User talk:GregJackP/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Your GA nomination of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 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 Ironholds -- Ironholds (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On Tagging Socks

Random jackass uses three IPs to vandalize. Two of the three get reported and blocked at the appropriate board, but #3 slips through the cracks by not being blocked because he moved on to a new IP. We're talking a duck here: same range, identical edits. That IP is prohibited from being tagged by policy? That policy was changed in a drastic way, apparently. I will look into it, believe me. Cheers. Doc talk 03:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, just as likely, random jackass tags three IPs as socks because he doesn't like the content of their edits. BTW, I posted who changed the policy at the TfD discussion. Good luck with making something of that. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Random jackass who abuses the tag gets reverted. Any tool can be abused, and eliminating the "threat" is a poor answer in this case. I don't need any luck, but thanks for wishing it to me! Doc talk 03:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet (as far as reverting or slowing down) with one I know, going back over three years or so. GregJackP Boomer! 06:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's get this clear. Random jackass tags another editor's page but then the other editor tags random jackass's page also. Who gets reverted and whose tag stays? The one placed first? Who determines if user is a random jackass? These tags sound really useful as long as I get to use them freely. Should there be a select group of editors that are only allowed to use them? Should we call them admins or sock clerks? Oh and nice name assigned to one editor. It demonstrates how clearly wrong random jackass must be even without any evidence needed. Enough prejudice demonstrated to start a lynch mob. I would like to be judged by the quality of my actual edits, not prejudice of another editor protecting an article. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The AN/I has been closed, so I'll respond to Greg's last question to me here. No, I can't show examples of users being reprimanded for improper tagging. Not only have I not personally come across it that I am aware of, I don't have the inclination to search for such a thing. I'm sorry if you two have been soured by improper tagging. It happens. Any template can be abused. Hunting and tagging socks is a fact of life here. If you two worked this area, you'd see how important the tag is. A lot of what you are saying is hypothetical. So as I've said, anyone who abuses the tag will be reprimanded, and the offended user will be assured that they are not a sock. That should be comforting. Doc talk 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You know it. I know it, and almost every editor knows it that if an IP placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on a named editor's talk page the result would be simple deletion or blocking and further, if the IP editor pushed it, according to strict policy adherence, s/he would end up blocked for any number of random excuses. (I have found one that was blocked because s/he "participated in ANI drama" too much after an observational comment regarding an admin.) However the opposite is never true and has not been true in 99% of the cases. In almost half a dozen discussions with you regarding this issue you have refused to answer my queries further than your "last word". This has been accomplished by many means on your part, effectively avoiding any cornering questions that expose you understand, but completely avoid, displaying any empathy with IP editors being treated like second class editors. Your post above seems to be an admission and empathy towards this widespread dislike and unfair treatment of IP editors. I have to agree that in light of this attitude on WP IP editors should not be allowed to edit say more than 2 edit's per week or something enough to allow them to fix typos etc.. Trouble is they can and all the WP promotionalism and advertising says they can and it hurts the membership of Wikipedia. Most just aren't mature enough to admit the macho boost from having a notched belt. Some admins brag on their pages how many "hard" blocks they have done. Imagine sitting for hours counting them and for what? All the best. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• You may want to be aware of this conversation with an admin concerning IP tagging [[1]]. All the best! 174.118.141.197 (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to note that this admin admits that even among the admin corps that there is absolute disagreement over tagging to begin with. And only admins should be able to tag? When they can't even agree. Brilliant. Doc talk 01:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

This revert that you just did is edit warring which is against policy here. Please reconsider your actions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is implementing consensus from the talk page, where North8000, Anastrophe, Gaijin42, and I asked you repeatedly for what was not NPOV, and you refused to answer. The indiscriminate tagging of pages, without support or a valid reason is vandalism. If you continue to vandalize the article, I'll continue to take the appropriate action. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colorado recall election of 2013

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Colorado recall election of 2013 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock tagging process - revisited

I know you have been so busy with all this but in light of DOC's mystical messages and always good practice in most places I will attempt to lay this out for analysis and progress to a solution. I know many stalk your pages/edits and are watching. I didn't want to muddy up the mud-slinging pages any further as the venue there is aggressive and not collaborative. If there is a better place please move and/or create, if interested. My IP page may change without notice and history has shown that suggestions from IPs are quickly rejected:

• Some editors using self-appointed sock tagging cannot/willnot see the past selfish motives or the harm being done to WP,
• Some editors want to modify HSOCK (and more?) so that using self-appointed sock tagging is not a violation of policies,
• Most IP editors and many named editors do not believe policies should change to suit past practices of a few but should strictly adhere to previously thought out and unbiased policies,
• Most IP editors and many named editors do not believe past practices should continue,
• Most victims of his practice are not going to participate after being bullied previously unawareness of, or no voice.
• It's not likely this practice or policy is going to change easily (after friction created on both sides).

Possible sock tag compromising solution

In view of the above , would it be possible to (policy must be amended to enforce and user links to page inserted in template) create a page that all placed suspected sock puppet tags would must be recorded to formalize the current practices. Tags could still be placed but would need justification, why, who, what , where, recorded on an IP entry section of a page. These could be reviewed by admins or anybody, disputed, removed, or viewed for history. It could resolve a few reservations many have regarding this matter:

• taggers could continue to use their "valuable tool" to fight sockpuppetry
• tags could not be placed so quickly, slowing down editors using tags indiscriminately for content disagreements, violations would inflict due process,
• formalize the process so that justification must be presented,
• visible to all editors for dispute, amendment, collaboration
• other sockpuppet links may become apparent when listed together in a community effort,
• evidence would have to be presented or tag get removed and placer subject to due process,
• requires familiarity with the system before new editors would be able to use tool,
• open to all editors, even IP editors, open and honest
• pages similar to this with massive lists are already being kept by numerous editors without details, hidden to other editors possibly duplicating efforts,
• possible compromise solution since admins possibly have as much conflict as other editors do with policies'
• current HSOCK violation tags could be still further removed without any listed justification.

• put into a chart there are "sortable by field" headers available. Great to be able to just click to sort in order in names, IP addresses or entry dates and removal of stale(years or months back would be easy to identify). Entry would be simply be by date added at the top or bottom. added 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be sure this would need refinements. Would this be better in mediation? It seems this may become a monumentuous issue with such strong bias displayed on both sides. I won't be here so (going to have a Northern Light with BullRangifer again) if this sounds like an idea you guys can hash it out. I know DOC should have good input but let's see if he practices what he preaches. Best! :) 174.118.141.197 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Like! Much of this certainly harmonizes nicely with my thinking. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI question

Thank you for your help and vote of good faith on article. I wrote an extensive explanation on article's talk page. I am unsure where to find ANI discussion you mention however. TAG speakers (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is at the ANI you started. The protecting admin was uncomfortable with protecting the article because only the IPs were trying to discuss it. You need to wait until you have consensus before you try to insert the material again. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hapa Article Talk Page

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, so perhaps I don't understand all the policies. Which policy does the section "Is Kip Fulbeck Trying to Enforce the California Usage?" violate? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.234 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will revise my response accordingly. How do you suggest I handle the fact that a single person who has a personal investment in a particular definition of the word hapa seems to be exerting his dominance? I'm not sure how to approach the matter. Perhaps that's just a point that should be left out due to the prohibition on outing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.234 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in being involved in the dispute, nor in giving advice, but you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. They always have people ready to help. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for taking care of the IP sock. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Colorado recall election of 2013

The article Colorado recall election of 2013 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Colorado recall election of 2013 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ex parte Crow Dog

Hi. Can you explain what ex parte means in the article and why this case is ex parte? Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC))

Ex parte is a legal term meaning from or by one party only. In old applications for writs of habeas corpus, the application was ex parte, in that the application for the writ was made by one side only. Both sides were heard before the prisoner would be freed. Here, the case was ex parte because Crow Dog was seeking a writ to avoid execution. GregJackP Boomer! 23:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that says that, and even linking to the article on ex parte doesn't help. Other people have expressed confusion on the article talk page. Could you add something to the article explaining the title of the action? It seems a curious omission for a FA, that a technical term would be used in an article title and never defined or at least Wikilinked. Thanks! --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Colorado recall election, 2013

Gatoclass (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hudak

I've put her back into Colorado recall election, 2013, adding a phrase to make the relevance clear; I fear I was too quick on that one. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Genocides in history

I've responded at length on the discussion page.

In turn, some of your remarks on the discussion page seemed aimed at Wikipedia:WikiBullying and WP:OWNership. Try to WP:AGF. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

SPI?

Worst SPI case I have yet to see, Niemti, genocide denier though he is, is most certainly none of those, give the man some credit for fucks sake, why on earth did you even file that? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Two other editors had the same idea, that socking was present, and although one of them had not connected it with Niemti, the other editor's first thought was Niemti. He also has a long and extensive history of socking. If you don't agree, OK, but there is good behavioral evidence and I'm sure that a checkuser would confirm it, if not quashed for other reasons. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You will not get CU as you gave no behavioral proof at all, I will look into it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not up on sock-hunting, it's never been a priority of mine. I would appreciate the help. GregJackP Boomer! 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nabbed a few in my time, however as I am currently in the middle of a FA it will be a few days before I go digging, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand - I'm doing both an FA and a GA right now (strange how no one reviews and then all of a sudden you have more than enough...). GregJackP Boomer! 18:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Christ two at once? Are you a Tory by any chance? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nah. They were both just sitting there, patiently waiting for a reviewer when two showed up at once. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

[2] Of interest to you, another bad filing. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping to promote Menominee Tribe v. United States to Featured Article status! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

On a similar theme... Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Menominee Tribe v. United States to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,336 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 11:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Hey Greg :). Just a note that I've finished my GA review here, minus a last-minute skim through - let me know when you've completed the tweaks. Thanks for being so patient with the process! Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Williams v. Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Fe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers and related articles

What situations? Like Talk:Cheers (season 1)? Or... what else? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are quite aware of the situations. I had several editors email me on some of the issues at Cheers and elsewhere. GregJackP Boomer! 05:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify, even if I'm aware? --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That you don't accept it if consensus is not on your side, starting new RfCs, RMs, etc. That you do not listen to other editors and have difficulty accepting that your interpretation is not correct. What I was told seems to match what I am seeing, especially with the RM on Microsoft and the ill-advised changes attempted at MOS:LAW. I would have preferred not to get into this explicitly, but you asked. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that you were referring to Frasier Crane, Sam and Diane, or sorts. Mentioning Cheers situation would be assumed to refer to content changes. Begoon emailed you, or AussieLegend? Doesn't matter; I somehow prevail when I previously fail, especially in Talk:All That Jazz (film). Somehow, consensus must have changed, despite no action, whenever I start again, like Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album) and RFD (see Talk:Thriller (album)). Any other unrelated, yet similar situations that I get into? George Ho (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not try the same tactics here. That's a friendly word of advice. GregJackP Boomer! 06:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarify "same tactics"? And which "here": user talkpage or... where? George Ho (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Figure it out. I'm not going to get in a debate with you over it. GregJackP Boomer! 06:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

The article Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ironholds -- Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Idea of expanding MOS:LAW#Article titles

After the US V. Microsoft is done and dealt with, we could go to WP:VPIL (idea lab), where the initial idea would become a great proposal... if done properly. Some ideas may fail. But the goal there is reaching for the positive. Alas, we can't assume that people will be familiar with or must use Bluebook, yet I should probably avoid too much forum shopping. --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would I want to do that? BTW, I just reopened a move request for Sega v. Accolade to move it to the proper title. GregJackP Boomer! 08:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the idea lab, to help our minds before the idea becomes real. To prevent idea from becoming real, an idea can become bad. But to make it real, an idea must become good. Get it? But we got two proposals, so we'll wait until both are done. But if you are referring to the guideline, we must propose an idea regarding person v. person, State v. person, and other cases, as well as cases using a generic name, like O.J. Simpson murder case and "Trial of..." George Ho (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"We" don't have to propose anything. The standard is perfectly fine the way it is. I can't help that you have issues in a) understanding it, and b) accepting it. I don't edit articles about the Chinese language because I'm not competent in that area, and were I to do so, I would seek help from an experienced editor in that field. Perhaps this is a good time to again encourage you to find a mentor for legal articles if you intend to continue to work in this area. GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Where do I find such a mentor? George Ho (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would post a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. GregJackP Boomer! 23:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Candidate page for 2013 ArbCom elections

Hi GregJackP. Thanks for putting yourself forward as a candidate for ArbCom. Could you please create your candidate page by going to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP and pasting the following text there?

{{#Ifexist:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP/Statement|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP/Statement}}|{{ACEcan2013|GregJackP}}
<inputbox>
type=create
editintro=
preload=Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Preloader/Statement
default=Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/{{SUBPAGENAME}}/Statement
buttonlabel=Click here to create your candidate statement.
bgcolor=clear
width=100
</inputbox>}}
{{#ifexpr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} > 20131111000000 |{{#Ifexist:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP/Questions|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP/Questions}}|<inputbox>
type=create
editintro=
preload=Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Preloader/Questions
default=Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/{{SUBPAGENAME}}/Questions
buttonlabel=Click here to create your questions subpage.
bgcolor=clear
width=100
</inputbox>}}|<center><br/>The candidate questions are subject to revision until the nomination period begins. An input box will appear here to create your question page once the nominating period opens.</center><br/>}}
{{#Ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/GregJackP||<inputbox>
type=create
editintro=
preload=Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Preloader/Discussion
default=Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates/{{SUBPAGENAME}}
buttonlabel=Click here to create your discussion page.
bgcolor=clear
width=100
</inputbox>}}
[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2013 candidates]]

Please preview the page before you save it to make sure everything looks ok. Thanks for your help. 64.40.54.126 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Multi-tagging again?

Look, I can't let you be subject to administrative attention if you repeatedly tag any article. When I tagged, I was unsure of what I was doing. But then, when I contribute more by improving content, I no longer have interest in tagging articles anymore. Another method I did was discussing content issues with other people. Maybe you should, as well. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

George, first, it is not your place to "let" me be subject to admin attention. I am aware of exactly what I am doing with the tags. I am sure of what the tags are for and will address each one of the tags individually. GregJackP Boomer! 21:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Photography is Not a Crime

I noticed that you created this article, as (apparently) noted on the front page at photographyisnotacrime.com. I appreciate the thoroughness. I spent some time verifying and adding urls to citations, and standardizing dates and some formatting. . I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Wikipedia's main audience is general readers, with no presumption on their behalf of expertise in any particular field, such as the law, or reading unusual citation formats. Wikipedia certainly allows using a variety of citation formats, but in most of the suggested styles, volume, issue, and page numbers are frequently labeled with v., n., p. or colon-separated v:n:p, or other clarification. Templates do this. We tend to not use {{smallcaps}} mainly because of accessibility (screenreaders) and no certainty of appearance on all platforms.
2. I'm an advocate of verifiability, and though it doesn't have to be easy per WP:V, I warmly encourage adding urls to citations wherever possible, so that those general readers have an easier job of linking through and reading more about the cited claims in the article.
3. Let's figure out a way to get more links to this article; it's currently an orphan. I'll be thinking about it.

--Lexein (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, but will note the following:

1. Bluebook is an accepted citation format on Wikipedia. I find it much easier to use and prefer it over templated refs and other methods. It is a very simple style. Authors are listed first, followed by the article name, and the work it appears in. The work is further broken down by Volumne# Name of work Page# (date). I can manually enter a reference using Bluebook much faster than I can with a template.
2. Due to the simplicity of the citation system, certain conventions are used. Italics for article titles and smallcaps for the actual work is how that is accomplished. Certain abbreviations are also used, such as N.Y. Times for "The New York Times."
3. I am familiar with the depreciation of smallcaps, but it is not prohibited, and has been allowed in each of the featured and good articles that I have created, since it is an integral part of the citation style. I do not see a reason to discontinue use of the citation style.
4. I also believe in verifiability, but if I'm pulling the source off of a restricted database such as Lexis or Westlaw, I'm just not going to spend the time to look for another link that is accessible.
5. I certainly don't have a problem with anyone finding those links to sources or to find more wikilinks, but it is not something that I'm going to spend time doing. To be honest, unless something came up to really affect article content, I probably won't ever edit that article again.
6. I appreciated your input and offer, and wish you luck on improving the article. GregJackP Boomer! 05:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the orphan status by adding links to five other articles. You've done a great job with this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. @GregJackP, are you available for the occasional WP:RX request for searches of Lexis or Westlaw? --Lexein (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Right now is not a good time to ask. I'm a little ticked off at some of the citation edits. GregJackP Boomer! 07:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I apologize for that. The changes weren't just for the sake of change. Because all links eventually rot, I end up over time switching gradually to templates anyways, for straightforward inclusion of archiveurl= and archivedate=. I left as many in your style as possible (firstlast, title, pub, date, etc.) rather than (lastfirst, date, title, pub, etc.). We don't use ibid, so the multiple citations a source are usually by last name; so citing lastfirst is used. If it was a purely, or mostly, legal article, I probably would have left all your cites alone save adding URLs. But I've seen so many fundamentally legal articles without Bluebook, that it seemed like an outlier. So reader familiarity, ease of use, multiple cite linking, and likely future linkrot were my motivations. If the current apparent style inconsistency is too disturbing, what the hell, revert it all out and I'll abandon the article. Otherwise, if making them consistent is desirable, and you can stand the way it's going, I'll forge on. --Lexein (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, this article is not that important to me to make a fuss over it, but you need to be aware of a couple of things. First, Bluebook is not limited to articles on law. Second, WP:CITEVAR states: "As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." Just changing the citation style because you don't agree with it is not acceptable. I appreciate that you want to improve Wikipedia and the article, but you may want to watch how you phrase things. I know how to write, I'm in the top 3000 wikipedians, and have taken a number of articles to both FA and GA. Like I said, this article isn't that important, but I would tread a little more carefully in the future. If you have something that you need checked in Lexis/WL, let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You linked to Bluebook. I read it. It is designed for lawyers and courts. Shoehorning it into other applications (websites, general books, newspapers, non-law magazines) is certainly up to you, and I'm certainly allowed to disagree, because it's opaque to non-lawyers, using only positional separation of volume, issue, page, and paragraph information, rather than explicit identification of those fields, or punctuated identification. That's all. For non-lawyers, meaning hundreds of millions of Wikipedia readers, it's therefore inferior (in my opinion) in every way to WP:Citation Style 1, manual or templated. Citation format preferences are just as subject to babyducking and the resultant emotional connections (proceeding to fanboyism) as game consoles. I can tell you what's wrong with pretty much every citation format out there. I dislike 'em all. I dislike that the proliferation of poorly justified, poorly executed citation formats at Wikipedia persists, fomented by unconfessed collegial or occupational affiliations, and against growing community consensus (by usage alone, if not by acclaim) for a common standard: Citation Style 1 (template or manual).

We strongly disagree, obviously. If we agree on nothing else, though, please, at least stop using ibid, and please start using named refs for multiple use of a single source, and maybe harvard notation lastname (year), page for different locations within a multiply used source.

You'll agree I think, that in an environment in which editors cannot WP:OWN content, because it's released irrevocably to the community, they should not be led to believe that they own citation formats by courtesy guidelines such as WP:CITEVAR. I'll be addressing that fundamental conflict in future.

But I will discuss citation format changes in future. --Lexein (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. First, where do you get off telling me that I cannot use a citation style that is recognized as valid by Wikipedia? Wikipedia says I can use it and it states in multiple places that "As a good practice, the first major contributor gets to choose the referencing system for that article." See WP:REFB. I could give a flying F whether you think Cite Style 1 is gold-plated. You don't get to come in and change articles without seeking consensus first. Unless I see a change in your attitude, I don't have a problem going back and changing every f'ing reference back to Bluebook style and forcing you to gain community consensus to change it. BTW, this has nothing to do with owning the article, it has to do with how you approach other editors. How many warnings or comments have you received recently about being rude or attacking others?

Unless I see some indication that you intend on complying with what has been generally accepted guidelines on citations for years, I'll go back and repair the citations that have been screwed up in the article. I actually have better things to do, but will make an exception if it is necessary. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't say you couldn't. Already said you could. I was stating my position, not requiring you to change anything. Read more carefully. I didn't "screw up" anything. My point about OWN applies, no matter how you choose to parse it. Truly, whatever. --Lexein (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I read it carefully. "Babyducking", "poorly executed", "fanboyism", etc. Then you also tell me to "stop using ibid, and please start using named refs for multiple use of a single source, and maybe harvard notation..." I don't need you to tell me how to edit or write. In the meantime, stay off my talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Final comment. Those remarks you took offense at were not directed at you, but were general, about all editors who add favorite formats. I apologize for that offense. As for the suggestions, they were suggestions, with the word "please", twice. Now gone from talk page. --Lexein (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

voter guides

I am sorry you withdrew -- I find the "early voter guides" to generally be a "list of friends of the writer" more than anything else, and they do not at as a reasonable predictor of the results. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Kagama

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. Kagama 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 Darkwind -- Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Kagama

The article United States v. Kagama 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:United States v. Kagama for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Darkwind -- Darkwind (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

GERAC AfD

Hi GregJack! You were already the third editor raising concerns about an editor deleting most of the GERAC article's sourced material, and then nominating the remaining stub for deletion... I guess that AN/I just wasn't the right place to carry this to. What would be the right place? Edit warring noticeboard? Sorry, I'm an exopedian... --Mallexikon (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is where I would have taken it also. It's not edit warring. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Kagama

The article United States v. Kagama you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. Kagama for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Darkwind -- Darkwind (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, GregJackP. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Baby girl

List it for peer review and I'll have a go at it. Drop a note on my talk when you're ready. Good luck in the election.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. I withdrew from the election, but thanks anyway. GregJackP Boomer! 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Antoine v. Washington

Hello! Your submission of Antoine v. Washington at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Baby Girl case FAC

It may be painful, but get Eric Corbett to do a grammar sweep. You have to assume the position when you do so, but he's right 90% of the time, he will be more patient than you'd think with about 5% legitimate, polite questions that seek understanding of his reasoning, and the other 5% isn't worth the drama. (grin) (Check the talk page archives of Oxbow (horse) if you want to see him in action. I'll watchlist and if you need cleanup help on the legal eagle side - or to discuss legal US jargon with Corbett, I'll jump in. Once it's been through the Corbett wringer, it will pass FAC on those grounds. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to remove the GOCE request? GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know... but if you want to target certain good reviewers, do what I do - I just hit them up individually rather than posting requests at the boards where you might attract not as high quality a reviewer. Montanabw^(talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you emerged from a Corbett review relatively unscathed! That is a real feather in your cap, my friend! Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Antoine v. Washington

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe 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 Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, GregJackP:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1200 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

The article United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days by December 21, 2013, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Bluebook citation style

For anyone that might be interested, there is a Request for Comment on the appropriateness of the Bluebook citation style for Wikipedia articles at Photography is Not a Crime. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about Bluebook style

I am relatively unfamiliar with Bluebook style, and I have a question. "Harvard style" includes the option of a short citation and a full citation. (Forgive me if I'm using incorrect terminology.) So a full book might be...

DeVolpi, A.; Marsh, Gerald E.; Postol, T. A.; Stanford, G. S. (1981). Born Secret: The H-Bomb, the Progressive Case and National Security. New York: Pergamon Press.

...while a short citation might look like "DeVolpi et al. 1981, pp. 135–136." Does Bluebook style have a corresponding way of offering "short" citations in the notes, and "full" citations below? Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You have a shortform cite, normally the last name, at page. But that still goes in with the other cites. You may also notice that there are a number of "string" or multiple citations, with a semi-colon between each source. It would look something like this:

Vine Deloria, Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins 3 (1988).
Michael C. Snyder, An Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 7 St. Thomas L. Rev. 815, 820 (1995).
Deloria, at 5; Snyder, at 817.

The first is a cite to a book, the second to a journal article, and the third is a string cite with the shortform for the first two. I hope that helps. GregJackP Boomer! 20:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the book you cited would look like this:

A. DeVolpi, et al., Born Secret: The H-Bomb, the Progressive Case and National Security 136-36 (1981).
DeVolpi, at 140.

Hope that helps. GregJackP Boomer! 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe

The article United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. Ramsey (1926)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. Ramsey (1926) 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 North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. I doubt that I will be able to respond to you at all this week and possibly part of next week due to real world commitments. I will get to it as soon as I can though. Let me know if that will be a problem. :) GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool / no sweat. And thanks for the heads up. I didn't write the notice, especially the "7 day" part. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

GA comment

Hi GregJackP, thanks for your comment on Mr. Corbett's talk page. I would like to clarify first, however, that I knew that the article is not ready for GA and needs a lot of work before it's nominated; that's why I've been seeking help! :D I'll let the editor who would like to bring Katy Perry to GA know. Thanks again. Acalamari 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. A lot of times I see guys look at articles and think that it is ready, but that it just needs a few tweaks here and there. This is even more prevalent on articles about popular people. It is definitely possible, it will just take a lot of work. Good luck with it. GregJackP Boomer! 11:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)