User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 12

Looking for suggestions

Hey.

I noticed you were on my article (it's fine you wiped it earlier I was still working on it.) I'm going to be busy today and so I don't have time to write up everything about Streets of Rogue, I have more information but right now I'm worried about if the article has too many flaws. Not that I need the help but I was wondering if you had any suggestions.

Thanks. --Someguywithamouse (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Someguywithamouse. If you don't have time to work on an article to the point where it at least has one or two references included, then it is usually an idea to start it in your sandbox first, and then publish it once you can flesh it out a bit more. You may be interested in this search, which is custom made Google search type by Wikipedia editors specifically to find reliable sources for video games. Looks like there's quite a few to choose from. GMG^talk 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Alright, I'll be sure to check that out later.

I just got back from a long trip and have been thinking about some things to add to the article, although it was just deleted so maybe I'll grab my backup and try writing a template in the sandbox.

Thanks for the tip.--Someguywithamouse (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries Someguywithamouse. Deb may even be willing to restore it to your sandbox so you can work on it there for a little while. GMG^talk 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo You don't have to, I'm currently copy/pasting from a backup I made on the Wayback Machine and I'm going to try to improve upon that one. I'll repub it when I've made today's edits. --Someguywithamouse (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Just keep in mind Someguywithamouse, that notability on Wikipedia is all about the sources. So your first job is to demonstrate in your article that there is significant coverage in sources, and then to use those sources to build your article with, without going beyond what they say, and what you can prove using them. GMG^talk 01:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to remember to add some citations later if I can. I already found a review from Rock, Paper, Shotgun and was going to comment something on it but I think I'll wait until I have a good way of describing it. I already have a *slightly* modded article on my sandbox but it's barely improved, I've mostly been working on the formatting. I'll try and work on it later this month if possible.

Also changed my signature, incase you don't recognize me. CommanderApparition 03:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

How to reverse a deleted article?

If an article I created was tagged for a speedy deletion in the English Wikipedia because it was included on Wikipedia too soon how do I reverse the deletion if I feel there's enough reliable resources for this article.. This is the article: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sibusiso Mashiloane). Bobbyshabangu _talk 08:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bobbyshabangu: That was not "speedy" deletion but regular deletion. If you believe there is new information that allows for an article, especially significant coverage in reliable sources that appeared after the article was deleted, you are free to recreate it with that information. If you are unsure, you can use the article wizard to guide you through the process of creating a draft that will then be reviewed by an experienced editor. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Anne Hazen McFarland

Hi, and thanks for collaborating on Anne Hazen McFarland and other articles. I was wondering about this edit. How did you sort out that Category:Transylvania University alumni should be added? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kentucky University was the prior name of Transylvania, changed in part because it was too similar to the University of Kentucky when UK was born. But if you see 19th century sources refer to Kentucky University, they're almost certainly talking about Transy. UK didn't become UK until 1916. Also I may or may not be a UK alum. GMG^talk 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Epiphany

de la Cruz has no family, and he's on no one's ofrenda. That's why he's in the Land of the Dead on Día de Muertos throwing a party and hosting a concert instead of visiting his relatives. He can't be seen in public being turned away at the gate, because although everyone "remembers him", no one really does. Dear parents of small children who have also watched this movie more than 50 times, you're welcome. GMG^talk 22:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So your kids have gotten to the age of of binge watching the-same-goddamn-movies for an entire weekend until you know every little nuance by heart? Welcome to the club. My 5-year-old has been watching the same Backyardigans DVD since he turned 4. Every. Goddamn. Day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. It's Snowman, CoCo, and Mwana all day long. GMG^talk 23:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I found a solution to that today, in case you're interested. Teach them to play Dungeons & Dragons, and encourage them to act out their character. There's nothing more hilarious than watching a four-year-old heave a foam Minecraft pick over his head and bellow "Die, foul creature!" in his "deep"est voice before bringing it smashing down on a toddler-sized stuffed Mario standing in for a goblin. I can't wait for the look on my wife's face when he tells her about how he bathed in the blood of his foes. Of course, I'm willing to be a bit of a masochist in service of my sense of humor, so your mileage my vary on that last one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure one of my biggest fears is that my daughter will get super into sports and join the military. That makes me think that maybe I should encourage her to be super into sports and join the military, because by the time she becomes a teenager, she'll want nothing more than to do the opposite, because that's what teenagers do. GMG^talk 03:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, make her get a degree first and go to OCS. No sense in her working for a living if she's gonna sign up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I...got my degrees first and enlisted OCS...and then decided before I even went that I didn't particularly care for getting shit on for an extended period of time, and just decided to class 42A, because I'd been told my whole life not go infantry or artillery, because there is no civilian career path for infantry or artillery. So the two things I never wanted to do when I was a child were to go to basic training and to go to prison, and I've gone to basic training and gone to (worked in a) prison. The goal is to drive her away from all that if possible :P. GMG^talk 04:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

In other news, on the topic of epiphanies, it occurs to me, having smashed the living shit out of my thumbnail today, which I'll almost certainly lose now, that there is likely an evolutionary advantage for humans retaining their mostly useless fingernails, because they make it hurt like unspeakable things when you smash the living shit out of them. So it guards the tips of our fingers which are likely to be important for our survival. GMG^talk 04:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I only wish I had been intelligent enough to listen to people telling me that there's no civilian career track for a former combat MOS. I could have been doing my current job (programming for geospatial software development) for the past 12 years instead of only the past 2. Hell, the recruiter was even pushing for me to pick up up a 17- or 25- MOS. But nooooo, I wanted to be a little badass. Lest you recall those PMCs that supposedly paid top dollar; two of my buddies went that route, and they're both doing semi-skilled labor now. PMCs only pay top dollar during wartime, and only for certain positions. The rest of the time, they pay pretty much exactly what you'd expect for a glorified rent-a-cop company.

Also, having lost two thumbnails thanks to my inexplicable habit of not always looking before hammering, I can sympathize. I have learned a trick however: if you flip your hand over while holding the nail so that your palm faces up: when you miss it still hurts like hell, but it stops hurting sooner and you generally don't lose the nail. Of course, that only helps when hammering. There are many many ways to smash the crap out of your thumb without hammering. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Well my dad was field artillery. So I at least had that advantage. He went from supervising tactical nuclear artillery rounds for training with the German Army, to managing a Pizza Hut. Almost ended up in Italy. I almost grew up in Italy, but he signed his agreement not to reenlist about two weeks before they offered him the position, and he couldn't take it. Ended up retiring with 14 years active duty and another 15 in the National Guard.

As to my thumb, the better trick is to probably make sure you have enough gas for your nail gun before you start a project, so you don't have to use a hammer at all. BTW if you haven't invested in a nail gun yet, they're 150% worth it. I've got two for studs and one for finishing nails. GMG^talk 17:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t know there were places left in Lower Kalikaky that still lacked corrugate, magnets, duct/duck tape, and cheap shims, some combo of which will almost always save the thumb. Qwirkle (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm from south Florida, where we live under the iron fist of the Miami-Dade building code. I think the only thing left that we're allowed to nail without getting smoked by an inspector is roofing shingles/tiles. So my battery drills get a lot of mileage (Dewalt for the serious stuff and Black & Decker for the indoor, Honey-Do stuff). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Eww. There's a civil-libertarian part of me that cringes at such a strict building code. There's another social-democrat part of me that says it's probably necessary given massive natural disasters. There's another entirely cynical part of me that says "Don't live in Florida. You realize that entire state is going to be gone in 50 years right?"

Unfortunately, screws are no substitute for finishing nails when it comes trim. I actually took a table saw and plainer and made a truck full of ~3/8 in. by 2 1/2 in. boards, because for some reason at Lowes the smaller the piece of wood you buy the more expensive it is. But a screw will split that down the middle every time, and look like crap besides. GMG^talk 23:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the Conservo-Liberhoovian think tanks, Heritage Foundation, IMS, did an economic study on the impact of building codes in Florida. They found it to be a net positive, and, to their credit, the published it with as much fanfare as if it had confirmed their expectations.

Within a year or three after the last disaster, the homebuyers almost completely ignore the building standards, and concentrate on the stuff they understand, like paint color. So do an unfortunately large number of home inspectors, real estate agents, &cet.

IMS, The M/D codes do allow nailing for most connections, if you want to pick a fight over it, but I can understand why the inspectors hate them, especially for builders they aren’t familiar with (like most DIY homeowners and landlords.) A 10d and a 12d look the same when driven, and it’s not like you can just back a few out to check. For that matter, it’s hard for a lot of people to tell an 8d from them, it’s only 1/32” smaller. From memory, and worth every penny you paid for it...and besides, the last thing you ever wanna do is deliberately antagonize an inspector... Qwirkle (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I kindof start from a position of civil-libertarian and let my social-democrat side argue against it and then just go with whomever has the best argument. Places like Haiti come to mind as places with no building codes really at all. Not a great example to emulate really. But I also come from a place in the world with almost no natural disasters, inland and insulated as we are by a mountain range. The flip side to that is that we have endemic poverty fueled by the high cost of land development, because there are almost no flat spaces here. GMG^talk 00:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Florida not that long ago, it was a sort of natural testing ground. Cities had expanded into unincorporated areas, so you had buildings sold to almost identical demographic pools, with different building codes running from strict to none, and different, and documentably so, in retrospect, enforcement standards. So, you had stuff built to stiff code in towns with meaningful enforcement, to stiff codes with lax or crooked enforcement, and so on, all the way to buildings based entirely on the builder’s judgement on what was safe...or saleable. The unfettered market didn’t do so hot in that case. Qwirkle (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not a libertarian, in the sense of idealistic, almost moronic some might say, belief in the virtues of the free market. I'm libertarian in the sense that I recognize that the free market is one of the most powerful self-organizing forces in the history of our species. I'm civil-libertarian in the sense that I fundamentally don't trust government. I take an automatically antagonistic view of of government intrusion into individual liberty. For example, I support gay rights, but I support gay rights from a fairly conservative view. I don't think the government has a place in telling people how to live, period. At the same time, I'm pretty leaning toward single payer health coverage in the US, because...you know...data. And the data shows that it improves outcomes overall, and the inefficiency of bureaucracy is less than the profit margin of more efficient businesses.

I don't rent on HUD, because HUD in my case encourages me to rent sub-standard housing that only ostensibly meets their building codes. When I'd rather rent something I'd live in myself. The place I was working on today doesn't have screens on all the windows, which is a HUD standard. I could take a staple gun and a sheet of screen and fix that, and it would look like crap, but it would meet their standard. But that's not something I want to give to someone, because it's not something I would want to live in myself. GMG^talk 01:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was exaggerating about the screws, but it turned into an interesting back and forth between you two, so I'm not gonna correct myself. The only problem with the Miami-Dade code -from a builder's POV- is that it's exhaustive. None of the actual standards are all that unreasonable, once you consider what it takes to survive a hurricane. But in order to be MD compliant, you can't meet 85% of the standard, or even 95% or 99%; it's either 100% or it's not MD compliant. And that means if you want to be MD compliant, you're going to have to sit there and take it while an inspector critiques your caulk beads, because they're not quite protruding 3/16" in that one little corner that you have no idea how to fit a caulking gun into, anyways.

As for political philosophies, I'm pretty much on board with what's been said here. Or, as I used to put it: "Half liberal, half libertarian, all sex machine." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Whachu gotta remember is that codes aren’t supposed to be aspirational, they’re a minimum standard. Meeting code is, in academic terms, a “D”; nothing to brag about, but just adequate. That said, I know what you mean about standards that are set regardless of whether their is a practical way to meet them. Some of the trade organizations are pretty good at suggesting working detailing, as are some of the manufacturers, but a lot of stuff falls between two stools, because nobody’s money is riding on it. Qwirkle (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you one thing that rustled my jimmies. My dad built basically his dream home when he retired. Six bedroom two story log cabin with a massive garage in the middle of nowhere on the side of a ridge. A real "go deer hunting from your kitchen window" kindof place. When he had the electrical inspected, he had to replace probably somewhere upwards of 150-200 electrical outlets, because of this crap that's been adopted by like 30 states. We've done this because apparently six to 12 people per year are killed by sticking objects into outlets. (In comparison, about 3,500 people die each year in non-boat related drowning...So basically swimming pools.) I really don't see how that's an issue where we really need a widespread public policy response to address something that can be solved by a five-dollar child proofing kit at Wal-Mart. They're website is like "it's only about fifty bucks per home". I just want to shake them and say "That's ten times more expensive than an already widely available solution to the same problem."  GMG^talk 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope he gave the requisite amount of grief to the electrical supplier; big-box stores are notorious for not noticing that the stuff they are selling is a local code violation. Yeah, mandating those is more a case of regulatory capture than good sense, IMO. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whachu gotta remember is that codes aren’t supposed to be aspirational, they’re a minimum standard. Meeting code is, in academic terms, a “D”; nothing to brag about, but just adequate. I actually agree with this. You gotta watch those internet conversations: sometimes people are being hyperbolic for humor's sake. They don't really mean the things they were bitching so much about and it's not obvious because, well, internet.

Well, except for the caulking bead that resulted in a failed inspection for a house me and my dad worked on for two months back in the '90s. Seriously, fuck that inspector and the mustache he rode in on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you all listen to Freakonomics Radio (you totally should). But they did an interesting piece a while back on child safety seats that breaks along those lines. Basically, that for children over the age of two, the difference between a seat belt and a safety seat was so statistically marginal compared to the massive difference in cost, that there's no real public safety benefit for mandating them, when you could spend that $100-500 on basically any other safety device in a child's life and save more lives on average. The problem was, near 100% of people in the US drive personal vehicles, and so even with a statistically insignificant difference, you still wound up with plenty of parents to cry in front of legislatures and get the mandates passed. But statistically, most children who die in car accidents die in such comparatively horrific accidents, that the only appreciable difference is between no restraint and some restraint, and children over two who die while wearing a seat belt, would have almost certainly also died had they been in a safety seat. GMG^talk 16:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that there’s a little hyperbole, but it’s also writing about real issues, some of which even belong a little more in some articles.

I used to hang in a Usenet group that was also inhabited by Milton Friedman’s kid. Bad policy trade-offs were discussed with disgusting regularity, even when they didn’t need to be...no, especially when they didn’t need to be. I can run through the usual suspects in my sleep, whether I wanna or not.

Re “some articles”, is there anywhere worthwhile discussing this sort of meta-Wiki thing off-Wiki, except for IRC these days? This is screwing up my edit count, it is. Qwirkle (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really. It's IRC all the way down. That or something like the site that must not be named. Also, you must shed your worldly sinful attachment to edit counts. That is the path to suffering, and only beyond it may you achieve wiki-enlightenment. GMG^talk 17:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah. Here's a head-scratcher for you that's totally off the political radar. Polygamy, or polyandry, or whatever the correct terminology is. I really have a problem not seeing that as exactly the same type of cultural fascism as Kentucky passing a constitutional amendment (because apparently a law wasn't good enough) saying that gay marriage is wrong, and so the government is going to legally prevent two consenting adults from entering into a voluntary contractual relationship, because they both happen to be dudes. So... If you and your spouse want to have a live-in sex slave a la Gimp from Pulp Fiction...totally legal...make sure he files taxes as a contractor if you pay him anything. You decide for whatever reason, religious or no, that you want to bring in a third party as an equal, and pledge to honor and cherish each other as long as you three shall live? That's immoral and we must have laws against it. I'm pretty sure it all goes back to anti-Mormon hysteria, if I'm not mistaken. But in 2018 it all seems very silly. GMG^talk 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Polygamy: the state of having multiple wives.
Polyandry: the state of having multiple husbands. So you were correct on both counts.

I'm right there with you. I used to be opposed to it (because all you see of it in popular culture is polygamy with women in a subservient role and I'm a feminist), but someone on the internet literally argued me into changing my mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thing is, it makes so much sense it would probably never get political traction. I would fully expect opposition from the right because sanctity of marriage, and opposition from the left because many would see it as exploitative and patriarchal. GMG^talk 12:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much. It's a deeply ingrained cultural taboo here in the West. The fact that we all know there's a small group of our own doing it just makes it that much more scandalous.

To be fair, I also support the end of all (and I do mean all) contraband laws, the legalization of prostitution and drugs and the imposition of taxes on religious organizations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh...I'm not that libertarian. Prostitution yes, because it seems like actually the best way to empower and protect sex workers is to legitimize them out of the black market. Taxing churches? I don't really see how you can do that without a constitutional amendment, and not run into establishment clause issues, but I probably follow a fairly extreme interpretation of the establishment clause that maybe the courts wouldn't agree with.

Contraband...I think there's probably a happy medium there. Meth should never be ingested by anybody. It also blows up occasionally when people with a GED try to make it. I could totally get on board with pot and psychedelics. I would fully expect that alone to take enough pressure off the black market where people will just opt for cheaper, safer, more easily accessible drugs in lieu of sticking a needle in your arm or smoking something some guy cooked in his basement. Also there's a good argument (Joe Rogan makes fairly well actually) that psychedelics can be considered a type of secular religious experience, or a kind of socially neutral spiritually. Which to be honest, if a guy shows up at your door and wants to talk about God, most people are going to politely decline. If a guy shows up at your door with a pocket full of psychedelics and wants to talk about God... a lot more people are going to be more sympathetic. GMG^talk 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For taxing churches, it'd be more not giving tax exempt status to churches, I guess is what MPants means; I'm meh on that. Meth definitely shouldn't be ingested by anybody, but it isn't clear that making it illegal is the best way to do that. It shouldn't be legalized, but it should probably be decriminalized based on say the results of say what Portugal has done. I'd probably support decriminalizing all drugs and legalizing anything that isn't as bad as alcohol (which is a lot when you consider that alcohol is pretty deadly) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, if churches earn money, churches pay taxes, just like everyone else. Church-based charities (that actually do charitable work) would be exempt, of course. That's the opposite of an establishment clause issue. Lots of legal experts have said that our current "religious organizations pay no taxes" is itself a violation of that clause. Few argue that it's not, with most supporters claiming it's in our best interest to allow it as an exception. Even those that do argue that it's not a violation due so using a "well, technically..." argument, pointing out that it doesn't matter what religion you are, you get the same benefit.

Re contraband; I once convinced a liberal anti-gun person (a very thoughtful and intelligent one) that private ownership of nuclear weapons could be a good thing. It was a formal debate, and she approached me afterwords to tell me that I'd won over not just the (small) audience, but her as well. Basically, I did so by arguing that regulation should be used in place of bans. By imposing strict requirements upon people owning objects and materials currently considered illegal, we allow for the economic exploitation of those materials. Regulation can be as light as "you can't bring it in a courtroom," for a switchblade or as heavy as "you can 'own' it, but that only really means anything on paper, the state or some other qualified entity will still have near-complete control over the thing you own," for nuclear weapons or endangered animals and such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well results from Colorado re opiate overdoses is certainly encouraging. I mean it makes sense. If you are the type to overdose on opiates...you're probably not the most industrious person on the block. So do you hunt down your drug dealer and pay higher prices for opiates? Or do you go to your corner store and get a joint and a six pack of beer for half the price? To me, that's the market doing what the criminal justice system can't. Just, make it the rational market driven choice for drug users to use better drugs. GMG^talk 13:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Missed the last comment. As to weapons, I really don't understand why the left and the right can't both get on board with a licencing requirement that is a least as strict as a drivers license. Have you all taken a concealed carry class? It's a total joke. Three quarters of the class is basic marksmanship training of the type everyone should have before they own a weapon. If you really need someone to tell you to line up the back-doohickey with the front-whatsit in order to aim...you shouldn't own a gun. GMG^talk 13:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a CCW, and always have a Browning Hi Power in 9x19 on me or in my car (more often in my car, because I know what the odds are that I'll have a good reason to use it vs the odds that I'll wrongly think I have a good reason to use it), and you are preaching to the choir, man.

I've signed at least a dozen petitions to drastically raise the requirements of a CCW in Florida. I think that to get yours, you should meet all of the following requirements:

• Have taken (and passed) a graded gun safety course.
• Have spent a minimum of 60 hours on a shooting range, and be able to group 5 rapid-fire shots in an 18" spread, and be able to group 5 paced shots in a 9" spread at 20 meters.
• Be CPR certified.
• Have taken (and passed) a GSW-focused first-aid course.
• Have taken (and passed) a graded gun laws class.
• Have no felony convictions, or have had them expunged by a judge.

For the life of me, I don't understand why people think "just make em register" is a good enough approach to license people to carry concealed firearms in a society where the vast majority of people are unarmed, the vast majority of the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh. Register? You don't even have to register a firearm in Kentucky. And the only thing you need to open carry (which is retarded) is a pulse. But yeah. All the above. If the NRA got behind that... like... actually lobbied for common sense gun laws, they'd get my membership in a heart beat. But the people to the right of the NRA, the people who should know the most about firearms, apparently think that "pry it from my cold dead fingers" is a rational public policy position. Of course the response from the left is progressively working to ban types firearms and accessories, because the people who should be the ones giving them the reasonable centrist alternatives are doing basically nothing. And in the end nothing gets done whatsoever and everyone just convinces themselves the other side are all idiots.

I'll tell you what legitimately scared the crap out of me, was that black guy who was killed by the officer (it's hard to keep them straight any more) who had his concealed carry, and took every. single. step. you are taught to do if you're pulled over with a firearm. Hands on the wheel, "sir I have a firearm in the vehicle", whole nine yards by the book. And coming from someone with military plates and a big wounded warrior sticker on the back window of my truck, I still 100% took my pistol and put it up that day. Like "I do not what to be that dude, and apparently doing the right thing doesn't matter". GMG^talk 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It was Philando Castile, and that scared me, too. I just erased about four paragraphs of me going on about how cops shooting black people makes me depressed and terrified for my own family (we're white, for the record, but still) because I realized I was really going off on a tangent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that Chesterton’s gate has run off with Thoreau’s toenails? Qwirkle (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel like maybe I need a translation from British. GMG^talk 16:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah. For the Chesterton, I think there’s even an essay on here someplace. For the Thoreau, which, come to think of it, mighta been Emerson instead, or even Lowell, he wanted to give an example of the folly of relying on old authority, and picked one that made him rather than Aristotle look a little foolish. We clip our nails straight(ish) because they don’t ingrow when we do. It’s good advice, even if it’s a couple thousand years old.

Chesterton pointed out that it was not a good idea to remove something because you didn’t see the point of it; it was only after you saw why it was done in the first place that you could judge whether it was still useful. Qwirkle (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Wikipedia:Chesterton's fence. I see. GMG^talk 18:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Our inexperienced GA reviewer friend

I happened to stumble across some of their TP discussions today, and I have to say that I'm impressed. Could it possibly be that Wikipedia got a new editor, and they're actually this competent?? I'm shocked and a little scandalized, but also just tickled pink. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Could it be? Probably not no. But it is possible that it's a long time IP contributor who finally decided to reclaim their old account. I'm going to AGF that that's the case. Maybe they are a sock and that AGF is misplaced. So long as they're being consistently productive, I don't see that it's worth my and your time to go digging for hours on the off chance that we find something worth opening an SPI over. And anyway, looks like they've fairly consistently been on this account for around 90 days at this point, so any SPI would have to be a truck load of behavioral evidence, cause CU ain't gonna do us any good. GMG^talk 14:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, yup. I've decided to be an optimist about this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve wondered when or whether WP is going to start seeing significant numbers of newcomers who are new to WP, but comfortable with the markup and able to hit the ground running. The article information isn’t the only thing being given away free for any taker. Qwirkle (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly the markup is easy enough IMO if you carefully copy what others are doing. The policy is a monster though. 100+ pages of required reading easily, and even then you need significant experience in application before you really understand it. Even then, there are issues like copyright that get even more complicated. I've probably had it explained to me three or four times how copyright renewal works with creative works form 1923 to 1963. I still don't understand it, and I pretty much just threw up my hands and said "those 40 years are dead to me". GMG^talk 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing as Qwirkle; the basics of coding are often taught in schools these days, and I often think that might mean that younger people will come up as a group with a lot more familiarity with markup and programming syntax, and thus make it easier. FWIW, I do think I've noticed a mild upswing in syntax competence among IP and new editors, but it's not enough for me to really be sure.

By the way, if you have copyright questions, let me know. I'm no lawyer, but I've had to deal with them plenty in my life, owing to the fact that I've been doing commissioned art and design work since I was a kid. I might be able to help, and I know when to say "No, I can't give a good answer. You should ask a lawyer about that one." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm more familiar than the average bear, but there are definitely still discussions, especially at c:COM:DR that I nope right out of, and still a few times where I cautiously wade in and think to myself "now how hard can Fijian copyright really be? GMG^talk 15:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have said not to ask me about anything but US or UK copyright. Anything else and I become the nopetopus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The worst part is finding someone at a help desk or the Teahouse who has painstakingly crafted an article for a visual artist, and probably scheduled a trip to a museum just to photograph their work, and you have to explain to them that it's a faithful reproduction, and "Yes, I really do have to nominate all 12 of your files on Commons for deletion" because they died in 1963, and their work won't be public domain for another 16 years. You feel the soul of a promising user crushing as you hit the save button, but there's basically nothing you can do about it other than explaining patiently. GMG^talk 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's why I stick to creating the artwork. much easier that way. At least until you publicly admit to doing so on commission... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I created this. I'm not proud of it. But there was no other image to illustrate the article. GMG^talk 22:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's actually really good! It made me laugh, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your reply because...

Thank you for the reply! As you'll see in Wikipedia:Help_desk#Condensing_multiple_citations, so the solutions are either to do nothing, or to manually add the named ref, as a bare citation and thus duplicating potentially?

Shushugah (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Whew. Yeah. That's confusing. Apparently something with my formatting in there is breaking the closing /nowiki tag and ruining everything. But basically you have to do this:

Johnny told the devil "you son of a gun, I'm the best there's ever been." They engaged in a fiddle playing contest which Johnny won. The story was later told in a popular song by Charlie Daniels.

References

Because you can't nest ref tags in each other. You also can't name individual refs by using them in a multi-cite like this. You can however name the entire multi-cite, if you ever needed to cite all those sources again all at once. GMG^talk 17:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian Peace Commission

The article Indian Peace Commission you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Indian Peace Commission for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo

I don't know about you, but when I think of Jimbo replying on his talk page, I always imagine he's doing so on some luxury yacht moored up in the Virgin Islands with a Piña colada in one hand and a MacBook Pro in the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has also edited Wikipedia from the Caribbean (although the drink in hand was probably coffee, give that I took that at 8am), I can say that I do highly recommend it. I don't know that I've ever actually edited Jimbo's talk page, and I've certainly never watchlisted it. But I'd rather like to think that he has an undisclosed alternate account for privacy reasons, where he's busy in the trenches without the hassle of having to be Jimbo and deal with everyone's problems. GMG^talk 14:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My sister owns a vacation property not far out of frame of that image. Just up the row from the home on the right, near the Yoga retreat. I've stayed there a few times. If you ever decide to come back let me know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Man, that sounds better than a day out at Brighton Palace Pier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Not so much for me, honestly. But I grew up down here in South Florida, so for example, Freeport is closer to me than Homestead, FL as the crow flies. And the main draw of the Bahamas is the climate. Which I fucking hate (I spent a few months in Alaska once and fell in love, for perspective). So yeah, I'll take an amusement park the same sort of beach day I could have without shelling out the money for a boat rental (because there's no land access) and fuel. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The other day I was talking with Megalibrarygirl about how the weather in El Paso has basically got three varieties - hot, bastard hot, and scorchio .... while I looked out of my window and saw the rain coming down sideways. I just think the Palace Pier is great for kids who love to be thrown 130 feet in the air and turned upside down (well, at least mine do), it's not too expensive, and it's a historically important part of British culture. Even if the beach is all pebbles; for that you want to head down over the Sandbanks Ferry (passing the houses that cost silly money) to Shell Bay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've often said (and heard) that Florida has two seasons: Unseasonably hot and holy-shit-it's-summer-please-god-seek-air-conditioning. Plus, I've always wanted to visit England. My parents have been there, but I haven't. The closest I think I've ever been was Böblingen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to see Florida and the Caribbean  again. Honestly we wouldn't have gone in December, but I expected to be in Afghanistan right now. So the cruise was kindof pre deployment marriage maintenance. I'd love to see London. I had a layover there once when I was five. So I've only ever been to the UK in the most marginal sense.

Honestly I'd considered whether I could make it to Wikimania NA in Columbus next month. It's  only about five hours away, and the next one is in Mexico City. Still haven't sorted out if my schedule will let me though. GMG^talk 15:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to go to one and possibly put faces to some of the names I know on here. But the likelihood of editors I know showing up is so small that I never give it much serious thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been to quite a few London meetups, but between you me and the gatepost, when I go to a pub I want to chit chat about stuff I've been researching, the news, politics, philosophical stuff, yada yada. I really can't get excited about WikiData initiatives. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been getting somewhat more into WD lately. There's a lot of interesting possibilities there. At the same time, en.wiki is one of the worst offenders when it comes to fairly extreme project-centrisim. So I look for places like Commons, WQ, WB, etc to benefit from WD long before en.wiki does. GMG^talk 15:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have yet to even bother looking into what Wikidata is. I expect it's open access to the WP databases or something, but can't be bothered to confirm. Interestingly, however, I found an image GMG uploaded that I think is an apt metaphor for much of the discourse on Jimbotalk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I wasnt somewhat proud of the fact that I created that category and uploaded all but one of the images there. Also speak of the devil wrt other projects embracing WD. GMG^talk 16:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You should be proud. You've given people such as myself a variety of images to link to in a humorous manner when we refer to places like Jimbotalk or ANI. Plus, you know, you've increased the available knowledge of the world and stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That was in fact so intentional that it probably violates WP:POINT. GMG^talk 16:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't survive in a place like this for this many years without having a sense of humour. Hells bells, you can't survive real life without one. (Or at least I can't). When I was improving Rachael Bland's article, the thing that stuck out for me is her You Me and the Big C colleague, on hearing Bland was terminally ill and unlikely to live much longer, basically said "oh shut up and stop being over-dramatic". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

<Puts on his choir robes and sways back and forth, clapping his hands> Amen! Preach it, Brother Ritchie! Dear god, if I couldn't laugh at the stuff going on on this website, I'd have cracked and gone to a Wikimania with an assault rifle by now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to google for "Kenny Everett Brother Lee Love" - that is how you preach to the converted! And Pants should be contributing to a far more important discussion; Talk:Is Genesis better with Gabriel or Collins singing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That should not be a discussion. Gabriel, obviously. Sheesh. Interestingly, my old band once did a metal cover of Cuts You Up that used to drive the girls in the audience wild. We called it the "panty dropper". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what we called snakebite & black  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoah, there. You're getting a little date-rapey. Well, you would be if I hadn't been hearing that same drink referred to in the same way for all of my adult life. But the smiley at the end? Remind me not to get drunk with you unless my wife has left me and I'm really lonely.... ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wot.

I've edited Wikipedia with a pina colada and ocean view, under the palm trees. But it was Kenya not the Caribbean. And not on a yacht. We can't all be Jimbo.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bow out of the discussion. Had to take the young'un to a doctor's appointment. I'm not much for mixed drinks, coming from the world capital of bourbon and all. But one definitely fun way to mix alcohol and Wikipedia is going on intentional excursions to places that don't have articles or don't have pictures. That's how I wound up with this article and this image (which should really have it's own article eventually). GMG^talk 21:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, can you do a pre-GA review for the article Psycho Killer?

Hello Green, I am writing to you as a request for a review of the article mentioned above. I know I did ask Lourdes, but that was nearly a month ago. Sorry if I seem impatient, I am just asking you in order for it to be done quicker. Your help will be greatly appreciated. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 16:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey The Duke of Nonsense. Well, less than 10 sources is pretty anemic for a GA nomination. Although I do realize the name is painfully generic and makes looking for sources awful. The link to the lets play is...well...basically a clear cut copyright violation and should be removed entirely, as is the full audio in citation two. That leaves you with just five, which is not very much to build an article with. The good news is that the plot itself doesn't actually need a citation, because it can be sourced to the work itself.

I'd say you'd probably just have to get super creative with some really specific search filters to try to find more to work with. But I've only ever done serious work on probably one video game article that I can remember, and that was just to save it from deletion. I know User:SoWhy does quite a bit of work with video games. Maybe they can give some better advice. GMG^talk 22:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ultimate Bone Broth Formula

I'll be honest, I've never actually sat and listened to a half hour of Infowars. I just did. I was looking at the arguments at the Bb ban thread, so what the heck. But... What!? ... "The left is a stinking pile of goblins that crap on everything they walk on." That's not even a real insult. But that's not the weirdest thing. The weirdest thing is that I just got plugged for like seven different dietary supplements. Why...I mean...what...I mean, if Joe Rogan tries to sell me protein power, yeah, maybe. He's objectively in better shape than I am. Why is Infowars...I'm sorry...Why the shit would I or anyone buy supplements from Infowars? Is that like their audience? People who are super into working out but who are into like...nonsense? GMG^talk 00:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The title makes me hungry for home made chicken soup. And, I've only watched a few youtube videos from Infowars inadvertently, years ago, in relation to militias and gun control. That made me curious and I discovered that some footage used was not at all related to the claimed events... —PaleoNeonate – 06:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a pre-GA review of Hell's Bells (film)

Hi Green, sorry if I am being a nuisance, but can you please do a GA-review for the article mentioned above. I know I asked for one for the Psycho Killer (video game), but that is currently up for deletion. so, whilst I participate in that and safeguard the article. I could also help in promoting Hell's Bells (film) to WP:GA. Thank you, and apologies for seeming overly-eager. The Duke ^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 10:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

wikiquote

Hey,

Noticed you restored the wikiquote link to Khizr and Ghazala Khan. Presuming you didn't see it had been removed. The most recent link with context is this related ANI thread where I mentioned it. Basically, a user who tried to push a conspiracy theory in the article then went to wikiquote to add quotes that are only meaningful within the context of that conspiracy theory. Given wikiquote doesn't have the policies to handle this in a way compatible with wikipedia standards, I've removed it. Just leaving this message here before removing it again. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what it is in the Wikiquote that is supposed to be objectionable, but given that the user has only ever made six edits to the WQ page, it seems fairly evident that we should probably just fix whatever is wrong with the WQ page, rather than delinking from a sister project article with 56k worth of content almost entirely added by good faith editors in good standing. And you can't totally delink from the WQ page anyway unless you delink it in Wikidata, and that would basically just be vandalism. GMG^talk 17:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're comfortable removing them, I have no problem with that. When I first noticed it, I posted to the enwq VP asking for advice, but got no response. Since then, the couple times it has come up, people seemed unable to find any wq policy-based reason to remove them. And as I am not a wq editor I did not feel comfortable trying to apply wp-like standards to it. If you're interested in the substance of the issue, it all started with this blog post which the Breitbarts and Daily Callers then picked up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. BTW, WQ is comparatively anemic on policy, as many smaller project are, and defaults to en.wiki policy in many regards, including WP:BEBOLD. GMG^talk 18:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW another charming addition by the same user, pulling a quote certain men's rights sites picked up on to say that Amy Schumer raped someone. Again, I've no idea what's appropriate there. Is an excerpt from a speech that a couple websites focused on worth including? Maybe? eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I adjusted it some to point to the actual part of the passage that gets to the point she's trying to make about body image etc. I don't care all that much about Amy Shumer to try to expand it. GMG^talk 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Super. You going to wikicon, btw? (in Ohio next month)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to sort that out yet. It's right around my daughter's birthday, and right around some out-of-town training. Haven't been able to nail down the dates for one to nail down the date for the other, to see if I can go. Hoping to clear some of that up by the end of the weekend. Is there a deadline to register? I'd probably only be there for the Sat-Sun bit. GMG^talk 19:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You can just show up and register, yeah. if I recall correctly, it goes from a very small registration fee to a somewhat-less-than-very small registration fee if you do so on-site, but it'll be fine. Registration isn't even open yet. The whole affair is pretty informal/welcoming, I think. The time to submit talks and apply for scholarships has passed, although there's always some unconference space and lightning talks that will be organized right up to the day-of. I can't recall a wikiquote talk (although it's possible I just haven't been to it), which may make for a good addition somewhere if you're into it. Anyway, hope to see you there (and what kid wouldn't want a trip to a wikiconference in Ohio for their birthday??). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Your GA nomination of Indian Peace Commission

The article Indian Peace Commission you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indian Peace Commission for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:26:24, 19 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Cyberstrike1979

• Cyberstrike1979 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rave Organics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please detail: a. What sources are you citing as being provided by Rave Organics? b. What content is not written from a neutral standpoint?

Please note: 1. The Wikipedia submission covering "Rave Organics" was written based off various newspaper articles written by newspaper reporters. These sources were cited and the you can tell that the sources are newspaper reports and were not provided or funded by the company. Additionally, the sources are from news articles written by several independent news agencies. 2. The Wikipedia submission was also sourced from food critic articles written in various newspapers. Newspaper food critics are not paid by companies to write the articles, they're paid by the newspapers. 3. Nothing in the article was sourced from Rave Organics website. 4. As the submission was not based off any paid advertisements or sourced from Rave Organics itself... I thought it was written neutral.

When I wrote the article, I followed an existing Wikipedia format for a similar business (Panera Bread). I followed both the form and content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panera_Bread

btw, sorry for the questions. I'm learning to write this articles. I thought I did it correctly by citing newspaper articles from reporters and citing food critics from multiple unpaid newspaper sources. I ignored content from the company website to the best of my knowledge. Also apologies if I'm commenting in the wrong area or not approaching this right, I'm still learning and I'm unsure what wasn't done right.

Cyberstrike1979 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cyberstrike1979. Reading through the article, it basically needs to be entirely rewritten.

• Offerings include organic & organic vegan paninis, sandwiches, burgers, pizza, frozen yogurt, smoothies, smoothie bowls, coffee, and tea products Wikipedia does not provide detailed product listings or menus.
• The stylizing of the interior of the pilot location is trendy, modern, contemporary, and has quiet loft area Wikipedia is not the place for whatever this is called, I suppose interior design opinions.
• It is well established among nutritionists that moving to these advanced dietary lifestyles requires a significant, carefully planned dietary journey and body transition and adjustments in one's bodies are expected Off topic content about veganism generally and not about the subject.
• The company attempts to accommodate the transition using their extensive menu that covers the various dietary lifestyles Subjective and advertorial. Sourced to a high school newspaper besides.
• As they're 100% organic, the food menu is free of artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, preservatives, chemicals, toxins, and adheres to organic's strict rules eliminating artificial herbicides, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms Blatant advertising.
• Trademarks... Wikipedia generally does not include mundane information on things like trademarks and business registrations.
• trendy and peaceful Organic & Organic Vegan Fast Casual Restaurant which provides a transitional plan for customers to move from mainstream meals to healthy Organic, Organic Vegan, or Organic Vegetarian Lifestyles Blatant advertising.

And basically the entire rest of the article is a menu, which is the kind of content that belongs on their website, and not on Wikipedia.

Looking at the sources used:

• tripadvisor.com - N Not a reliable source
• Ventura County Star - Not necessarily unreliable, but exceptionally local coverage of the type that doesn't hugely speak to the notability of the subject
• Fro-Yo Girl Speaks - N A personal blog and not a reliable source
• The next six sources are just about veganism and don't mention the subject of the article at all
• A high school newspaper - N Not a reliable source
• More generic material which does not mention the subject at all
• The official website
• More generic content not about the subject
• Passing mention on what appears to be essentially a local travel blog

So even if the article was neutral in tone, half or more of the sources either don't have anything to do with Rave Organics, or are not a reliable source, and so it's not entirely clear that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. GMG^talk 17:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• But you can't beat the quiet loft area. EEng 19:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You made it onto Gizmodo

Just wanted to give you a heads up that you made the news.

https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-editors-fight-over-whether-to-include-the-pre-1829163947/ GamerPro64 17:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Not the first time I've made it into an RS. But not my proudest example either. GMG^talk 17:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If anything justifies a modification to NOTCENSORED, this is it. EEng 19:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Shameless link to userspace essay that just keeps getting more and more relevant. GMG^talk 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty good. If I wasn't in bed with an awful head cold, I'd give it the ol' once-over. EEng 19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. That's lame. Here's to hoping you get to feeling better. GMG^talk 19:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• You know, what I'd really like to know is how the Guardian feels about one of their reporters showing up on an article about a predominately children's video game/cartoon character and trying to insert accusations from a porn star about the shape of Donald Trump's penis. GMG^talk 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the Grauniad; they’ll prolly give him a raise. Qwirkle (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The whole thing is a little bit of an "unknown journalist" circle jerk. Like how Gizmodo gives the Guardian guy credit for picking up on the story, and fails to mention that it's the Guardian guy who is the IP arguing in favor of moar penis. GMG^talk 19:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yepper. “All the news that’s fit to manufacture” at its finest. Qwirkle (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

PS:TINSC? Qwirkle (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol. On the bright side, there are apparently now people on random sites talking about more than my RfA. So I consider that a move in the right direction. Although I await the inevitable intellectual property suit by Mike Godwin if this catches on. Dear Mr. Godwin, I'm a simple man. I ate hamburger helper for dinner. I have nothing of value to you. GMG^talk 01:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Convergent evolution. Usenet really did have a tendency to reductio ad Adolphum; and it’s a dead Cirt that some people will insert Trump into every article they can, as long as it’s negative. Qwirkle (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect image upload for Whanganui High School

Hi there, the request for a logo for Whanganui High School was processed, but is using the old version of the crest which will no longer be used.

The correct crests are available at the link provided in the request: http://www.whanganuihigh.school.nz/crests.png and can be seen in development at the following development URL http://2018-grid.wanganui-high-school.yourwebisonline.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing5wong (talk • contribs) 02:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Could this be corrected? If the image containing both is not acceptable i could provide 2 single images.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing5wong (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wing5wong. I'm not sure our non-free content criteria will allow us to use two versions of the crest when one of them would suffice in illustrating the subject of the article. Is there one or the other version that is preferred? Or maybe there's a cultural difference that I'm not understanding. GMG^talk 10:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I can alter the one we currently have to look like the one at the website. I think that's a good way forward. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah I guess I can overwrite the file easy enough.  Done in that regard. I just meant that we probably can't use the linked image containing both versions of the crest. GMG^talk 13:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's probably a no-no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the change - that is great. Wing5wong (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all Wing5wong. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. GMG^talk 15:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

StableNet

Hi GMG,

I did partially copy the information from the company's website, but being _very_ careful to delete any language and statements that were clearly promotional. Could you point out any sentence that's unambiguously promotional?

Full disclaimer: I work at Infosim, the company which develops StableNet, and decided to create the stub when noticed that several competing network managers had a Wikipedia entry, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_FMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRTG_Network_Monitor among others.

As a long time contributor, almost-every-day user, and one-time donor to Wikipedia, I honestly believe that the addition of this entry to corpus can't be detrimental to the project. This software is relevant - has been in the marked for almost 20 years and is being used by big companies (e.g. BMW) - and, again, similar pieces of software have not had their entries challenged. I hope you reconsider your position.

On time: thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stafusa (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Best regards, Stafusa --Stafusa (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Stafusa. The current entry is little more than a product listing. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and qualify for an article, the subject needs to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers, and books, so that there is enough verifiable content available with which to write a neutral and well sourced encyclopedia article. If there is little more than product specifications available, then there is insufficient verifiable information with which to write an article, and such an entry serves little purpose other than to act as an advertisement for the product. Such a page belongs on the company website, and not on Wikipedia.

You should also carefully review our guidance on conflicts of interest and be sure to abide by them, as failure to do so will likely attract a good deal of unwanted attention. GMG^talk 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey GreenMeansGo. I'm not sure how to proceed: there's no real conflict of interest here, from what I gathered from the guidance, since I'm not in the marketing department and I'm no other way being paid for adding this entry - I literally did it during my lunch time. I tagged it as a stub precisely because it was just a description - but, if I start to flesh it out and start searching for whatever media coverage it's received, then it'll start to be part of the job. So, could be page be left as it was, short and stub-tagged? Or it'll then again be tagged for deletion?

--Stafusa (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Stafusa. The reason Wikipedia has guidance on managing conflicts of interest, is because having a COI makes in exceedingly difficult to write about a subject and do so in a way that is neutral, even if one is contributing in good faith, and even if one takes great conscious care to be as neutral as possible. These types of contributions do wind up deleted through one form or another, not necessarily because there is a COI per se, but because having a COI overwhelming produces content that is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The easiest answer, although not necessarily the one you might want to hear, is that Wikipedia contains nearly six million articles, and has more than a quarter million volunteers working to expand coverage on all types of content. So if the subject is notable, a volunteer will likely eventually create an article for it. However, attempting to circumvent that natural process most often does little but waste everyone's time, and has a tendency to actually make it less likely that a volunteer would write such an article as they normally would.

Having said that, you are more than welcome to contribute in areas for which you are not conflicted, and there are no shortage of folks willing to help you along in doing so. GMG^talk 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So, in short, you don't think even a stub (if written by an employee) is acceptable?

--Stafusa (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Most often no. It is usually painfully obvious to our experienced editors when a contributor has a close outside connection to a subject, and if such an article were not nominated for deletion by me, it would likely be nominated by someone else. Moreover, repeatedly recreating an article which is subsequently deleted can lead to the protection of the title, so that no one may create the article without the prior approval of an administrator. That's part of the bit I referenced above, where trying to circumvent the normal process actually makes it less likely that an article will eventually be written. GMG^talk 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from N32756377

Thanks. But, you talking to the original former D3323 here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N32756377 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. No worries. I just try to make it a point to welcome anybody with a red linked talk page who seems to be making good use of their time here. GMG^talk 18:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge

• Hi. Just fyi, I would have changed this [1] wording in a few days, but at the time I wrote the hatnote, my main concern was to be user friendly to the thousands of people who had come to wikipedia looking for a man in the news cycle, and found a Victorian era sanitation engineer. I was trying help them with an unusual - but temporary - descriptor. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I reckon it is a bit of a pickle, where our obligation to represent the breadth of the entirety of a topic runs perpendicular to the motivation of many readers to seek out information on a subject because it happens to be the most recent hot shit to read about. I guess I'd argue that maybe that's one of the reasons why we've made such a valuable resource, that the average of all of us has the ability (on average) to resist at some level the hot shit of the day, and because of that, if readers aren't careful, they might screw up and accidentally learn something they didn't realize they wanted to know. At least that's what the optimist in me would say, and he has the pessimist in me bound and gagged and locked in the basement. GMG^talk 21:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey, how's it been? We haven't talked in a while, and you seem to no longer be as active on IRC. Vermont (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what's up man? Yeah. Lately I've mostly just been logging on when I need a quick back alley favor from a steward. Figured I'd give it a rest for a while, and try to be productive when I'm online, and be a person when I'm offline, instead of always being pseudo-online on IRC. And anyway, the muchkin is getting old enough where it's not quite sufficient to just to be in the same room and pay enough attention to know she's not eating things that aren't food.

I noticed you've made your own little fan club that's been creepin over into my territory on Quote and Commons. It's usually a sign that you're doing something right. I'm not totally sure if the WMF has extended cookie blocks to global locks, but if they haven't they really should. GMG^talk 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your good fight on the Toad article. I just found the Gizmodo piece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Much appreciated. Always happy to fight the good fight against fallacious phallic fungus. GMG^talk 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

deleted file

FYI Yann confirms the file and deletion log were oversighted. Unclear why the upload log is still there, though. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Kolbert cleaned up the stray upload log btw. GMG^talk 17:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No!

I definitely did not get a feeling of pure joy watching this twice today. FAKE NEWS. GMG^talk 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm listening to it now (they're talking about Oscar in a fishnet stocking right now), and I'm wondering which part in particular was the good one? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I've just listened to all of them so far, he's been on the JRE like five times, and I didn't realize another one had come out. Pretty much a stupid fan boy for both these guys mainly because they're the kindof people where you don't ever know their opinions until they've told you, but it usually makes sense once they explain it. If you haven't listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History yet, it's far and away my favorite podcast of all time. It's actually more like a lecture series than a podcast, and reminds me more of the iTunesU courses I would listen to at the gym in college. GMG^talk 17:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, I just heard of him today, but I'm going to check out Hardcore History for sure. I've never much listened to the JRE, but I'm frequently surprised by how much I agree with Rogan whenever I do. I just keep expecting him to be an ignorant douche, but then he surprises me. It's entirely my own fault, though. I spent a long time learning that professional martial artists are frequently (though not always) self-important dicks; like the Simpsons Comic Book Guy, but with abs and a willingness to bully people. I keep forgetting that Rogan was a comedian first and foremost, and comedians tend to be really smart and insightful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also growing quickly fond of this guy. I'll bet he has a butterscotch in his pocket that he's just waiting to give to a passing child. GMG^talk 22:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a subscriber on the podcast anymore, I just catch him on YouTube occasionally these days, but you gotta have some kind of appreciation for Rogan, that he'd have someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson on, and then turn around and have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos on, and then turn around and have someone like Elon Musk on, and manage to talk to them all like they're people, and actually have a fairly reasoned discussion, even though I'm pretty sure he's at least mildly stoned for basically every episode. GMG^talk 22:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mildly" is probably putting is mildly. Also, one look at that dude and I'm 100% convinced that he's got the best butterscotch. And a Ruger P89. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably my fault

The IP at Eugenics put up a rant which was nothing but a complaint that another Wikipedia editor was on the page at all. I deleted it with the context of WP:NPA and they deleted the very next comment somebody posted. So it's probably my fault... Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if they keep edit warring on the talk page I expect they're gonna have a bad time. Although I'm not sure anybody really has a good time on the talk page of an article like that anyway. GMG^talk 16:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I do... I dunno what that says about me, but it's probably nothing good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Masochism GMG^talk 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Povertonians

It is a real term and I’d thank you to not edit something you are not aware of. LittleWiki10210 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. GMG^talk 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No, it's not. [2] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, this isn't an argument! In any case, I thought the Povertonians were that small wooden animated family in In The Night Garden. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess on the bright side, there is an inventive (I presume) pre-teen out there somewhere who's figured out how to use the Media Wiki software. Maybe they'll come back one day and be productive. GMG^talk 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s entirely possible that their description was accurate and honest; lecturers use wordplay all the time, and a one-off remark might be taken as a recognized term by someone in the audience.

Fellow-at-the-rostrum makes a joke about Harovians, Oxonians, and Povertonians; fellow-in-the-seats takes it as recognized term. Given Wiki’s underload of neuronormals, stuff like this is a constant. Qwirkle (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I could imagine Overtonians, assuming Joseph P. Overton gained some sudden popularity. I feel badly for Cambridge if one of their instructors has apparently become so isolated in the halls of academia that they forget the word for "the poor". Just think of all the poor Hungarians hungarians dying of starvation during a famine, or all the Chileans chillyians suffering frostbite during a bad winter storm. GMG^talk 14:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Povertonians

Please re-add my correct submission that you have deleted. LittleWiki10210 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to try to popularize a word you invented. GMG^talk 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

the USSR was *not* founded in 1917

[3] Please read the first sentence of USSR for your own education. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I may be confusing the USSR and the SFSR. But it's still not clear that this was accomplished by the Russian Republic in the few number of days it existed, and not the SFSR. Of course that would be a great deal easier to decide if this statement actually came with a source. GMG^talk 15:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The source, stating that the voting rights pre-dated the Russian Communist Revolution, was already there in Women's suffrage#Russia. I've now added a second ref. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's still not totally clear which government actually granted the right to vote and when. GMG^talk 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing Women's suffrage#Russia: on July 20, 1917 the Provisional Government enfranchised women with the right to vote. I don't think the exact date nor the name of the specific government belong in the top section, though. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear that is supported by the source, from page 116 "the socialist parties' programs called for universal suffrage" and on 117, "a realization that women would have the right to vote." But neither says when that was actually granted, and you have a six week window where timing changes what government actually did the granting. GMG^talk 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

All that said, it ain’t the USSR yet, and Russian republic, with a suitable level of vagueness, covers the governments intevening between. Also, this looks a bit like the drunk-under-the-lamppost, searching where it’s easiest (on Wiki itself). Qwirkle (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see page xv of the book: July 20: Provisional Government extends right to vote to women., and additionally page 294 (search for "right to vote"). --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere. But shouldn't the article then link to Russian Provisional Government instead? July 20 was almost a month and a half before the Russian Republic was created on September 1. GMG^talk 17:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Done --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And Y accepted, since the article is under pending changes protection. GMG^talk 17:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And now, for my next trick

enEnglish will be this users's first language as soon as they learn how to speak it.

I didn't, per se. That's what happens when you learned yourself how to spell :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't resist a cheap joke. It's not in my nature. :P GMG^talk 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, from where I sit on my front porch, I believe it's spelt "learnt". See also relevant userbox. GMG^talk 21:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

*lernt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the cheap laughs and a lightened mood I hereby present you with this Barnstar of Good Humor...presented somewhat at my expense, but hey, any chance you get to congratulate someone for lightening mood is well worth it in my opinion :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks TomStar81. You can pay it forward by watchlisting the Teahouse. We can always use more folks, and can always use more admins for those sticky questions that us mere mortals can't answer without help. GMG^talk 23:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gee fizz

Ladies and gentlemen, arguably one the most successful indigenous reservations in one of the richest countries in the world. And I've so far deleted three following sentences because they're not helpful. GMG^talk 00:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Rashid Johnson

On 28 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Rashid Johnson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kevin Rashid Johnson was charged with inciting a riot for organizing a prison strike that may or may not have happened? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin Rashid Johnson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kevin Rashid Johnson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely interested to see whether a Black Panther member on the main page causes any kind of stir. GMG^talk 00:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent comment at Teahouse.

Do not presume to words in my mouth again, got it? You are never authorized to speak for me. Thereis no en.wiki policy that we should encourage users to use other language Wikis, and there is policy that requires communication in English. Pretty fucking arrogant to presume to speak for another editor and I suggest strongly you not do it again. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Chill out.
2. If you've never contributed to a multi-lingual project like Wikidata or Commons, I suggest you do.
3. Our purpose is to make more knowledge more free for more people. That doesn't just include English speaking people. GMG^talk 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Heart Berries at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. I know. I hadn't figured out 100% if that's what I want to go with or not. GMG^talk 12:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you very much for your generous help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, kind stranger :) chaos1618 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no problem at all chaos1618. If there's ever anything I can do to help feel free to drop back by either here or back at the Teahouse. Thanks for helping us to build a better encyclopedia! GMG^talk 14:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alexis Herman/GA1

GreenMeansGo, do you mean to return to your GA review here soon? It appears to be waiting for you to check the edits that were made in response to your comments. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the notification BlueMoonset. I hadn't notice that they had followed up with their 10 August ping on the talk page. Yes, I'll get to this before the week is out to be sure. GMG^talk 16:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WT:INTADMIN#Non-admins

Just noting that you don't really have to strike your vote in deference to MA, as you raise very good points and don't say anything technically inaccurate. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but after thinking about it, I'm not really tech savvy, and I just honestly have much more confidence in the expertise of others. If they think it's that dire of an issue, then I'm willing to grant them that they know what they're talking about. GMG^talk 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your nuanced, rational and thought-provoking comments over here:-) ∯WBGconverse 15:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, much appreciated. I'm often told I'm special, but I'm pretty sure it's usually not intended to be a compliment :P GMG^talk 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG

I am not going to try to close the discussion. It's too late for that. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to get only certain information deleted from JzG's userpage or whether all of it violates guidelines (or in this case, according to you, policy). You asked him to remove it. He refused. You go to MfD. Instead, you went to the worst venue imaginable for this sort of thing. We are now going to have a extended dramafest about userpage guidelines, BLP, and worst of all Trump. I'm not criticizing you; I just wish you hadn't done it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I would much rather the content was simply and quietly removed when they were asked politely to do so. The issue can yet be easily resolved by the click of a button. GMG^talk 13:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, these look like politically motivated blocks:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mouse001#Blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#Scjessey
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.170.117.163/Archive_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Psts1st https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:207.87.20.74

and this is illustrative of a long term behavioral problem:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#Admin_edits_my_post_to_deliberately_change_the_meaning

107.209.19.163 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm too busy writing about books atm to worry about an arbcom case. But if you think animus toward Trump supporters motivated a block against Scjessy, I question your investigative prowess. GMG^talk 18:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The first one was also a sockpuppet who filed an AE request against Scjessey after joining and engaging in 2 months of POV pushing. I haven't looked into any more, but the first two are actually decent evidence of how even-handed JzG is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For my own part, I haven't actually made any accusations that JzG has taken any improper administrative actions. My main concern was:

1. Unsourced statements about living people (which I would have been well within my rights according to policy to simply remove without discussion),
2. Disparaging statements that are not conducive to collaboration with good faith and especially new editors (which is why we do not allow broad POLEMICs in user space, and especially not those disparaging 40-50% of a major country), and
3. A gift wrapped argument for every far right media outlet who wants to argue that Wikipedia is a librul cabal intent on political advocacy, rather than a neutral encyclopedia that simply calls their far right rhetoric for what it is.

These are detrimental to the mission, and that's the beginning and end of any argument that matters. GMG^talk 17:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree with you over both the first and second points, and would point out that every far right media outlet already thinks WP is a librul cabal intent on political accuracy, and will continue to harp on about it for as long as WP:V remains one of the pillars. But I mostly showed up here to agree with you that the IP seems to be just venting their spleen at Guy without having anything real to base it on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Donna Strickland edit

Hey Roger Hui. You seem to have forgotten to leave a comment. But in regard to what this is almost certainly in reference to, the content is not suggesting that her being the only living recipient is a necessary logical consequence of her winning, but that in fact, her winning did make her the only living recipient, because both the others are long deceased. GMG^talk 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not forget. I wanted to add the section heading first before adding the actual comments. Here they are:

Hi. You reverted my edit of the Donna Strickland page. The sentence in question is:

Strickland is the first female Nobel Physics laureate in 55 years and the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963, making her the only living female recipient.[5][20]

The change (which you reverted) was:

Strickland is the first female Nobel Physics laureate in 55 years and the third woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, after Marie Curie in 1903 and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963. She is the only living female recipient.[5][20]

You say: "They're not alive, that that's almost word-for-word from the source.". We know (or can easily find out from Wikipedia itself) that Curie and Goeppert-Mayer are not alive, but that is not the point. The point is that Strickland winning the Nobel, that alone, does not make her the only living female recipient. One does not logically imply the other; her winning does imply that she is a living female recipient but not the only living female recipient. If the source also says that, then the source is also (logically) wrong. -- Roger Hui (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, it doesn't not need to be a necessary logical consequence in order to be factually true, which in this case it is. More to the point, the sources refer to the fact that she is the only living female recipient as an important aspect regarding the nature of the award. GMG^talk 18:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's factually true then the simpler declarative sentence is both logically and stylistically better. We agree that the facts are not in question. -- Roger Hui (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not more responsive Roger Hui. I'm in the middle of a project on my house. If it's just a stylistic disagreement, we should probably just ask the talk page. GMG^talk 19:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

For goodness sake

{{unblock|reason=I'm on a freaking hard blocked IP range. Help. GMG^talk

• I've already been through this on IRC. I don't need a steward. The global lock is anon only. The big nasty lock is just on en.wiki. I can edit Commons just fine. GMG^talk 01:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So rather than spin out, head a section with a phase that is offensive to roughly one third of the world's population and in general throw a hissy fit, go look at the noticeboards, find an administrator that is active, email him or her and request IP block exemption. Or reboot your router and see if the new IP works. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was terribly offensive. I assume "goodness" is less so?

Apparently I need a CU. And I'm tethered to my phone for the next few days. So restarting my router isn't an option, and restarting my phone doesn't do anything. There doesn't seem to be any CUs on IRC. So I figured I'd leave this here for the night and hopefully someone would get to it. GMG^talk 01:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I just missed you on IRC. DeltaQuad and I are both on if you want to talk there sometimes these involve private issues, so that may be easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, GMG. For reference, see Ten Commandments, #3. I don't drive so my son and I use public transportation. I'll tolerate all kinds of profane language from passengers around us, but on that, I will speak up. The world's a better place when we respect others closely held beliefs. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry for the trouble. GMG^talk 02:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, there is nothing profane or offensive about anything he said. Lighten up. Nihlus 02:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing with Nihlus; we left the 19th century behind some time ago. ——SerialNumber54129 15:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What I would really like someone to tell me is how I jumped from a mobile IP in Louisville to a proxy without the knowledge or expertise to use proxys, or even really know what they are beyond knowing the word for them. GMG^talk 02:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well that was all very strange. GMG^talk 02:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I edit on mobile most of the time. My IP hope back and forth between Indianapolis and Phoneix. I live on the Oregon-Idaho border. Go figure.John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, if you ever need an alternate account, there’s ‘’John from Phoenopolis’’ right there...Qwirkle (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

COI

Thank you for sticking up for me :"Thank you for uploading so many high quality images" I am not a professional photographer and have never taken a photojournalism course. I do, however, know some print journalists and know how they think and what they do. I do not do PR--what I do is called Public Service. I never understood why (some) people have had a violent reaction to my photos. In the past, people have stolen them, miscredited them (with their own name), flopped them, photoshopped people out that they didn't like who were in my photos and photoshopped people they disliked into them as well. When I met Joe Rosenthal, I didn't really know who he was; I thought he was just a nice old man who had been a past president of the San Francisco Press Club (this was in 1981). If I had been a WWII buff, I would have known, but I truly did not. As for Reverend Jim Jones, this November 18, 2018 is the 40th anniversary of the Jonestown Tragedy. NBCUniversal was trying to get my photos, but didn't know how to find me. Amazingly, they found one guy in Seattle who know who I was! A researcher from Topaz Museum wanted my 43 year old photo of writer Toshio Mori. She found a Nancy Wong who was a photographer, but it wasn't me. I don't know how 30 year old person could have taken a 43 year old photo, but.... Thank you again for your kind words. Edmunddantes October 16, 2018 204.102.74.23 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Edmunddantes. It definitely looks like you already had a rough time getting everything sorted out on Wikimedia Commons, but I'm glad you finally did, and stuck it out to help us build a better encyclopedia. Professional or no, you definitely seem to have lived an interesting life, and had the opportunity to take some really interesting pictures. As I said, feel free to reach out to me if you end up stuck on something and I'm happy to help any way I can. GMG^talk 10:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your signpost draft on the Donna Strickland debacle

was exceedingly well-written, in my view. Well done! It was a thoroughly enjoyable read and I hope I am not doing a disservice by sharing it with friends before it's been published. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 10:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kevin. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Feel free to share as you like. I only wish we could get it into the hands of some of the people who are the ones writing about us professionally, and maybe give them an idea of what their coverage looks like from the inside. GMG^talk 10:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A truer edit summary I've never seen

Than this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks an awful lot like this user surfaces once every year or two, gets in a protracted dispute over woo that never goes anywhere, and then mostly disappears again. By this I mean woo disputes going back as far as 2006 and 2008. I recommend doing literally anything else and waiting for them to get bored. GMG^talk 15:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Would ya look at that. It's like Deja Vu all over again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Per muphry's law

I've probably got this wrong, but in this you're removing present perfect ("has stated") not past perfect ("had stated"). You know every time you had called something the wrong tense god kills a puppy :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Correct you are. Still, we're really bad as a project at overuse of the perfect tense. I've taken spells where I've spent probably an hour or more jus ctrl finding "has" and removing it from articles. GMG^talk 20:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have often found sentences written in the present perfect to have been copied from news articles, at-least when reviewing drafts and the like. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I occasionally come across present perfect on en-wiki in articles edited by native French or German speakers whose English may be excellent, but it's still hard for them to break the present-perfect habit in English since it's second nature in their languages. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Maher op-ed

Thank you for writing the Signpost op-ed about Strickland. You might want to add that Maher wrote an op-ed: Wikipedia mirrors the world's gender biases, it doesn't cause them. (not because you agree with it, but because you already mention the WMF's official response) There's a couple of recent interviews if you haven't caught up: [4] [5]. Some perspective too: [6] wumbolo ^^^ 08:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I've caught a few sources as they came through the pipe and were added to the article. I definitely hadn't read Maher's piece in the LAT. I'm somewhat disappointing that Maher herself doesn't seems to really elucidate the difference between BEFORE and AfC when given a platform at the LAT to do so. I think im going to have to digest how this might best fit in. I've got five days AFAIK.

But definitely thanks for the heads up. GMG^talk 13:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hg company logo 2017.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sci-Hub

There's a bit of an issue on the talk page of that article IMO, some people seem to think that we can't follow the RS in describing Sci-Hub as a pirate website engaged in illegal conduct. Seems like we might end up with a local "consensus" of advocates versus a consensus among RS. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I'll try to read through the ongoing discussion shortly and weigh in if I have a strong opinion. First on the list is a collection of essays I heard about on the radio this morning. GMG^talk 12:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This barnstar is given in recognition of outstanding contribution to the Teahouse. Rebestalic (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks Rebestalic. No problem at all. Thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia, so we can give it away for free. If there's ever anything I can do to help feel free to stop by. GMG^talk 21:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Rebestalic (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

I actually agree with you about users who haven't integrated as well. That's exactly why I didn't let myself get salty (or edit very controversial stuff) early on in my tenure here. I'm actually okay with that double standard, too. Users who have proven themselves of some benefit should get some slack. In fact, you can see me opinining against my own interest in the periodic clusterfucks that spring up around Michael Hardy. I think that guy's got serious maturity problems, but I'll gladly forgive his occasional outburst if he'll just get back to being one of the most prolific editors on this site.

And I'm not rejecting any suggestion that I've been saltier than is helpful, and should tone it down. I've just had a frustrating few months, with bad faith and good faith editors stirring up shit that doesn't need to be stirred up right in front of me (hint: you've done some of the latter with that JzG rant thing, though I'm not gonna hold it against you; you're still good people), and an army of IPs constantly giving me shit directly. Maybe it's no excuse, but it's made me grumpier than usual. That being said, most of the time I'm cussing, I'm also grinning. That's just how folks talk where I'm from. I know that it's not the best way to talk, but it was hard to behave differently at first, and it's still hard to behave differently, now.

There is one thing I agree with more than with anything in your comment, though. Tarage's comment. Pudeo's opinion of liberal-minded editors hasn't ever been a secret, and political views seem to be the only monkey they had in that circus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, something to keep in mind is that when you make a statement, it's not just that user who is reading it. Not just other users either but the lower echelons of the press watch us because we're easy writing when they need some space to fill.

That we disagree on JzG is a matter of fact, I presented my best argument and the community rejected it. That may adjust my opinion of the community but it doesn't adjust my best argument.

The fact is you hang out on high profile articles that are being watched by thousands of people, even if the watchlist data says 100. You are an ambassador whether you want to be or not. Shut people down if they need to be shut down, but don't tell them to go fuck themselves because if you really presented them with your argument for why they should it would be much more effective. GMG^talk 00:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not above admitting that there's a certain... scheming... consideration to some of the ruder things I say, and it's actually exactly because I know that some of the articles are highly visible. I don't want to go into detail (unless you ask), but there are good arguments to be made that "go fuck yourself" can be a much more effective response than carefully and patiently explaining things, in certain situations. Writ Keeper recently posted a link on my talk page to a youtube channel that goes into some of this, if you're interested.

That being said, I'm not claiming that I'm always scheming when I'm salty. As I mentioned, sometimes I'm just frustrated. And lately, the tendentiousness has been worse, and has combined with an influx in the usual drama. For example, go back and look at that thread, and then look at how the final "comment" -read:"petty personal attack filled rant", as it was described when I was alerted to it- was added an hour later, with an edit summary claiming it "edit conflicted" with the close. Yeah, that kinda stupid crap. And there's been some RL stuff that I have to worry about, to boot. Nothing major, but still. It all adds up.

Like I said I hear you. I've said before that I know I could stand to be nicer to some people here. I probably need to destress a bit. I've been doing recent changes patrolling, and it actually helps. Nothing will restore your faith in WP better than realizing that 95% of all edits to frequently-vandalized pages from IPs and new accounts are pretty damn good. Or at least not bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeking help with a project.

Since you did some heavy lifting to improve the article on Friendship, I was wondering if you would like to take a stab at improving my effort to develop a concept on the opposite end of the social spectrum at Draft:Stranger. bd2412 T 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow. In six million articles, it's crazy that we're missing one on such a basic concept. I'll see what kind of sources I can find. GMG^talk 10:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah GMG that's incredible—what a great subject though! I say nothing as to its absolute aptness for Wikipedians  :) @BD2412: There's been a fair bit of recent scholarship on the concept of strangers in the middle ages I can access, if you want some historical context?——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Could definitely be helpful. I was thinking about the issue from more of a developmental psychology standpoint, similar to how Pointing turned out, but that's my own biases coming into play. GMG^talk 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Pointing is the sort of article that I wish I had written! bd2412 T 11:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking back over it, it's pretty painfully obvious that its written from the perspective of someone with a small child. "Oh boy, kids in a park! Let's use that for the lead!"

But lemme finish polishing up Nancy Lake State Recreation Area for the main page and I'll put Stranger next on the list. GMG^talk 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

An article on pointing, which ignores dog behaviour?

Jayzussss. Qwirkle (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. That's why it needs more input from a more diverse group of contributors. I'm not really much of a dog person, and I hadn't even considered it. GMG^talk 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You might wanna skim through this. A bunch of assertions in the article are demonstrably wrong. Qwirkle (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...unfortunately it looks like that's yet a non-peer reviewed draft, and it doesn't look like the final version has been published yet. Or at least it's not showing up in google scholar even as a paywalled version. GMG^talk 17:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Great work, both of you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Now we've just got to sort through the 9,000 books and papers that use the word stranger figuratively. (I wish there was a google search option to select literal language only.) GMG^talk 18:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thats the beauty of surveys; you are not looking at it itself, you are looking at the works it contains. More importantly, though, it seems to have been published in August, although not necessarily identically to the online version. Qwirkle (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, so long as I can find those studies themselves to make sure there wasn't some major problem in their interpretation that thre up a red flag in peer review. I'll add it to the list. After Draft:Stranger is Online piracy, which for some reason didn't have an article until this morning. GMG^talk 18:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Internet piracy redirects to Copyright infringement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done, yeah. if you flip through the associated Wikidata items, the naming conventions across projects is honestly just a mess. There's also no category on Commons, which just doesn't seem right at all. GMG^talk 18:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, What do you think of this as an RS? I'm kinda iffy on it, leaning towards "Not RS". It uses blog software and it's fairly anonymous, but it's hosted by a university with a good rep, on a dedicated subdomain and it generally cites sources (obviously, we'd go for the original source whenever possible). But what do you think? Am I nuts, am I right, or should I ask at RSN? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd say probably a no go. Looks like this is just a web hosting service provided by the university. That might be used by faculty who are experts in their field (which might be usable as an SPS), but I'm willing to guess that this bit in particular is written by a student, since they don't identify an author, which a faculty member would presumably have a strong incentive to do. GMG^talk 19:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh shit... I tried to burrow down by going to unc.edu. I should have known to check web.unc.edu first. My bad, yeah, I'm unambiguous on it, now. No good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I just kindof guessed that maybe there was a site at that location. Dumb luck mostly. GMG^talk 19:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your expansion of Taylor oil spill‎. Well done! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, where's your barnstar collection? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, thank you for noticing an article that so badly needed writing. I believe I stopped collecting barnstars in real time a year or so ago, and I can't be bothered at this point to go back and find them in the archives. I did eventually break down and collect my featured/promoted content, so maybe that's a compromise on a modest amount of self-congratulatory vanity. GMG^talk 13:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This...

...may be the single most worthwhile (and genuinely funny) use of humour I have ever seen in my time on the project. I just had to take a moment to note my appreciation of it. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Although actually I thought it was the "infobox" version I was linking to, which really sells the point you are trying to make with the essay. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hah. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Feel free to use it to (hopefully) diffuse a situation or two. GMG^talk 22:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent Strickland article in The Signpost

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-10-28/Op-ed

Very, very good writing. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Seems quite a few people found it motivating. If I've learned much of anything, it's that motivation is hard to measure, but it make a heckuva difference. Good on you also for treating our spat at ANI/MfD as if we were opponents and not enemies, because that's what we were. GMG^talk 22:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Great article! Congratulations on doing better investigative journalism than the professionals at The Times, The Guardian, Business Insider, and the rest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Lane. Who knows, maybe a few of them will get wind of it and do better next time. GMG^talk 13:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Online piracy"

I noticed that you recently restarted the "Online piracy" article on 26 October. Since you did, I assume you have some rationale for it and—consequently—some scope that you had in mind when restarting it, especially given the "Copyright infringement" article to which it previously redirected (and from which it needs to be distinct). Will you please explain that scope and rationale?

This is not a passive-aggressive attempt at questioning your actions. I am just trying to understand whether the content I intend to add to the article is compatible with what you have in mind, particularly since the scope of the article is unclear to me. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC); slightly edited at 01:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nøkkenbuer. They honest answer is, I'm really not sure. That's next on my things to do. I often don't have much of a scope in mind at all, and often write about topics I know very little about personally. I just go find sources and write what they write. GMG^talk 10:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

no hard feelings

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)‎. We're both trying to make this encyclopedia the best it can be, though we differ on our methods. I know you're a good-faith editor despite my disagreements with you. I really appreciate your efforts here and hope to persuade you, rather than bully you. If I misspoke, I apologize. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, no hard feeling at all. I'm not emotionally invested in the argument. But I get the feeling we're talking at cross purposes, and there are several people in that thread that are arguing against what they think their opponents are saying rather than what they actually are. GMG^talk 16:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Onna these days...

I'm gonna write an essay on how to tell if your accidentally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and first on the list is going to be hashing out several pages of talk page debate over content in the lead, when not a single person in the entire discussion has bothered to notice that none of the content is in the body of the article at all. GMG^talk 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was in the body. Someone removed it. The article has had over 1,500 edits in the last week. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, not just in reference to that shooting in particular, but it's become one of the first things I check when there's a protracted debate over the lead, because half the time it's not there. Even so, you could cite a similar problem with no one noticing that it's been taken out of the body, while simultaneously flipping their lid over the lead. Really, it's all down to a general preoccupation with leads with many many editors. I'm surprised we haven't descended into protected edit wars all over the project regarding short descriptions, but I think that comes down to the fact that many editors haven't yet realized that short descriptions are a lead for the lead. GMG^talk 19:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It was in the body during much of the discussion and someone pulled it out among the vast number of edits. But, yes this can be a problem. In this case, it's also a symptom of another problem. That being the editors that swoop into a new article about a recent event with political overtones in an effort to shape it in their own image. Of course editors that make a habit of this tend to get weeded out. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Or they stick around long enough to get good at it, earn an associates degree in discretionary sanctions, and register ANI/AE as their second home for tax purposes. They ride the line of doing anything unquestionably sanctionable, while half their rhetoric is aimed at inciting the other user to flip out so they'll get reported, rather than actually having a productive discussion. We could call them escalation artists. 

I should like it if we could technically implement a quota, no more than half any user's edits can be in an area covered by DS. "You really wan't to comment on the latest dispute at Talk:Donald Trump? Then you better go fix some typos on Geography of Minnesota for a while and get your quota in line." GMG^talk 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sealioning. Interesting suggestion -- which will never come to be. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers halp

Anybody think of a good DYK for Stranger? GMG^talk 14:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

File:A sun of our own newspaper headline.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A sun of our own newspaper headline.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Whose Boat Is This Boat?

On 8 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whose Boat Is This Boat?, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump "accidentally" contributed to a children's book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whose Boat Is This Boat?. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Whose Boat Is This Boat?), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations for making our all-time non-lead hook list! Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hah. I didn't even know that was a thing. Maybe I'm getting better at this DYK thing. GMG^talk 22:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

DRV - April Carrion

I'm someone who supports the use of DRV and supports that the AFD wasn't spread to enough people. Would it help if I was the one who asked for a DRV? I didn't even know about the AFD before it happened.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Umm...I wouldn't recommend going through the trouble if you don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Plus the user is liable to be blocked as soon as someone gets to the ANEW report, so the edit war is likely to be short lived for the time being. It wouldn't have been a bad candidate for a relist. I mean, one way or another it had quite a few sources there (I haven't thoroughly evaluated their quality). All in all, do what you think is best if you have the time to look into it. I'm actually hopping off at the moment and won't be back for a few hours at least. GMG^talk 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually do support the article's existence, but am not sure if the person asking for the DRV should be someone who cares about it or not. Yes, the user is likely to get blocked, hopefully temporarily, he has submitted a great deal of useful material.Naraht (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's poor wording on my part. If you think the subject is notable, you have evaluated the sources included and those available, and you think that the AfD may have likely gone differently if there had been increased participation, then by all means, DRV is the way to go. I wouldn't want to discourage you from that out of my own disinterest. Just keeping in mind that the DRV is an evaluation of whether the closer should have sought increased participation rather than closing at that time, and not necessarily a referendum on the notability of the subject per se. It could well be that both are true: that the closer should have sought increased participation, but that the more robust argument still reaches the same conclusion. GMG^talk 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aurelia Henry Reinhardt

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aurelia Henry Reinhardt 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aurelia Henry Reinhardt

The article Aurelia Henry Reinhardt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Aurelia Henry Reinhardt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Taylor oil spill

Hello! Your submission of Taylor oil spill at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aurelia Henry Reinhardt

The article Aurelia Henry Reinhardt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aurelia Henry Reinhardt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GreenMeansGo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Crash Smash

A Crash Smash

Quick question - do you think this logo meets the threshold of originality and must be considered fair-use, or is it low enough (being text around simple line art) to get away with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Depends. Who owns it and what country are they based in? Doesn't seem we have an article with this exact title. GMG^talk 22:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Who owns it is tricky - originally it would have been held by Newsfield who declared bankruptcy about 25 years ago. It's UK based, and it's related to the article on Crash (magazine) that I'm improving now. The logo was distinctive and used as a promotional tool by various software companies in the mid to late 1980s, so I think it would be important enough to drop into the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nah. The UK is stupid when it comes to TOO. Best advice is to just act like TOO doesn't exist in the UK. At least that's what I do. GMG^talk 22:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thought so. The trouble with FUR is how can you convince everyone the reader would be lost without a picture to describe three words, which would be needed to explained anyway? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Ritchie. I could be more clear. You should be fine to upload it locally under {{PD-textlogo}}{{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}}{{trademarked}}, just not on Commons. If someone has an issue with it, then we can hash it out at FFD. GMG^talk 02:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rivalry

Since our collaboration on Stranger turned out so well, I thought you might be interested in taking a stab at yet another missing social science topic at Draft:Rivalry. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure BD2412. I'll try to give it a look before too long. You know, I'd really like to see somebody start Wikipedia:WikiProject ordinary and mundane crap, where we try to fix articles like Brick and Zipper. You know Zipper has about 700 daily views, and has still had a cleanup template on it for almost a decade. GMG^talk 02:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic Stuff? bd2412 T 03:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, both WP:TAFI and WP:VA have done basically nothing for articles such as Business, Civics, and Speech. And I couldn't quite figure out what to do with Annual event. As always, the specific is easier; my next article will be on the 1975 Washington Post pressman's strike. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I know right? It often seems so much easier to work away on a quiet corner, even though my last GA will probably get a sustained ~10 daily views. Totally worth a GA, but will my daughter ever actually read that article in particular? Probably not. Will she ever read Puppy? Probably, and it's got whole swaths of unsourced content with 1.1k views per day. GMG^talk 03:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I expanded it a good deal over the weekend, and I think it is almost ready. Do you have any thoughts about images with which to illustrate the article? bd2412 T 14:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry BD2412. I've not gotten very much done at all on anything in the past few days. File:PulitzerHearstWarYellowKids.jpg is probably a good illustration of historical significance. It looks like this PD image is intended to depict a romantic rivalry. Not sure that it's particularly iconic. There's probably hundreds if not thousands of PD images like this one of the sports rivalry between the US Army and Navy sports teams. I'm struggling to think of many non-US examples of sports rivalries though. (But I'm American and don't sport.) Paging resident Brits: User:Ritchie333, User:Serial Number 54129. Umm... pinging resident guy whose lived in Asia User:Alex Shih. Maybe they have some ideas that won't be so Ameri-centric. GMG^talk 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:, here is my solution for Annual event: create an article at Social event (currently a redirect to the overly narrow Party) covering all the kinds of social events listed on the disambiguation page, Event. Make a subsection there on annual events, and section-redirect Annual event to the subsection. bd2412 T 04:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Very rudimentary, but Draft:Social event. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll hopefully comment and expand on that on Wednesday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Ahem. bd2412 T 04:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixing pings later doesn't work; so re-ping: power~enwiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. bd2412 T 04:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Not forgotten, just delayed due to a moderate bout of lurgi this week. The fact that the references I've found say such illuminating things as "Events are based in society and involve people" [7] and explain that events may or may not be related to business doesn't help matters. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

New article waiting for review

Hi @^talk, I've created a new article hereCan you please give your opinion on this ? Do you think it needs to be edited before moving it to article space? Thanks a lot! Newcontributors (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Newcontributors. Unfortunately, I don't speak Italian either. So I can't do much in the way of evaluating most of the sources. I know User:Ruthven is fluent. I wonder if they might give it a look over. GMG^talk 13:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello GreenMeansGo! The family seems notable (see on it.wiki Federico Morassutti), but there are some issues with the sources in the draft. #6, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are either blogs or direct links to documents (primary source, possibly an original research, not admissible on WP). I've never done that on en.wiki: shall I write my opinion? I'd rather leave the matter to someone that edits here regularly. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 14:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the quick response Ruthven. I left a note at the draft for reviewers there. The it.wiki article certainly has a fair bit of content. It's a shame it relies only on one source, although it does appear to be a fairly decent source (?), and it's licensed under CC BY SA 4.0 besides, so we could use anything we want from it, which is very nice. GMG^talk 14:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Here, the only bulletproof source is treccani.it [8], the Italian equivalent to Britannica. Federico Morassutti has his own entry there, which is a good sign. I'll see if I can add some reference to the Italian article in the next days. Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 16:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For going way beyond what was required of a DYK reviewer at Nancy Lake State Recreation Area. It got 2,500 views while on the main page, and was substantially improved by your efforts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Not at all Beeblebrox. Thank you for finding the copyvio, and then restarting the article instead of deleting it and moving on. GMG^talk 02:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Taylor oil spill

On 25 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Taylor oil spill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2004 Taylor oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico leaks 300 to 700 barrels of oil per day and could continue for the next 100 years if not contained? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor oil spill. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Taylor oil spill), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hartlepool United FC logo 2017.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rachel Parent

Good work, GMG. Thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey Tagishsimon. Sorry, I missed your comment. Much appreciated. I'd say it's probably in better shape. Seems the AfD is going pretty well. GMG^talk 00:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks re Number vandalism

Yes I mean to revert all three of their edits but resurrected the one you deleted instead! Thanks very much. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries Dmcq. Thanks for helping keep the vandalism at bay. Keep up the good work, and sorry I missed the earlier vandalism myself (which I really should have caught). GMG^talk 15:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo help

I have been working with Ipigott improving the article on Lola Alvarez Bravo for a GA nomination. As always the photos are stumping me. I get her self portrait can be used as fair use, but can the Kahlo image also be fair use? Ian found this one [9] which says "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially", which is the same release given on the one that is on commons for María Izquierdo. BUT, all that being said, it seems to me that these would be considered derivative works and that the flicker posters cannot give the rights which belong to Manuel Álvarez Bravo Martínez and the Center for Creative Photography? Or do I have that wrong?

Can I use more than one fair use photo if the image is discussed in the article? If that is the case, I really don't have information specifically about the Kahlo image, other than the general statements that she took and is known for images of the artist. On the other hand, Anarquía arquitectónica en la ciudad de México [10] would be good as it is an example of her photomontage and is discussed. As are the photo of Julia López (figure 16, p 177), El sueño de los pobres 2 (figure 19, p 179), or En su propia cárcel (figure 26, p 187) from this source [11], so can I use them? Sorry for the length of the post, but photograph use leaves me baffled. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey SusunW. Lot to unpack here. Umm... Looks a lot like the Izquierdo photo is either copy fraud or the Flikr uploader just doesn't know what they're doing. If the photo is originally by Alvarez Bravo, then she would need to be the one that releases it under a CC license. So it's not clear that the CC license on this guy's Flikr account means anything at all. I started a deletion discussion on Commons and I'm more than happy for someone to demonstrate that I'm wrong on that.

As far as what you are allowed to use under fair use in the article? Part of WP:NFCC is that we shouldn't use more than we need to. So, for the Kahlo picture, it looks like there are already free images of Kahlo on the main article for her. So what you have to argue there (and what you would have to argue at WP:FfD), is that this image in particular is singularly important in a way that omitting it would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader, and replacing it with a free version (which equally well illustrates who Kahlo is, even though it wasn't taken by Alvarez Bravo) is not a viable option, because this image is singularly important for some reason, and the other one isn't.

So we don't want to play fast and loose with fair use. Policy requires us to default to a conservative interpretation whenever possible. At the same time, copyright is way more complicated than something like notability, and if you have an image deleted here or there it's really no big deal. The important thing is that have a good argument why it meets NFCC (or why it is free), and you try to respect NFCC and copyright, even if someone at FfD winds up having the better argument. I wish I could make it simpler than that, but it really isn't any simpler than that. GMG^talk 19:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I think what I get from your text (and thank you for explaining it in detail) is that I am correct and neither the Izquierdo or Kahlo photographs can be used because they did not belong to whoever posted them on Flickr and we have no detailed discussion of them. The Kahlo image in the file fails for similar reason. In your opinion would the photomontage and the "in her own prison" image be excessive use of "fair use" to explain her work? Both incorporate central ideas of her use of light and shadow and are discussed in the article. SusunW (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The link to the montage [12] doesn't seem to be working for me. In principle, I would be inclined to say that a montage of multiple non-free works would be more-non-free than a single instance of a non-free work. Now say, if one of the sources you're using for the central themes of her work happens to point to a particular image as being emblematic of what they're describing, then you may be able to make a stronger argument for that image being essential to an encyclopedic overview, and used, based on the source, to be representative of her entire body of work. Or you may be able to make a strong argument for the essential-ness and unique-ness of one of the named photos of Kahlo, for whom you are already committing quite a bit of real estate in the article. You may be able to make such an argument for the photo of her you are already using. I don't don't really know the history of that photo in particular like you might.

I mean, you're kindof trying to gauge whether your argument for NFCC would be stronger than a hypothetical opponent at FfD. Since NFCC is intentionally stricter than the law regarding fair use, so long as we're making strong arguments either way, we're safe in the sense that we're debating policy rather than legality. When in doubt, you can always nominate your own photo for FfD just to make sure your well in safe territory. Again, no shame in having a photo here or there deleted. GMG^talk 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Montage was a technique she used repeatedly in her work and that particular image is described in detail in the article. All of the photos were taken by her and she composed them to give the claustrophobic sense of urbanization of Mexico City that she could not achieve in a single image. Are you saying the link doesn't work at all or that you don't see the photos when you go there? The search seems to only be active for one instance so if you input "Lola Álvarez Bravo" with the "Á" not "A", it will appear on the third row. Another aspect of her work was to use light and shadow to represent what she called the "third eye" of the camera, a means of capturing candidly what was in front of her, which could be interpreted as social commentary. The En su propia cárcel (In her own prison) p 187 graphically portrays far better than I can describe it, what she/I mean. There aren't any real bars, but the shadows capture the limits women had in Mexican society in her era. Those two I think I can justify. A random picture of Kahlo, no. I truly thank you for your patience with me, as I struggle to understand. The acronyms are beyond me, I admit I do not know what they mean. SusunW (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. NFCC = non-free content criteria, the local English Wikipedia policy on what non-free content we can utilize under a claim of fair use. FfD = files for discussion, the venue where we would have the community discussion about whether an image satisfied NFCC.

Okay, I figure you mean the Anarquía arquitectónica en la ciudad de México piece? So never mind what I said before. For our purposes that would be a single work of art.

So, something that also may be worthwhile to try, is emailing (or even calling them if they have a front desk where that would be appropriate) the Center for Creative Photography, which seems like they own the copyright to much (all?) of her work. We could see if they could release a single image of her work under a creative commons license. Probably 90% of the time people don't respond, but I still personally try 100% of the time anyway.

But other than that if you want to make the best argument possible for using a non-free version of her work for illustration purposes, the best way in my opinion is to either find a source that essentially says "this is the best example of her work for illustration purposes", or find a work that is itself historically significant in its own right, in the sense that it is close-ish to warranting its own small article (read: sources talking about this work in particular).

I apologize if I'm not explaining the best, I'm a touch sleep deprived at the moment. Talk page stalkers please feel free to correct me anywhere I'm off the mark. GMG^talk 23:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct photomontage. And so now you see why I said a photograph explains it far better than words. :) Calling them is probably out of the question, I am in Mexico and as we can see, me e-mailing them is probably not good either, as I don't even really understand what to ask. The only photo by name that is her "most famous image" is Burial in Yalalag. I think there is enough to write an article on it on line. I believe MOMA owns it. [13] Sleep and we can revisit. SusunW (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll see soon if I can find a good email address and send them a note. I'll look into Burial in Yalalag also. We'll get it done. GMG^talk 00:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I emailed the Center at their contact address for researchers and publishers. It looks like they normally charge even educators for use of the images in their archives, so it may be a long shot that they'd freely license an image. Maybe they get a humanitarian streak and feel generous. Maybe they figure it may boost their visibility to release an image freely knowing it will be used here. I figure we wait a week or so and see if they reply.

Otherwise, I would tend to agree that the Entierro en Yalalag image is a probably a good bet. (See also sources like this one and this one.) So to make it bullet proof, maybe add a little bit more sourced commentary to the article about this image, and justify a low resolution version as the image itself having historical importance. Of course, assuming the Center doesn't give us an image to use, in which case we have a free alternative and we can just go with that. GMG^talk 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'll get on that as soon as I am back from the doctors. I truly appreciate your help! SusunW (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Also, if we're definitely not going to try to defend File:Frida Kahlo by Lola Alvarez Bravo.jpg, then we need to nominate it for deletion to make sure we've tied up all our loose ends. GMG^talk 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Leaving for a bit, but will return. I have no idea how to do that. I just do not see how we can justify a random photo which we have no discussion for nor even know the name of. I would love to have lots of images, but recognize why we cannot. That being said, if we can justify the use of a photo, we have candidates that have a much stronger claim than that image, no disrespect to Frida or whoever added it. SusunW (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess whenever we take it out of the article, a bot will tag it as an orphaned non-free file. But looks like the uploader has been away since 2013, but probably neither here nor there how it gets cleaned up. GMG^talk 15:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, see in-depth discussion at the bottom of selected works section. I think I have given a fairly decent argument for why it is one of the best examples of her work. If you think I need more, let me know. And again, thank you so much for your help. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. I set a reminder on my calendar to upload the image this time next week if we don't get a response from the Center. GMG^talk 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I'll set on my calendar to nominate for GA then. Just need to get it done this month to meet Women in Green's 25th nomination goal for the year :) SusunW (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Feel free to stop by any time I can be of any help. GMG^talk 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Any luck with the photos? SusunW (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SusunW  Done Although you may want to adjust the placement. GMG^talk 20:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy :) Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Good luck with the GA review! GMG^talk 21:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Scumbag (film) movie poster

The website for the movie is www.scumbag-movie.com and you can see it matches the IMDB listing for the movie. How can I make the movie poster accessible for the Wikipedia page?

Theskeletone 12-03-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theskeletone (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Theskeletone. That works for me. I'll look to upload and add it tomorrow morning. GMG^talk 00:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Theskeletone:  Done GMG^talk 13:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gwendolyn-brooks.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Gwendolyn-brooks.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hoooly shit Surtsicna. If that Flickr account is legit, there are a lot of high qualify photos there (lookin at you Al). Have you uploaded all of them already? GMG^talk 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's legit (see the photographer's website), and I am working on it day and night! :D It started out when I grew tired of having to contend with poor photographs of Diana, Princess of Wales. I found several photos on FlickR, messaged the photographers, and a few responded. One of them was John Mathew Smith. Since then he has happily provided over 150 portraits. You can see them at commons:Category:Photographs by John Mathew Smith. He keeps sending more every day. I am amazed as well. Funny thing is, I have to deal with deletion nominations (and sometimes even speedy deletions). I guess the quality makes people suspicious. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want Surtsicna, you can forward the email correspondence to permissions-enwikimedia.org. I can try to snatch it out of the queue and add the confirmation to the images. Basically verifying the legitimacy of the Flickr account perhaps more so than the images. May save you some headache. GMG^talk

Do you mean the messages that I am exchanging with the photographer? We are corresponding via FlickR. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. Not sure there's any real method for verifying private communication via private message on a website then. GMG^talk 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess some headache is unavoidable then. It is worth it, though. Dozens of articles now have their first portrait (e.g. F. Lee Bailey today) or first free portrait. I'll ask John about the photo of Al Hirschfeld that you like! Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, as long as he has verified that the account is legit and the photos are his, all we really have to do is transfer them to Commons. GMG^talk 16:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

He also has to change the license on his photos. Some photos he prefers to keep for the time being, e.g. this brilliant photo of Carolyn Bessette (currently no free photo of her available) until it is featured elsewhere. I hope to be able to upload it within a couple of months. Do you think that I should send an email to johnmathewsmith@yahoo.com (the address provided at his website) to confirm that the website and the FlickR account are managed by the same person? And then perhaps forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org? Would that count as verification? Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm...I mean it couldn't hurt anything. Once we have an OTRS ticket number I believe I can add the verification template as one semi automated edit to everything in the cat, and then you can copy and paste the template onto future uploads. GMG^talk 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there! Is there anything you can do about the headache of uploading a photo on Commons only to find a file here under the same name? Namely commons:File:Dennis Farina.jpg vs File:Dennis Farina.jpg. I cannot use the former in the article about Dennis Farina. The only solution I can think of is renaming one of the two files. I've already requested the renaming of the new file, though I cannot quite understand why the fair use one is titled like that anyway. It's supposed to depict the character. This is the fifth time this is happening, by the way. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Surtsicna. I've moved the file here and suppressed the redirect per WP:FNC#9. That's one way to deal with it. Otherwise, you can request that I or another file mover rename the file you've uploaded on Commons per c:COM:MOVE criteria #1 as the uploader. Either way, having different content locally and on Commons under the same file name is problematic, and we gotta fix it somehow. GMG^talk 22:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Derp. I see you did file a move request on Commons. Do you still want that file renamed? GMG^talk 22:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I like file names as concise as possible... though it sometimes causes troubles. I've removed the request. I hope that's enough. Anyway, this photo of Farina is just perfect. It's how I remember him. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Always happy to help any way I can. GMG^talk 00:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your helpful contributions at WP:RSP. Your work goes a long way toward making this list a valuable resource for all Wikipedia editors. - MrX 🖋 14:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey you too MrX. I rather think it's coming along nicely. One could only hope that a few of these companies see that we've flagged their content, and actually work to improve the quality of their work. GMG^talk 15:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit summaries at the page have also been violating WP:CIVIL. Modernponderer (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. It's not the first time in that thread that the "2 sources and GNG" claim has been made, and I'm not the only person to point out that that it is wrong. If you fundamentally misunderstand a policy, then you shouldn't be editing it. I don't edit WP:BFRA because I don't understand it, and probably never will. GMG^talk 15:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is a personal attack to say or imply that an editor is incapable of editing a certain page simply because you disagree with them. You may choose not to edit policies you don't understand, but you cannot tell others to do so.

And by the way, you are factually incorrect about GNG, as I pointed out with this very simple link: WP:SNG But that is really irrelevant here – this is now about your conduct. Modernponderer (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure I can tell them that, despite what your aggressive formatting may imply. Whether they listen is up to them, but they'd probably be better off if they did. And whatever WP:SNG says doesn't really have anything to do with what GNG don't say, and GNG don't say that two sources is the magic number that makes you notable, because it ain't. You're wrong, and he's wrong too. Take it or leave it as you will. Don't make any difference to me one way or the other. GMG^talk 16:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

”But if you think that two sources equals GNG, then you're wrong, and you probably ought not be editing our policy on notability.” This is not a personal attack, and I see no way it could be construed as such. Regardless, he’s right. Two reliable sources alone do not constitute notability. Saying such is a misunderstanding of the notability policy. Vermont (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Vermont, this is ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that if one editor said to another, "if you don't see it my way, you are too stupid to edit this page", that would not be a personal attack? Because that's exactly what happened here – except the word "stupid" was omitted, presumably to avoid scrutiny from editors not paying close attention.

And for the record, GreenMeansGo is only "right" about GNG in the extremely limited sense that it does not explicitly state that two sources are enough – which I did not deny, though it in no way prohibits using that as an argument either. But:

1. Anyone who is sufficiently familiar with AfDs ought to know that it is nevertheless very widely accepted as a rationale for keeping an article;
2. The link I posted to the subject-specific notability guidelines proves that this policy has global consensus for at least some specific areas (see, for example, criterion 1 of WP:NBOOKS); and
3. My stance has received support in the very discussion that sparked this, and from an editor with whom I actually disagreed with on the overall issue at that – so it is not just me who is making this claim, even there and now. Modernponderer (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

   If someone said "if you don't see it my way, you are too stupid to edit this page", it would of course be a personal attack. But, as you say, he did not use the word "stupid". Nor did he use a condescending tone or anything near to how you seem to have perceived that comment. You cannot pull from the air what was never said and call it a personal attack. Vermont (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

   User:Vermont, if you've read GreenMeansGo's comments and edit summaries at that page and you genuinely think they didn't even "use a condescending tone" (!?), there is nothing more to say here.

   (Well, actually there is one more thing – you've just ignored all of the content arguments that I spent time writing out, presumably because you cannot refute them. So that goes double really.) Modernponderer (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

   I ignored your content arguments as I don’t usually like to partake in policy related discussions on this wiki anymore. I disagree with you, although I am not going to waste time arguing. I’m simply here to address your allegations that GMG personally attacked you, which I believe are over exaggerated. Vermont (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

   Of course, which is why half of your first comment in this discussion was about the content issue, with assertions such as "he's right" and that saying otherwise is "a misunderstanding of the notability policy". Makes total sense. Modernponderer (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I don't have any real interest in debating this at length with you, because I expect that the amount of effort it would take to get you to listen would simply be better spent on pretty much anything else. If you think that "2 sources = GNG" is a widely accepted standard, then you probably need to participate more in AfD. If you desperately want to argue at length with someone, feel free to open a thread at ANI. There are usually no shortage of people there willing to argue for its own sake. Now if you don't mind, I've been meaning to write Rape threat for a while now, and I've got a half dozen tabs open that need reading. GMG^talk 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
	Hi GreenMeansGo, Sending you a warm greetings for New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey thanks CASSIOPEIA. Here's wishing you a happy holiday season as well. GMG^talk 16:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you...

Hello GMG, and sorry to be a bother, but is there any way that an image of this painting could be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia? I don't understand how copyright of images works really, but it would be a useful article for a draft I'm working on... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Eddie891. If the information there is correct, then the author died in 1851, meaning that the work, and faithful reproductions of it fell into the public domain some time in the mid 20th century (generally somewhere between 70 and 100 years after the death of the author), and it was also made before 1923, which is kindof the general purpose public domain date in the United States.

In other words, you're totally good in more ways than one. Just make sure you indicate in the file information what the date of the work is, who the author is, and when he died. Probably go with {{PD-old-100}} for the public domain rationale. GMG^talk 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

No problem at all. Feel free to stop by any time I can be of any help. GMG^talk 17:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Would the copyright of this be the same (as the author died in 1831)? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yup. With very few exceptionally esoteric exceptions, for anybody who's been dead more than 100 years, their work should be in the public domain world wide. It's really only when you get to the 20th century that copyright starts to get cross-eyed bonkers. GMG^talk 17:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Aurelia Henry Reinhardt

On 17 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aurelia Henry Reinhardt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aurelia Henry Reinhardt was the longest serving president in the history of Mills College? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aurelia Henry Reinhardt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Aurelia Henry Reinhardt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not super tickled about somebody removing two thirds of the hook without so much as a ping. But you know, little things like being a delegate to the inaugural meeting of the United Nations after years of international peace activism. Not like that's important or anything. GMG^talk 14:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hjalmar Schacht

There is a discussion on the talk page, please participate in it and do not edit war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You are currently edit warring across multiple article against multiple editors, when the only person I'm seeing that shares your concern about the urgent need for arbitrary images resizing seems to be you. You need to open an RfC and find broad consensus for whatever policy it is you are actually proposing (I'm not sure "whatever image size I happen to personally like" is really a policy proposal), as you have already been instructed to do, or you need to find something else to do with your time.

You are currently at 3RR at Hjalmar Schacht, 2RR at Gotthard Heinrici, 3RR at Albert Speer, where you've been reverting for a week now, where you originally added the arbitrary image size, and where by my count, in total, you have reverted the image size seven times. Do I really need to keep going? What you are doing on the talk pages is gaming the system, since you have copied and pasted the same thread probably 30 or 40 times.

The question in my mind whether this should go back to ANI or just go to ANEW. GMG^talk 17:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your Article Work!

Thanks for your recent content work that falls in the scope of the Children's Lit WikiProject. I wanted to let you know that you were recognized in our last newsletter. Happy editing and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Good on you for getting Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President to GA. Sorry we beat you to the DYK credit. At the same time, if we could get A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo and Marlon Bundo to GA too, we could claim the first presidential bunny related WP:GT in the history of the project. GMG^talk 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, actually. The Pences reportedly plan two more books (AP), a number which will purr-edictably (sorry) be multiplied by Oliver or someone else. wumbolo ^^^ 20:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh great. So we can get a GT only to have it delisted every time somebody writes another book. GMG^talk 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello GreenMeansGo, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. All the best to you and yours. GMG^talk 22:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I remember something I read, once, in Opera News about the great Tatiana Troyanos. Here was a woman that had every right to complain at the Fates over her lot in life...she was abandoned by her parents to an orphanage, and she battled health issues for many years before dying of cancer at 55. (I remember reading that selfsame article about her and being amazed at what she had overcome.) And yet she remained ever gracious in her career and her professional dealings. The writer of the article, I remember, recalled assisting in a Metropolitan Opera performance of Giulio Cesare in Egitto, in which Kathleen Battle was singing. Battle was then in the throes of some of her worst behavior, and she was really letting people have it over trivial matters. And the writer said that when the curtain fell, he was about ready to tell her off, when he felt a tug at his elbow. It was Troyanos - she took him aside, smiled, and said, "Don't. It doesn't matter." It can be so tempting to get wound up over the least little thing around here. But every time I do, somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind...so deep that I feel her presence rather than hear it...I'm sure Troyanos is reminding me, too: "It doesn't matter." If she, with all that she overcame, could say it, then I damn well can, too –Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Thanks for all the work you do to make Wikipedia a better place, and your welcoming demeanor as we have interacted this year. Wishing you and yours a very happy holidays! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You too Eddie891. All the best, and thanks for all the work you do helping us build a better encyclopedia! GMG^talk 00:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted addition at Brian Evans

Hey just a line to let you know I reverted your addition on this page. This page is currently experiencing both sockpuppetry and copyright deception. If you look at User:Croonerman there is an active investigation at this time dealing with this and the block evasion here. It seems in my view you may have not been aware so I wanted to let you know why I did that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well Hell in a Bucket. Socking is no bueno obviously. But the photo isn't available anywhere else online, and it's got all the original meta data. Looks like User:Ronhjones has some experience with the previous copyright violations. So maybe they can shed some additional light on why the photo might not be legitimate. But if it's legit, I don't know that I see a point in not adding a photo when a photo is available. At the same time, if the photo isn't legit, then we need to do more than remove it; we need to delete it. GMG^talk 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Images are all on commons, so all five new images are getting a very good checking over (c:Special:Contributions/AndresVenegas1). One is doomed as a movie still. I suspect there are some real "free" images there, especially the iPhone images (I don't imagine a pro photographer using an iPhone) - if I do delete any, then commons delinker will clean up. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Metadata is no guarantee. The first problem images had full metadata - except the photographer never parts with the raw camera image, he always reduces it a bit in Photoshop, leaving the metadata (with the extra fields added by Photoshop) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll trust whatever you decide to do. I think it encourages more evasion personally but it if one of you think it should reinstated can always revert me. I've seen banned user fixes left in place before in certain circumstances. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Commons has ruined me, but I'm inclined to think that if we have COI socks that are legitimately dedicating their intellectual property to the public, then they're kindof doing the Lord's work in the Devil's name. It still increases free public access to IP, even if it's only ever used off wiki by the public. Maybe edits on Wikipedia are different, but freely licensing IP is binding off-wiki and forever. GMG^talk 23:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I think that is the greatest post I've seen in my history in wikipedia. I'll be honest that I looked at it a couple times but the 3rd time with a few beers it makes a lot fo sense. I don't mean that in an insult but you are totally right in this case it helps us and most people would loathe to do it without money and here someone is insisting. Promotion in the article nonwithstanding I think we can all live with a picture in the article with god blessings and a merry christmas to all including Mr. Evans. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo, User:Ronhjones , www.brianevans.com would seem to own the copyright of the pic lol. Hey take a look at the picture LOL. You can't make this shit up. I had went to his article because I was actually going to buy his At Fenway song. I am reporting that particular pic as a copyright violation but if he read this we could use a fullt license pic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. GMG^talk 01:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at [[14]] then look at brianevans.com. Same picture it's a copyright violation from his own website. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's actually a slightly different picture. In the one on the website, he's looking off towards the photographer's right, while the one uploaded to commons has him staring directly at the camera. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh that. Yeah, I saw that before, but it's a different picture, although obviously from the same shoot, and the one on Commons had the original meta data and wasn't replicated elsewhere online. That's why it didn't raise major red flags. GMG^talk 01:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as commons is concerned. There are 5 images at c:Special:Contributions/AndresVenegas1. The top one will go (as a movie still withno permission). The other 4 we cannot find a match (I tried both Google and Tineye) and I checked with the original photographer of the earlier copyvios, and he happily confirmed they are not his photos. so for now those 4 images will stay, unless some new information comes along... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to revisit this it appears this has encouraged socking to start here on the Evans article again, could be wrong but I doubt it. I reverted the new additions, left the original photo we discussed here. Also in more research if you see here [[15]] the account AndresVenegas1 in commons is at a minimum a meatpuppet/coi editor and if we judge a person by their past it's probably Evans. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, since the sock/meat is so narrowly focused, we could try extended semi if it continues. At least we've got that going for us, compared with...I dunno...a sock focused on 10,000 pages related to French politics or something. I mean, a CU block here would justify a block on Commons too, since they've already been blocked on both, not that it matters terribly if they're just going to continually make new accounts (I don't really understand to what extent cookie blocks are or aren't effective at this).

If we've got one verified good image to illustrate the subject, I don't see much point in spending volunteer time sorting through continued uploads on the off chance that one or two of them is legitimate. That drops off pretty quickly as far as ROI in encyclopedic value. Does makes you feel icky when someone takes an inch of AGF and just decides to crap all over it though.

Ronhjones What is the precedent for forwarding OTRS tickets to ArbCom? GMG^talk 12:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that an Arbcom case would be akin to a 50 caliber to swat a mosquito, but it is rather narrow and pending changes seems to work. I've learned the Dramah boards are a good guide for me to get pissed off and then I lose my cool and pop off at the mouth. I think that you anf the others as admin can come up with a solution. Just to be clear though, if there is times we need to look at things IAR style drop me a line, we all bend over for consensus. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No not as a case request, but just as a function of their role in handling non-public information. GMG^talk 15:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No idea if I am allowed to forward it to ArbCom. Best to ask an OTRS admin - ping @Sphilbrick: Hell in a Bucket may be right, ArbCom might be a bit OTT.

My idea is that if we know we aren't going to be able to stop it we use the processes set up that have tended to work here historically. If you see the talk page on that article when there was requested changes, for the most part other editors reviewed those changes and usually rejected or partially accepted suggestions with clear cut reasons as to why and why not. The problem is and always has been is that when Evans and his diffferent personas, management whatever he is claiming to be at that time insist that the changes are fine. It does take more effort but it also does do the "Lord's work in the Devil's name." that Green mentions too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the "devil's work" was more of a Commons comment, and not necessarily an en.wiki one. GMG^talk 01:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket Another ticket (Ticket:2018123110000313) - this time with a screenshot of https://twitter.com/croon1?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor. Don't know what he expects that to do. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 03:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones, what makes me amused is that this wasn't him..at least not according to him but man he sure seems to be in the loop quite a bit for not being involved. This month makes 6 years of sockpuppetry, evasion and lies by him...I guess free advertising is worth the time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, if working OTRS teaches you anything, it's exactly to what extent the general public can fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works, and...how to put it...the extreme cognitive dissonance that can be caused by such a public facing resource like Wikipedia, that defies direct control by people who make a living managing their public persona. But what people often don't understand is that it is that separation that makes Wikipedia so valuable. But people often want it both ways. Like a corrupt official that wants an accountable well-functioning government in every instance other than the on in which they personally stand to benefit. GMG^talk 14:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year bokeh (red).png

To me, this version looks brown-ish, rather than red. The more I look at it, the more I like the blue (original) version which seems "peaceful". --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries Rosiestep. I can try to make it more red, but if you prefer the blue that's fine also. Just trying to help. GMG^talk 21:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being helping! It's always good to try something new!! Maybe let's stick with the navy one for January, but how about following-up this idea of a (non-person) image every month in our invite... e.g. perhaps a red one for February, green for March, purple for April, orange for October, and so forth? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a strong consensus against the use of people? Not gonna lie that something like File:Smiling Lao woman with short hair and red shirt.jpg is pretty daggum good picture. GMG^talk 22:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well Rosiestep, I got to tinkering and wound up making this thing. Feel free to use if it's helpful. GMG^talk 02:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's absolutely beautiful, GreenMeansGo. If you haven't already, please share it on the WiR talkpage. Happy holidays. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello GreenMeansGo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey thanks Walk Like an Egyptian. Merry Christmas to you too! GMG^talk 11:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Another day, another draft.

I'm preparing to launch into my next effort to replace a disambiguation page with a draft on the primary topic - this time, Draft:Captivity. Would you like to collaborate again? Cheers! bd2412 T 01:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I've spent the last week or so looking at pictures of pretty people on Commons. Not opposed to getting back into some writing. GMG^talk 02:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Good - this should be fun. bd2412 T 03:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)