User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 10

Yo, Shield o' Sham-er

Could you take a look at this one? Strikes me as google-dredge gone wild. Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that you are technically correct but that User:Garuda28 is probably functionally/practically correct. By that I mean that dabs partly make up for the fact that we have a shit search engine (and I assume always will), and that we should err on the side of assuming readers are idiots assuming that some significant portion of readers speak English, but not as a first language. I think DABs should probably err on the side of, as you put it, "ignorant usage", and doing so isn't really a problem until a dab get's really big and hard to navigate. GMG^talk 23:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, though, that a reference work should make clear when a usage is...substandard. Notice the arguments at the talk page; they mostly aren't suggesting it is a useful guide for the clewless, they are suggesting it's correct. That's one of the paths to Wiki-circular BS. Anmccaff (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that people who are clueless about the military think it's a reasonable disambiguater (sp?) (word?) is itself evidence for an argument to dab it (verb? IT IS NOW!). GMG^talk 23:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I would add that if the focus is making more knowledge more free for more people, and we're writing in the flagship lingua franca of all such projects, the incentive is clearly to err on the side of being functionally rather than technically correct. GMG^talk 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. It strikes me that even Google does this better; Did you mean for mistakes, and seamless substitution for variants. Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Google definitely does this better, but they have 74,000 full time employees, and we have 280 (plus contractors). We're not a company; we're a soup kitchen, at least when you compare us to Google. What we do have is around 300,000 volunteers who do things the best they can to increase access to free knowledge. GMG^talk 23:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Without going all meta, dunno if that's a relevant comparison here. Commercially, false inclusiveness -pays-; they have reasons to not make fine distinctions here, yet they do. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point regarding false inclusiveness. GMG^talk 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I type in "dod food", Google makes a good guess about what I mean, and brings up the Royal Canin and such...but it doesn't add a mistake to its standard vocabulary. It still asks "did you mean..."; it still points out the error. Here, the error is instead made official far too often. Anmccaff (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's... possible that I'm still missing the point, but... you're comparing an entirely manual process with the most sophisticated search algorithm in the world. That's kindof why I got all meta. That kindof stuff isn't easy... which is why google is google. GMG^talk 01:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that's the "how"; I'm talking the "what". These edits leave the victim reader with the imptession that "United States Military Occupation" is an official term of art for an MOS, which is simply wrong. This usage isn't an ambiguity, its an error.

Anyway, "meta", like "H*tler", is often a sign that a conversation has run its course, so I'll leave it at that.

I disagree. The only thing a dab, like a redirect, needs is plausibility. It's a pretty low standard. GMG^talk 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not technically correct, the standard for a dab is probably somewhere between a redirect and a list, but much lower than an article for inclusion. GMG^talk 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you point me toward where that's written up? If people can just make stuff up and add it like that, at whatever level, then this really is just a game, and maybe not worth the candle. Anmccaff (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:PTM - The standard is basically plausibly... in a sufficiently generic context GMG^talk 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Anmccaff - Best of luck, whatever it is your plans may be. GMG^talk 22:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• It could always be added back in with a note that it's an erroneous use of the term. I've been asked "What was your military occupation?" more than a few times by people who just couldn't exactly remember MOS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

United States military occupation

As someone who has consulted, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries Garuda28, and no reason to be super official. I restored. I hope I've explained my reasoning enough here to not be reverted, but if I haven't I will try to. GMG^talk 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Been dealing with this issue since it came up. Garuda28 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all good Garuda28. Argument is what makes this thing work, as long as we don't confuse opponents for enemies. GMG^talk 01:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Apologies. This is the first time that I have canvassed, and I think only the second or third time an article I wrote (out of hundreds) was Afded. I think it is the second time I have disagreed with the same proposer, and over the same topic. Not realizing that canvassing is viewed as inappropriate, I canvassed four people with whom I have collaborated in the past on articles like the one in question. I am not sure why it is inappropriate to draw to their attention an Afd covering an article of the type that I know interests them because we have worked on them. (I.e., this was not a "friends & family" shout out.) Still, having been warned off, I will comply in the future. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Acad Ronin. As it says in the relevant policy, some types of notification are appropriate, such as with wikiprojects, where I would usually leave as brief and neutral a message as possible, usually something to the effect of "There is currently a discussion at PAGE which may be of interest to this project." These types of message would presumably be just as likely to attract editors who would vote delete as would vote keep, and do so based on the merits of the arguments and relevant policy. They may benefit from their own personal interest and experience in the topic area, and may even know the relevant policy better than the average AfD participant.

However, something like "I need your help urgently" is a pretty clear way of saying "Please come vote keep on this discussion", which can tend to bias the outcome based on who is notified rather than the relevant policies and arguments. At any rate it's usually a waste of time, since these kinds of inappropriately notified participates should usually be overall disregarded by whoever closes the discussion.

It is surprising that someone with your experience was unaware of this, but maybe that's just a sign that you may write really solid articles that are rarely deleted. At any rate, so long as you get the idea now and won't make the same mistake in the future then everything should be just fine, and we can go back to writing a better encyclopedia. Thanks for being receptive to some criticism. Hope to see you out on an article one day. GMG^talk 16:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that of the hundreds (possibly more than 7-800) articles I have written only one has been deleted, mostly because I didn't care enough about the topic (it wasn't about ships and was far out of my usual lanes) to try to spend the time to build it out. My call for help did have some positive results so far though: two of the people I notified edited the article proposed for deletion, with one putting in more good info and sources, building out its notability. Still, an Afd nomination and reaction seems a cumbersome way to draw help on an article. In any case, to reiterate, I will mend my ways. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That feeling...

...When you fought at Little Bighorn, Half the battles of the Indian Wars, testified in a case that went before the Supreme Court, and was invited to the inauguration of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and some random guys want to take a selfie. GMG^talk 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Express Entry Post

GreenMeansGo,

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)

A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one. (Mine got rejected and I was asked to consolidate it with the original that you had rejected last year):

Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant ( and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?

There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

Regards Onkreukbaar (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Onkreukbaar. I would recommend starting with news searches (like this one) before relying on websites. I'd say an oversimplified hierarchy of sources usually goes something like: academic publications > books > news > websites. Websites themselves are usually not a terribly reliable source unless they're somehow affiliated with an educational institution, usually things like universities, museums, NGOs, and educational non-profits. Usually any website that is not run by an organization with public education as their primary goal can be assumed to have some other motive (namely publicity and profit), and so less-perfectly aligns with the goals of Wikipedia (more knowledge, more free, for more people), and has to be taken with some level of skepticism regarding their reliability.

I would also say, looking at your draft, that you are probably taking a bit of a wrong approach to the subject. It seems like you're writing as if you were writing for a website, which, Wikipedia isn't really "a website" ... instead it's more like an "encyclopedia that happens to be hosted online", in the same way that a digitized version of World Book, Britannica, or (for anyone who remembers) Encarta. So for example, an encyclopedia generally doesn't write in the second person, using words like "you", and instead writes in the third person (e.g., "Individuals who qualify..." rather than "If you qualify..."). Also, rather than give an exhaustively detailed treatment of a subject in the way that a specialized website might do, an encyclopedia, as a tertiary source, seeks to give a broad summary of a topic, in a way that would take someone from knowing nothing to knowing something very quickly, but not necessarily make them an expert.

Hopefully this helps to clarify more than it confuses. But there does seem to be sourcing available, although I would add that I would probably start by looking at sources in that news search other than Canada Immigration News, which from what I can tell is essentially just a series of official press releases, and so maybe are a bit miscategorized in a "news search" for our purposes. You could also take a look at a scholarly search (like this one) to see what is usable, although looking through it, it seems to be getting a lot of false positives, and you'll have to take some time going through each source to see what is accessible and relevant.

Again, hopefully this helps. Feel free to drop by any time. GMG^talk 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback GreenMeansGo, I will rewrite my post.

Just to be clear, I did not write the post that you rejected, I wrote this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry_(2) one, and was simply told to consolidate mine with the original. I also relied too heavily on primary sources, and will rewrite my most with better sources - but I believe that I got the tone right. It is a short post, and I would like to know if you also think my style is correct.

Regards, Onkreukbaar (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah Onkreukbaar. I see now. Maybe Robert missed it as well. It's not uncommon for someone to submit two different versions of their draft, but I guess we probably shouldn't be declining this way if it happens to be two drafts on the same topic by two different authors. Honestly, I think it's probably the first time I've seen that happen. GMG^talk 17:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Onkreukbaar, User:GreenMeansGo - I did see that the two drafts were by two different authors. I didn't decline them for that reason. I will also note that the version that User:GreenMeansGo declined was almost certainly copied from the government's information brochure, which is why it is written in the second person, but that means it is probably copyright violation. I originally declined the two versions because they both were based on primary materials. I have asked for comments at the Teahouse. Please respond there. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mind = blown

So... apparently if you use cite journal through the semi-automated form in the text editor, and you enter the DOI first, it will auto-populate all the other information if you click on the little magnifying glass. How... exactly I only now came to realize this is beyond me, but would have saved a lot of clicking and switching back and forth between tabs. GMG^talk 15:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... WHAT??? EEng 13:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

EEng. See below. All you have to do is enter the DOI and click the auto fill magnifying glass. No idea which database it's pulling the information from, and only problem I've encountered so far is that the date format is sometimes inconsistent with the cite journal template. GMG^talk 13:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I get it, just my mind is similarly blown. But where are you doing this? VE? EEng 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I found it. Wow. Amazing. They create all these ridiculous new "features" no one uses, and here's something that's really useful and an experienced editor like myself has never heard of it. EEng 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• It'll try to do this with ISBN numbers in cite-book as well (I only noticed last week when I clicked the magnifying glass to see what would happen). I guess anywhere you see the magnifying glass ("autofill") you can try... It wasn't perfect with the ISBN I tried, but got most of it. -- Begoon 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried ISBN a couple of times since, but I'm down to wading through mostly irrelevant sources on my current project, and all the ones I've tried so far have apparently been too obscure to be in whatever database it's pulling from. GMG^talk 15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a nifty thingamajic that creates a ref from a googlebooks link: [1]. Best thing ever! EEng 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oooh fancy. I will abuse that happily. GMG^talk 17:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I love me some fancy article writing gadgets. GMG^talk 17:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Be carful of its isbns though—it doesn't always format them consistently, which could then involve a lot of pissing about with dashes, etc. Like that thing up there though. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I actually just recently noticed this. Strangely enough, I was being filmed at the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyandry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your post at AN/I

As a side note, for those here saying essentially "go the hell back to retirement" to various editors, you need to seriously consider your attitude. When we have someone accusing someone else of driving away editors, the appropriate response is not to try to drive them away, regardless of your opinion as to the merits of their complaint.

THANK YOU. Can we frame this and add it to the edit notice when posting at any of the dispute resolution boards? –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I get that the original post may have come off as pretty over-the-top, but I don't think the solution to that is telling... hmm... the apparently 121st most prolific contributor of all time by edit count, with enough featured content it nearly breaks the formatting on their userpage, to kindly sod off, we're better off without you. GMG^talk 13:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hanes page, Awards section

I am new to creating a page on Wikipedia. Just after construction I have noted that you have removed an entire section of the awards and recognition for the Hanes page. These awards have been verified by myself through both resume and bibliography. I am very unsure of how to best utilize the functionality of the editing/references etc. and would like to ask why the section was removed and how to return it. Yes, the list is lengthy, but in actuality it has been pared down considerably before publishing on Wiki. Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia and explain how I can restore this. Thanks----Twilder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilder43 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Twilder43. First, per our policies on conflicts of interest, you generally shouldn't be editing the article at all, and if changes absolutely need to be made, you should request they be done on the article talk page using {{request edit}}. Second, even if they were verified by you, they did not include references to sources that meet our standards for reliability, so that they could be verified by readers. Self-published sources, even if they had been included, are generally not sufficient for anything but the most mundane personal details, which generally would not include winning major awards, which would require independently published sources to back up. Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes, and generally seeks to summarize content in prose, and only that content which is essential for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and not necessarily every detail that is available. The list, if reliably sourced, and if added by an editor without a conflict of interest, would need to be severely cut down to only the most important awards most essential for readers. GMG^talk 19:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

hanes page, Awards section

GMG,

A couple of things, as I stated previously I am new here so the question I posed to you was regarding how to place the references you alluded to. No help there. Also you reference and provided a link to regarding "conflict of interest" and have referred to it twice. I DID NOT KNOW THE MAN. I NEVER MET HIM. The information contained on the page was compiled using multiple sources. If you had provided assistance regarding that it would have been helpful. Do you understand that? And finally, on two (2) occasions you have stated "This is not a place for resumes" As Mr. Hanes has been deceased since 2011 I find this not only ridiculous but offensive and don't want to see it again. Your reply is both arrogant and unhelpful and it is obvious why this is how you spend your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilder43 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said you knew him. What you said was that you were editing on behalf of your employer. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and our content is written by volunteers who donate their time and their content to help make knowledge more freely accessible for more people. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, and as such contains encyclopedia articles, not collections of resumes or indiscriminate collections of otherwise encyclopedic information. It also does not contained unlimited unsourced bits of original research by individual editors, and that you personally verified the content does not change that. I'm sorry that you find that offensive, since you do, you may want to consider instead trying to add the information to a different site that is not an encyclopedia, does not have these restrictions, and does host this type of content. GMG^talk 20:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Social policy of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Social policy of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my language... but...

What the actual fuck is this doing in Teen Vogue??? This looks like... actual... educational... responsible.... journalism. Is this real life? GMG^talk 17:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of Miss South Carolina Teen USA, 11 years later. Alex Shih (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean... if you take out obvious teen-isms like "kicking settler butt" then yeah... I guess Teen Vogue is growing up (not that I would expect this from regular Vogue). But yeah, kudos. I still can't bring myself to cite it in an article, but kudos. GMG^talk 17:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's likely cribbed from a ton of other sources, so there's probably not much there that isn't already on here. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of it seems to link back to the Wyoming Historical Society, which is okay I guess. But I... just imagine this "Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer, biologist, attorney, and former tribal judge" getting a call from Teen Vogue and being like "How did you get this number? Don't you know making prank calls is illegal?" GMG^talk 17:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"No, there is no such thing as a 'Native American makeup technique', cultural appropriation is still offensive even when it looks really good on you and none of your readers are actually descended from 'Cherokee princesses' no matter what their grandmother told them. Wait, what? History? Treaties? Who did you say you were writing for, again?"

But don't get too excited... I'm a liberal feminist ally and even I'm pretty sure that "cisheteropatriarchal" is not actually a word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Checks out, not in Merriam-Webster. GMG^talk 18:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What, MPants, you've never heard of the new trend of sticking as many Latin roots together as possible to make new words? Primefac (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No more Latin roots for you!

I've heard of it, I just believe in my heart that the proper response is... Well, not to legitimize them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A boy slaps another boy on this face. What an enlightening file description. GMG^talk 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It bothers me slightly though because he is clearly in pre-swing, so it's not "slaps" so much as "prepares to slap". Primefac (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah. You can't see his other hand. The correct caption is Drunk man implores uninterested stranger that the fish "was really this big". GMG^talk 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Three of the tags on the original flickr image are "big bear", "witchcraft", and "people". Apparently flickr's categorization is even worse than Commons... Primefac (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, so it looks like it's from "Big Bear Valley", so that makes a little more sense.

Taking a look at the face of the guy on the right, it's clear that this is, in fact, pre-slap. And it's not the first time he's been slapped, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since I've gathered you all here today for this joyous occasion... anyone have any idea how I can force Template:TOC limit to hide headers when I skip from level two to level four without a level three header in between? GMG^talk 18:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You might try putting a level three header (which lacks a breakline) that consists of nothing but a nonbreaking space in there. Enclose the whole thing in a div element with a fixed height, padding & margin of 0px to shrink it down so it doesn't create a huge blank line. Here's the code:

<div style="height:0px;padding:0px;margin:0px;>
====&nbsp;====
</div> (copy it from the page, not the edit tab)

I have no idea if it will work or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I tested it here and the "edit" section link screws it up. If there's a way to suppress that, then it might work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... it kindof works other than the fact that it creates a blank entry in the TOC. GMG^talk 19:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to go for a set of hidden lvl-4 headers, why not just use the ; markup? Instead of:

Article X

You would have

Article X

Same font/bolding, but without the mess of a hidden TOC. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd considered that. Depends on how long some of these subsections wind up being. GMG^talk 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Use '''bold''', not ; markup, for accessibility reasons. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I... didn't know that was an issue. Is it a text-to-speech thing? GMG^talk 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is good advice. In truth, you can use wiki-markup and <span> and <div> elements to fake any header type.

This isn't really a new section with nothing but my signature in it, but it sure looks like it

---

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Now we're just getting crazy. And anyway, you can't fake the edit button. The whole thing is, there's 17 articles for this treaty, some of which are super important, and some of which aren't. So I'll probably just bite the bullet in the end and use TOC limit 2... or... find something to write an awkward level three header about so the TOC limit will work right. GMG^talk 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, just remember that the point is to write an article that's easy to read, not to edit. Nobody cares if us pissant editors have a good time updating it. In fact, if you make it a good article, and then make it all but impossible to edit, you've gone a ways towards preventing others from screwing up your hard work! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a super pedant with the MoS most of the time, but a certain amount of consistency there does give the reader a predictable experience. GMG^talk 21:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about photos

Hi, I want to ask you something concerning licensed photos: I have multiple photos to include in the two articles that I extensively edit 1- Awwam 2- Lihyan. Although the photos are free from copyright, it have however commercial restriction. Is there a way to uplaoad it in the English Wikipedia? Fair use photos are used sometimes it's quite boggling that commercial restriction category doesn't exist.

Nabataeus (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nabataeus. I'm not totally sure I understand what you mean. How is it they are free from copyright but with a restriction on non-commercial use? Are they in the public domain or have they been released already under a specific license disallowing commercial reuse? GMG^talk 19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nabataeus, I can tell you right now that's intentional. Wikimedia content is intended to be usable by anyone and for any reason, including commercial use. That being said, you could possibly still use them under fair use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I still don't really understand whether they are already licensed images existing online under something like CC-BY-NC, if they are personal photos but they would prefer not to release them for commercial reuse, or if they are actually in the public domain which would mean trying to restrict their use for any purpose is meaningless. GMG^talk 20:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither. I just figured maybe my little (tiny... microscopic, really) knowledge drop might answer their question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo, See the license here[2]. You are free to use/share the photo except for the non-commercial noderivs restrictions, plus proper attribution to the author. Thereby is there a way to uplaoad it?

@MPants at work, Shouldn't the said photos be less harder to uplaoad than normal fair use case? Is there no easier way? since technically the photo is free from copyright with non-commercial noderivs restriction.

Nabataeus (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No. That license also prohibits reuse with modification. So for example, it can't be used as a stock photo for any public purpose. To be honest, that's kind of a crappy license for photographs. It's okay for works of original artwork, though. I wouldn't try to use them for WP, but would look for truly free replacements. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Hammer Pants is right. CC-BY-NC-ND is not compatible with the CC-BY-SA license Wikipedia uses, which allows both commercial redistribution and the creation of derivative works. Without knowing what the image is, I can't really say if it would qualify under fair use. GMG^talk 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you both for the clarification. As for the image, it's rather few archaeological photos of similar license. Since I don't want to bother you, please just check this[3] (it's the most important of my photos and hard to get replacement). I will find alternatives for other images. Again, thank you.

Nabataeus (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at that: The licensing on those images might well be a mistake. It has always been my understanding that works produced by the US government are public domain, as it's a representative government (it belongs to the people, therefore, everything it creates also belongs to the people). Even if that was a third-party copyright, the "About" page for the uploader says in part "By submitting a photo the ECA flickr photo collection, you grant forever to ECA and the general public at large and assigns the right to post the photo on the Exchanges Photostream, to use the photo throughout the world in marketing and promotional materials in printed or electronic media, without limitation, and to modify or edit the photo and “Photo Information” submitted by you as ECA sees fit, in its sole discretion." (emphasis added) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The standard there is whether it was taken by a US federal employee in the course of their duties. But... it doesn't look like they miss-licensed it. Looking at other photos on their Flickr, they're not just blanket applying this license. Other's have public domain tags. So it was likely submitted by a non-federal-employee which they reused according to their terms, but wouldn't be usable for our purposes without attribution, since we would have to rely on them appropriately licensing it, and without attribution to a federal employee, is all we have. GMG^talk 22:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. The about page sets forth fairly clear terms that look to be a "plain English" version of PD, which would apply even if a copyright owner asserted a different license (they agreed to that PD or PD-ish license by submitting it). But, that doesn't mean the account didn't seek out that image in some way, in which case they might very well be posting it under the correct license. I'm not saying this is definitely a mistake, just that it could be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and despite working as a content producer (often self-employed) for the past decade or so, I fully agree with your edit summary. I have to use copyright a lot, but I hate it, and despite how much I've dealt with it, I'm no expert by any means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but their terms of use are for their use and not for ours or anyone else's. For the purposes of copyright, "like the PD" doesn't mean anything unless it's referring to CCO, which is designed to be like PD as far as I understand. GMG^talk 23:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Article for Matt Ox

So Guess What? Don't delete my article page!— Preceding unsigned comment added by DamienDaEsketit (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey DamienDaEsketit. The article was nominated for deletion because it did not indicate why the subject might be significant enough to warrant its own article. Wikipedia only retains articles on subject which have received sustained in-depth coverage in published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers, and book. If the subject has not yet received this type of coverage, then it is too soon for them to qualify for their own article. GMG^talk 18:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Alfee Quraan

Alfee Quran Page is for the knowledge of upcoming generation so tha they come to know that a quraan can also be written with all line starting with alif and also if any one wants to have the knowledge of translation of quraan of A'la Hazrat they can check the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfeequraan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alfeequraan. The upcoming generation will have to learn of your product from a different source, because Wikipedia is is not a vehicle for advertising. GMG^talk 19:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

i love u as much as my food Realwikiedit (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy report

Hello, you reported https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81bel_Czupor for a speedy deletion - but meanwhile it has been filled in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czukor (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Czukor. The standard for whether a topic warrants an article on Wikipedia is whether it meets our standards for notability, which usually requires that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers and books, and excluding things like social media and blogs. If a subject has met this standard, then the article for them should be improved using those high quality sources. If a subject has not yet received this type of coverage, then it is too soon for them to have their own article. GMG^talk 21:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello! I'm sorry I'm just learning how to use API in a wiki workshop and apparently I messed up a lot :D Thank you for your messages and sorry for unintentional spamming.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey no problem Reem Al-Kashif. If I can ever be of any help feel free to drop by. GMG^talk 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of France. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Principality of Beremagne - Article deletion

Hello sir,
I contact you via this page to request your help, to make a new page for the Micronation of Bérémagne. As i said before, Other micronations are on Wikipedia, and you can't say that they are more important as us. So, please help us, by giving advices, to make the page good for you.

Nice day,
--Emanuelzozor (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Emanuelzozor. They may be more important for the purposes of Wikipedia if they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, things like magazines, newspapers and books, and excluding things like blogs, official websites and other wikis. This is the standard that Wikipedia uses to gauge importance. Bérémagne does not appear to have received this type of coverage, and so it is therefore too soon for it to qualify for its own article. GMG^talk 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For your quick-fire and accurate CSD tagging in the post ACTRIAL apocalypse, I say "nice shootin', Tex!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I did miss one that ended up being a well covered publicly traded company. But in my defense, it looked like this at the time. Also good on Mar11 for catching it. GMG^talk 18:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. My standard triage news search gives up wall to wall press releases :-/ It's only when I get onto page 2 that I find actual usable sources. Yeah, good catch by Mar11 i think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

List of cities by temperature

This article is too long, so we divided it into continents

Category:Lists of cities by temperature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijh (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kristijh I added the related articles to the AfD. The problem, at least in my opinion, is that they're all indiscriminate collections of unexplained statistics. The content is relevant at that depth in the individual articles about each city. And it makes sense to make these kinds of lists when they're directly comparing a central feature of the subject (like List of cities by population density or List of cities by GDP), but these are a pretty excessive level of depth for a characteristic (monthly average high and low temperatures) that isn't necessarily a central feature of the study of cities. GMG^talk 19:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Scott Wing page

You said that I wrote a page about myself, although I simply take the name of Wing to write about him– consider me a ghost-writer.

Also, stop deleting my stuff.

EDIT: *Please* stop deleting my stuff.

Scottwing (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Please stop making inappropriate pages. Continuing to do so will likely result in the loss of editing privileges. GMG^talk 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

not aware I edited/removed any comments

if I did, it was certainly inadvertent, I would never knowingly do it

cheers

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_McCabe&diff=831293575&oldid=831286335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No worries Soibangla. I would assume you had an edit conflict, which causes it to happen sometimes. Also I don't understand how computers work, and editing Wikipedia is pretty much the most technically advanced thing I know how to do, so it could have just been magic for all I know. GMG^talk 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a great (and fun) explanation of how computers work. (If you find yourself going to bed at 3am because you have spent the previous 7 hours watching the entire backlog of Numberphile videos .... you have my sympathy) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If you like that kind of stuff, you should check out this channel which I have personally watched entirely too much of. GMG^talk 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Talk:Scott_H._Stalker

Hi there. I have mentioned possible copyvio and non-notability on the talk page of "Scott H. Stalker". Requesting your response as you are extensively editing said article. Thanks.DesertPipeline (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ocient

"Oh guten dag mein dammen und herren, ja, zat nice SoWhy rescued my article from being a load of tabloid drivel - I must send him a token of gratitude....."

Hello GreenMeansGo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ocient, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being co-founded by the founder of Cleversafe indicates some significance . Thank you. SoWhy 16:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess you can't win 'em all. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm on board with a notable founder ... but Chris Gladwin appears to be about a cricketer. Not... totally sure I agree that two degrees of separation from a notable topic is significant, since that would include a massive amount of subjects, and doesn't make for a plausible redirect. Coverage for this Gladwin is pretty slanted toward local Chicago coverage (although there are some things like this out there). Meh. GMG^talk 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I guess it does have a crunchbase citation thrown in there. GMG^talk 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Crunchbase is usually enough to clear A7, though possibly not anything else. Oh, and if Kim Kardashian's article read "Kim Kardashian is a [derogatory word about a promiscuous woman] who's [obscene term for sexual activity] and stuck it online for the rest of the world to [nasty ephiphet]" then I'd probably PROD that with the same rationale - the "not a good idea" refers to it being a potential BLP-violating train crash. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Notable founder does not necessarily mean founder with an article, does it? Creating a company and selling it for $1.3b to IBM seems a more noteworthy feat than playing four matches for some cricket team. Let me see if I can't cobble together an article for this Gladwin, then we have a nice merge target :-) Regards SoWhy 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't do sports. For the other Gladwin, it could go either way really. That Forbes article was probably the best I found. It's borderline whether founding a second non-notable (at least IMO at this moment) company rises to the level of independent notability above and beyond his first company. The other two founders appear to be patently non-notable without a chance. GMG^talk 17:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to wish to rain on your parade anymore, but I declined the speedy on Millar Gough Ink because it's founded by two notable people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(watching) Mind you, you won't find much more in RS than directory listings ("'in association with..." stuff), so AfD is probably a killer. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you consult WP:ATD, if a non-notable company is run by a notable person, you redirect to that person. If it's run by two notable people, then there's a bit of a pickle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you nominate it for deletion and everyone !votes to just delete it outright, it gets deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Alright well, I guess I'm just going much too fast today then. Time to stop and clean up my mess (already have the AfD screen open). Incidentally, the gangster fellow does seem he may be easily notable, especially once you know his name in Hindi. Just well outside my circle of competence to write. I was thinking attack page, but pushed A7 out of an abudance of AGF, because yeah, it did look an awful lot like a.. how do you say... "BLP-violating train crash". GMG^talk 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll second that and add to the above notes that you might consider waiting a bit before hitting pages with speedy/afd tags: all three of the pages above you tagged for deletion less than five minutes after creation, which can be taken as overly BITEy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the one, as I said, I was very much thinking attack page, so the courtesy blanking was a thing on my mind. For the other two, yes you are probably correct. GMG^talk 17:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It turns out you were bang on about Sarah Frey, sources all over the place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I just wasn't in much of a mood for Oh, you uploaded/added a ton of advertorial copyrighted content? Here, let me write you an article. Sometimes it depends on what day you catch me on how generous I'm feeling for spammers. Today I caught Scott H. Stalker, and... well... WP:NSOLDIER is so heavily slanted in favor of Officers I couldn't resist the opportunity to squeeze in an enlisted man under criteria 3. GMG^talk 17:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since I've got (counts on fingers and toes) a half dozen admins here... one of you wanna take care of this copy and paste move re: Adolphe Alphand and Jean-Charles Alphand? (Can I go back to writing articles yet? Does the RfC really have to stay open for 30 days?) GMG^talk 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A very prominent admin told me off-wiki about two days ago that you should "do a Goldenring" and self-nom. Anyway, I think I've done what you asked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know we had "very prominent admins". I thought we mostly had janitors.

On a different note, having thought about it for a little while, I guess I'd add in response to Amorymeltzer (and I say this as a person whose very first talk page message on this account was an A7 notification)... yes, it is bitey to nominate an article for CSD a few minutes after creation... but it's still bitey to nominate it 10 or 15 minutes after the fact, and even worse if it means they sign off in the meanwhile and come back to it already having been deleted. That's the exact reason I want to see ACTRIAL reinstated. The system without it is a forced choice between biting and letting very low quality articles sit around in mainspace. It's even worse in the aggregate because in the meanwhile it means we have people like me biting people out of obligation, instead of contributing to places like the Teahouse and AfC, where we can meaningfully help people make better articles and become better editors. IMO that RfC can't be closed quickly enough. GMG^talk 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I hear ya. That's definitely an argument in favor — draft process being gentler — and I don't think I saw it mentioned on the RfC yet. Honestly, I think anything within a couple of hours is too bitey; with the exception of G3/10/12, and the like, it's not the end of the world. But then again, that's why I avoid NPP. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we could certainly use your help, at least to hold the line for a few weeks, and prevent things from being indexed by Google and copied to a half dozen WP mirrors, with whatever potential BLP and copyright violations they may have, all attributed graciously right back to us in a way we can't change. Just in case you find some free time. GMG^talk 22:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For context, that wasn't a sarcastic stab. That was a genuine appeal for help. GMG^talk 22:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It said whatever the !vote deserved:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I... may or may not have typed and deleted two alternative comments on the grounds that they were... sarcastic to the point of being uncivil... but you can't prove it. GMG^talk 13:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Your commentary has been superb as of late, and it has given me no small enjoyment seeing your name pop up on my watchlist. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

When someone has got a staggering 3145 edits to JW's t/p, that says it all.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, true to my word, it's just a stub, but it's still better than trying to argue that right there. GMG^talk 12:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever

Not my fault that other people seems to hate everything that tries to be consistent or helpful or that Wikipedia doesn't have clear enough rules and guidelines. Or that I don't like to let myself get bullied by older edits with their bureaucracy and ganging together with their friends to outvote others. 99% of all edit war arguments are just "oh but I don't feel this" without backing it up with anything beyond that. Every person on this website seems to act like a giant hypocrite when it comes to edit warring. People just want others to give in to their ideas by incessant nagging and if you express your displeasure even a little you're being hostile or uncivil or something. Why is it even allowed that people tag someone else as an edit warner when the person themselves is the one edit warring with the other, huh?★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not interested, you lost your chance. Go keep the shit where it's already started.[4]
• Pathetic hypocrite.[5]
• I already did, read the talk page of the article like I said. Also, learn to make a new section and sign like a proper editor or never make a comment on someones talkpage.[6]
• I don't know if you're dense or something but I don't care.[7]
• Alreay got the stupid ping[8]
• Fuck off and die[9]
• Why are you choosing to be a hypocrite? You're edit warring just as much. Typical shameless behaviour.[10]
• How about learn to read and see that Legion has review for more than one episode? Huh? Are you capable of that? Why are you adding back the incorrect fact there? To big of an ego to admit you were wrong?[11]

You know what I think? I think you need to carefully consider that in replying here, I've already managed to gather about a half dozen diffs all handy like, and you can damned well bet an ANI I open on you isn't going to get sidetracked into my own behavioral problems, because I'm not going around acting like a prick. Kindly stop doing so yourself, and save me the trouble of having to open a thread. GMG^talk 16:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

THIS is an interesting attempt at trying to discuss an issue too. --woodensuperman 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Fuck off and die^[12] one has already been mentioned on ANI. See here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I realize. I was around, and that is the thread I was alluding to. GMG^talk 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes (didn't notice) but my point is that this pattern of incivility and edit warring has already been to ANI once, any continuation of the problematic editing behavior should be referred back to ANI regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, anyone can open a thread if they like. For my own part, I'm content to call it a final warning and go back to maliciously deleting people's pictures on Commons. GMG^talk 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha, yes that's always the best idea. I am clearing out the bitcoins myself. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(stalking) @Prince of Thieves: Forgive the interruption, but I've been meaing to ask; is yours by any chance a WP:CLEANSTART account...? —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 17:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly a WP:CLEANSTART, I have an active account on another project which I have not linked. I can elaborate in vague details and reasoning if you like. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, PoT, I was just wondering to myself a couple of hours ago whether adding crypto-currencies to A7 would get any traction. This didn't used to be a thing, having a half dozen of these a day. Apparently it's a thing now. GMG^talk 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, most of them can be dealt with as companies anyway. There is a recent discussion vaguely along those lines at Talk:Cryptocurrency, but that was more how to deal with the existing articles. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

BusinessBlocks speedy deletion

What are some ways I could improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards and re-submit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchellekm (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Mchellekm. The short answer is Wikipedia is not a place to promote your company. The long answer is that you need to carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them, because failure to do so is likely to draw a good deal of unwanted attention. If you like, you can submit an article to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer prior to publishing. But even then I would warn that if what you submit is anything like the article you just wrote, the entire ordeal is likely to be a waste of your time, and you're probably better off trying to promote your company using means besides creating a Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Ibrahim Khalil Naim, GreenMeansGo.

Unfortunately Classicwiki has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

CSD improperly removed by the article creator.

To reply, leave a comment on Classicwiki's talk page.

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? Well that's a strange feature. GMG^talk 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Guess I have to ping. Not sure Classicwiki. exactly what combination of steps you took to make it notify me for this, but I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to. GMG^talk 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just used the PageCuration tool, it just automatically notifies people that I have unreviewed pages that they have previously reviewed. In this case when you CSD'ed the page in question, it also marked the page as reviewed. If someone else or the creator removed the CSD tag, the page review still stand...which is not ideal. Best, Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Classicwiki. I'm pretty sure standard operating procedure there is just to revert the edit that removed the CSD template, or manually restore it, without needing to adjust the reviewed status of the page. I mean, it don't hurt my feelings any, but it might be super confusing to someone who's new at NPP. GMG^talk 21:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it, will do the next time. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. Just a little note, the "talk" link in your signature looks a bit weird on your posts here, as the software automatically bolds self-links. Maybe you should change [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]] to [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]]. Note the difference between [[User talk:GreenMeansGo]] and [[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top]] that will make the link stay normal. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks L293D. I'm really about the third least tech savvy person on Wikipedia. Even my current signature was designed by someone on IRC because I couldn't get the markup to fit in the character limit. Anyway, much appreciated. GMG^talk 21:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

speedies

A hint to help you continue to do your good work more effectively: when there is a promotional article from a company that is also a copyvio of their web site, mark it as both G11 and G12. If it's just marked G12, the wording there can be seen as encouraging them to try to give permission for it, and that's not what we want. It's better to cover all the bases. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.. That may be a good point DGG. I do remember there was some point at which curator just said on their talk page "I nominated your article for multiple reasons", or something to that effect without specifying, but I can't remember off the top of my head whether it was two or three reasons. (This hasn't been a thing for six months and I've been happily mostly writing.) I guess my focus has mostly been on just getting rid of obviously inappropriate spam, with the expectation that they won't have a whole lot of sticking power as an editor, which ACTRIAL has fairly well established (and honestly, although we don't want to leave a bad impression, if their primary goal here is for promotion, we really don't want them here unless they decide to come back later for altruistic rather than promotional reasons). But at any rate, at least until the RfC is closed, I'll definitely keep it in mind. Thanks for the note. GMG^talk 23:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

as for sticking power, at AfC. there are some who keep resubmitting indefinitely, and the only way of removing the drafts is MfD. I think we will have to deal with this sooner of later by a speedy criterion, but the first step is getting the RfC accepted. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC) .

We will. The proposals I've seen so far have been fairly lacking in nuance, to the point where I've mostly watched and not participated in the discussions. I don't know what the solution is, but it's easier to spot a bad proposal than it is to come up with a good one. GMG^talk 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And now we have to ask the tough questions

File:Marlon Brando (cropped).jpg

What, bunnies with my name...

Prince of Thieves

Fair coverage for bunnies!

Prince of Thieves

Marlon Bundo's: A Day in the Life of the Vice President has an article, and A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo has an article... but does Marlon Bundo deserve to be an article itself instead of a DAB? I mean... per GNG a book-length history of [Marlon Bundo] .. is plainly non-trivial coverage of [Marlon Bundo]. GMG^talk 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And furthermore, why does WP:DAB make a special exception for Wiktionary links, when people are obviously missing out on c:Category:Marlon Bundo? GMG^talk 14:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh no. This is real. This is happening. Gimme about ten or fifteen minutes. GMG^talk 14:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You might want to look at United States presidential pets#See also as well. :) Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ritchie, I consider this to be your fault. I haven't nominated a DYK in over a year. GMG^talk 16:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly GMG, if I painted myself purple and danced stark bollock naked in the street, would you do that too? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a second time for everything (I was in college for a long time.) GMG^talk 16:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The real question is, if BOTUS posts a picture to his official instagram, does that count as a federal government work for the purpose of copyright? GMG^talk 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I almost called you "so cruel" for not including the photo in your DYK nom. wumbolo ^^^ 15:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, go for it Wumbolo. I haven't done a DYK in forever. GMG^talk 16:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you realise a photo is included in the books nom? wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm.. No. I just write. I normally don't get involved in the mainpage things. GMG^talk 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eugenio Pozzi

Hello, I created this page because is the biography of a person of particular influence in the city of Milan. In particular in the development of an actual project. This individual was also I gave to the page few reference (available only in Italian). This person was also one of the two major candidates chosen by the winning coalition of the 2001 iitalian general election to the position of Minister of transport in Italy. He is a well know person and very active in the city life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemocaptain111 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nemocaptain111. I only nominated it under WP:BLPPROD, because all articles on living persons have to have at least one citation to a reliable source to back them up. That no longer applies and has been removed. Someone else started the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Pozzi. There, you should present published sources that demonstrate the subject meets our standards for notability. GMG^talk 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Rashad Coulter, GreenMeansGo.

Unfortunately CASSIOPEIA has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

not a single source - move back to draft page

To reply, leave a comment on CASSIOPEIA's talk page.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Took me waaaay too long to figure out why I didn't nominate that for BLPPROD. GMG^talk 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Marlon Bundo at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, for someone who only nominates anything for anything once in a blue moon, it would be really handy if OTD, GA, FA, and DYK had... any type of continuity in process whatsoever. GMG^talk 14:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Rob Tetrault

I have follow the wikipedia's guidelines for content as well as references. Requesting you to go through the content once(with references). Sampra88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sampra88. Well, the only two sections that actually have any prose in them are almost entirely unreferenced, sourced only to essentially a press release on an official website, which even then mentions the subject only in passing. Most of the rest of the article is sourced to Wealth Professional, which by it's own self-description is an online support vehicle for any company looking to market its products to the planning and advice channel or essentially an ad agency acting as a media outlet to drop names and plug products. Most Media section is off topic, and is just instances of him giving his opinion in sources about other topics where he is himself not the main subject of the article. Similarly for the source in the lead, which actually only dedicates about ten words to talking about the subject himself, and is entirely otherwise about investing advice.

Much of what content there is, if it wasn't removed for being unsourced, would need to be removed for just being cringy in a way that is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article: He is an expert in a long list of categories when it comes to financial planning and wealth management. His expertise is evident from the moment he appears or says something on a topic. Must of the rest, if not outright cringy, is promotion through either playing fast and loose with sources ostensibly about other topics, or giving undue weight to tangentially related things, like a hockey tournament. It's difficult to say what is both well sourced, relevant and non-promotional that could be retained if the article was rewritten to be neutral.

Besides that, it looks like there was a discussion only a month ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Tetrault which determined the subject did not meet our notability guidelines, which requires in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, and at least that much seems unlikely to have changed in such a short period of time. GMG^talk 19:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That feeling...

When you're looking for vandalism...and are immediately met with a perfectly reasonable explanation. GMG^talk 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest that you stop policing other people's pages, stop making empty threats, and start being smart. Nick845 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not an empty threat, it's a real warning, and it's the second one you've received today. You would be well advised to listen. GMG^talk 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but my first and third pieces of advice still apply, particularly the third. Nick845 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That ended exactly like I would have expected... Primefac (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. But what can you do? No promises on the "start being smart" thing through. Been trying to do that for a long time with mixed success. GMG^talk 12:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, did you get pelted with a few bits of bent wood again? Ouch! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, they might have been blocked sooner, but my congenital distaste for AE wouldn't allow me to open a thread there. GMG^talk 16:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Empire Film Awards: Files for upload

Good Morning GMG, we submitted an image to be uploaded for the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Awards The image isn't on there? Do you know why this is? Funprofessional (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Funprofessional. It's a little complicated, but I uploaded File:Empire Awards logo.png instead, because it's simple enough in design to not be copyrighted in the US, and does an equally good job of illustrating the subject as far as the basic branding goes, meaning the other image wouldn't be allowed under our non free content criteria. That means to use the other one it would need to be licensed for essentially unrestricted public use, which it doesn't seem to be at the moment. GMG^talk 09:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi GTG thank you for the explanation. We hold the copyright to the imgage. What do we need to do to get it licensed? Thank you Funprofessional (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Funprofessional. I guess first, since you are a "we" rather than a "me", you should review our policies on conflicts of interest, which is taken seriously and can result in a lot of unwanted attention if not followed. Besides that, the owner of the image can follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT to license the image appropriately. However, you should note that it is a non-revocable license, that will release the image for use by the public, of which Wikipedia is a part, and not solely for use on Wikipedia alone. So it's important that the decision be considered appropriately before the owner, presumably a company, decides to agree to what is essentially a legal contract. Once sent, the email may take several weeks to process, but you will be notified once it is complete. GMG^talk 10:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abiy Ahmed Ali. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This annoys me more than it should

This woman has been sitting at the bottom of c:CAT:MOVE for four days now. Every time I open the dang thing she's just staring at me like "Yup, I'm just sippin my drink. Nobody's moved me yet. Not that you can do anything about it." GMG^talk 12:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the guy sitting next to her is very interested in her drink. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And the panel of judges beside him seem to be seriously considering the appropriateness of his line of questioning. GMG^talk 16:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Awww, now she's on the next line... oh well, I'll refresh next time you reply and they'll be back in order. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Still better than the American version, but then I'm not much for reality TV anyway. GMG^talk 16:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Tag overlap

Just understood we stumbled over again here despite many seconds in between. I will test something now that I am suspecting. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not totally sure what determines whether the curator notices there's already a tag there before applying one. But that wouldn't be the first silly thing about the curator. For example, it freaks out if you try to add a G12 to a G11, but it will let you add two G3s at the same time (as I found out yesterday). GMG^talk 17:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

But me what I suspected is whether the problem is between Twinkle and Page curator tagging, because I previously know once any {{db}} template is present it is not possible to retag (with Twinkle). –Ammarpad (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not with curator either (which is silly because it should prevent you from applying a duplicate tag, not any tag). I wouldn't be surprised if you are right, since I tag new articles almost exclusively with curator, and generally only use twinkle to tag established articles and files. GMG^talk 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I now tested retagging article which you already tagged and both Twinkle and Curator didn't allow me (as they should). So I think that overlap is just odd issue perhaps with the time span in between. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you have both tabs open with no tag on them to begin with? GMG^talk 17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi the Somos Next page was deleted I just published it again if possible please let me know if I chould change something before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroab123 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Caroab123. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a a means to promote yourself or your employer. If you would like to advertise, please do so elsewhere. GMG^talk 18:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Somos next

The intention is not to promote it is to clarify what the company does so it doesnt get confused. Caroab123 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The intention is obviously to promote, which is why the first time you created the article, it was a copy/paste of a press release. This time around, you've merely written one of your own. GMG^talk 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh?

Am I missing a reference? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Just browsing c:Category:Emotions until I found something that matched how I felt. I really suspect that there is just fundamentally no community consensus on the issue. And... just as a rule of thumb, a complicated RfC can hide a weak or moderate consensus even if there is one to be found. GMG^talk 21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and to some extent I agree. I think its clear to everyone involved that whatever consensus involved is weak, hence the very specific instructions to pick only one option. Some-one had to take the plunge. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but you gotta understand that you're making it hell on the closer to come up with something other than Options 2, 4 and 28 have general support. Options 13 and 3 are right out. And option 8 is so-so. And that doesn't really help anything. Best thing with RfCs is to assume people have about 10-15 focused minutes to evaluate the issue and make a decision and then cater to that. The people who have more time and attention will only have an easier way to express that added expertise. GMG^talk 21:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As it so happens, compare this RfC with this one. One of the two of those is clearly more likely to solve a particular issue, and set some kind of precedent moving forward that can be built on. GMG^talk 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As some-one who has closed more than a few discussions, I tried to take that into account as much as I could. This is a more complex issue than your yes or no second example. There's only 7 options, and as long as people don't !vote on all seven, it shouldn't be that difficult to close. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll make you a bet. If this results in a solid consensus, I'll review your next GA nomination. If it doesn't then you have to review mine. :P GMG^talk 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Deal <hurriedly goes to find GA standards>. (In other words: I think you're probably right and I think most experienced editors would likely agree. But if we all take that path, in 3 or 4 years there will be another one of these and a handful of ANI's and whatnot besides. That's what happened after the last one 5 years ago, after all.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm pretty much the resident cheerleader for giving up and doing anything even marginally more productive instead. GMG^talk 22:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that was funny (especially the pic of the little girl). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has opened, closed, and generally dealt with digging through dirt, simple is best. I really hope I don't have to close an 8-way no-consensus RFC (as much as I'd like to win GMG that bet). Primefac (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:, Based on GMG's comments here and feedback there, I've already cut it back to 4 options, of which only one currently has any support. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Top notch. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the page mcclelland india

why did u delete the page mcclellandindia now ??? reply soon ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkm12345 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Dkm12345. I nominated the article for deletion for two reasons. First, it seems overtly and unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to write about the range of services provided by a company. Second, the article did not credibly indicate why the company might be significant enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia overall judges "importance" based on a subject having received sustained in depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers, and books. From what I can tell, no one has written anything substantial about this company at all, even in poor quality self-published sources, meaning it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. GMG^talk 10:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I don't want to be mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devmazumdar (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Devmazumdar. If you want to experiment and figure out how the Wikipedia software works, you can do so in the sandbox, which is specifically designed for that type of thing. GMG^talk 18:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Lukas Gage

I have gone through the proper AfD process as instructed by another admin. I hope this is fine now.Makro (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Makro. There are actually very few people on the project who will do anything but try to steer you in the right direction. I'm glad you've decided to take the advice. If you ever need a second opinion on something feel free to stop back by my talk page. GMG^talk 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo Thank You for the advice.Makro (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Roschfallen

"Roschfallen's article in both Microwiki and Miraheze and here in wikipedia are of my creation, being that I created this micronation. In addition, all necessary modifications were made so that the article was transferred to the wikipedia."

I've just did it as you said.

Windhelm (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC-3)

Hey Windhelm. Articles only qualify for a Wikipedia article if they have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books. From what I can tell, this subject has received essentially no coverage in these types of sources, and so I have nominated for a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roschfallen. If the subject receives this type of coverage, it may be appropriate for an article in the future, but it does not appear to be the case currently. GMG^talk 21:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. My apologies. So please, could you delete the images also? Windhelm (Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC-3)

Hey Windhelm. I have added a deletion template on Commons based on your request that they be deleted as the uploader. GMG^talk 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Pollack proposed deletion concern.

Greetings, I've added multiple sources from trusted news sites on Andrew Pollack as requested. I hope you can revoke your consideration of deletion. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrow (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Chrisrow. The biggest thing is when we're writing articles on living people, we really have to start with sources from the very beginning. If you need time to gather things up, you may want to consider starting tbe next one as a draft in your sandbox (link in the upper right) and then moving it to an article when you have a foundation laid. GMG^talk 09:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WTF?

Pray tell what was this about? Do you and I have some long-ago history I should know about? All the time ? Wha?? SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we've interacted before. I couldn't tell you where last off the top of my head without really digging for diffs, and I'd rather not dig for no reason. What I can tell you is that you went into that discussion with guns blazing and both ears closed. In particular, your application of V and SYNTH is so wildly, fantastically, and objectively wrong it made me want to simply disengage with the discussion rather than attempt to explain how wrong you were. You can take that as constructive criticism or dismiss it as you will. GMG^talk 01:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you're off the wall but that will conclude this interaction, I hope. Thanks for your reply, and please keep personal disparagement off of article talk page. You're always welcome to insult me on my personal talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Telling someone they're wrong is not disparagement. That's called argument, but only if two people are listening to one another, otherwise it's called a waste of time. GMG^talk 02:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerned about my supposed ignorance

From this edit, "your just dredging for something else that's equally garbage to make them look normal by comparison." Aside from deficient spelling, I'd like to know what garbage exactly you mean I'm dredging, for whom? Wakari07 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're not actually making any argument defending the sources themselves as reliable, meaning that they are editorially independent and have a demonstrable history of responsible oversight and fact checking. The core of your argument, attacking other sources as similarly unreliable and other nations as having similarly non-independent press organizations, is purely based on false equivalence. If someone says that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid with a long history of bias and egregious errors of fact, it makes no difference to attack the National Enquirer and say they have similar problems. The answer is simply that if they are similar, then we should not use either, and both need to be based on the assessment of other reliable sources. This is notwithstanding that you are attacking patently reliable and fundamentally educational sources like PBS, that are themselves editorially independent to the point where their own government wants to defund them.

For my own part, for as long as I care to look, I can find truly reliable and independent sources from across the globe which resoundingly reply in unison that Russia Today and Sputnik are media arms of the Russian government, with a track record of spreading disinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories. Whether South Ossetia has similar problems is wholly irrelevant. These sources are still not remotely usable for claims of fact related to Russian foreign policy unless those claims are found in mainstream reliable publications, and if they are, we should use those other publications instead. If you want to rely on them for what Putin said on the phone that's fine. They probably know better than anyone else. But we do not play some rhetorical relativistic race to the bottom, where everyone has some kind of bias, and everyone makes mistakes, so it's okay to use state controlled propaganda machines as a source.

Wikipedia is not an existential exercise; it's an epistemic one. Wikipedia is unconcerned with issues of truth and moral justice. All we care about is the sources, and when the sources all agree that another other source is of exceedingly poor quality, we treat it accordingly. GMG^talk 12:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, that was not my question. Wakari07 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The "garbage" you are dredging is other sources, or other governments with a poor track record for freedom of the press, and using that rhetorically to lower the bar for sourcing, rather than demonstrating that these two sources meet the bar by themselves having a history of editorial oversight and fact checking. As to "for whom", I don't pretend to know your inner desires and personal motivations. There are more than a quarter million people on the project, and I've met all types. The argument is a thing that exists independent of the person making it. GMG^talk 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You believe in the existence of the argument as an external thing, independent of the observer? Now that's exotic. If Sputnik or RT or Russia Beyond or TV1 or ITAR-TASS writes something interesting, such as the Russian government actually delivering verifiable information on A-234 or this or that politician's literally cited words... then it would be stupid and counterproductive to censor these sources a priori. Also, I think User:FallingGravity and User:My very best wishes summed it up quite well: they are "primary sources from the Russian government. They might be used to source reactions or statements from the Russian government, though secondary sources are preferred." and "Both sources are reliable to support the statement by Russian Foreign Ministry." Wakari07 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in one respect, they are about as reliable as a US State Department spokesperson is regarding US opinion on US foreign relations. Neither is reliable for controversial statements of fact not otherwise reported in independent journalistic or educational sources. GMG^talk 14:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Then we agree on something. But please be more stable about your point next time if you say that I'm "dredging garbage".. Wakari07 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have...an occasional unhelpful affinity for colorful language. The point still stands that your line of argument on the article talk page does not in any logically consistent sense lead to the conclusion you'd like to reach, even if it is intuitively appealing as far as naked rhetoric goes. GMG^talk 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll take that as an apology. On the talk thread, I don't see the emergence of even one criterion useful enough to build a filter around it. Thanks anyway, I guess I tried. Wakari07 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

criterion useful enough to build a filter around it ... I'm not entirely sure what that is intended to mean. GMG^talk 15:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was the idea to add some "dangerous propaganda"-tag on certain sources. I see no progress in that endeavour. But i can live with warning signs on certain sources. I thought that that would be the whole point of trying to discuss the subject of Russian propaganda. Wakari07 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm...The point is more that we should treat these two sources the same as we would treat Xinhua. Both are official mouth pieces of their respective governments. They fail the "third-party" test of WP:RS, specifically WP:PRIMARY (which for some reason is a part of WP:OR rather than WP:RS, which it should be, since it's primarily dealing with the reliability of sources), meaning we have to treat them as primary, rather than secondary sources, as an account of the official position of their government, and not an uninvolved opinion of a reputable journalistic or educational institution. Specifically. claims like this are well outside of what can be attributed as fact using a primary source. GMG^talk 15:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The only fact that is attributed to the Sputnik source is the citation of the MoD source. I see no reason to doubt the accurateness and the detail of the citation, especially since it's through a faithful mouthpiece. It's simply what the guy says and what his bosses want to say. The citation is at least as valid as the 20-year-old leak on the A-234 page, since it's more current, also detailed and personally attributed to a living scientist with credentials and a function. Wakari07 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. If you mean this is a reliable source for whether the US had, and then removed (or "lost"), a registry of the chemical weapon involved, then no, it is not reliable for that. GMG^talk 22:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Time will tell. Rybalchenko claims A-234 is the exact formula of Mirzayanov. And Yakovenko claims, based on what the UK told them, it was A-234 in Salisbury. Now why don't our governments care to WP:VERIFY these claims? A bit of the much-famed state transparency here — and some not too expensive fact-checking in databases that inevitably exist — could heal much painful ignorance. The Russian claims in themselves are notable, though. It's the goal of an encyclopedia to state the facts. The only facts we have now are the citations that the UK and Russia government feed us. And contrary to the UK, Russia provides actual verifiable data to the public. Oh yes, one more thing: the public comparisons with Hitler are at parliamentary level in Russia; unfortunately, on the British side, it's at the Foreign Minister level. Wakari07 (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether the governments verify them or not isn't all that relevant. If something is published in an unreliable and/or primary source, like Sputnik, or a government themselves, and subsequently not published in any mainstream reliable source whatsoever, then that gets chalked up to the unreliability of the source. GMG^talk 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How did it take three weeks for somebody to think of sending blood samples to the OPCW... like calling an ambulance? I'm so happy I can read that silence between the lines. Whether the government verifies [the verifiable facts] or not isn't all that relevant... ehm. I respectfully disagree. Now I'll let you have the last word on this. Wakari07 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of A Brief history of Equations

I've fixed two of the problems in the article and I am unsure of how to create links to this Wikipedia page from others. I now have a lead section and have many wiki links. I made it clear in the lead section what the purpose of the article is for(This article provides a brief history of several equations and theories thought history. It will provide an idea of what each equation is for and will describe the important events in each of their history. This is not an in-depth article. It is only to provide a brief explanation of each equation or theory.). I agree after looking at the deletion page that the title doesn't completely fit. A title that would work is "A brief history of equations and theories". Though I am not sure how to change the title. I am planning on adding a section on the Euler Characteristic, the Minimal Surface equation, and Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I would highly appreciate it if you would let me know what I have to do and/or add to the article to allow the article to stay undeleted.

Cadenjperry (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cadenjperry. I really do appreciate your efforts, but they're a little bit misplaced in this case. Wikipedia doesn't host compilation type essays that cover multiple topics which already have existing main articles. If information can be added for each subject, then it should be added on the existing articles directly. But you may be interested in WikiProject Mathematics, which currently includes about 5,000 very short stub articles that really need expansion. We'd really like you to stick around and help us build a better encyclopedia, but we just have to do it in the right way so that we don't duplicate content unnecessarily.

If you ever need help, feel free to drop back by here or at The Teahouse, which is our dedicated forum for newer editor to seek advice and assistance. GMG^talk 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Moved to Talk:Umayya ibn Abd Shams § Adoption (moved)

No big deal either way Emir of Wikipedia. I hope you all manage to sort things out. Wish I could be more helpful then I am in the subject area. GMG^talk 19:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See please [13]. When he saw that the source don't state what he claim he deleted his post. The thing is he left it there for a while and I took the trouble of responding, when I submitted it, it was deleted. What should I do in this case? Nabataeus (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm...yeah Emir, you can remove your own comments if you're quick at it, but once they're replied to they're kindof part of the "public record", since removing it really messes up the context of other people's reply. If you messed something up (I do it all the time), you generally want to strike the comment. You should generally never remove the comments of others unless they're pretty serious policy violations. GMG^talk 21:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That is the problem in this case. I removed my own comment and Nabataeus restored my comment so that they could reply to it, this was not a case of me removing my comment after someone had replied. Either way their is no benefit to the article by having their reply on the talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the content. I was going to open a new section so he don't revert me. Or he will just issue an arbitrary warning!! Nabataeus (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker, your post was there for a while. I took the trouble of responding, then when I submitted it I got an error. Nabataeus (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are not a native English speaker and don't feel comfortable responding then I can help you find a Wikipedia in a language that you are better at. My post was removed by my choice, it doesn't matter how long it was there as I removed it before a reply. When you got the error you should have looked at what it said instead of restoring someone elses comment. As you removed the warnings posts I started on your page that had replies from others with this edit I find it a bit difficult to assume that you care that much about when other people have taken the trouble of responding, and even still their is no benefit to the article from your talkpage reply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

My reading and writing comprehension skills are quite decent, the problem is with the needed time to write a responde. Your post was there for a while, and was there when I wrote the initial responde then deleted when I tried to submit my post. As for my talkpage, I can delete the posts, it is not against the rules. I came here to ask Green concerning article talk page, but again you reverted me and used aggressive language. Nabataeus (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded aggressive but you had no right to restore my comment, if there was an error you should have asked for help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am now asking Green on the issue ("Not shopping"). The problem, without your comment my post will absolutely make no sense. It will appear confusing. Nabataeus (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Then simply leave your post out. It doesn't help to improve the article and talkpages are not WP:Forums. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not chitchating, I addressed the problem of your source. Why should I delete my post, solely because of your mistake to actually check what the source state before submitting? Especially if I took the trouble to responde when your post was there. Nabataeus (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I took the trouble along with other editors to discuss matters on your talkpage and you had no problem deleting that. You are not deleting your post solely based on a mistake of mine but your mistake to look at the error made when submitting your reply. My post had already been removed by my own choice and therefore there was nothing to respond to, if the reply could possibly help improve the article then it would be a different matter, but it seems like here you just want to point out that I made a mistake with my post which I recognized and that is why I removed it before it had been replied to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was related to Farawahar behavior, and another editor who appears to be a troll and ask uncomfortable questions. I left constructive post such as that of Kansas. I don't need to explain why I delete content from my talk page. The thing is, Umayya page is public record. I will restore my post, as for yours I will just wait the opinion of Green whether it should be restored or deleted. Since he is more experienced concerning WP's policies. Nabataeus (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to restore your post, it doesn't help the article in any way. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Umm...Nabataeus, the flip side of what I said to Emir above, is that a user is permitted to remove or refactor their own comments so long as no one has replied to them, and it's a little disruptive to try to restore someone else's comments that they've removed or refactored in a way that is permitted.

Since you're here, it may be a good time to observe that you seem to be in pretty constant conflict with other editors. A certain amount of disagreement is fine, and even healthy for a robust public discourse, but if you reach the point where you are spending more time on arguing than you do on collaboration, the community is likely to start losing patience and start to question whether you are a net positive to the project. and start to consider things like topic bans. I'm not saying we're necessarily at that point, but it may be helpful to consider that adversarial debate is necessary, but we are still fundamentally supposed to be a collaborative project, where people work together more than they work against one another. GMG^talk 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the clarification. I had a disagreement with three editors only. I was not insisting on wrong things, my concerns were legitimate. The Umayya issue has taken tremendous time from me when Emir could simply end it by providing reliable source. It's actually preventing me from editig Lihyan for instance. I will open a section for their economy soon. See the difference please in Awwam before[14] after my contribution [15].

This is very random question, and unrelated. Could I apply Awwam to the good article status (even if medium and not extensively covered)? And does it show in my top right page? Nabataeus (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not always about being right. Sometimes it's okay to be right and still just move on to something else instead of arguing endlessly, because we could be doing other things that improve the project more than arguing over one particular thing. Also because, although as I said, debate is sometimes necessary, too much of it can make Wikipedia into an unpleasant and stressful place, whereas working collaboratively makes it really fun, even though we might miss a few details here and there because we don't spend several days arguing over every minute point.

As to Awwam, you can certainly nominate it. Looks like you've basically quadrupled the size of the article. Give it a go. GA and FA nominations can be tedious, but they do help to improve your writing a great deal, or at least that has been my experience. GMG^talk 01:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try my luck. I am planning to extend Lihyan (alredy extended by me) and Barran Temple a great deal. Maybe nominate them. Nabataeus (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the most joy I get out of Wikipedia is the community, and working quietly in a corner an an obscure article. Everything else seems at least slightly more like work in comparison. GMG^talk 01:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. When I finished Awwam, low key article, although not fully covered from bottom to top, I enjoyed every part and I was extremely satisfied with my humble work. I don't know, but profiled articles are hard to edit. I need to get used to them. Nabataeus (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You also have a unique perspective that is really underrepresented on the English Wikipedia, which tends to favor Western topics and majority English speaking countries quite heavily, since it's an English project, and so necessarily favors parts of the world with more English speakers. I don't want you you waste that perspective fighting over comparatively minor issues, when you could be improving articles on these other important subjects, where we have almost no one who is qualified or interested enough to expand them. GMG^talk 02:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation tool

Hi,

Did you notice how this template was formed here?. And check the subsequent diff. This tool probably has another bug with {{Db-a2}} template. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... that's no good. Given that the curator says "Please add a URL for that source" I'd say you're right, and it's just a bug. Surely the poor admins will figure out though...right? GMG^talk 18:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bergen County Executive

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bergen County Executive. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Clark talk page formatting

Hi I didn't format the new subsection properly, so I have gone back and fixed that and moved it below your most recent post, which I believe responded to statements in the previous subsection. Sorry for any confusion. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me. GMG^talk 14:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jared Feinman Wiki Page

Hello,

If you would allow it, I would like to finish writing the article on Jared Feinman and explain the significance and importance of this musical figure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jared Feinman Wiki Page

Hello,

If you would allow it, I would like to finish writing the article on Jared Feinman and explain the significance and importance of this musical figure. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredfeinman (talk • contribs) 14:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jaredfeinman. I have moved the article to a draft for the time being, which can now be found at Draft:Jared Feinman. As a draft, you may have more time to work on the page without risk of immediate deletion, although if the draft is abandoned for six months it will be deleted as a matter of housekeeping. You may want to consider reviewing our [[WP:YFA|tutorial on writing your first article. GMG^talk 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mischaracterization

You wrote: "You may not recognize jps since they've had a name change about every time they've found themselves in hot water, which is often..." This is not why my name has changed so often. Would you consider redacting? jps (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I was involved in at least your last one or two blocks. It's difficult to tell, because as far as I remember, you changed your name from gibberish to gibberish to gibberish. If you can find some evidence to the contrary I'll be happy to redact. Otherwise, that's my honest assessment of the chronology. GMG^talk 02:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know you from Adam, so I don't think you were involved in any previous block. Certainly not the SpinningSpark one. jps (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you remember incorrectly. GMG^talk 02:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You changed your username. Now I know who you are. It explains a lot. You are a very vindictive person, aren't you? jps (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be, no. GMG^talk 10:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, somewhere probably around lunch yesterday you well crossed the line from defending an argument and sourcing, to being openly vitriolic. Things like repeatedly posting here, besides fairly blatantly simply trying to make your personal dispute pop up on watchlists as often as possible, are pretty obviously openly mocking other editors, when the people who you were mocking were themselves making perfectly reasonable and cordial arguments, even if someone happens to personally disagree with them. Removing others comments was entirely unnecessary and a completely needless escalation of the disagreement. Posting both on BLPN about it and in your own pet thread on FTN that no one else at all had replied to is pretty blatant shopping for sympathy. All that is besides going from zero to 4RR on the article in about an hour. The thread you opened on ANI was flatly bonkers, and consisted in the entirety of its substance as "someone on a WikiProject said something I don't like". All this is probably why I wasn't the first or even second person yesterday to consider the appropriateness of a block or TBAN.

I'm not an especially religious person at all, certainly not a creationist. My involvement in that article consisted entirely of pulling images over from Flickr, and my involvement on the talk page consisted of three comments calling something silly, and then requesting page protection because you and others were openly edit warring. I suggest you stop wondering what's so wrong with me, and start considering that something might instead legitimately be wrong with your own behavior. At the very least, it's worth considering that of those opposing the TBAN, more than one of them are doing so because they'd prefer a block instead.

I'm not a particularly vindictive person at all, but if you wake up today and decide that mocking, edit warring, and frivolous forum shopping are the way you'd like to spend your time, I'm still more than happy to open another thread to consider how we might best prevent you from doing so. GMG^talk 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And now for some lighthearted juvenile humor

I was honestly disappointed to find that this article wasn't a stub that could be easily expanded to a DYK. That is all. GMG^talk 13:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GreenMeansGo. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 01:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm ♠ 01:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page. Swarm ♠ 02:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

YUAS badge

Hello. I saw the inclusion of a Squadron badge at YUAS. If you do end up uploading more, could I humbly beseech you to label them as badges not crests? I have spent eons convincing mostly military types that the RAF and the Royal Navy have Heraldic Badges and not crests. I even created an article about it (Heraldic badges of the Royal Air Force) which details why they cannot be called crests and backs it up with citations.

Please do not think of this as a moan on your good self or your work on Wikipedia. It seems that people calling them crests is endemic and I am slowly changing that one piece at a time. My next herculean task is to persuade the category mafia to re-label their [[Category:RAF Station crests]] page to badges. Regards, good luck and pip-pip! Thanks, The joy of all things (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey The joy of all things. I honestly haven't the slightest clue one way or the other. I was just using the wording of the person who requested the image at WP:FFU. Since you seem fairly confident it's an error, I've taken the liberty of moving it to File:Yorkshire Universities Air Squadron badge.png. GMG^talk 14:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and thank you for the re-naming. Cor blimey; I wish everyone was as accommodating as you. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

PS; if you look at the request on the FFU page here, you can see that the url lists it as a badge....The joy of all things (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. Section header didn't match the url. I didn't even notice. GMG^talk 15:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi GMG. Thanks for awarding Arjayay the ANI Barnstar. I had not seen that one before but the pic on it is perfect for what happens at that drahma board from time to time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, my photoshop skills are actually so bad, I made the image in powerpoint and MS paint. I am the MacGyver of barnstars. A little duck tape and string and I can do anything! GMG^talk 17:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Winshuttle

Hello,

I am wondering if you can provide me with more guidance on what you mean when it says that the Winshuttle article seems more promotional than encyclopedic? As stated in my comment when I created the article, I am happy to make edits. But since I am not an experienced Wiki editor, I am just not sure what the requirements for being considered notable or encyclopedic would be to be able to align my entry with those things. Thanks! Eflegen (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Eflegen. Probably the core problem here is that you are editing on behalf of your employer, which presents a clear conflict of interest, and ideally, you should not be editing in topic areas where you are conflicted at all. Much of this is because it is exceedingly difficult to near impossible to do so in a way that complies thoroughly with our policies on neutrality. You are however, more than welcome to contribute in other areas. With almost six million articles, there is bound to be a topic somewhere that's a good fit for pretty much anyway, and I'm more than happy to help you with that if you are interested. GMG^talk 12:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... [16] --Tarage (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well. So that's a thing that happened. Not every day you have someone essentially opening a request for arbitration on themselves. I also notice that despite the community's best efforts, a topic ban was enacted there anyway under DS. Whew. This is all a little too bonkers for me this early in the morning. I need a nice quiet stub somewhere in need of expansion. GMG^talk 12:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You exceeded your quota

Like you said, you get one pointy humorous edit. Not two. NEXT! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess I'll just go back to writing about parks. GMG^talk 22:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

AnI comment

• "This is (again) not the correct venue for this report, and nothing is going to come of it other than commiserating and bickering at best. ANI is not an alternative venue for reports of administrative misconduct."

You made this comment on the AnI page and I think you are mistaken. I was originally going to post on the main AN page but the instructions there, in the section "Are you in the right place?", state "Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)". An alternative venue would have been an Arbcom case request, but that requires that previous dispute resolution should have been attempted, ie on a noticeboard. So I think AnI is the right place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to build a case for sustained abuse of the tools, the correct way to do it is in small link-able diffs. By that I mean having specific actions undone at places like AN and DRV, that's why I pointed you to DRV earlier. Although I should have probably added that you should have started with the best case possible for undeletion, and one which could have had a definite result of overturning the action and undeleting the page, and probably not one where the page had already been recreated, and dealt more with a matter of principle.

I think I've already expressed my opinion in various places pretty clearly that I think Fram is often overly aggressive and tactless. But you're not the first person to start a general purpose "this person sucks" thread at ANI, and it's not the first thread to go nowhere, because AN (and to a much lesser extent ANI) would be the correct venue to overturn specific actions where no more specific venue (like DRV) exists. It's not the place to overturn a person's adminship, or even to review their adminship as a whole. The only place you can do that is ArbCom. GMG^talk 12:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I made an unwise decision in pursuing the matter in that way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tsamma juice

On 9 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tsamma juice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tsamma juice is named after the mother of all melons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tsamma juice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tsamma juice), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

How to make Wikipedia's collective mind implode

The community can enact for a TBAN that's pretty much tailored in scope to whatever there's consensus for, as far as I'm aware, with no practical policy based restrictions. It is therefore in theory possible for the community to TBAN a sysop from doing any administrative action whatsoever (although something like viewing deleted revisions would be outside any practical scope without an admission), effectively enacting a community neutering, and justifying a bona fide desysop case if they violated the ban without getting prior approval from the community to lift it.

I don't think I've even ever heard someone joke about it, but if there was ever a situation where someone screwed up so badly there would be consensus for it (and yet ArbCom refused to do anything about it), as far as I know, there isn't anything anywhere in policy that would actually prevent it. You know, just in case ArbCom does one day decide to totally lose their marbles. GMG^talk 17:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll just be bookmarking this then... Primefac (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, despite my best efforts, I've had occasion to think about ArbCom quite a bit over the past week or so, and spitball/day dream about what might be changed or tweaked. I had also considered that it would be interesting to institute a Tribune of the Plebs, but the obvious counterargument would be that if the community wanted a tribune, they'd vote one in. GMG^talk 17:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought the community did effectively that for Arthur Rubin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the community doesn't yet realize the awesome power available to them, and thus have not done anything. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the community doesn't realize how awesome I am power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, with great power comes great responsibility... and absolute power corrupts absolutely... so... maybe it's a good thing? Primefac (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have a cabal, to prevent this sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I totally forgot about that. I was at a field exercise for most of August playing in the woods. Well, AFAIK, blocks and bans are generally a separate issue altogether from user access levels of any type. Even indeffed users retain whatever user rights they have by default. So nothing the community can do can ever force ArbCom to desysop against their will, even outright site bans, but we could, like I said, through simple consensus create a lame duck admin (or even crat for that matter). That still wouldn't technically compel any action from ArbCom, but it would create a situation where any admin action whatsoever, and any other passing admin could hand out unilateral blocks for obvious and willful TBAN violations. GMG^talk 18:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)  

Wait. Am I correct in thinking that a blocked admin can only unblock themselves if it is a self block? Or did I just make that up? Also, what happens if an admin blocks a crat? (Other than a 2% likelihood every article gets oversighted and we have to start over.) GMG^talk 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A blocked admin can unblock themselves, but only if they want a speedy trip towards a desysop. Same probably goes for blocking a crat. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, just in case a crap does get blocked, here's what to do: [17]. EEng 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick! Someone get me Dweller and a hammer. No time to explain. We're gonna do science! GMG^talk 18:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we will do science to it. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No, then we just have to go to ArbCom and have a handful of arbs tell us that unblocking themselves was only an administrative action, and they had never been in any prior disputes with themselves, so it wasn't an INVOLVED action. GMG^talk 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well aren't they lucky. I'm in dispute with myself every damn day. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

In your defense, policy restricts you to one account, not one personality. GMG^talk 18:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I topic banned Mike V from picking on The Rambling Man (or words to that effect) and he promptly quit the project (and is now desysopped for inactivity) - so it can happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...you know, I had not at all considered until now that ACDS does not clarify the role of administrators in any meaningful way (to this bit of rambling at least) other than as the "enforcing administrator", and leaves the door wide open for one admin to enact DS on another. GMG^talk 22:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It's what I think WP:NOBIGDEAL boils down to - essentially, though being able to be trustworthy to pass RfA is a big deal, simply having the tools is not important when considering sanctionable behaviour. Failure to do this leads to the so-called "Super Mario effect", where an admin can do something severe enough to warrant major sanctions and get desysopped, whereas a non-admin doing the same would get banned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a problem. I had considered while just blankly standing under the water in the shower thinking, what the effect would be if we said something like...every three years every admin get's desysopped for three months as a matter of policy. Although it wouldn't remotely approach consensus, it'd be an interesting experiment. I do think part of the problem at ArbCom currently is people just getting too darn used to the thing and losing a bit of perspective. But as long as any one admin must necessarily degrade into a spectacular catastrophe to undo a decision reached at RfA, NOBIGDEAL rings a bit hollow. I know how I would have fixed that if we were having this discussion 15 years ago, but I've yet to find any obvious solution right now that doesn't immediately result in a logistical nightmare when you consider that we have to account for 15 years worth of history.

Of course the most expedient solution would be to simply elect an ArbCom that is especially conservative in their interpretation of things like ADMINACCT and INVOLVED, but there's essentially no reliable way of ensuring that given the institutional culture of ArbCom being a naturally reticent body. But I do think that the core problem with recruitment to the admin corps isn't the barrier to entry; it's the barrier to exit. GMG^talk 23:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You have...

...some bloody bad timing. Two minutes between these edits. Have fun. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

bold

¡Ay, caramba! or oi veh if you prefer. or even Ach! du l i e b er!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Worst case scenario is I take it to AfD fishing for a redirect. Although it's probably in the best interest of our dear friend if we don't, since I have serious doubts about whether they can maintain their composure through a whole week worth of sustained discussion. If the organization is notable, it ain't by a wide margin.

Prime is indeed a merciful overlord, and/or possibly has an undisclosed conflict of interest with a major domestic rope manufacturer. GMG^talk 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I keep meaning to put a {{paid}} template on my userpage, but I figure if I've made it this far I can keep going. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Either way, what we certainly do not do is use the self-description of a hate group to make them sound like the Mouseketeers, when the only substantive disagreement among sources is exactly what type of hate group they are. As to that much there was never any doubt. It was, and is, pretty much just still a question of whether we carry on honky dory and I can go back to writing about a park, or whether a block comes before or after needing to call in the cavalry. GMG^talk 16:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

© Machine translation

Perhaps this will help.Given the situation of a Wikipedian using Google to translate compatibly licensed content, it is very unlikely that the use of that content on Wikipedia violates any Google copyrights. Assuming that any derivative copyright attaches, it is most probable that the Wikipedian would own it. Since the source material is presumably available by CC-BY-SA 3.0 or a similar license, the translated work would be safe for use on Wikipedia as long as its source is properly attributed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I just found that a few minutes ago and posted it on the talk. Seems like the verdict is "unlikely but untested". At any rate, maybe I'm missing where this is outlined elsewhere in existing recommendations, but I still think the bit about posting a translation on the talk is distracting from the core goal of the RfC, and at best is creating a separate largely superfluous policy addition in the process of creating a meaningful common sense policy addition of moving non-English articles to draft as standard procedure.

Frankly, even without the bit about copyright, I don't intend to start posting translations on the talk page, because I presume the patrolling admin can open a new tab all by their lonesome. In the case that no talk page yet exists, it also creates an unnecessary additional page that needs deleted. I think you'd be better off narrowing the focus as much as possible to what you really want to accomplish, namely moving non-English articles to drafts, rather than tacking on an extra bit that is just going to be distracting and wind up with at least a few opposes for instruction creep, from people who probably agree with the core issue.

As it is currently worded, my early !vote would be:

• Support moving non-English articles to drafts. Oppose the requirement to post translations on talk pages as unnecessary.

I don't think it does anybody any good to have the white noise of early !votes like that clouding the main issue. GMG^talk 17:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You've missed the point of the RfC - and the main issue. Those are not offered as debating points. There is A - support it or oppose it; and there is B - support it or oppose it. Anyway. I've taken the draft RfC away. I should have got it peer reviewed offline. I have come across a dozen non-English pages recently where our so-called highly qualified reviewers were to damn lazy even to find out what language it was, let alone run it through Google to see what it was about. Not only are such Reviewers wasting their own time, they're wasting everyone else's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I...I'm not totally sure how we can be in such broad agreement and yet disagree. All I'm doing is trying to ensure that a common sense change has the highest possible chance of success. My initial comment had a little too much banter in it, but it did help me narrow my own thoughts on the issue. I think you should narrow your own thoughts on the issue as I have done, and simply propose that non-English articles should be draftified as a matter of policy, full stop. I think that has the highest chance of success if it is a concise as possible. GMG^talk 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)`

Back to the copyright of machine translations: Computational linguistics is not a recently invented field of study. I was working with my publishers as long ago as 20 years on developing semantic search algorythms, and the issue of copyright of language snippets in the database was mentioned but not considered to be a serious concern for derivative works. We concluded that a piece of software not being a juristic person cannot possess a copyright. Linguists at large are still somewhat divided, but there appears to be a consensus that the products of SAS are original or derivative works. On a final note, language per se is common property, no one can lay a claim to it except perhaps the creators of constructed languages, such as the Klingon language, that are created for example for Sci-Fi movies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm pretty much an idiot as far as computers go. Editing Wikipedia is probably the most technically advanced thing I know how to do. I have a graduate degree in community based social work/non-profit administration. That's a lot of why I like Wikipedia, because I like community organizing and coalition building.

I think your idea is a good idea. I think your proposal can be improved to increase its chance of success. GMG^talk 05:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of administrators being "INVOLVED":

Doug Weller has just reverted an IP on the talk page. The IP was complaining about a six-month block by Future Perfect at Sunrise for removing an unsourced fallacy from an article. It was reverted by Doug Weller who made four edits to the article in five minutes removing the IP's factual edit and restoring the speculation, claiming the factual summary was "original research". Next day, after the IP pointed out that the restored text did not mention the "Common era" (the subject of the article) he wrote to Future Perfect at Sunrise suggesting he block, because he personally didn't think the edits blockworthy. Surely he is too involved with Future Perfect at Sunrise to handle this case impartially and should recuse. What's your view? 86.152.38.229 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What do I think? I think I honestly hate all this crap and I wish it all just would go away, and that nothing is more effective at killing the joy I get out of Wikipedia than bureaucratic bickering. I wish people wouldn't act like jerks, and I wish it didn't take a congressional committee to ask someone not to act like a jerk in the future. I look forward to going back to writing articles for my daughter to read one day and forgetting about the whole things as soon as possible. Assuming you're somehow not a block or ban evading user, which seems unlikely given an anonymous editor with such a strong opinion about ArbCom, Charles P. Mattocks could probably still benefit from a fourth opinion on a copyedit, and here is a 200 page report from the National Park Service that needs to be incorporated into Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. That's important. All the other crap is a distraction. GMG^talk 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change Jbh ^Talk 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I figured. It's just been a shitty day and I took the opportunity to vent. GMG^talk 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hope tomorrow is less shitty and you are able to enjoy next weekend if not this one… :) Jbh ^Talk 19:40, 15 April 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, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Technicalties...

• There was a drag but it was quickly withdrawn (or rather compelled by the circumstances)....And, what more can I add?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#[Consensus_to_enact,_as_amended]_Proposed_editing_restriction, for a quasi-execution of your idea.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh? Wow. I totally missed that short lived request. That's what I get for rambling at the village pump right before bed. But the point still stands that this would have been a situation where a community review could have long ago reached a consensus for a re-RfA, and he would have needed to choose whether to stand for one, or whether to resign voluntarily. It may have even saved an editor, if we had separated him from the drama of admining before things got bad enough that they left entirely, blocked and demopped for good measure.

Other than that, mostly I was just interested in any opinion you might have on the whole thing. It's the only real compromise I've been able to come up with between an outright community desysop process, and the bureaucratic mess we have currently. But it's still really just a two factor community desysop, or community desysop once removed, depending on how you look at it, and I pretty much still expect that it will probably go nowhere in the end. I'd also be interested in any input from my dedicated wiki stalkers. GMG^talk 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. But see the thing is it actually is permissible under policy. You just have to word it as a TBAN rather than a right removal. By which I mean that I probably just need to be "lucky enough" to catch one of these threads before someone closes it with "ArbCom or gtfo" and point out that there is another option, and one that is perfectly aligned with existing policy. GMG^talk 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I like your TBAN idea but I think there would be a large psychological barrier to implementing it. The community has a pretty big "its Arbcom's problem" block when it comes to complaints against administrators. That is part of the problems. Taking the events of the current ArbCom case as example; it would have been trivial for another administrator to a) warn about edit warring b) said 'do not protect the page like you are threatening' c) treated the page protect as a revert and blocked for 3RR. Personally I think 'c.' would have been the way to go. It would have shown that the action was wrong and documented it in their block log.

I have been thinking about accountability and recall. I do not know if it is solvable considering both attitudes within the community and the complexity of any system which could address it. I started a comment for the VPP thread but it is more spitballing ideas than a proper comment. If you or any stalkers have any ideas or comments please let me know. My notes are at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 06. Jbh ^Talk 15:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, a forced re-RfA is the only thing I've found that sits well with me. It's intuitive in that it employs two existing systems we already know how to use as a community: normal consensus building and RfA itself, without creating anything new that users have to learn to navigate. Keeping in mind that part of the barrier to exit of the admin corps, is not just screwing royally up and pissing off the community, but pissing off one person in particular that has the experience and motivation to file a case request and do it correctly, and then follow through to a successful desysop, which is a skill set that basically no new editor and comparatively few moderately experienced editors have.

It also perfectly aligns the standard for getting the mop with the standard of keeping it, when in comparison, ArbCom puts the standard for desysop at a level higher than RfA itself, and a direct community desysop at AN sets a bar that is lower. But it's probably doomed to fail as a proposal currently, and the current system would probably need to degrade further into dysfunction before the community would support a major change like that. Basically, ArbCom would need to continue to screw up as they currently are, and demonstrate that they are more likely to bicker about the wording of slaps on the wrist rather than take any meaningful action.

The TBAN thing is...a thing...and I'm just waiting for a test case honestly. I think it could be a useful tool if it became part of the "standard tools" used by the community to solve disputes at AN/ANI, but that's an issue of organizational culture that would have to change over time with successful precedent. If we get a case or two where TBANs are successfully enacted, and at least one instance where 1) ArbCom backs up a violation with a desysop, and 2) someone actually spends six months or so in the trenches and the community lifts the ban in good faith, then I think it may become a part of the project to stay. But that's a long process that has to happen organically. GMG^talk 16:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, GMG, Jbhunley, and Winged Blades of Godric, I actually agree with at least two of you re: the current issue at ARC (I have very strong thoughts on involved full protection), and I think that the comment of at least one arbitrator there is very disappointing. I don't think a community based process would have resulted in much different: ArbCom is actually arguably more insulated from people taking care of their friends than ANI, and I think the current motion is likely more than you would have gotten elsewhere.
  One reform proposal that might work, and that I would support, would be a shortened case request process for situations like the recent Gryffindor situation: if there is a clear community consensus that the actions need to be reviewed, the committee could accept it on an abbreviated schedule of one week per phase (that is what they did with the Salv issue.) or if need by handle it by motion (which they have in the past).
  While I do oppose any direct desysop process, and don't think it would have any impact on lowering the RfA standards like GMG thinks it would, I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that it should be streamlined and that when a legitimate case for a desysop has been brought, the committee should accept it even if they do not end up removing the bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, whether it affects standards at RfA is going to always be an educated guess unless we try it. I also personally more interested in improving the behavior of some of our mediocre-ish-ly bad admins who often live in that spot beneath being a good admin, but above an ArbCom case. I'm also more interested in improving the rift between some of our most prolific content creators and our most prolific admins, because there is often a general feeling that "the overlords are held to a different standard" and in some cases that is a legitimate point, even if in many others it's vitriol for the purpose of vitriol. All that is much more important to me than whether any individual admin ever actually get's desysopped through a community process. The process isn't an end, it's a means either way, and I'm always open to alternatives. GMG^talk 17:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The first, and hardest, cultural change is having the members of the community actually accept that the community can censure administrators. The idea of 'forced re-RfA' is good but the only way I can think to get it to work is to lobby the admin corp to each accept binding recall procedures. Otherwise we must create a new authority/right which explicitly gives the community the ability to, through some process, force it. We have never gotten any consensus for that authority.

Another option is to use the 'no confidence motions' which have popped up at ANI every now and then to make a community recommendation for de-sysop to ArbCom. ANI threads though are the worst place on the project to examine an admin's actions/behavior, for obvious reasons. It also requires ArbCom to accept such a recommendation as valid.

The idea of a shortened ArbCom process would be good — assuming ArbCom has any desire to actually address mid-tier admin issues. It would prevent the "well this is bad but not worth a full case" canard. That could be handled much like the FPaS case, through extended discussion. The two things I would want to add to that though are; compulsory participation of the admin whose actions are being examined, and the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on. I'd limit that last to a single motion per participant but the vote requirement forces a bit of accountability on ArbCom members which could influence the votes of people who care about such things when elections come around.

All that said, nothing will actually change because no one really cares about accountability — if they did every admin would have a binding recall procedure. Those editors who do care, usually because they get hit by some bad call and have no recourse, burn out or get labeled "critics" or "haters" and finally, if they bring it up too often "trolls". Often those labels will be deserved because people who have been unjustly wronged, or think they have been, and have no legitimate way to seek 'justice' get mad. Frustration leads to contempt leads to confrontation leads to a bad reputation leads to blocks leads to bans leads to bitching about the injustice of it all over on WO. All in all I'd rather edit and have fun.

One final observation, being an administrator requires a vastly different skill set than being a good content creator. Being a good Arbitrator requires a different skill set than either. Each needs to understand the perspective and difficulties of the other but being good at one role does not remotely qualify one for another. Jbh ^Talk 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on Now that's an interesting idea.

Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. (from WP:AP) So we can force internal changes in process even if the committee objects, which I hadn't considered all that much really. I'm not sure exactly how that might work though, or whether there would be a potential for abuse. I mean, this discussion has just been spitballing ideas all the way down, so it's definitely an interesting suggestion to be sure. The suggestion to have abridged cases I like also, but you would have to pretty much leave it up to arb discretion when to do that probably.

As to a voluntary recall process, that's pretty much what we have already. But of course almost anyone with any real chance of being recalled has not chosen to opt in. GMG^talk 19:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on: This sounds very similar to this proposal, which I have enthusiastically supported. Alex Shih (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, all except for the "must" part. So for example, the (arguably POINTY) motion that I proposed which was predictably ignored, because I would expect that any terribly controversial motion is going to be ignored similarly, even if it may be of some benefit by telling the community exactly where each person stands. GMG^talk 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

In terms of reform, most of the things discussed her can be done without an RfC, and honestly, it’d probably have more of an impact than a major policy reform RfC anyway: those only work when there is a strong preexisting consensus and the proposal is narrowly worded. The great advantage to how en.wiki works is that we don’t need a policy to do the vast majority of things: practice is policy. I think Jbh’s point re: censure is good: propose it more often. We’ve already seen recently the community is fine with it. I think the TBAN thing will be a harder sell, but you’re welcome to try it. There is *a lot* that can be done within existing confines, people just need to be willing to do it.

Re: the arb stuff: ArbCom can already resolve things by motion (it has desysoped by motion in the past) and it can also set shorter than standard timelines for cases (they did for MisterWiki, and I think at least one other recent case). The thing is just getting them to do it, which is often just saying “Hey, would you mind making this exception to normal procedure” to whichever arb is being most active on the case request page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that ideally policy codifies rather than creates consensus. I don't think we have a strong current consensus for community review, but I don't think we have a strong current consensus against it. That division waxes and wanes according to ArbCom. I think the TBAN idea has support in policy, in addition to isolated precedent. It's just waiting to be tested in a situation where it will gain consensus. I also think the discussion has been productive, even if it's just for helping me sort out my own thoughts on the issues, although it's not been a particularly productive day because of it. GMG^talk 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)