User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Rename done

Hello, welcome to your new username! I picked a time when you weren't on, though I had wanted to give you a head's up on IRC first. You have a lot of edits and attached accounts, so if there are any issues after let me know. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz. Although "finding a time when I'm not on" is a lofty goal, it's rarely been done. Looks like it took a few minutes for my password to fully reset. But I think I'm good to go now, just got a lot of cleaning up to do. GMG^talk 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait. Looks like you missed User:Timothyjwood. GMG^talk 19:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, you hadn't mentioned that one. What name would you like it at? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's in there to me ;) Primefac (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

GreenMGo... just at random. Although it will probably be obvious that this doesn't make sense as a stand alone name. Not like a name change is gonna fool anybody who really wants to dig, but might make it slightly tougher on your run-of-the-mill bored teenagers. GMG^talk 19:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yo Primefac. Since you're obviously bored, why don't you pop on over to AfC and strike old name/add new? GMG^talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Snark included at no charge. Primefac (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Now listen here. I don't even like coming to my own talk page half the time. I know for everyone else it must be a last resort. I don't even get the occasional entertaining troll anymore. It's just deleted articles and declined submissions all the way down. GMG^talk 19:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I could always remove you from the list entirely; it would cut out half of the bitching ;) Primefac (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah. You'd have to unwatchlist your own talk page to get that kindof effect. :P GMG^talk 19:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Arg, yup, that's what I get for skimming. Everything should now be done! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Ajraddatz. GMG^talk 19:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem! As an aside, I find it highly odd that only admins can edit the AfC page, but any extendedconfirmed user is allowed to move it. Probably an oversight by the admin who upgraded the protection to admin-only. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh... Umm... Primefac come back! I was just joking! GMG^talk 21:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• In choosing your new username, I now know that you have never, ever driven in Florida during tourist season. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Just seemed vaguely encouraging but ultimately meaningless... you know... just like me. GMG^talk 19:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, like "The encyclopedia anyone can edit," or "Be all that you can be." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I always liked "Army of one"... you know... because that slogan is exactly the opposite of absolutely everything the army teaches you. GMG^talk 20:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I just assumed they farmed out their marketing to the Marines, for that one. I particularly loved the Army's love of printing it on everything they could. I picked up a six pack of boxers it with printed across the front, and added "... Ladies." to it with a sharpie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a sensitive topic. There are, I suspect, a great many people on Wikipedia who are sexually an "army of one". Making socks is time consuming. GMG^talk 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't! I pop out at least 6 per day- oops, I mean. Yeah, I guess. It's not like I would know or anything... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

This was a good close. --John (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, I figured at some point Jimbo's mom was going to weigh in, and I'd hate to have her distracted. She's a pretty prolific editor on flowering plants and renal disease. GMG^talk 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theresa May

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Russell Harrison (inventor and property developer)

Hi, I would please like this page re-enabled. Can you please help me with how this can be done? Thanks Sw2016 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sw2016. It looks like it was actually deleted following a deletion discussion in June. If you would like to request that the article be restored as a draft or in your sandbox so that you may try to improve it prior to publishing, this can be done at WP:REFUND. However, you should review our notability guidelines for biographies, and consider reviewing our guide to writing your first article, since recreating the article without addressing the reasons it was delete will likely only result in it being deleted once again. GMG^talk 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Book covers

Hi GreenMeansGo, I just saw that you left me a message, but I am afraid some Aliens came by and deleted it, I just cannot find it. I think it was about the German book cover and the French - which I will want to upload on the English Wikipedia, when my article is finally finished. About the German book cover that is a story for itself. I have written to Randomhouse who bought BLANVALET. The person is on holiday until the beginning of next month. Yet the interesting part is: Blanvalet sold the rights of the books many years ago. So now, who has the copyright of that over fifty year old book cover? Because the same question will pop up when I want to upload the French book cover from 1963. There, the publishing house does not even exist anymore since 1979. How do you see my changes that I get those two book covers up? Looking forward for your reply. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. You would only need to contact the publishers for use on the German and French Wikipedias, which don't allow fair use images. We can use them here just fine once an article is published. For use on these other projects you may have to contact their volunteer response teams (info-fr@wikimedia.org and info-de@wikimedia.org respectively) if or when you get appropriate permission, and forward them the relevant email. As to who might own the rights, that can get extremely complicated (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory), but it's usually based off when the work was first published and/or when the original owner died, and is usually owned by either the person who made the work, the person who commissioned the work, or the person who published it. If the rights to the books were sold, then the rights to the cover almost certainly wen't along with it. But again, that's not really a problem on the English Wikipedia, just on these other language projects. GMG^talk 19:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello GreenMeansGo, awefully nice of you to write back so quickly. Its really fascinating to know of the differences between the diverse Wikipedia's projects. Great to know that I will probably have no problems with uploading the book covers on the English Wikipedia. Reading your information to contact the publisher, I begin to believe it is better to contact also the new one. Yet that is something which gives me a lot of a headache. You see, how can that new publisher have the right to re-publish those old books? I had been introduced to Juliette Benzoni's new publisher some years ago and he told me that Germany had no right to publish those books anymore after more than fifty years! The rights had gone back to the author after all that time. It already makes me upset to think that they profit and then maybe will refuse my friendly request. In the meantime, thank you for the excellent information. I will read it all. Have a nice Weekend Laramie1960 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well Laramie1960, in order for projects like de.wiki and fr.wiki to use content, it can't just be licensed for those project, it has to be licensed for unrestricted public use which includes, but is not limited to Wikipedia. A lot of people are loath to do something like that, since it involves giving up significant intellectual property rights. GMG^talk 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi...oh, you changed your username! That makes sense now. Anyways, thank you for all your kind words and comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad everything went well. Go make us proud buddy. GMG^talk 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:State atheism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State atheism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For reviewing over 1,000 articles in the past year, it is my pleasure to award you the NPR Bronze Award. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus. I mean thanks. But gold was 10,000? Holy crap that's a lot of reviews. Those guys deserve more than a barnstar. We need to get them a car or something. GMG^talk 11:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The "official" criteria Kudpung designed for the system was gold at 3,000 reviews. We have plenty at that, but I thought it'd be a bit odd to give out ones for 3,000 at the same time as ones for 10,000. I'm going through the database report and handing out a few at each level at a time so we don't hsve the entire NPP project flooded with awards all on one day. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

haven't edited in a couple of days...

I've made about a dozen edits in mainspace today, actually. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In my defense, I did miss a single revert to Milo Yiannopoulos on closer inspection. It's tempting for anyone with a massive watchlist to get sucked into the things that are always on the top. But that's a waste of your talents. GMG^talk 00:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You also missed a handful of edits to Snopes and a whole bunch of reverts (I'm a recent changes patroller). And then there's the stuff at WP:GL/P, which doesn't show up for the most part because the changes are made at commons and the requisite discussion in wikispace. Remember, I have an alt account I use regularly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to begin the self flagellation in penance for the horrible crime of not checking my alt, by the way. I think 50 lashes and a hundred hail Mary's might be enough to absolve you of this horrible crime. Might be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote Pain today. I think that's probably worth at least 100 hail marys. GMG^talk 00:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a single reference to wikidrama in there, and that's just a crime. Wikidrama's pretty much the definition of pain for me, the last few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh Christ man. You and I have both been on this drama shit more than we need to be. I wanna see you watchlist the teahouse. It does good things to you. GMG^talk 01:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I already have, but I stopped checking it after about the fourth "what can I do about an admin being rude and vicious to me?" thread that turned out to be some newb trying to put fringe claims in an article and getting reverted with the edit summary "Sorry, but you need a reliable source for that" by a non-admin. You know what part of the site is actually free from drama? No seriously, I'm asking you because I got nothing. I just put my kids to bed though, so I'm gonna go play Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. If you're not familiar with it, it's a game based around the idea of making the player understand what it's like to actually suffer from psychosis, and maaaaaaaaaan does it sound relaxing right about now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, watchlist the teahouse and actually constructively respond to a thread every few days. Seems dumb. But old fucks like you and me are gonna eventually end up spending more time with our kids than we do here, ideally. Gotta have privates to replace the NCOs. Luckily there are no officers here. But it would be a fun experiment to randomly take new users and make them 'crats if they do enough cardio. GMG^talk 02:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

How old is "old fucks" in this context? Alex Shih^Talk 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's more of a state of mind. If spiritually, you're somewhere around a 135 year old man, then you qualify. GMG^talk 10:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Only 135? Get off my lawn. That being said, on further introspection, I think your teahouse idea might be a good one. I'm used to explaining how things work to people who just don't know, and who don't understand big words. It's soothing.

I'm not, however, changing any diapers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In other news, see below. This used to be a yearly thing. I can only assume that by 2020, we'll be at a point where Timeline of the Trump presidency, day 1344 is going to become a thing, and that makes me sad for Wikipedia. GMG^talk 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, by 2020 we'll all be too busy fighting off mutants in the radioactive wasteland that once was the US to really care too much about Trump. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dick measuring contest ... oh well ... I guess that's a red link, huh. GMG^talk 12:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah HA! Not anymore! Take that communists. GMG^talk 13:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

'Murika. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3 (round one)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

an article eager to be released...

Hello GreenMeansGo, (former name Timothy?) you know that my first draft was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough#Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough I am done for now and believe someone should now please be so kind and have a look at my article. I would have liked to add my quotes on a new separate page and also give the quote to the books. But I think before I continue I will now let the professionals have a look at that article. I do not want to see it again rejected I truly gave my best. I know I can trust you that you will not "put me down". I do also not know if I should have to contact Sulfurboy who had been the one to object my work a month ago. I know he did his duty, but I like to say it one more time, I had only looked at other pages and done exactly what they had done. But... that was not in the English Wikipedia and I agree he was right. The article was not to the standard it should have had. Enough of words, I hope my article does not bore you, only so much, that Novel series was a great success for many years, in England and also in America. Best to you and have a nice evening Laramie1960 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Laramie1960. Yeah. It's me. Unfortunately, AfC has a pretty sizable backlog at the moment, so it may take some time, but hopefully no more than a few weeks. And no, there is no requirement that it be the same reviewer, and often it's better if it ends up being a second reviewer. I usually don't review drafts that I have been heavily in myself, since it ends up making me not the most impartial reviewer, but good articles are permanent articles, so there is no deadline.

If you'd like to add a page with related quotations, you should consider a corresponding Wikiquote page, which I've done for a few articles, and is often a good resource, especially if you can combine quotes from a subject with quote about a subject. GMG^talk 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah that's great to know someone in this great Universum called Wikipedia :-) thanks for the information about the Wikiquote page. That will be a challenge. What I only lately realized (embarrased to admit of course! ) I had no idea that Wikipedia, Wikimedia and now also Wikiquote are all different Communities of Wikipedia - that is, all of them have their User pages and User talk pages. I think I still do not really get it. The User page is where I should introduce myself and the talk page is where people can leave me their messages? However, so I do now resubmit my article again and wait and see what happens? I hope no one sends me any Orcs or Lannister regards ;-) best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah Laramie1960. I hadn't even realized you haven't resubmitted it yet. Yes. You will need to submit it for review. Sorry, I've been trying to rewrite Friendship it's been a beast of a project.

There are a few hundred different projects, although many of them are various language versions of Wikipedia, and only a few of them are multi-lingual projects like Wikimedia Commons and Meta-Wiki. They all have the same purpose though: make more knowledge, more free, for more people. As far as userpages go, I normally don't bother making them on most projects. I have a few dozen edits on about a hundred projects, mostly adding images, and on the ones that I do have a userpage, I usually just point people here, which is where I'm most active. For the most part, if you are volunteering time to help the species, people are fairly welcoming and willing to help out in any way they can. GMG^talk 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, best luck to all the works you are at the moment. I went to look at the page called Friendship, quite an article. Thanks about the User pages comment, I did not want to be unfriendly for not creating them. I shall have a look around how other contributers do it :-) Then I shall have a go at that Wikiquote page. I am sure there are new challenges there for me to conquer. Before I forget again, I have seen that my article has been moved to the Draft page. I had seen the message below, but I knew some moderator would correct that. So as can be seen on the article above, I would like to re-name the article into “Catherine (Juliette Benzoni)” if that is no good, my other suggestion is: “Catherine de Montsalvy”. The title Catherine, One love is Enough is no good, since it was only the title of the very first book - and each country had a new name for it. The article I like to translate (when it is accepted) into another language. Looking forward to your answer, best Laramie1960 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Laramie1960, if you decide on a definite preference for the name then I can move the draft there for you. I've only ever created a couple of Wikiquote pages, but a good rule of thumb on all the projects is usually to look up the most famous thing you can think of, to be sure someone who know's what they're doing has made a good page for it, and then copy the kinds of formatting and style that they use. GMG^talk 09:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's great if you could do that before the article is looked at. So the new name would be: Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) like that people will hopefully recognize the story when they search for Catherine. Thanks also for the tip about looking up at real good sources. I think something in the kind of Shakespeare or Dumas will be fine. Laramie1960 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done See Draft:Catherine (Juliette Benzoni). GMG^talk 10:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Sleep for once already. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah dude. Cocaine and barnstars. Crush them suckers up together, and you can edit Wikipedia indefinitely. GMG^talk 21:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Hello GreenMeansGo, I just have to award with something for always quickly helping out with excellent suggestions and nice comments. I think this one really suits you. As you know I am fairly new to the world of Wikipedia - that is to contribute. Before I was like millions of others, a normal user who profited from the works of contributers. I look at everything now with a different eye. Enjoy your day and know it is very much appreciated by what you do. Have a nice day wherever you are. Laramie1960 (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

About your reverts

(note: about these reverts--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page...) You probably should take some time and carefully review guidance at WP:BLP, because your edits are pretty clear violations, and look an awful lot like using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. BLP violations are to be removed immediately. They are not to remain and be discussed while they're on an article. GMG^talk 10:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The BLP guidelines are used to protect innocent people from spurious claims as you should well know. But when a prominent US politician RSC chair describes his female colleagues publicly as eye candy and the comment reverberates on the national and international news, then it is notable and not a BLP violation as you should well know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And this is now being discussed in three places, and it is not going to fair particularly better in any one of them. Let's go with Talk:Sexism. I don't intend to carry on three separate conversations about the same topic. GMG^talk 11:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Social work external link removal

Thankyou sir for telling me that the Link I added is inappropriate here. I'm a social worker and want to make the article/statements reach more and more people. I believe that Social Work is incomplete till we don't work on the thoughts of the society. Hope you could suggest me a much better way to do the same. Sincerely Avarun1996 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Avarun1996. If your intention is to effect social change more broadly, that is an admiral goal, and very much in line with what social workers are supposed to be working toward. Unfortunately, broad social change is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Rather, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide free knowledge. This may in many ways help change society for the better, but Wikipedia is not a tool for changing society in any way other than by simply providing free knowledge. It is also not a place to post links to personal blogs, as there are many millions of these, and while they may be useful for very many things, few if any of them are especially useful for an encyclopedia, which relies primarily on published reliable sources, usually things like books, magazines, newspapers, and peer reviewed scholarly work. GMG^talk 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So, you're denying that such an admiral goal should be more general here? Anmccaff (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Any positive results that come about because of increased access to free knowledge are an added benefit, but not the goal. Increasing access to free knowledge is a goal in itself, and knowledge is generally an amoral thing. It's probably a given that most of us wouldn't be here if we didn't think free knowledge would improve the world, but at the same time, many of the problems we have with many even experienced editors is because they are here "to build an encyclopedia to accomplish X", rather than "here to build an encyclopedia, full stop". GMG^talk 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So private goals generally should not be advanced, no matter how admiral? Anmccaff (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen here you. English isn't my first language until I learn how to speak it. GMG^talk 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Anmccaff is biased against native Murkan speakers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You mislept bias and Merkin. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm from Appalachia. We manage to misspell the spoken word, and with gusto. GMG^talk 16:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I'm from Florida. We... Well, mostly make fun of people from Appalachia. But Appalachia is part of 'Murika, so that means by definition, GMG must be right when disagreeing with anyone who isn't. <listens to the cry of a far-off bald eagle>

But you have a point, caff. I have frequently mislept with a bias (it's killing my back in the mornings), and I frequently have difficulties getting a merkin out of my mouth with anything resembling proficiency. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that does sound tyring. Anmccaff (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and reply. You are right about Wikipedia and Social work May this link be added to Social Issues. Or the articles if possible just to be adjusted somewhere in the complete topic. It relates it more in form of knowledge or information Avarun1996 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No Avarun1996. A personal blog is not an appropriate link to add to articles. Doing so is seen as a form of spam, and promotionalism, and is frowned upon. Repeatedly doing so may result in the loss of editing privileges. GMG^talk 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Request on 18:55:19, 29 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Anantjan93

• Anantjan93 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Anantjan93/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, First of all thanks for reviewing the article. Do you mean that I need to submit more outside straighttalk's website references ? I have some of them available I'll cite them wherever necessary. Thanks again!

Anantjan93 (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Anantjan93. Nearly all or all of the sources appear to be from social media, from the company itself, or both. These are not considered independent and therefore do not contribute to establishing the subject meets our standards for notability, since anyone can pretty much write anything they want about themselves. What is needed to establish notability are references to in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, usually things like books, magazines, and newspapers. GMG^talk 18:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Linking query

Hi mate, could I ask where in the MoS does it say that linking in direct quotes (or for lack of a better term, fragments of them) is prohibited? SLIGHTLY^mad 11:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Slightlymad. See MOS:LWQ. GMG^talk 11:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

DIscretionary santions

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for that unnecessary notification. I'm well aware of discretionary sanctions. If you have specific issues with specific sources, that is somewhat more welcome. If you can't be bothered to reply with more than essentially "no", then please go do something productive somewhere else. GMG^talk 13:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That bot really wants your input. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. There is actually no less than five concurrent open RfCs on that page. GMG^talk 09:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Only five? Wow. WP is calming down with the political infighting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

More like a newish user hasn't quite gotten the hang of RfC yet, and that you first need a dispute for dispute resolution to resolve. GMG^talk 13:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you telling me there's no RfC-level dispute going on at that talk page?! (☉_☉) I refer you back to my previous statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not getting deep enough into it to evaluate their arguments in detail. I suspect there is also a fundamental problem there of creating an article that is inherently an indiscriminate collection of news, which is just another reason it's not worth my time. It's a slightly less wasteful use of my time to at least attempt to explain why a blog is not a reliable source, because apparently that needs explaining. GMG^talk 14:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's adorable to see a new editor go through their first mass shooting. It's like taking the training wheels off... and somewhat like continuing on to push the kid onto a busy interstate. GMG^talk 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was actually a little shocked not to see the text "Think of the children!" in that diff... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Help

@GreenMeansGo: Hide211 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC),Hi sir How are you? How I would be the best editor like you? how long the article is accepted in Wikipedia? minimum 100 words, 200 words, 300 word or 400 words? Please help. I will be very thankfull in this regard.

Hey Hide211. There is no minimum word count for a new Wikipedia article, although the article should be long enough to identify the subject, and indicate why the subject is somehow important enough to warrant an article. "Importance" on Wikipedia is determined by our standards for notability, and is normally demonstrated by showing that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources, usually things that are independently published, like books, newspapers, and magazines. GMG^talk 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much sir. You great. Have a healthy wealthy beautiful life.Hide211 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment on AN

Would you consider deleting your comment about "grape being your favorite flavor"? I don't think that either the Vegas mass murders - the worst in American history -- or antisemitism are particularly good subjects to be joking about. I'm sure you didn't intend anything but a light-hearted quip, but I think it's not the time or the place. If you do remove it, you can remove my response as well, with my permission. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. GMG^talk 21:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Meg Patterson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it's best to focus on content and policy rather than editors. I hope you agree. With that in mind, I think it best if you strikeout or otherwise redact this comment of yours.

Also, if you want to discuss any of the content or policy concerns with me, I'd prefer to do it here at this point. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That comment in particular I will respectfully decline to retract, and not simply because it has already been replied to. If someone reaches the point where they are making a non-argument, it may be somewhat impolite, but it is not grossly uncivil or a personal attack to point out that they are not making an argument. GMG^talk 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The civility of the discussion wasn't my concern, rather how we go about helping resolve the dispute. Have you ever been involved in disputes under general sanctions before? --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I recently had a rename. Formerly Timothyjosephwood (see top thread currently on this page).

Well, I don't think anyone is going to resolve the dispute by arguing against non-arguments. That's not going to lead to anything but frustration on all sides. And I'm not going to try to convince someone who's basic argument in the thread below eventually boiled down to ignoring the meanings of words. If one side has reached that point intellectually, there's very little that can be constructively said other than copying and pasting the previous comment that was never addressed (perhaps read) in the first place.

But that tactic (debate ad nauseum until you reach a position so outlandish the other side can't respond with anything intelligible at all) , I'm well aware, is one often used by a few of the old haunts of FTN, intentionally or otherwise, and probably a big reason few of them folks are nearly constantly at a noticeboard somewhere for a behavioral complaint.

I suppose we solve it the say way we solved this AfD a few weeks ago (which still managed to end up in a brawl on the article between the nom and creator, and at least one ANEW report). Anyway, put it to the community, get it outside of the echo chamber, and see where it goes. I still fully intend to open a second RfC on the use of the New Scientist source. I just don't happen to feel that multiple concurrent RfCs are very conducive to solving anything, so I figured I'd wait a month. GMG^talk 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I would add, in case you're in for some light reading, that the real issue here is not differentiating between fringe theories and non-fringe theories. The real issue is differentiating between the self-evidently false and the demonstrably false.

So for example, I would not expect to find a literature review on whether the Earth is flat. No post doc really wants that line on their CV, and for good reason. However, the "link" between vaccines and autism, and the "healing power" of prayer, both spring to mind as examples where it may have seemed obvious so some, maybe even most, but the scientific community decided that it was not sufficiently universally obvious so as to warrant no research whatsoever. So they rolled up their sleeves, and knocked out some research in order to show that it was false to those who felt it was non-obvious.

In the former there should be nothing available to cite at all except for lower quality sources like magazines and websites, because they have a lower standard for what they're willing to commit page space to, and that's what PARITY should address. In the latter, mainstream science felt that the falsehood was worthy of demonstration, and ours is to follow their lead, because their opinion is RS and ours is OR.

Is that a level of nuance that is beyond the Wikipedia community? Probably, and if the RfC passes I'm willing to bet it's going to pass on much weaker rhetorical grounds. But just because the community can't be bothered to get on that level doesn't mean it isn't correct. GMG^talk 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

From all you've written here and on the article talk page, you seem to want to treat research science as the only due pov in certain cases. Am I misinterpreting? --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think science is "a POV", which starts to get into a kind of relativistic territory. I do think that when the scientific community decides something should be demonstrably false, because it is not self-evidently false, we have reached the point where PARITY no longer applies. The use of blogs and other lower quality sources, especially on medical topics, should exceptionally seldom, if at all, and never in cases where higher quality sources are available, even if they aren't as easy to digest. They're still simply more likely to be thoroughly correct, and less likely to be outright wrong. GMG^talk 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I do think that when the scientific community decides something should be demonstrably false

Could you clarify what you mean? --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If mainstream science decides something is self-evidently false (e.g., the Earth is flat), then they simply ignore it, and all we have are things like websites and magazines, thus PARITY. If mainstream science decides something should be demonstrably false, i.e., that the falsehood of something deserves demonstration, then it takes it upon itself to demonstrate that falsehood through research. When it demonstrates that falsehood (the big Mayo Clinic study on healing and prayer comes to mind), then it creates a record that is undoubtedly more reliable than the sources allowed by PARITY. Even if that record doesn't itself meet MEDRS, it meets MEDRS more than the sources PARITY would otherwise allow. Those are therefore the sources we should use, because even if we can't meet MEDRS (and in this case we can, we have at least one book and two literature reviews), we can still meet MEDRS more than we otherwise could if we use PARITY to simply disregard it. GMG^talk 21:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that's how science works, nor the purpose of PARITY. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you wan't to offer a substantive argument for why that's not how it works, then I'm happy to discuss it. If not, then this is a fairly active talk page, and I'm a fairly active editor, and I have a great deal of things that are better uses of my time than pontificating on the nature of science simply because I like the sound of my own voice. GMG^talk 22:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you offer any references demonstrating that what you've described is "how it works"? --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Headed to the polls

You know, I sat there for about half an hour trying to think of the word to put in that header, and all I could come up with is "voting booth". Thank you for putting words back in my head. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Probably doesn't matter terribly much either way, since anyone who is experienced enough to make it to that RfC should know better already. But it couldn't hurt any. GMG^talk 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I let out a chuckle when I saw voting booth. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Espana

Hey, we've been stumbling over each other on that article, but I've moved the illustration locally, which should solve the problem. The US law doesn't care about date of death for pre-1923 publications, so we're fine to host it here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm just going through the uploads of one particular user and trying to find places to use them. If the author doesn't have an article on en.wiki, I usually don't try to dig too deeply for a date of death, since I've rarely been successful at finding out definitively. I do think that is the highest quality image currently available though, much higher quality than the comparatively poor quality photos. GMG^talk 20:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking through Fae's uploads too - that's how I saw the illustration in the first place. I already knew Parkes from this book, published in 1956, so I knew his date of death was obviously too late to allow us to host it on Commons. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry that I've offended you. I realize you may not be interested in further discussion, but I would like to try.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. If you'll note, I've not weighed in at the RfC other than to comment. You've brought up some good points that I agree with, and other points that I'm still trying to understand. I'm not here to try to change your mind, nor attack your arguments, and certainly not to offend you. I realize you've put a great deal of time into this discussion (thank you for doing so), at the article talk page, and in at least one noticeboard discussion. I can respect that you might want to end this, but I'm hoping that you might at least consider picking it up at another time. Thank you for your time and patience. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not offended; I'm simply busy. I have a list of probably two dozen things I would like to get done in the near term, and none of them involve arguing for it's own sake. I cannot offer a source for science ignoring nonsense because I cannot prove a negative, with regard to science failing to investigate the non-nonsensical. GMG^talk 00:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Going in circles

You seem to be getting reverted a lot these days. Maybe you should get a mop instead of licking the floor clean. People might take you more seriously. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, it doesn't help that people keep pulling the garbage out of the bin, but more power to 'em I suppose. Until they catch something. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've kindof gotten accustomed to being the underdog. I like to think of myself as an object lesson in why admins don't know everything. I'll make you a deal, if you can get (purposefully not pinging) Kudpug and SoWhy to nominate me, then I'll give it a go. Otherwise, I have plenty on my plate. GMG^talk 01:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally I've never found issue with your closes. This last time I got (edit conflict × 3) trying to restore your close, so I just gave up.

As for your challenge... ooft. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Haha, was Kudpung intentionally misspelled? ;) Alex Shih^Talk 04:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

a pug

A Pug from Kud

But it's gotta have a cud, and pugs don't like snus... Anmccaff (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I would support your nomination Scr★pIron^IV 04:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. But I did just realize that I've been saying "Kudpug" instead of "Kudpung" in my head for a very long time now. GMG^talk 10:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You people have disappointed me; I'd hoped the tobacco reference would have elicited a picture of Winnie the Churchill with a cigar below the pug.

Joyce Poole Article Draft

Hello GreenMeansGo- I did further work on the draft and added the references you suggested. Do you mind coming back and having a look? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Good job Elmmapleoakpine! GMG^talk 19:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Having seen your previous comment regarding this issue, I know there's nothing broken, but... goodness, if I didn't know better I'd say Legobot was borked. Primefac (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC) you're welcome to remove this whole thread if you like.

Meh. I rarely remove anything. You know, a cluttered talk page, like a cluttered desk, makes you at least appear like you're being productive. Never trust a man with a spotless work space; that's the sign of a man who doesn't have anything better to do than clean his desk.

But yes, it would be nice if Legobot accounted for situations where there are a half dozen RfC's on the same page and weighted the liklihood that it notified someone, instead of treating them like unique talk pages. Presumably, if someone goes to the page the first time, they are aware that there are multiple concurrent RfCs, and don't need to be reminded. Also presumably this is potentially crowding out other actually unique RfCs from the notification system, given that most users limit the number of threads they're willing to be notified of. GMG^talk 13:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!

Thank you for bestowing upon me my first official barnstar! I have learned a lot about what is generally expected of an admin candidate, and I will let you know if I would like any help or advice. = paul2520 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no problem at all. Surely the first of many barnstars to come. Keep RfA in mind for the future. We need all the qualified good-natured admins we can get. GMG^talk 15:26, 7 October 2017 (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) 04:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Poorly written BIO re August 21st 2017 Message

Hi GreenMeansGo,

Thanks for your feedback on August 21st. I can now see that I was really really off the mark on the BIO for Guy Lam Kwok-hung. I would like to try again. What should I do now? I can't seem to find where I should edit the page. Is it too late and the page has been deleted? If so should I start a new page again?

I hope I used the Talk Page appropriately.

Thank you in advance for your patience,

SaintJohnRiver

Guy Lam Kwok-hung  Wikipedia – New DRAFT after feedback from GreenMeansGo

In 1994, the Hong Kong Alliance of Chinese and Expatriates (ACE) (citation 1) was established as a small political party in Hong Kong. Guy Lam (Kwok-hung) (2) was the founding Chairman. The party took a conservative and pro-Beijing stance and was established as a lobby group for the rights of Hong Kong Chinese holding foreign passports or returnees. Organizations like ACE played an important role in lobbying for the interests of returnees. The legal status of returnees who are foreign passport holders as permanent residents of Hong Kong had been fought and gained partly through heavy lobbying of various professional bodies.(3) Hong Kong Alliance of Chinese and Expatriates(ACE) members advocated for “one country, two systems”.(4) As Chairman of ACE, Lam defended both Hong Kong Chinese holding foreign passports and other minorities in Hong Kong.(5)

External Links

https://login.proxy.hil.unb.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/docview/1143635266?accountid=14611

http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers4/010022327.pdf

http://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=4,8,29,31,32,45&post=4409

http://www.scmp.com/article/123097/people-passport-nowhere

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Alliance_of_Chinese_and_Expatriates

2. Wong, Jan. “Splendor in the Past”. The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) (Special Section: Back to the Future: The Hand Over of Hong Kong). 1 July 1997 pp.C1, C2. Retrieved 1 September 2017.

3. Zhong, Wenhui. ‘Reverse Brain Drain in Hong Kong’. In Jorge Charum and Jean-Baptiste Meyer (eds), International Scientific Migrations Today (Paris: COLCIENCIAS/IRD, 2000). http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers4/010022327.pdf

4. “Things to Come?” Taiwan Today (Politics Section). 01 August 1996. Retrieved 1 September 2017. http://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=4,8,29,31,32,45&post=4409

5. Daswani, Kavita. “People with a Passport to Nowhere”. South China Morning Post (International Ed.). Retrieved 1 September 2017. http://www.scmp.com/article/123097/people-passport-nowhere SaintJohnRiver (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes SaintJohnRiver, it looks like it has already been deleted. You should probably consider reading through our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. And also submitting your article through our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by a volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 23:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democratic Party (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Old Norse religion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Old Norse religion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GreenMeansGo was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GMG^talk 13:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! GreenMeansGo, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GMGtalk 13:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! GreenMeansGo, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering, I am prepared to invoke divine retribution for the retrobates who caused this, and believe me I am perfectly capable of causing malicious destruction of entire continents if so provoked Mr. Fuzzybottom (NO MESS)

• Hmm... I was trying to test to make sure the outcome of a NOT decline was what I thought it was. I forgot it also meant I would be leaving a decline notification for myself on my own talk page. Also, someone really needs to scrub Mr. Fuzzybottom from the list of approved reviewers. That guy's a loose cannon. GMG^talk 14:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)