User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 9

Please comment on Talk:Fatima

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello GreenMeansGo, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (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) 04:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup

Please comment on Talk:Robert Mueller

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Mueller. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

WWII

FYI Talk pages discussions at World War Two have re-opened. You contributed relatively recently, so please chime in. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me

I noticed you pinged me here. I absolutely stand by what I said; did you look at the diffs? --John (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're free to stand by it. I'm only telling you, as others have, that in this instance you are wrong. GMG^talk 01:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by your diligence. Which others do you think have told me I was wrong? --John (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, this would have been good advice if heeded at the time, rather than doubling down on accusations of bad faith against an experienced editor, as was pointed out here. This is notwithstanding whatever buy-in you gave to the original accusations of trolling (on which there seems to be general agreement as to its baselessness), on which you commented to the effect that you would not comment, but continued to characterize the situation as "several people" agreeing with the characterization. Besides being a mathematical error, that's pretty explicit agreement. That it came immediately with cautions from yourself against making "serious accusations" and "unsubstantiated aspersions" [1] as if the accusations you were making weren't serious, and the single link you provided was singularly substantive, comes off somewhat less than ideal.

Overall, the entire ordeal is probably generously described as juvenile name calling, is certainly not the route to productive collaboration, and, as was so eloquently put, needs to stop. As I said, you are free to stand by whatever you like, and seemingly quadruple down on apparently mostly or entirely unfounded aspersions, but I would suggest that you consider spending a little break doing something like fighting vandalism, and dealing with actual trolls in order to update your definition, and perhaps reset your AGF, or perhaps both. GMG^talk 12:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in danger of taking this as a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't bother to read up on this, I made a mistake, I mixed you up with someone else, but I'm not going to admit it." I do see "several" people who agree with DHeyward's characterisation of this renamed user's behaviour; me, Winkelvi and Johnuniq. That makes four altogether. I don't see several people who think I was wrong. I see SN54129 himself (surprise, surprise), and I see Fyddlestix who asks for more evidence. That's two. Four is several, two is not several. Perhaps the mathematical error is yours. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. --John (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of those you cite in your favor did not agree with characterizing the behavior as trolling, but rather as adding nothing, and unnecessarily contributing to drama, which may be a perfectly defensible position, and is far from outright name calling. The other, has themselves shown an ongoing series of unfortunate decision making, which makes me count their individual judgement as being worth comparatively little.

If it makes you feel better, I also mostly discounted one loud voice in opposition to your position, as being hopelessly involved, and yet I seem to be left with multiple opinions from experienced editors in good standing who seem to disagree. That you don't seem to see that makes me likewise question whether you have "bothered to read up on this". Do be more careful in the future, and if possible, try not to call people names. It's generally considered bad form, and is generally not something experienced editors need to be told not to do. GMG^talk 14:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

None of these diffs relates to me. They all relate to a different user. I am now fully taking this as "I didn't bother to read up on this, I made a mistake, I mixed you up with someone else, but I'm not going to admit it." Between your incompetence, arrogance and facile, patronising tosh ("try not to call people names"), I have to ask if you are really cut out to be an admin. --John (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My original response dealt with who disagreed with you personally. My subsequent response dealt with who disagreed with the characterization, since that was the metric you were using to gauge support. If you want to compare apples and oranges to make your position look stronger than it is, it's only fair to point out exactly how many of each there are on either side.

If you don't want responses that comes off as arrogant, then don't take the exact same tone with others and get all up in a huff when they give it back to you in kind, using even your own words. If you don't want it pointed out to you that you shouldn't call people names, then don't, and others won't be want to point out the obvious.

As to the entire ordeal, you may continue to take it however you please, but if you're not here to do anything but throw a fit, and colorfully express your sudden low opinion of me, then kindly take it somewhere else. GMG^talk 18:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe it is your seeing it as "sides" that is the problem. Whatever. I know you were trying to help but really, consider leaving it to someone with the time and energy to read properly and with better people skills next time. --John (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And your irony is duly noted. GMG^talk 19:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Chill, its only a website! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean, what do you expect from a low energy, incompetent, arrogant, facile, patronising, illiterate, editor with no people skills such as myself? I'm just glad we didn't get into the really nasty stuff, like my lazy eye, poor taste in wine, and all the friends I don't have. That right there might have hurt my feelings alright. GMG^talk 20:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh come now, don't be so hard on yourself. You're not illiterate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I is to. BTW, good to see your name popping back up on my watchlist. GMG^talk 22:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my masochism got the better of me, it seems. I'll be leaving the offensive edit notice up at my talk page for the time being, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing and accepting my first wikipedia article! HCornish (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No thank you HCornish for helping us build a better encyclopedia, and congratulations on your first article! GMG^talk 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Technology that did not exist until the previous month

There was no such thing as a digital pill, as far as I know, until the previous month. I apologize for bringing up current notable living persons and merely stating something I believe, and isn't necessarily true, as it was uncalled for and unnecessary and does not further any of my arguments. I might take it to the talk page, but do not believe I would be successful in doing so. Michihiro Yumoto Soga (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Michihiro Yumoto Soga, leaving fairly disruptive edit summaries and making personal accusations as you were, isn't going to help you any. What may help you is addressing the content on the talk page, and if you cannot reach an consensus there, consider following the steps of the dispute resolution process. That's exactly the kind of thing it's there for. GMG^talk 21:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Timmy!

I finally found you! And I was thinking TJW's account has gone missing from enwiki.
How have you been long-time friend? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Doing well. About to take an involuntary wiki break and visit some more unfortunate parts of the world for a while. But otherwise doing well. Glad to see how active you've become. GMG^talk 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Does unfortunate parts of the world include Japan? ;) Alex Shih (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful. Probably the best I can hope for it a few days off and maybe a whirlwind trip to India. Which I will completely do if given the opportunity. GMG^talk 11:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think i am growing up. :D Wouldnt you agree Lex? —usernamekiran(talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Review

No need to apologize. I sympathize completely; we bought a new computer several months ago, and not only do a couple of keys stick a bit, the screen is so bright that I can't see the keyboard as well as I used to. Needless to say my writing contains a lot more missed letters and other mishaps than it used to. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emily Thornberry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emily Thornberry. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Climate change "consensus"

Enough is right! So are you payed political trolls or are you officially the Climate Change Police? There is overwhelming evidence contrary to what is being stated here including numerous sources, but any opposing views to your ideology (and not science) is considered taboo and is quickly dismissed without debate. Pathetic!

And now bots are trolling my edits. To what lengths will your ideology go?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.93 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Oh it goes deep. DEEP. You see, we coordinate with a number of secret societies including, but not limited to the CIA, the Illuminati, and the Mickey Mouse Club. The goal here, is to represent the current state of human knowledge in a way that is neutral and verifiable, and that's when we spring our trap, and make all of this free to everyone. GMG^talk 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

PrimeBOT concurs. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

GreenMeansGo, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

• If it means anything, it isn't personal; it's professional, or at least as professional as a group of anonymous amateur writers on the internet can get. I wish you had done a lot of things differently, and I think you do too. But that doesn't change the fact that you've helped build a better encyclopedia for my daughter to read. Any status other than that is temporary, illusory, and unimportant. The best to you and yours. GMG^talk 11:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Baltimore railroad strike of 1877 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 29, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 29, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

James Salzman

Hi GMG, just wanted to check that the Wikipedia page I started, James Salzman, is no longer slated for deletion. I added references and swapped the photo for one I own the rights for. It should be good to now, correct? Arcadian Shepherd (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Arcadian Shepherd. The criteria the article was nominated under (WP:BLPPROD) covers articles on living person that have no references at all. However, that is only a special "quick deletion" type of criteria. The overall criteria for determining whether articles on academics are suitable for Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In order to avoid another editing nominating it for a general deletion discussion, you should ensure that the article demonstrates, to the fullest extent possible, that the subject meets those criteria. GMG^talk 18:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you! GMG^talk 17:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry whatever dear talk page watchers

Whatever it is you celebrate, hopefully you're at least celebrating a few days off work and some refreshing time with family and friends. (And anyway, this seems easier than posting on a bunch of talk pages.) Don't sex and drive, and if you drink, put a condom on it. Try to eat and sleep slightly more than is prudent. We've got almost six million articles, but half of them are stubs. So come back ready to work! GMG^talk 14:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heh  :) if in the course of your upcoming travels you happen to be passing through Londinius, I'll buy you a drink. Happy holidays, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, the plan right now is to try to take a swing around Europe probably ~February 2019. I've not been back since I was a kid, and my wife's never been at all. So be careful what you offer. You may end up with a cranky veteran knocking on your door one day. GMG^talk 14:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a 100% advance on what I usually get banging on my door  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you too. It suddenly occurs to me that I started Great Expectations years ago, and never finished it. GMG^talk 03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first and certainly wont be the last :-) Best wishes for your 2018. MarnetteD|Talk 03:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the the very best of the season!
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. You too! GMG^talk 20:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

The white snow and the cool breeze beckon a festive mood, And the sweet aroma wafting from eateries wreathes the mind. Lights, stars, colour and jollity abound 'round each bend, I wish you a happy holiday season, dear friend. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Editing can get tough and frustrating at times, but we've come a long way in this project and that is a grand achievement. Hope you have a good time this festive season! :) Jiten talk contribs 23:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

To you also, and many more to come! GMG^talk 00:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Targeted killing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Targeted killing. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tudeh Party of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tudeh Party of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake

Just keeping you on your toes. Paranoia saves lives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

And all my talk page stalkers cried out in unison, "what did he do this time?" GMG^talk 17:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but that was just the icing on the cake, really. Which is not to say that I'm above doing something similar with edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of this thread against the one two sections up ("Please comment on Talk:Targeted killing") makes me worry that either or both of you may be planning a targeted killing, possible off-wiki. EEng 22:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess a targeting killing on-wiki would just be ANI wouldn't it? GMG^talk 22:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You caught us... We're planning on killing each other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, that very well captures what goes on at ANI every day:

One fine day in the middle of the night, / Two dead boys* got up to fight,
Back to back they faced each other, / Drew their swords and shot each other,
One was blind and the other couldn’t, see / So they chose a dummy for a referee.
A blind man went to see fair play, / A dumb man went to shout “hooray!”
A paralysed donkey passing by, / Kicked the blind man in the eye,
Knocked him through a nine inch wall, / Into a dry ditch and drowned them all,
A deaf policeman heard the noise, / And came to arrest the two dead boys,
If you don’t believe this story’s true, / Ask the blind man he saw it too!

EEng 02:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

classy

Hey, so waiting until I was asleep to make bitchy comments at the ANI thread is real classy. My only hope is that now that you have made some snide remarks to me, the editor will calm down. I really don't think he will let it go until he feels like he has "won" and you are not convincing me. If you think a post is trivial you should not comment on it. Trivial complaints are bad, but people who comment on complaints they think are trivial just to be jerks are even worse.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed to be classy, but you're seriously overreacting to things and overshooting by about three quarters of a mile on that thread. It's nothing personal. I've gotten my feelings all up in an issue before and opened an ANI, where I was promptly told to take my feelings somewhere else, and where if I had slept good and long on the whole thing it wouldn't have seemed nearly so bad in the morning. We're doing serious work, but that doesn't mean that everything that goes on needs to be taken as serious as a heart attack.

I appreciate the work you've done to make the encyclopedia better, and I'm totally willing to help in any way possible. But sometimes we all need some good advice to go outside and have a smoke and calm down a bit. GMG^talk 19:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Seraphim System: First let me preface this by saying that I really, truly mean this exactly as I say it, and not as a chiding or scolding remark because I can 100% understand where you're coming from. I'm literally just explaining something about a certain type of person (a type which seems to include both GMG and myself) that isn't obvious to everyone, but is to us. Ok, here goes:

Not every joke at your expense is meant to belittle you, or even to exclude you from the humor. See definition #3 here. In fact, when the target of such sniping joins in with self-defacing humor, or fires right back in good humor, that's generally the best possible outcome.

Think of it like a trout, except funnier and with no accompanying template. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly appreciate your efforts to lighten the mood. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTLAB

Thanks for your work on making that happen! Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey you too! I'm glad it was successful. GMG^talk 10:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Prodding Pughsville

That was a perfectly good dab page, with two places of the same name in different states: I don't understand your comment "Unnecessary disambiguation. Nothing to disambiguation, and only two nothings besides." Please take more care. Thanks. PamD 17:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PamD At the time I PRODed it, neither article had been created, and it was a DAB consisting of two redlinks. I purposefully chose PROD rather than CSD (which it qualified for at the time) in order to give the author a week to make articles to justify the DAB, assuming that was their intention, which it seem to have been. GMG^talk 17:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see - your comment was a bit confusing! Thanks for explanation. PamD 17:35, 28 December 2017 (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) 04:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyvios

I have just found another copyvio when patrolling new pages, in the article Qarib Qarib Singlle. I have removed the "Plot" section and added appropriate tags but do not know how to go about requesting a rev-del. In this instance, the copyvio was made in the very first edit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cwmhiraeth.  Done BTW, I'm just using Template:Copyvio-revdel which adds the page to Category:Requested RD1 redactions. If you click on the diff of the earliest revision that needs deleting, you will have an "old ID" in the url, in this case, oldid=802480112 for this diff. You just pull the ID from the newest revision that needs deleted in the same way, and plug them into the template along with the url of where the content was copied from. Someone usually comes around within a day or so and will delete everything in between.

Thanks for keeping an eye out for this sort of stuff. If I can help in any way feel free to ask away. GMG^talk 14:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I can probably manage to use that template next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Same to you! And to a better encyclopedia to greet 2019 with! GMG^talk 02:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello GreenMeansGo, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital. Legobot (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Add Globitex Page

Globitex has now many external resources available. Please add Globitex Wiki Page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licere (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Licere, if you be believe the company meets our standards for notability, you may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article, and consider submitting a draft using the article wizard. If you have an outside connection with the subject, you should also carefully review our guidance for conflicts of interest, which can lead to a lot of unwanted attention if not followed. GMG^talk 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico–United States border

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mexico–United States border. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire and Fury

Would be interested in your thoughts on this discussion and its relevance to the book. Cheers! --Zefr (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 15:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian presidential election, 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian presidential election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

New paving system/building material to list

In the Encyclopedia you can search for 'Permeable paving' where there are a couple styles listed. I want to add a newly invented paving system, 'Permeable wooden block pavers' manufactured out of Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). This paving system is the unique invention of the president of a company, and the company's name is the same as this wood specie. It is a sustainable building material, one of the 'Permeable paving' options, but has never been listed so far.

How could I list the Black Locust wood pavers without violating the rules? There is no intention of advertising/marketing the company's own product itself, but list the system as one of the paving options. It is important to include Black Locust because this wood specie is the only hardwood that can be utilized to produce the permeable wooden paving system.

Any thoughts?

IvettKatona94 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Ivett

Hey IvettKatona94. In order for content to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, it needs to have coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the thing itself and those closely connected to it. These are usually things like magazines, books, newspapers, or scholarly publications. The problem is, if something exists, but no one has written about it yet, for the purposes of Wikipedia it looks the same as it would if it were totally made up. Both would be equally unverifiable for readers. If the subject has received this type of coverage then it may be suitable for inclusion. If it has not yet received this type of coverage, then it may be too soon to include, and we would have to wait until it has. GMG^talk 12:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate quotes for same ref

Hi, just fyi: I see at Pointing that you're using Notes containing quotations (e.g., a, b), with a named ref at the end of each one, linking them to a common source. Another way to do this, is to add an {{rp}} template with the |q= param following each named ref invocation. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I'll be. I had no idea. Thanks for the tip! GMG^talk 10:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait. Does that still work if there are no page numbers? This is one of those stupidly digitized books that don't include them. That's why I was trying to include quotes where they were short enough to be allowable. GMG^talk 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's something like a PDF that has "page" numbers, you could use those. Otherwise, if it's just (essentially) just one long image with every page on it, I suppose you could count the pages and give that number... Primefac (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Eh... probably a negligible increase in verifiability, given that few or no readers would be willing to do the same. However, if you include a fairly unique string of four or five words, they should be able to find the passage basically effortlessly using the search function. GMG^talk 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, still works with no page numbers; you can use |at= param instead of page number (or even |p=? if there are page numbers, but you don't know what it is). For a very long, unnumbered pdf or web page, I'd love a rough-percentage estimate: As Galileo said in his immensely long, unnumbered treatise, "The sun is at the center."^[27] or, like Primefac said, assuming it's searchable. The ideal solution here, imho, is to get a template writer to fix {{sfn}} so you can add |q= to it. But {{rp}} is still useful, for when <ref>-style referencing is being used. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well... after I'd cited it 10 times, I found an alternate version that's a scanned text recognized book instead of a transposed ebook. I just need to look up everything again and find the pages. But I'll normally save nit picky formatting and copy editing till last anyway. From what I can tell, I'm not yet near exhausting the easily available sources. GMG^talk 02:04, 19 January 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) 04:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Importing the discussion from Psych to the Pointing TP

Hi, GreenMeansGo,

The discussion on the Psychology talk page about Pointing seems like it would be highly relevant here at Talk:Pointing. Not sure what the protocol is for this (I looked briefly, couldn't find anything) but can we just move the discussion over to the Pointing talk page, maybe leave the original section header at WT:PSYCH and just provide a link under it with something like, "This discussion moved to.. Talk:Pointing"? Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Who cares about rules. Do whatever works as long as it communicates it effectively. GMG^talk 11:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesse Hamilton. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the RfC. I don't typically edit contentious articles, and genuinely thought my original RfC was structured well and stated neutrally. I appreciate you stepping in and creating a better one. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to say thanks again to you. You've been a great influence on the page, and I think your contributions are really helping us move forward. I appreciate it. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey BrianCUA. Sorry. I honestly didn't see your first comment on the 22nd. I assume it got swept up in a flurry of tangentially related banter here. I hope you're right. They key to good RfCs is that they need to be... exceptionally specific enough that even someone who barely speaks the language can tell what it means. Usually if it's not a single short yes or no question, things tend to get mixed up in related but unfocused discussion. I guess the downside to that is that if it's a complex question overall, it can take a long time to get through enough RfCs to sort it out completely, but usually by that time someone gets bored, or gets blocked, or just learns to get along. GMG^talk 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Answering edit requests

When you see blank edit requests like the two at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, it makes more sense to remove the requests as test edits (which they are) rather than mark them answered. Further, it would help Wikipedia if you issue warnings to the editors involved. Many new editors start by randomly changing stuff and edit requests are one way that manifests. Reverting and warning does more to end that behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't an established process for this. Some remove because they believe it is a test edit, and some respond because they like to assume good faith. There is a slight bug with the way the edit requests are made that can lead to their submission appearing as blank when it wasn't when they submitted it. Nihlus 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

(edit conflict) Umm... I tend to do a bit of both depending on the situation. If the request is gibberish I tend to simply remove it, as in here. If a request is obvious vandalism, I tend to both remove and warn. If it is is blank, I tend to decline, because in the absence of other behavioral evidence, it's possible that the user does in fact have a request, but doesn't understand how the template works, or that it isn't the equivalent of "entering a room" like one does on live chat, and wait for a response to tell if someone else is online prior to continuing. GMG^talk 16:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The two responses above hit the nail right on the head. An editor who erroneously submits a blank edit request may come back and correct an "answered" version, but one who comes back to see it missing may well just do the same damn thing again (and again, and again...) thinking that it never posted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence why I urge issuing warnings. Engaging with new editors is important; I've seen first-hand at edit-a-thons how some audiences do not find Wikipedia's interface to be intuitive. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that templates constitute meaningful engagement. GMG^talk 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

---

Please stop making good points, as you did with this edit at User talk:GreenMeansGo. If you continue, you may be praised for your insight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic

This made my day in a way few things have. That is all. GMG^talk 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Hug" article edit

Why remove the entire "Cuddling business" section? It's curious, if not useful, information. HeadPlug (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey HeadPlug. I assume you are referring to this edit. Given, that was several months ago, but probably because it was unsourced and appears to be fairly miscellaneous trivia that wasn't necessarily central to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. It's perfectly possible I'm wrong, and the section could be improved with the use of sources that meet our standards for reliability. GMG^talk 18:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Shield o' Shame?

Say it ain't so, Tim-Joe. Anmccaff (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What did I do this time? GMG^talk 20:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You appeared to be admitting some connection to the AG Corps on your user page. Always remember Harry Callahan's Second Law. (The first, of course, is "A man's got to know his limitations".) Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. That I am. I actually got to speak fairly briefly with the regimental CSM a few weeks ago. Boy is he a character. GMG^talk 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is that, these days? Anmccaff (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

CSM Gill GMG^talk 21:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep; he enlisted after I went on terminal IRR. Man, I am old...

Like you said, it looks like he might have a story or three to tell. Anmccaff (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Soldiers don't get old. They just get meaner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. I feel old fairly often, and I'm only in my 30s, but I feel like I've mellowed with age. Then again, I'm AG Corps, so I guess the jury is still out on whether I'm actually a soldier. GMG^talk 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Joking aside, there was an ongoing debate back in the day, because some personnel, supply, &cet types had a strong connection with combat arms units, often with initial service as combat arms, and they preferred affiliation with them. "Retreading" into personnel and supply was also common for CA types whose PULHES wasn't what it used to be. This often exacerbated the ongoing problem with 71 series, who were then selected from the same pool that would, in other circs, be looked at for ossifer candidates, commisioned and non-. Bright kids who made E4 fast, and then rotted in place because all the NCO slots were taken. I hope that has been fixed, but I doubt it, and the upcoming switch back to conventional capability might bring it back even if it is gone. Anmccaff (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I almost went 71 until I found out how long the school was, which didn't sound great to a guy was dating my soon-to-be wife at the time, but then I've been 42 for my entire career so far. It's kindof always been in the back of my mind to man up and get my LCSW and direct commission with AMEDD, but I've never followed through with it. It's a level of extra work that makes my Master's look easy by comparison, and much harder to find the opportunity to do. GMG^talk 00:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, me former grunt. Me no speak fancy fobbit, er pogue err, logistic talk.

Actually, that tracks pretty much right on with two of my buddies' career paths. Former bullet sponges turned 88-something and 94-something sometime in their 30's. Just cause the Army way sucks doesn't mean they should change it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good to know...

<freezes in place, then backs slowly away from the page, looking around nervously> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised...

...you support this. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty ambivalent actually, mainly regarding whether it's a battle that's worth fighting. It's well done for what it is, and I have a hard time seeing an AfD not immediately devolve into "you just DONTLIKEIT". GMG^talk 19:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally I stick by my last decline in that it's just a bunch of quotes playing "pin the tail on the quote reference". It's likely I could do that with just about any classic film, but I don't think that would make it notable. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't fit nicely as a Wikiquote, even though at first glance it looks like it might. And honestly it is a glorified WP:TRIVIA WP:FORK. There's not much denying that. I probably wouldn't have accepted it either, again, admittedly as well done a piece of WP:NOT that it is. But overall, I think it's probably one of those times when the disagreement is probably a net negative to the project even if I won. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe not. GMG^talk 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem disagreeing. I mostly just wanted to find out your thoughts on it. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ooooh. Gee fizz. I'm really not paying close enough attention today. Sorry. I'm still reading books on pointing and feeling my eyes slowly cross.

I saw the first source, which seemed fine, and completely missed that nearly everything else seems to be the author's own research. Maybe DGG did the same thing I did. Fhew. Time to brew some coffee. GMG^talk 19:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I consider it appropriate and defensible. The work itself is a suitable source. The assemblage of facts without adding interpretations is not OR. Way back, during the trivia wars of 07-09, I usually supported this material. A key part of the study of films and literature is tracing cultural referents. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roy Moore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roy Moore. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 January 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) 04:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first TFA!

Thank you for Baltimore railroad strike of 1877! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks Gerda Arendt. And thanks again to Permstrump for doing some real life work and grabbing that picture for the article. GMG^talk 11:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice job! Maybe this will motivate me to get my own first GA/FA.... unlikely... Primefac (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's good for your writing to do at least one. I'm slowly trying to work up courage to try for a FT. But... you know... check back in five years or so to see what happens on that front. GMG^talk 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, and I have an unofficial GA review on the article's talk... it was just a lot easier to write the thing when I actually had access to online journals (and boatloads of free time). Primefac (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't lie and say that if the topic wasn't old enough for half the sources to already be in the public domain, it likely wouldn't be an FA right now. Time is relative. I think with all the 1877 articles combined so far, I've probably spent about a year and a half on them total. Something something no deadline. GMG^talk 14:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Admiring that, and more the one-article-a-day-writer myself, my advice for a first quality article is: pick some well-defined small topic, such as one poem, one song, you name it. Of course even that can get long ... (not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

...and now, after the initial batch of nuisances who noticed it only because it's on the front page, you'll get to enjoy the POV-pushers who'll take what was a good article, and make into a Good Article, with all the horrors that entails....and they'll still call it a FA, with your name on it.

Slightly Modified RaptureCongratulations, IOW. Anmccaff (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GMG for volunteering me to clean up all this vandalism today. You know, surely there's nothing in the world I enjoy more than reverting bored teenagers for eighteen hours straight. *cough*Good for nothing jackass.*cough*

Hey, no problem man. Anytime. :)

You know, surely American politics hasn't gotten so bad that we'd get POV pushers about Rutherford B Hayes? GMG^talk 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yupp, as you saw already on the Scranton Mis-named Article page. Certain creatures which call themselves historians write descriptions of labor trouble that owe more to morality plays than to historiography. Anmccaff (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This kept popping up in my watchlist and my sleep-deprived brain kept wondering why you were getting so much acclaim for a TFA, before it occurred to me much later that TFA does not stand for "did you know". So, congrats! I'm off to the coffee machine .... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, according to Urban Dictionary TFA stands for "the fucking article". Which, seems like it might work too, depending on how you look at it. GMG^talk 18:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Better than what happens when you read DYK aloud. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, according to Urban Dictionary, DYK stands for... wha? ...ok... no... nevermind... it just stands for the Did You Know page on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 18:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

At least until you make it plural, when it really changes meaning. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So, we were on this cruise in December, and half of our deck was this dance team of teenagers from New Zealand. (Preemptive apologies to anyone from New Zealand.) So it turns out when people from New Zealand say the word "deck", it sounds like... a slightly different word as spoken in American English. The problem is, you cannot function on a cruise ship without saying the word "deck" every other sentence. So I got decks coming from every direction here. You know... really rapid fire decks. Definitely more decks than I can handle all at once. It was really exhausting to my sense of humor honestly. GMG^talk 18:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. In Invictus, Matt Damon's rather silly South African accent when he said "focus" (over and over again) kind of made it hard to get really pumped up (no pun intended). Primefac (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just close your eyes and think of Holland. 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletions

Apart from copyright violations, her articles (well, some of them) have many problems. I am looking at a lot of them trying to get rid of the copyright violations. I'm not going to simply ignore some deficient articles like Adam Geiger when I come across them (I alreday ignore many problems in them just becaus I don't want to edit too many of her articles). I can stop sending notifications to her, but this is usually frowned upon. But I'll not stop nominating them for deletion just because she or you doesn't like that. Fram (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Fram. If it's a copyright violation or a BLP violation, obviously it needs to go and go now. You don't need the likes of me to tell you that. But Philip Bainbridge (died 1918) has already been kept, and wherever Villa Il Palmerino ends up, it doesn't look a lot like deletion. So you're not exactly getting slam dunks on these, and if one of these is borderline, there's a good chance it could be deleted wrongly just because you've exhausted the time of the few people who are paying close attention. I seriously doubt either one of us could say when we'd only been around a few months that many of our articles didn't have "many problems" too.

It's not going to be the end of the project if you put an article on a non-notable subject on a to-do list to set for a week. Consider that there are at least one or two of us left who are big gushy softies and actually care about editor retention, and hold out some hope that things like this can be somehow resolved amicably, if people stop piling on for a second.

I've already I think, pretty clearly expressed that I don't think you've done a particularly stellar job at effectively communicating things in a way that's going to help a new editor learn and become a long time contributor of the type we will always need. I'm not up in my capslock button threatening to take you to ArbCom over it, although I do wish you would take it to heart, and relax for a little bit. GMG^talk 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that she was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations already once before, without my involvement? She isn't a "new editor" who needs to learn, she is an editor who had her chances, many of them and blew them. Feel free to take me to ArbCom over this, it seems to be the season for silly ArbCom threaths anyway. If she had misinterpreted some copyright statement to mean that it is a PD source, fine, that's not unusual. But to misinterpret a serious number of wildly different sources all as being public domain, when you have already been indefinitely blocked for copyvio and unblocked with conditions, shows that she was not interested in getting this right (as is obvious from her comments after the block). I asked her to check her articles after I noticed nw copyvios, but she never replied and only removed whatever I noted. She couldn't even be bothered to clean up or indicate to me other articles which used the same copyvio source incorrectly (like articles using Cecil Beaton's work as if it was PD).

When we have an editor who has been given warnings and blocks for a problem, who continues with the same behaviour afterwards despite further warnings, and who shows no indications at all that they have learned anything or are changing their approach in any way, then there is not much left to do except blocking again. Fram (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not issuing a veiled threat by pointing out that I haven't threatened you. Dragging you to AN or ArbCom for public shaming and ultimately no action wouldn't help to build a better encyclopedia, and would be a waste of both our time. We're not here to bend the arc of the moral universe more closely to justice; we're here to write.

When you reached the point where your comments, important comments that needed to be taken to heart, were being summarily removed, you should have reached out to someone else to try a different approach, because she obviously saw you as a bully (whether she was right or not), and she was not going to listen no matter how important the information was. Surely you have a short list of editors you can turn to in cases like that. If you don't, make one and put me on it, and now you do. GMG^talk 15:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Fram (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you change your mind you know where to find me. GMG^talk 15:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"When you reached the point where your comments, important comments that needed to be taken to heart, were being summarily removed, you should have reached out to someone else to try a different approach, because she obviously saw you as a bully " Please check her editing history. She did the same recently to Justlettersandnumbers, PlanespotterA320, Bearcat, Kleuske, Sphilbrick, BD2412, JD22292... Everything even slightly negative is immediately removed from her talk page, only compliments, barnstars, ... remain. It's her talk page, so it's her right to do so, but this makes it hard to communicate anything which needs to be improved (and in this case changed drastically). On January 18, I was still thanked by her for multiple messages I left on her talk page, e.g. when I suggested some sources she could use for an article instead of some unreliable ones she had used[2]. Fram (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, well I picked Sphilbrick to ctrl-f, mostly because he's one of the more helpful people I've come across on any project, and I've worked with him on three. And what I find is this, and Elisa and Alex stumbling over each other to fix the article. So perhaps you can forgive me if I suspect your assessment as a bit of an oversimplification. GMG^talk 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to suggest that her removal of my comments should have made it clear that I was perceived as a bully and unwelcome. In reality, she does the same with many editors, and she thanked me for my comments. So perhaps you want to re-evaluate your statement that the "summary removal" of my comments should have given me some indication to reach out and disengage? You have not really indicated what part of my "assessment" was an "oversimplification". It looks to me like a lot of hineinterpretierung and shifting the blame. Fram (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I can surely imagine that a supremely empathetic person would have looked at something like this and thought "Well, crap. This is actually quite the mess, and she isn't listening to me. Obviously she's already stressed and taking a wikibreak, but if she doesn't take this seriously an indef is incoming." Then they might have looked around, noticed that there were five other editors there, including a sitting arb, and two other sysops, all of whom were apparently on fairly good terms with her, and maybe dropped a note or an email to the effect of "This is really serious, and if you guys can get her to listen it could avoid a lot of trouble, but if not we really don't have any other choice. We can't let copyvios go on unchecked."

Instead, you looked in your hand, found a hammer, and saw a nail, one which needed whacked right then and there, even though they already said they weren't going to be actively editing for a long while. As if unreasonable attitude from one specific editor[3] wasn't enough to indicate you weren't going to be listened to, even though you were correct, you followed up with advice that was obviously going to go nowhere, and a template, at which point she resolves to leave the project all together. And just to make sure she doesn't come back, we follow that up with an AfD, and for some reason, two days later, you think for some reason she's supposed to listen now [4] when she's already explicitly told you she feels harassed and she's leaving the project for good because of it.

And here I'm typing my butt off, trying to explain things, while the artillery goes off in the background ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) because apparently we as a community have not yet at that point made it abundantly clear that we really, really don't give a shit.

So if you want my honest opinion, although I'm fairly sure you don't, I think the whole lot of you need to watchlist the teahouse and spend some time there as penance until you manage to retain an editor of a similar quality to the one that everyone collectively helped to drive away. Other than that, I don't at all expect you to agree with me and I would settle for maybe softening your approach a half a percent next time something like this happens. GMG^talk 17:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be very firmly entrenched in your position, oh supremely empathetic person. Somehow, I should have known that when she removed my post with "adressed", that was a sign of a lot of stress and someone taking a wikibreak, and not of someone removing posts in the same manner all the time from all kinds of people, like I demonstrated above (but which you apparently prefer to ignore as it doesn't fit your story). The "sitting arb" is Alex Shih, who prefers to issue threats to editors like Coffee, causing them a lot of stress and to basically snap, and who then needs to be told off by other ArbCom members because they shouldn't issue such threats personally but pretend they talk for ArbCom. Yep, a very good example of an emphatic editor I should take as an example. He is the editor who unblocked Elisa.rolle the last time with conditions, but didn't check the conditions, didn't interfere when copyvio issues were raised, but instead was all sympathetic and understanding. Basically, they failed drastically in their role as admin/arb, and in their role as wikifriend to elisa.rolle, as they did nothing to prevent more copyvios on enwiki, and did nothing to prevent elisa.rolle from being blocked for continuing the exact same issues long after their first indef block. So no, I don't see the point in contacting him to solve such issues. I've also seen too many editors "leave", "retire", ... when things get too hot only to quietly return and continue in the same vein afterwards. The "nail" I found is one of the few basic rules on enwiki one shouldn't ignore, and she has done it again, and again, and again, even after a first indef block, and she has shown no indication at all that she was willing to check out her contributions and assist in finding and removing her problematic contributions. I see a lot of empathy from you for this oh-so valuable editor, and very little empathy for the time and effort it takes to make sure that articles actually follow our most basic policies (copyvio) and are correct as well (as many of her articles were frankly quite rushed jobs with lots of errors in them). I'm glad that I didn't listen to your earlier advice to stop nominating her "quality" articles for deletion and instead started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Mountz Zeigler. I'll happily ignore the remainder of your misguided advice as well. Fram (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I pretty much assumed you would from the start. GMG^talk 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedia

Awesome —PaleoNeonate – 18:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I take an egalitarian approach to WikiProjects. GMG^talk 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing work-in-progress draft?

Hello, GreenMeansGo -

You were very helpful in responding to the question I posted in the Teahouse recently, so I was hoping I could ask for your assistance once more.

I'm still working on revising the Kelly D. Brownell article, including improving the content so it better adheres to NPOV and citation standards. If you have time, would you mind taking a quick look at my in-progress draft and see if it's on the right track? I've looked at the MOS a lot lately, but I'm a little shaky on at least one bit of formatting (quotes). None of the edits have been made in the mainspace; it's all in my Sandbox.

If it's not too much of an imposition, I'd love to get your take on it and any recommendations / corrections you might want to offer. In any case, thanks again for your help earlier.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Melissa. Honestly it looks pretty good, so these are fairly minor critiques compared to your run-of-the-mill paid article writing, which is usually in much worse shape and much more overtly professional.

• Some of the content starts to devolve into extensive listing, which starts to become difficult to read at times. You way want to check out guidance at WP:BULLET, and consider formatting some of these as bulleted lists in cases where it might make it more digestible for readers.
• I would probably do a scrub for things that are talking about related topics but not the subject of the article directly (see also WP:COATRACK). There are at least a few instances of this that popped out to me. For example: The inaugural recipient was Senior Associate Dean Dr. Judith Kelly, in recognition of her commitment to inclusive excellence. That's nice for Judith, and should go in her article if she has or gets one, but it doesn't really belong in an article about someone else. Similarly, the center's mission is to develop global food policy solutions. Again, that might be appropriate in the main article for the center, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comparatively short on context compared to other mediums. This is because we have a theoretically unlimited amount of main articles we can write, and which we can point readers to for more information, rather than trying to give the "big picture" in a way that a newspaper might do.
• Honoring faculty members for their exemplary qualities... and everything that goes to the end of that section I would probably take out. An encyclopedia article doesn't really want to include man-on-the-street type testimonials, unless the person who's giving it is somehow important in their own right, and the quote is central to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, in a way like professional movie reviews might be for a blockbuster, but student feedback isn't necessarily for an academic.

I might also say to keep an eye out for comparatively minor details creeping in overall, since it is getting pretty long. Our guidance on length suggests no more than 4,000 to 10,000 words long, but these longest of articles are usually about massive subjects, like major wars, countries, or heads of state, and your average academic biography is generally going to be much shorter. Not that we should skimp on the important stuff, but we don't want to add unnecessary stuff just to make it feel beefier. But the subject seems to easily meet our notability standards for academics, and I really don't think you will have any problems getting it accepted by an WP:AFC reviewer. GMG^talk 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input; it's very helpful. I'll definitely check out all of these, and take you up on your suggestions and recommendations. This is the first BLP I've done, so it's taking some getting used to. If you drop by for another look-see, please do feel free to point out any mistakes.

Thanks again for your time and for taking a look; I appreciate it.

Mdrozdowski (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Justice Party (South Korea). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

HI GreenMeansGo, Good day. I have consulted on redirect question in WP:Teahouse before, I was told advised by you that to add "title= xxxxx&redirect=no" from the redirect page. However, I try on do that on UFC 224 which has been redirected to List of UFC events, and added the URL plus title=UFC224&redirect=no, and I could not find the redirect page. I think I might understand you instruction incorrectly. Could you kindly explain again step by step on how to do it starting from tying UFC 224 on the search window? Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cass. That's strange. When I copy/paste this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_224&redirect=no as in here, it works just fine for me. Is there maybe a typo somewhere else in the url? GMG^talk 16:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi GMG, Oh yes, I forgot to put the under score between UFC and 224. Got it. Thanks a lot. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. GMG^talk 16:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Facts

I don't understand why you rejected my article. You said that it was a hoax? THE FROG is a genuine cryptid from our town and deserves to be recognized. I would appreciate it if you reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borzoiboi (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Borzoiboi, the page is a borderline attack page, so I've deleted it and I'm seriously considering blocking you for not being here to improve Wikipedia. Please keep your edits on the "constructive" side of the spectrum. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Yeah, I thought similar, but my assumptions somewhat begrudgingly pushed me to push the hoax button. Also Borzoiboi, please don't upload images that are so blurry it's not even possible to tell what they are of. It just makes a lot of extra work for those who have to come back behind you and clean up. GMG^talk 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		The Guidance Barnstar. Thank You for helping me, and many other editors that come to the Teahouse in search of guidance. Wmpetro (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks Wmpetro. And thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia! Feel free to drop back by here or at the Teahouse if you need any help. GMG^talk 02:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Dickhead

"I'm just going to assume that there is some part of the world where "dickhead" is a term of endearment" -- heh. We obviously run in different circles. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I do remember a recent IRC discussion about British slang use of the word snigger. And I was like "whatever man, just don't say that in a crowd in Atlanta. Your accent won't save you." GMG^talk 15:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

*sni...* Er, never mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, goan ye bawbag... Primefac (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk pager watchers request

Someone please look into this re unsourced BLPs. User probably needs some explanation and I'm about to lose service. GMG^talk 18:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church

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

Removal of tag

the tag from the page Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) should be removed. The concerned notability guidelines of wikipedia are met by the subject. Subject holds office of national importance, more than 20 citations (primary and secondary) attached. If an established wiki like you user sees fit, please remove the tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.22.36 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, anon. I'm afraid Pakistani politics is well outside my circle of competence. You may want to ask at somewhere like Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan and see if you can find someone more familiar. GMG^talk 09:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Elijah Daniel

How is youtube not a reliable source? You can physically see him introducing his boyfriend 2 days ago on Feb 06 2018. What would be a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mando130 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably a published source from someone who makes a living reporting this type of information, and not someone who earns a living making joke videos on youtube. GMG^talk 12:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You tell me that YouTube isn't a reliable source but Butch Hartman makes a YouTube Video and it's on his Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mando130 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The quality of Wikipedia articles may vary wildly, and so just because something is done on one article, does not necessarily mean it is standard practice. Other than that, as far as I can tell, Hartman does not appear to be a shock, and at times what could probably be described as a hoax artist, whose fairly unfounded claims about himself tend to find their way into sprees of vandalism on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 10:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ed!. I know this is usually a week long thing, but I'm travelling at the moment, so please be patient if I'm not super responsive over the next eight days or so. I will address them all when I return if I can't do so sooner. GMG^talk 03:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! Will keep it open for when you get back. —Ed!^(talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ed!. I hope I've addressed you concerns, at least a much as the sources will allow. I'm back now. Feel free to comment further. GMG^talk 23:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877

The article Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Lives Matter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Lives Matter. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for A-1 visa

An article that you have been involved in editing—A-1 visa—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Satanic Temple. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film)

Sorry to disturb you and I hope your time away was enjoyed. Recently I made some plot edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film) which OldJabite has characterized as unconstructive although every one is factual and better reflects the film. What can i do to avoid another confrontation that was experienced with the recent Tea House activity? I have reverted his rejection with the justification that every edit is based on fact. Some of the edits are for factual errors or omissions. What would you suggest to avoid another confrontation from someone that basically rejects every edit made to plot; his edit history will point this out. Thank you.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. Well the first step is always to post on the talk page, and if possible discuss things one piece at a time, which generally helps make things more productive overall. This step is important even and especially if you don't expect the other party to engage in good faith discussion, since it shows that you are trying to do the right thing and build consensus and that the problem is probably with the other side who isn't.

If this is unsuccessful the next step is to engage in the dispute resolution process, and only once that's exhausted to escalate to public noticeboard like WP:ANI as a last resort.

You're certainly not the first person to find yourself in a similar situation. Plot summaries can be particularly contentious, since they involve a comparatively large amount of editorial discretion on the part of individual users. And although they really shouldnt, many editors are intuitively suspicious of and have serious problems assuming good faith with anonymous editors. But barring the impulse to register an account, I'm afraid it often just the realistic burden of editing from an IP, even though it's certainly less than ideal for the community to act that way. GMG^talk 14:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Western World

Hello. I noticed you recently reverted an edit on Western World. I started a relevant discussion in the talk page, feel free to state your opinion. Infantom (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Infantom. I don't really have a strong opinion other than that users involved should discuss instead of reverting, and follow the steps of the dispute resolution process. I have commented there to that effect. GMG^talk 23:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877

The article Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pittsburgh railroad strike of 1877 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Stalin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo at Wikiquote

Thanks for your good work here: here. I did notice one thing that should be tweaked: "FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information." Contrary to early and imprecise (uninformed) statements in many RS, the FBI only reimbursed Steele for his travel expenses to Rome to meet with FBI agents there. That is in our article here. Any plans to pay Steele to continue his work were dropped in October 2016 when Steele shared information with media sources. By then, Steele had lost confidence in the FBI because of their passivity in the face of what Steele saw as a very active and urgent threat to American democracy and the election. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey BullRangifer. I'm certainly not a Wikquote master, and while WQ does have a policy on NPOV, it works a little bit differently there. So... the quotes from the memo itself are more-or-less presumed to come along with whatever POV the document is written from, and including the quotes in and of themselves isn't really a commentary on whether the perspective represented there is an accurate one, but merely that it's a fairly important document, and here are some of the more striking quotes from it.

Think of it like... the quotes from the document itself work as a distilled supplement to Wikisource, while the quotes about the document work more as a distilled supplement to the Wikipedia article. GMG^talk 18:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:B'Tselem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:B'Tselem. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yay. I get to be part of the club too.

...but seriously Iggy... I'd slow my roll. A dozen or so notifications is probably sufficient, especially given that most of us probably watch each other's talk pages, and (often regrettably) also ANI. GMG^talk 19:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are probably watching ANI, so they probably see new threads without notifications. Iggy (Swan) 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, all told it popped up on my watchlist nine times :P GMG^talk 19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you're interested, I've created {{ppor}} for exactly those circumstances where you don't want to be pinged by every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comments after you. Primefac (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker – please do not ping on reply)

In other news dear template master... how in the name of all that is holy does the cite web template on Wikiquote not support the website parameter??? GMG^talk 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to [11]? It looks like it's working fine to me (based on the documentation). Primefac (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically referring to this, and the fact that you have to change the parameter, because the cite web templates are different and can't just be copypasted from enwiki (or using the enwiki citation tool in the dropdown menu from the edit window, which is what I was doing on my sandbox and then pasting them over there). GMG^talk 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha. And that right there is why you're my go-to person when I need some serious computering done. GMG^talk 14:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you by any chance help out a new editor?

Hi Greenmeansgo, sorry to bother you and thank you for your help with Parliament of 1327. I am in a discussion with an IP at Talk:Cross-Strait relations, and as a new editor myself I am struggling to explain NPOV and NOR. I think some of their content could be useful, but I am really busy IRL at the minute. Any chance you or someone you know could help them out? Sorry to bother you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Phew. Gee fizz GreyGreenWhy. That's a doozy. I commented, but no promises on being able to get any kind of happy ending there. GMG^talk 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The National Memo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The National Memo. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In the thickest New Jersey accent imaginable...

Whadda ya think ur lookin at? How about a little privacy huh?

Invitation to ANI noticeboard

You're invited to this ANI noticeboard, regarding TheOldJacobite's behavior. Thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, you are required to notify the editor you have filed a report about. GMG^talk 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Already did. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cross-strait relations - NPOV Problems with IP editor

Hello, this is a user that is new at engaging in talk page discussions. If you remember there is an IP user who keeps changing his/her IP address (maybe changing proxies, but not going to accuse IP of that now) that keeps editing Cross-Strait relations in a non-neutral manner. I have tried to reach out to him/her on the talk page and in my revert edit descriptions. I am not sure what the proper channels are to resolve this issue (NPOV noticeboard? Dispute resolution?), especially with an IP that keeps changing; do you have any advice in this matter?T.c.w7468 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Umm... T.c.w7468. That's... yeah. I'm not really sure there's much of a compromise to really be had there. Given what could be loosely described as a discussion on the talk page, I'm starting to suspect there may be some WP:CIR problems. I'll say you did a commendable job at parsing out each individual issue in your reply, probably much better than I could have done. If they can stay on topic long enough to actually discuss substantive changes in detail then there's probably some changes that can be negotiated, but if not, the answer is probably just requesting semi-protection until they can. I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter (other than some of the more obvious MoS problems), other than that discussion and consensus is a requirement, and exasperation isn't a valid reason to try to force through preferred changes. GMG^talk 11:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

John R. Scott, Sr.

You’ve created pages for

John R. Scott, Sr

and they should be

John R. Scott, Sr.. deisenbe (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha. Now all renamed. Thanks for catching that deisenbe. GMG^talk 14:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And here I was thinking about the missing . at the end of the name... Primefac (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: sock

Regarding this, yeah I figured something fishy was up, but without any knowledge, I tried to WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's a thread on ANI about Bonadea and it's not a name you recognize, chances are near 143% that it's a sock. GMG^talk 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's a thread on ANI about Bonadea and it is a name you recognize then their account is probably compromised... by a sock. GMG^talk 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't come across Bonadea's name before, but granted I don't spend much time at ANI. As a new admin likely to spend more time there in the future, it's helpful to know there's a whole thing there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't even remember the name of the sock at this point, which is probably well enough.

Also... you know... just because you got a mop doesn't necessarily mean you have to hang out at ANI. The only level of masochism required is whatever is necessary to open an RfA... nothing more. :P GMG^talk 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol, I know. I figure I must be a masochist to have gone through the RfA, so why not go further? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI is one of the reasons I (Redacted). Watching one thread whilst being bombarded with a deluge of garbage was a nightmare. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Phew. You're really trying to make this a thing. Don't worry. It's not awkward at all. {{silly face}} Also I keep forgetting you are an OS. GMG^talk 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I just don't want to have to defend it at TFD when someone says it's a silly template :-p and I'll stop with the references, promise! Primefac (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's ok. I've been trying to make WP:FUCKIT a thing for like a year now. Still pretty sure I'm the only one who's ever linked to it. GMG^talk 01:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed, but I have to say that because of it I've felt like that on more than one occasion recently. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I think just writing it was pretty personally therapeutic in sorting out my own feelings. Also I was probably lulled into a false sense of optimism with the success of EEng and Template:FBDB. GMG^talk 01:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The key is to have a glittering array of talk page stalkers to spread the word. Darned if I know where mine came from, though. Seems like they just wandered into the garden one day. EEng 03:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I don't glitter... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You scintillate. EEng 03:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well... Maybe a little bit... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That's dangerous. You might wind up going home, putting a bullet in your head

If it makes you feel any better, I've lost track of the essays and templates I've made that nobody uses but me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done GMG^talk 11:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Stub Page

Hello! Back in August 2017, my first article was flagged for speedy deletion for a number of reasons. I'd like to create a Stub Page on the same topic, however before I do so, I'd like some input to ensure it doesn't get deleted again.

Is the following content acceptable for a Wikipedia stub page?

Article draft
NinjaTrader Group, LLC is an electronic trading platform to chart, analyze and trade the stocks, futures and forex financial markets. It is also a futures and forex brokerage. . References

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

WikiJergen (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey WikiJergen. First, if you have an outside connection with the subject (for example, if they are your employer), you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them. Failure to do so usually attracts a lot of unwanted attention.

As to the article, you should probably take the time to review our tutorial on writing your first article as well as our notability criteria for companies and organizations. Notability is ultimately what determines whether subject is appropriate for its own article, and usually requires sustained in depth coverage in published sources, like newspapers, magazines, and books. If you think the subject meets this standard, I would recommend you create your article using the Article Wizard and submit it to our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Real News Update

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real News Update. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Holocaust denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Holocaust denial. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)