sound? My treat. — Javert2113 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries Javert2113. Thanks for your feedback. If you ever drive through Appalachia hit me up. GMG^talk 07:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Surreal

Don't know if I understand what went down. Perhaps it was just too surreal. I happen to observe offhand that you write & communicate well, so additionally don't understand the self-deprecation re same. (What seems to be "amiss" is reaction -- fear of exaggerated possibilities untied to the real world, that somehow cross an "Accepted Politically Correct Values" pillar?! Can't get the comparison out of my head Kanye West scolded recently by a politician w/ same skin color: "He's a creative young person but sometimes speaks out of turn. He needs assistance in forming his ideas [properly]." Surreal needle off the gauge!?) Warm or cold? --IHTS (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry IHTS, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about Kanye West to really understand the reference. But I certainly can't say I've never spoken out of turn. Hopefully that's something I can improve on. GMG^talk 07:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Speaking out of turn" in that case was euphemism for "We don't like your ideas getting traction; please shut up." And now Kanye's even been threatened. --IHTS (talk)

think that's called a silver lining  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My time was not wasted

Please don't suggest that you "wasted time" by coming forward to run the gauntlet of detractors and being willing to take on a job whose difficulty is seldom appreciated by the community as a whole. I hope you will try again before too long. Deb (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Deb. I appreciate the feedback I got. I'm not totally sure it was a net positive for the project though, and justified in using up the time of 200 some odd people. At the very least, hopefully it doesn't scare too many other's off of running for RfA in the future. GMG^talk 07:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to echo Deb's sentiment - I don't think you wasted anyone's time. The only RfAs that applies to are the hopeless NOTNOW ones. You had every right to put yourself forward. Better luck next time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The RfA Barnstar

For your courageous decision to run for adminship, despite the high standards and low levels of civility held there. (I myself have to admit that I was not especially civil there) L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion and the Catholic Church. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea) The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Minarchism The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minarchism. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douma chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 12 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of longest wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chadian Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC) German war effort arbitration case opened You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC) James Shields Thanks for all your help! It passed. If there's anything else that we can collaborate on, please let me know. (I'm looking for content to write) Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Hey, no problem at all Eddie891. It was fun. Umm...Reading Railroad massacre has been on my list of things to do for probably a year, and it's part of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 articles (currently 1 FA [2] and 2 GAs [3] [4]), and it's a real contender for a WP:FT if we could manage to get a few more articles promoted. Might be a good time to revisit the topic. McCabe is pure gold for most of these articles and makes the writing easy. GMGtalk 22:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Do you think it should be moved to Reading railroad strike, to fit with the other, comparable articles? Eddie891 Talk Work 11:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC) It really depends on whether this is a common name for this event in particular. I honestly haven't read up on it in long enough to know off the top of my head. GMGtalk 11:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Today I 5x improved it and DYK nominated. I don't really know how much more work it needs to get to GA. What do you think?Eddie891 Talk Work 00:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Well it's surely a heckuvan improvement. I meant to work some on it last week and got sidetracked by an FAC, and a giant (and ongoing) Library of Congress dump on Commons. I would say that these have been articles where contemporary newspaper accounts have so far been really helpful in getting to the nitty gritty details. The whole thing was terribly scandalous at the time, and on the front page of every paper in the nation, especially keeping in mind that right at this time, to the day, Pittsburgh was still burning, and many major cities were either actively rioting, or dearly threatening to. It's all super interesting, and almost strange that you never learn anything about it in school. GMGtalk 01:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Reading Railroad Massacre GA passed. Thanks for all your help! (I suppose it was mostly you.)Eddie891 Talk Work 12:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Hey, thanks for motivating me to pick the subject back up Eddie891. Four down, four to go. So halfway to a WP:GT. Still have St. Louis, Shamokin, Chicago, and the main article. St. Louis needs written. Shamokin needs almost entirely rewritten. Chicago is in the ball park. Rewriting the main should be easy once the child articles are done. Pretty much just copy, paste, and cite the leads from the other articles, and then provide some big picture follow up which should be fairly easy too. GMGtalk 12:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Do you want to divide and conquer? I feel much more secure in the topic, and could probably write most of a ga now. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Umm...I dunno. I think it worked pretty well on Reading where you laid down the framework for the article and I pretty much just added some meat to the bones of what you've already written. It worked much more smoothly than Scranton, Pittsburgh or Baltimore, each of which probably took three months or more to complete. Lol. You started writing on Reading 19 May, and it took us exactly nine days to reach GA. I'd say that's pretty freakin stellar performance! GMGtalk 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Oh yeah, I also still have a massive freaking mess on Commons to clean up, on the order of like 500-700 images that need cropped, deleted, and/or renamed. I've so far gotten through...maybe 200 of them. So you've definitely got some time to work away on your own for a bit, and we can huddle back up when you think you're in a good place. GMGtalk 13:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Hey thanks Eddie891. I'll be traveling until Monday, but I'll definitely review any comments then or Tuesday depending on how much time I have when I get back. GMGtalk 22:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 May 2018 From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails? Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals Featured content: Featured content selected by the community Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work Traffic report: We love our superheroes Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues Humour: Play with your food Gallery: Wine not? From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

The article Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)

The article Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman

Great minds think alike! I was just going to put File:Ingrid Bergman, Gaslight 1944.jpg in the article when I found you had already done it, just minutes after I uploaded that image to Commons. clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Latest file feed can sometimes lead to gratuitously stepping on other people's toes. My bad. So many batch uploads the last several weeks from the early 20th century I don't hardly even check who uploaded them anymore. GMG^talk 18:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't step on my toes. I just thought it was funny how someone ended up using the image so quickly and right where I intended it to be used. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, is there a reason you're not using c:COM:CROPTOOL? It takes care of most of the particulars for you. GMG^talk 18:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

For that particular image, I cropped it from an old revision at File:Ingrid Bergman - Gaslight 44.jpg ([5]), so CropTool wouldn't have worked unless I reverted to that revision. I do usually use it since, as you said, it handles everything else. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philo logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Philo logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Obligatory notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not take exception if folks just assumed I was aware, at least from the permanent satirical notice on my user page. GMG^talk 21:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fred Rogers Company logo 2017.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fred Rogers Company logo 2017.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

-- 2601:602:77F:D09D:446B:E80E:9D4B:6DA9 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for There There (novel)

On 25 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article There There (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the title of There There, a 2018 novel about urban Indians in Oakland, California, mirrors Gertrude Stein's quip about the city that "There is no there there"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/There There (novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, There There (novel)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Indian Peace Commission

Hello! Your submission of Indian Peace Commission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Polite Notice

Your deletions of material concerning a certain Alek Minassian was perhaps hasty and perhaps excessive; please use the "citation needed" tag (as you are familiar with tags) rather than lend yourself to con-censorship.126.161.172.98 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please seek consensus for your preferred changes on the article talk page. GMG^talk 18:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

FA for Fawad Khan

Hi, I've recently listed Fawad Khan in FA candidates. I'll an honor for me if you consider reviewing it.Amirk94391 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know that I would be of much use. Pop culture is overall outside my area of expertise, and I don't really do much serious work on biographies of people who haven't been dead for a hundred years. GMG^talk 11:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good on you for jumping in to rapidly improve Rape in Germany. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey no problem at all. I just wish I spoke German. Probably only a few over-caffeinated German speakers away from a GA run. GMG^talk 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you realize...

...that with this edit, you just helped a neo-Nazi to promote the "identitarian" movement by keeping a much more prominent version of their symbol in the article, on the grounds that it's an SVG and the alternative is a JPG. Who cares if it's an SVG! It's in the damn infobox, where it hardly matters/ What matters is that it's an in-your-face logo, dominating the top of the page, helping to promote a vile philosophy and is not a neutral presentation of the symbol, as the other image is. You're clearly not seeing the forest for the trees, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Really? Because he's the third editor to revert your edit-warring, he's a Nazi? I don't see how the status quo ante bellum image is "in-your-face" or less neutral than the other image. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Chill out.
2. They're almost identical.
3. SVGs are generally preferred for simple geometric shapes, because the former image is 245 × 217, and an SVG can AFAIK, be scaled up indefinitely.
4. NOTCENSORED means there's really no reason to use a 100 x 100 pixelated tumbnail of the devil himself, over a high quality photo.
5. If the difference between raster and vector graphics is really what pushes someone over the edge into extremism, then Wikipedia is probably the least of their worries. GMG^talk 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh please. Any desktop computer trying to display an svg at a resolution of more than 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 pixels on a side or so will melt. You're a disgrace to the 3.14th reich (vector nazis), GMG. Get your shit together. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well...Apparently the largest display in the world is 286.7 million pixels. So that's probably more philosophy than science. GMG^talk 19:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's pure conjecture. I never did bother to figure out how many flops it would take to render that, I just assumed the renderer would be expecting a 64-bit integer for each pixel dimension. So it's quite possibly a computer would melt well below that resolution. Speaking of which... Hold my beer, would ya? <heads off to his computer room> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• @GMG: Your response says quite a few things:

• You don't understand the difference between a policy and a guideline
• You don't understand what NOTCENSORED means
• Your visual sense is quite poor if you think that two images are "almost identical", when they're clearly not at all identical in visual impact
• Your powers of observation and evaluation are not very good in judging other editors either
• We're all quite lucky that you did not become an admin; if you try again, I'll be on the forefront of attempting to insure that that doesn;t happen, since your judgement is demonstrably bad.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sharing your opinion I guess. This dispute is silly, and you're making a very big deal out of something exceedingly minor. I pretty clearly linked you to a policy, and so I'm not sure where that bit is coming from. And if that's quite all you have to say, I've got an article and Wikiquote on an English teacher to finish. Happy editing. GMG^talk 22:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Attempting to insure" sounds like paid editing. Should be looked into imho. 155.254.48.193 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

BMK, please stop the personal attacks. "We're all quite lucky that you did not become an admin; if you try again, I'll be on the forefront of attempting to insure that that doesn;t happen, since your judgement is demonstrably bad" is a vio of WP:NPA. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh. This is an NPA safe area generally. I'd rather they be here than elsewhere. GMG^talk 22:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) BMK should probably drop it. GMG should be aware this is more-or-less an exact replay of the scenario that sunk his last RFA; (details withheld on-wiki per WP:BEANS). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh gee fizz. Chill out. GMG^talk 22:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I still think GMG should have passed RfA. Bah. (If nothing else, I am certain he would know that if he had passed and this dispute arose, he would know about WP:INVOLVED and not use them). In my view, a far better use of everyone's time would be to visit the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, London, look at the alarming parallels between the rise of Nazism in the 1920s and what's happening with movements today that are similar, then educate readers so they can try not to repeat history and times that historians tend to retrospectively class as "bad". The size of an image isn't really that big of an issue as the content and politics surrounding it. (I realise it's illegal to display the Swastika or any Nazi-related imagery in Germany, but that hasn't stopped the AfD taking up seats there). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We use better images when better images are available. That's an apolitical position. The subject of the article is immaterial. I follow and have a strong opinion about German national politics about as much as I do Oregon state politics, which is to say I don't. I did not even know what AfD was until I had to try to figure out why you were suddenly talking about article deletion. GMG^talk 17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, a Core i3-560 running on an Asus board with 4GB of DDR-3 memory has a seizure and then cries itself to sleep trying to render an svg of a black circle at 2⁶⁴ pixels per side. Why am I still harping on about this you ask? Because it's a more productive discussion than arguing over who's right about an infobox image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Indian Peace Commission

On 6 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Indian Peace Commission, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Indian Peace Commission, established by the US Congress in 1867 to negotiate with and "civilize" Native American tribes, ultimately ushered in a decade of war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indian Peace Commission. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Indian Peace Commission), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hollow Horn Bear LCCN 2016858434 (2) (cropped).jpg

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Hollow Horn Bear LCCN 2016858434 (2) (cropped).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Armbrust. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how does this interact with POTD? I don't believe I actually did anything at all to go from FA to TFA. Not sure if it's the same with FP, where there is a coordinator that handles the queue. Definitely an interesting guy in an under served topic area, and at least to my mind, of more historic importance than the cruise ship currently on the main page (no offense to transport nerds). GMG^talk 15:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The scheduling of POTDs is currently done by Crisco 1492. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Right, GreenMeansGo. But if you want to choose a date on your own, that's fine too.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent pic. Sca (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks. And thanks to Fæ for giving me tens of thousands of images from this Library of Congress collection to dig through. Been working on restoring the lead image for Aurelia Henry Reinhardt. Not sure if it would make FP or not, but we'll see how well I've dusted off my photoshop skills. GMG^talk 13:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Prison education peer review

Hi there. Thanks so much for your comments at the Prison education FAC, they were very helpful. Unfortunately the FAC has been closed; while I wasn't expecting it to pass this closure is unfortunate since there was no clear consensus among reviewers yet on how to improve it. Accordingly I've nominated the article for peer review. All comments are welcome, and I will happily review something for you in return for your comments there. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Prison education/archive2. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow. That moved more quickly than I had anticipated. Geez that's a hard topic. Yeah. I'll try to set aside some time over the next few weeks to roll up my sleeves more and see if we can't fix er up. I wonder whether PR is the next best step, or whether two or three of us shouldn't just try to go line-by-line through the FAC and address each point. But I don't think I've ever actually been involved in a PR. I didn't even do A class review on my FA, but that was a much easier topic admittedly. I also kindof wonder (after GA, PR, and FAC, then looking at PR again), whether there isn't a few select outstanding scholars in the field with a university email that we could ask for a read over and some feedback, maybe even source recommendations. One good obscure but comprehensive book can make the difference, especially if it could give us, for example, a concise overview of Africa rather than assembling a collage of sources to make an overview.

I'll be traveling some this week, and I'm sure I'll be busy when I get back. But probably mid next week I should have some time to do some more serious work. GMG^talk 10:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to editors like you who are willing to review articles such as North Cascades National Park and offer excellent suggestions, it is now a Featured Article!--MONGO (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. Congrats and good work too. Much better than any of the national park articles I've written so far. GMG^talk 16:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

More Trump images

I've also got File:Trump Protester in Parliament Square.jpg and File:Trump Is Like My Son's Nappies.jpg if you fancy running the gauntlet of a Commons transfer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Don't do it, Green. You have too much to live for! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done BTW, Commons Helper makes it pretty effortless to transfer any file from any project and apply the correct deletion tags even if you don't speak the language. Especially helpful when there's suddenly a high profile article like a Google Doodle that has a better image available locally on a non-English project. GMG^talk 21:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I did see a sign that called Trump a "Nazi Wotsit", but I didn't take a photo of it, so "racist Nazi Cheeto" had to do instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In other news, apparently Wikidata doesn't like Lakota, and eww. That's a messy Phab if I've ever seen one. GMG^talk 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I'm quite sad I wasn't active on Commons when I drove through Hell to attend the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in 2010. GMG^talk 21:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conan Exiles logo 2017.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Conan Exiles logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yomawari Midnight Shadows video game logo 2017.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yomawari Midnight Shadows video game logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florence and the Machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coachella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Query re BLP

Thanks for your help earlier. Would you be able to take a look at this? I posted it a couple of days ago, but no response from anyone. I think it's just Daily Mail redux but would appreciate your advice. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Responded there. GMG^talk 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian Peace Commission

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indian Peace Commission you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Marathon Oil logo.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Marathon Oil logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup up ShakespeareFan00. I screwed that whole situation up trying to de-conflict the files here and at Commons. GMG^talk 10:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Congrats...

... on scoring a quick TFP with Hollow Horn Bear. Xcllnt choice. Sca (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I'm pleasantly surprised it went as smoothly as it did. Unfortunately I lost about three hours of restoration work on another image when my laptop was stolen. But I have been considering File:Lençóis Maranhenses 2018.jpg. Probably need to beef up the article first though. GMG^talk 13:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering my question on the Teahouse page. I couldn't see how to thank you there! I'm still learning and have planned to visit the pages you suggested. RA778T (talk)

Hey, no problem RA778. Making a new article is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, definitely a lot harder than working to improve existing articles. You may also want to review our notability guidelines for biographies, which ultimately determines whether a subject is suitable yet for their own article. GMG^talk 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-Cameron11598^(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Priya Kumar

Dear sir, I am going to give details of this article full. ARJ 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Amarjeetkr97. If you require an extended period of time to work on an article before it is ready for publishing, then you should first create it in your sandbox, which you can start by clicking on User:Amarjeetkr97/sandbox. GMG^talk 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear sir, i can also see this, website http:// www.priya-kumar.com

For more details, i want some time tor update article. ARJ 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarjeetkr97 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Amarjeetkr97. Official websites are not an acceptable source to build an article from. You will need to find independent coverage in published sources. As I said above, you should work on the article first as a draft in your sandbox. GMG^talk 15:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alex Gurteen

The Alex Gurteen article should not be speedily deleted in my opinion because it is not a copy of the previous version due to the fact I have written the article from scratch. The article looks fairly similar because it list the same achievements as in the first article. I accept this page may not be kept but I do think it should be done properly through the AFD process. Epsomathlete (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Epsomathlete. I didn't apply the speedy deletion tag. I applied the tag related to a biography of a living person without any sources. The speedy deletion tag relates to the previous AfD discussion. I simply replaced it after it was removed, because you ought not remove speedy deletion tags on your own article according to policy. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, and I'm not heavily involved in either sports or social media. GMG^talk 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't replace again. Epsomathlete (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

My error.

Hadn’t even noticed I’d hit the revert, which is damned odd, but I’m still not used to a pad vs. a PC. Qwirkle (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries Qwirkle. I feel your pain. I hate editing on anything that doesn't come with a keyboard. GMG^talk 12:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Press box

Re: As to the issues of BLP raised on the Jeong article, I'm less than sympathetic, so long as the source would otherwise be reliable enough for us to normally use in an article.

Not to re-litigate the issue, but I wanted to make clear that I agree with (and always have!) the WP:RS standard you propose; wanted to clarify in case I left you with the wrong impression. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I intended to weigh in on the BLPN thread that you started, but then got busy and forgot until I saw it pop up on VP. But I think that's a fair standard: if you can't use it in an article, don't use it on the talk page. And of course that will have to be judged itself on a case-by-case basis depending on the source and the claim it's used to support. The big difference being that the article need concern itself with BLP violation by way of UNDUE weight, while the talk page doesn't. GMG^talk 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I wondered if I should just open an RfC asking if RS should apply to {{Press}}, but I wanted to figure out how other people understand its purpose first. I can also foresee some people arguing WP:EL as more applicable, but I find EL not to be much help, since it's both vague and we're talking about a talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I too am unclear on the purpose of the box and conflicted on the standard for inclusion. My true feeling on the issue is to say "use common sense" (or, this fuzzy wikispeak equivalent) even as I realize that that is unenforceable and unhelpful as a guidance. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think applying WP:ELBLP gets you to the same spot, just by a different path: material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. GMG^talk 17:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lençóis Maranhenses 2018.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lençóis Maranhenses 2018.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg

Hi GreenMeansGo. Since you were a participant in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27#File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg, I thought you should know about c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh geez Marchjuly. That debate. I believe last time it spanned about half a dozen forums across two projects, and made my common sense start to leak out of my left ear. I actually saw this one uploaded, slapped a cat on and decided I wasn't emotionally ready for the ensuing shit storm. I watchlisted the DR, but... it's gonna be a doozy. There is no right answer that doesn't make you want to take everything you know about TOO and just throw it in the garbage because someone found something stupid and called it art. GMG^talk 00:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Those various FFD about paintings were pretty contentious, but I just decided to notify all of those involved in the one about this particular file as a courtesy. For reference, both the Commons file and the local file have been nominated/tagged for deletion. Perhaps they should, but at least the local one started out as non-free content and was only apparently converted to PD as a result of the FFD discussion; so, I'm not sure if the tagger of the local file was aware of that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And we've already started with a !vote that completely misses the point. This is going to go well. GMG^talk 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That type of boilerplate argument wasn't very effective in the various FFD discusisons where it was used, so I'm not sure why he/she thought it would work on Commons, where they could care less about such a thing. The only worse argument you could possibly make would be to argue that the file should be kept on Commons because it's fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is almost a fair use argument but not quite; it's also pretty much what happend at the FFDs: Person A posts something completely off-point and then Person B follows up with a "keep per A" post. In the FFDs, neither !voter addressed the relevant issue(s) being discussed and neither !voter seemed to understand WP:NFCC. History so to speak now seems to be repeating itself on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.

Re: this, yeah, that was a mistake, thanks for fixing it. Editing on mobile, generated a random click. Thought I had managed to cancel it, but I guess not. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. BTW RoySmith, there is an option under gadgets that will require a pop-up confirmation when using rollback on mobile. It's pretty helpful, especially with this silly "everything jumps three inches randomly" new watchlist. GMG^talk 14:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did get the pop-up. I thought I had hit cancel, but maybe the cancel button moved three inches while I was pressing it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

one2many page should not be deleted CMASChris001 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 08 Augustus

Hi GreenMeansGo

Could you please indicate what is not good on the one2many page ? You mention that the references used generic unreliable websites. I would not consider FCC, ETSI, official d=Dutch government websites unreleiable websites. Special care has been taken that , No commercial or press releases are part of the one2many wiki page. Sources make are official whitepapers from independent organiations 5G Americas and ETSI.

one2many is a significant contributor since 2017 to the public safety in many countries and for that contribution it should be able to be found on wiki.

hope for you fair response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMASChris001 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey CMASChris001. Other than the fact that the article has already been delete twice as blatant advertising, as I indicated in the deletion rationale, the sources in the article either barely mention the subject, or do not appear to mention them at all. Searches for additional available sources did not find any of better quality. In order to met our standards for notability and quality for an article on Wikipedia, a subject needs to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. This subject does not appear to have received this type of coverage, and so it does not appear to yet quality for its own article. GMG^talk 14:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:GreenMeansGo one should get an additional chance to improve and learn also in Wiki. The current Wiki article does not contain any advertising for one2many. We removed any article that potentially made reference to one2many as you would rank that as possible advertisement. one2many is an important contributor to international standarisation committes as 3GPP and [[ETSI] in public warning since 2007

For you information one2many business competition has Wiki pages so the rational to remove one2many seems not fair.

Please indicate what we need to improve in our page not to be removed by you ? 16:08, 8 August 2018 (CETCMASChris001 (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 16:09)

As I said, what is needed is to demonstrate that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a "venue" for companies to seek equal footing with their competition. If there are similar articles on similar companies which have also not received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, then they should be deleted also. GMG^talk 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I Did Seek Consensus

Please note that reverting an edit 3 times within a 24 hour period can get you sanctioned. I'm not sure if you read the talk on the Alex Jones page. There is somewhat divided consensus, and your welcome to join the discussion. People who put up edits with bias are violated WP s NPOV policy. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I did read the discussion on the article's talk page; I simply had nothing substantive to add at this time to the points others have already made. I have made a single revert on the article today, while you have made a number of them, and have at this point been reverted by probably four or five editors. The onus is on you to reach a consensus for your preferred changes, and currently you don't have it. GMG^talk 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I hope you forgive me. Looking back, for some reason, I assumed that you were the user who removed my edit five times. I can't explain exactly how it happened, but somehow I didn't refer to the TP. I then scrolled down your page in 1 millisecond without seeing that you're a well established user. I'm just one of those people with slightly less stable minds. I hope it didn't appear that I was trying to be malicious. Sorry. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Intellectual Property Theft. I understand that you are new, and there's a lot to learn about Wikipedia in order to get up to speed with all our many may rules. If you want my honest recommendation, it would be to find something you're interested in that's fairly uncontroversial and do some editing there for a while so you can have some time to learn the ropes in a more friendly atmosphere. You might want to check out WikiProject Music, where it looks like there's no shortage of work to be done. All in all, contemporary politics is one of the least collaborative and most combative areas of the encyclopedia to work on, one of the hardest areas for new editors to become accustomed to, and frankly, I get more enjoyment myself out of contributing to literally anything else. But feel free to drop by any time if I can be of any help. GMG^talk 19:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)