User talk:Greg L

Userboxes

 This user believes fuzzballs likely exist. (Infinite curvature sucks.)

This user runs macOS.

This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

PC-0This user is politically incorrect.

Welcome!

You can leave messages here for me.
Greg L 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

{{talkback|Greg L}}

You may be interested in the following two essays:

• “Fuck” is not necessarily uncivil
  
• Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house

Featured picture candidate

An animation uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Translational motion.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! 28 January 2007 (UTC)

POTD

Hi Greg,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Translational_motion.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 14, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-14. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate

I nominated one of your animations (Image:Translational motion.gif) to be featured. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Translational Motion. —EdGl 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote back on your personal discussion page. Greg L 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(concerning your last post on my talk page) You should definitely speak out and state your case on the featured picture candidates page! —EdGl 21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on Antilived's talk page concerning his vote, directing him to my talk page. —EdGl 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two users who voted neutral but clearly like it and lean support, voting neutral only because of minor issues. In this case it's not really a bad thing, since there are a few support votes and no oppose votes. Only a few more days left. —EdGl 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the way I see it. Thanks. Greg L 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo, the animation is now featured! →EdGl 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It says on the picture-of-the-day page that "featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted". So, it won't be on the main page in a while. They have already selected pics up to March 1st. →EdGl 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, that's fine. I only picked Temperature because it was the first. Regards. Trebor 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your herculean efforts at Kilogram and for your wonderful CG image of the IPK. Enuja (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house

Thanks, that is funny and makes an excellent point. --John (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for dropping me a note. I’m glad you liked it. I noted before that you had linked to it. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I made this barnstar myself. I think you qualify for it for your creation of the sewer cover barnstar, and for your tireless efforts to focus linking on targets that are useful to our readers. John (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A kilobyte of thanks

		The Kilobyte Barnstar
		For your efforts in restoring the industry standard terms for memory size to the Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The IC is an Intel 2708, a 1 kilobyte EPROM made in 1976. SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Why, thank you very much. That certainly was a joint effort. I hope you give yourself  one! Greg L (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I must admit I had an audible chuckle whilst reading this humour page. Nicely done. –xeno (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Not only is this quite funny, but it makes an important point quite well. Great work and thanks for making my day! --The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you both, for taking the time to leave your comments here (and your barnstar, Xeno). I’m copying this to my talk page. Greg L (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved my Post

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For maintaining my vote on the Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll with vigilance, an abundance of Tact, and an entirely calm point of view, I hereby bestow Greg L with the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That’s very kind of you. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You’re Welcome sir. It would appear that your Son knows the value of voting; be sure to tell him this story sometime - and that an Air Force ROTC cadet wants him to keep goin'. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rest assured; I will. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You deserve this

		The Special Barnstar
		I just spent the last 55 minutes reading through your entire userpage. What I found there was really great; from your son's journey in the Navy to your brother's...interesting activities to the humor and seriousness throughout, well, I'm not really sure how else to describe it. Thanks for making the world, or perhaps just my own little world, a better place. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your words of encouragement. What you wrote means a great deal to me. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Archival System

Hi there. Would it possible for you to set up an archive system? Your page is very hard to open on a mobile browser, or even a slower computer. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself (like me), try bots like User:Cluebot III.

Regards, NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Greg, if setting up a bot is a burden, I can do it for you. Or, you can just delete all the older stuff from your Talk page – nothing wrong with that.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All: I’ll get this done in the next 48 hours. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Greg L (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Something that might interest you

Hello Greg. If you take a look here, you'll see a suggestion I've made in regards to your original proposal on the workshop. Your comments would be appreciated. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement

This one is made for you :P. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does one just add their name and they are a “member”? Besides putting my name there, how could I be of assistance? Any suggestions for a specific task for me to do? Does that page need to be expanded with proposed “to-do’s’? Greg L (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, I just found out about it the other day. The goals seems to be improving the coverage about units of measurements. Since you were involved with Kilogram, and at the MOSNUM, I'm sure you can contribute to that project in some way. Edit articles, assess, comment, increase compliance with MOSNUM, pick your poison.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

your timing is impeccable: looks like fun and games have resumed at the same time as your re-emergence. Glad to have you back. Greg L's #1 fanboy ;-) (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Ohconfucius. I’m happy to be back. Greg L (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, your other "fanboy" (as branded in an amusing incident) welcomes back your technical expertise and straightforward thinking about a number of difficult issues. Tony (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And here is a rousing chorus of applause from your third fanboy! Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again, gents. Greg L (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Advisory/Disclaimer:

The thoughts and opinions expressed above on this user page are not intended to be offensive to any particular minority group (based on race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, gender identification, disAbility, occupation, meat-eating/vegetable-eating practices, and hobbies—even hunting). Note too that parenthetically mentioning “even hunting” in the preceding sentence was not intended to signal any disapproval of the sport; the author does not wish to disparage the legal, safe, and most humane-possible methods of hunting. This preceding statement should not however, be construed as an endorsement of the sport; the author values all the biodiversity of earth and no animal should suffer at the hand of a human. However, that preceding sentence should not be construed that the author is indifferent to the plight of workers displaced by environmental issues; the author is mindful of the plight of timber workers vs. the plight of spotted owls. The preceding sentence should not be construed that the author thinks there is only one group of workers who have been financially harmed by environmental issues; there are others and not mentioning these others by name should not be construed as suggesting they are any less important than another. The author wishes to ensure all who review this communication that he values diversity and has the utmost respect for the law, government officials, the institutions of the United States, the wide variety of social customs and diversity of its peoples, and the civil treatment of other Wikipedians, even if the come across as assholes. This statement should not however, be construed as being intolerant of others who have contrary or differing values or who might hold the U.S. in disdain. The author embraces the wholesome notion that no person’s or group's values are any more meritorious or valid than another’s, and the author does not wish to suggest that by stating an admiration for America and the U.S. Government, that this ought to be construed as deprecating the many other fine systems of government throughout the world and the social practices of its peoples. Notwithstanding that the author wrote the word "he" three sentences ago, (the author happens to be “anatomically male” by birth) this should not be construed as diminishing in any way, the existence of the word "she" nor does it signal that the author is adverse to the use of the gender-neutral "he/she" where appropriate. Furthermore, the words "he" and "she" should not be construed as being exclusionary or diminishing to the transgendered. This paragraph was not intended to be understood by blondes.

Hecho en China

Brilliant disclaimer, and thanks for your good work on the Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_architecture,_engineering_and_construction_(AEC) back on march 9th. --DuLithgow (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Last Conversation

Thank you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• It had been on my mind for a long time. Thanks for dropping me a line that you liked it. Greg L (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • See [1] Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop calling things which clearly are not vandalism by that name (your reverts, your message on my talk page, and elsewhere). Doing so is a personal attack, and you should be well aware that personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia by now. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Stop Wikilawyering. Your disruption is tedious. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:mask appreciation

Another Hood Canal diving victim.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/mar/23/oregon-woman-dies-after-diving-accident-near/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westockwell (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I spoke with the county coroner over there a month ago. They have about one death a year at that spot. In the case you cited, it was two recreational divers. What I have a problem with is deaths of trainees while under professional supervision. In each case, there is a lack of a dive buddy to render assistance. There is no excuse for such a thing. Greg L (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

29 April 2007

Disruption at RfC

I agree with you, except that I removed his strike, all the subsequent exchanges, and the 'oppose' votes he put into the votes section. I felt that not to remove them would create confusion which will then be used to discredit the poll. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. PMAnderson has been warned here on the ANI not to make any changes to the structure of the RfC. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Offensive?

Hi. Listen, I noticed you left a comment on my talk page. I don't particularly enjoy people who seem to think I'm an imbecile. I do not agree with some aspects of your "take-you-by-the-hand essay", and that is to be expected with differing viewpoints.

My point is, help articles should be understandable for those who need the points straight, not complex explanations. And that I felt your usage of "take-you-by-the-hand" was an insult to my intelligence.

I will say this - if you did not mean to insult me through the usage of that phrase, I humbly apologize. Daniel Benfield (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Holy smokes! My response here on your talk page. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, then I humbly apologize. I understand your point now. Sorry. DX Daniel Benfield (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to let me know there’s no hard feelings. I much appreciate that. No problemo. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy exercises

Thanks. Yes, I hope they attract people to become editors at WP. I recommend a lot of academics and students visit them. Tony (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. You raised an important point. As you can see, my 2¢ was to “conditionally keep”. I would need more information about the full scope of JEDEC Standard 21 to know whether or not the article is misleading or not. Compared to other, profoundly trivial stuff on Wikipedia, the article clearly seems sufficiently notable. But, notable or not, the article can’t be misleading by focusing overly intently on a small portion of the standard to the exclusion of other parts that are just as important. Greg L (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried...

[2] Don't waste your time on it, just forget and move on. If he raises any more trouble, just bring it up with a clerk or whatever. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just giving him a taste of his own medicine to see if he is galactically clueless or just a dick. I don’t really give a rat’s ass. Greg L (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. I figured it out. He is just a WP:DICK. See here on TE’s talk page. I instructed him that he is not welcome to edit my userspace. Greg L (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed some undesirable additions to your links article. I'm also watching, but don't expect any more interference there because of the number of eyeballs on it now.

BTW, I find 375°F is a perfect temperature for roasting. Don't forget to baste frequently. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg L/Delinking links

While I disagree with the MfD and have opted for keep, I think you should moderate the language of "brain explosions" as that is uncivil to the users concerned. I'm also concerned about the "fuck tards" comment, especially as (so far as I can see) it's actually you yourself that coined the phrase. I'm sure you'll find an appropriate way to address these comments, as you're a reasonable person. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• “Brain explosions” is a term coined by one of my Wikifriends. It translates to “Epiphanies”. “Fucktards” is a self-deprecating, internal joke. I don’t need to justify any of this; the page is for the benefit of a particular group of editors who find it useful. Tennis expert’s malicious edits were just that: malicious. The page is a resource for relevant links pertaining the the date delinking and autoformatting issue and the related ArbCom. All the links are there for the benefit of our group. If Tennis expert doesn’t like looking at a list of links that are of benefit to us, he doesn’t have to look at it. Tennis expert’s nominating my own page in my userspace for deletion is now the subject of an ANI here. Greg L (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Idle question

Why do you quote people in green versus well.. the other ways out there?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another editor and I were the lead proponents of the {{xt}} template. The virtue is when quoting someone who has quoted text within the passage; you don’t have to go back and change double-quotes to single-quotes. The {xt} template also sets off the quoted text better. I used to use italics to help set off quoted text, but then that would neuter quoted text that used italics on selected words for emphasis. The {xt} template preserves all this. You just copy the code, paste it into the {xt} template, and you get well-set-off text with all formatting preserved and you don’t have to mess with quotes. The {xt} template is particularly valuable whenever you are discussing the structure and style of text. That’s why it is now used on WP:MOS. Greg L (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh interesting. Thank you for the explanation... I might just start using it if I can remember to do so, and congrats of the MOS inclusion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot

I have been watching your debate but I can't reply on that page. Here are some comments:

• Lightbot is does not currently have authority to delink autoformatted dates. That permission would have to be granted.
• I am aware of some of the issues that you mention (e.g. commas). But because Lightbot has never had the authority, I have never invested any time in programming Lightbot to fix them. However, I have solved some (but not all) of the issues with the monobook script that delinks autoformatted dates.
• If you created a test page with the critical examples, I could run Lightbot over it. It would not take long to work out which problems remain and whether they can be fixed with code changes.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm… I’m working on the fact that you can’t reply on that page and am trying to address you first bullet point too. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

It's quite important. Please read it before you next make an edit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent comments

In the course of reading the ongoing Arb case about the date delinking drama, I came across some comments of yours that were attacked as intemperate. I'd like to offer my congratulations on stating the matter so succinctly, and also my best wishes for the case. I've been delinking on a non-automated basis for years now, and I can't wait until the idiocy of datelinking is fully and finally deprecated...and if it isn't, I plan to submit a formal proposal to simply change the default color of wikitext to blue. 65.190.95.73 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your words of encouragement, I.P. editor from Virginia. You should know that the wishes of the community—which we understood perfectly well before we were dragged into an ArbCom by just one malcontent—prevailed. The formal ArbCom decision is expected any day now.

  Wikipedia’s official manual of style (here on WP:MOSNUM) requires that dates not be linked to semi-random lists of irrelevant trivia like they used to. The guideline states that dates should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject … [and] … should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year.

  Editors who were not parties to the ArbCom need not worry about that ruling; they may continue to improve Wikipedia by manually making its articles MOSNUM‑compliant. In case you haven’t seen it, I wrote an essay on this subject, which clearly explains this whole issue; it is Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked. Greg L (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's this excellent IP editor? Should be encouraged to log in. Tony (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award Greg L the original barnstar for the professional, high quality of his writing, content contributions and thorough sourcing in articles such as Fuzzball (string theory). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Gwen. Coming from an experienced admin, that means a lot to me. Greg L (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sewer Cover - do I need to read the lists of references

In reference to the Sewer Cover Barnstar - do I also need to read the lists of references to qualify? I think the answer is either "obviously yes" or "obviously no", but I cannot determine which. Thank you.

If you read both the October 1, 2008 articles too in their entirety (the date this article’s photograph was taken), Greg L will award you your very own “Sewer Cover Barnstar”  to show off on your talk page. Your Sewer Cover Barnstar  will show the world that you can read anything, don’t even know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.

Uncle uncle uncle 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• U³, to qualify for your very own Sewer Cover Barnstar, you must read everything written in these four articles: Oct. 1, Oct. 16, 1925, and 2008. Mind you of course, that you don’t have to read all the linked articles, just read aloud what is in all four of the required articles and completely understand what is in each. If you actually read all four, let tell me of your accomplishment and tell me why in the world you did so.

  If you get through one article (thoroughly now, no cheating) and just can’t stand the prospect of reading three more, let me know and I’ll give award you an “honorable mention” Sewer Cover Barnstar (same picture; just worded differently). Greg L (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

translational motion

Does translational motion use a hard sphere or potential collision model? How can I see the source code?\ Dale Schruben kfdls00@tamuk.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschruben (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my April 3, 2010 3:18:14 PM PDT e-mail. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NURBS surface suspended

Just to let you know, I suspended Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NURBS surface until that pesty bug is dealt with. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good. The bug has dragged out far too long. They should have backed out and regrouped when it was clear they had inadvertently opened a can of “Oh… shit!” Greg L (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Animations

These resources might interest you:

• commons:Category:Animation editors
• commons:Category:Commons image resources
• commons:Category:Commons resources
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce

Maybe you can start a subproject on animations:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Animation taskforce

You might create a resource page on animations under this category:

• commons:Category:Commons image resources --Timeshifter (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Greg L. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring.
Message added 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supertouch (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• 'twas close, but no cigar. –xeno^talk 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Successful featured picture nomination

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:NURBS 3-D surface.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\talk 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Southern sky from Paranal Observatory

Hi. There's an edit at this nom. Will you comment on your preference for the original or the edit? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Greg L (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Hi Greg, which is the BLP that sparked your primary-source concern, and which material was it exactly? It could be that it would be acceptable without changing the policy, so I wouldn't mind taking a look. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• It originated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aafia Siddiqui and Aafia Siddiqui. Editors who like to do stuff like insert “alleged” into “connections to terrorism” (you know; those sort of edits) then impugned how the shepherding editor had cited some primary sources, like—you know—the actual Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, by the Assistant United States Attorney, stating that it is “unreliable” unless also published in a secondary source. Simply asinine. What makes perfect sense to prevent unfortunate embarrassment (for both Wikipedia and the subject) in situations like Senator Byrd’s doesn’t fit this circumstance whatsoever. I’m not interested in arguments about how “civil lawsuits” have opposing points of view that can be cited to unfairly dish dirt. That is just one of likely several extraneous details than can be properly addressed with one sentence in a well-crafted section governing notable living figures of world-class infamy. If we want factual information in these sort of articles, we need authoritative and reliable sources. We can do better than require editors run around and find the precise and complete wording of the charges against Aafia Siddiqui without looking to Popular Mechanics and other secondary sources to see if they might include the entire wording of the complaint.

  BLP is not currently properly addressing this subset of living people. We all know what the 800-pound gorilla in the living room is here with this issue. I simply want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in all our articles and hate to see exceedingly germane points totally absent from our articles because of a preposterous application of a policy which had never anticipated these circumstances.

  My specialty isn’t terrorism-related articles. My specialty is ridding Wikipedia of retarded practices. It started with our past use of language on half of our computer-related articles that read “The first Macintosh came with 128 kibibytes (KiB) of RAM.” Well, no one but our resident propeller-heads uses that sort of terminology. It wasn’t (and still isn’t) used by any computer manufacturer when communicating to their customer base, nor by any computer magazine directed to a general-interest readership. So I lead the cause to reverse that one and Wikipedia now (*shock*) uses terminology that does not cause unnecessary confusion in our readership. That took three months, too. By tuning our “Common-sense-O-meter” to >50% and working collaboratively and constructively, we can properly address this issue. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What was the actual edit that was rejected, the edit that needed that document to support it? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am only peripherally involved as an editor on this, but the opposing editor complained about primary sources such as Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, which is Note [8]. For first-hand account of details pertaining to that dispute, I suggest you contact the shepherding editor, Epeefleche. I gave him a heads-up (although I suspect he is watching this anyway). As you can see from the FA discussions, some editors opined that quoting primary sources such as Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint constituted WP:OR and other policies that are clearly inapplicable here. As done there, such practices are simply ensuring accuracy. I know that I, at least, am better comforted by seeing Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, rather than Seveneen magazine or Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, either of which can contain selected information with a slant one way or another. Greg L (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to know what the disputed edit was, because there's almost certainly another source out there for it. I'm wondering if this has all blown up over nothing. With high-profile sources like that, there would be very little known by journalists that they wouldn't publish so long as it wasn't behind a publication ban. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are. That's why this is a non-issue, or at worst only a technical issue, IMHO.. The information is already in reliable secondary sources, if she could have been bothered to look. The court reference was there to simply be more authoritative backup to the secondary sources. Whilst it is true that there are instances where facts were cited to court documents only, but it was out of inadvertence, AFAICT. The editor who disagreed with the use of the court documents was looking to blindly parrot the BLP, whilst not bothering to go through the sources to find supporting citations. And frankly, I don't even see why she took it to the noticeboard, and kicked up such a huge fuss about nothing - it seems she just wanting to prove herself right, or be able to come back and say 'Look, you thickos who argued with me, See I was right. There are all those noticeboard bods who agree with me' Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m interested in the larger issue here. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. How have you been, Slim? I received a note on my talk page that brought me here.

To answer your question, the documents objected to as refs (in just this one article .... an editor has been following me, and made similar claims in other articles) happen all to be public records that can be accessed on-line on open sites. I believe the focus was on what are now footnotes 4 (indictment), 5 & 41 (press releases), 8 (complaint), 16, 17 & 93 (court-ordered forensic psychiatric evaluations), 36 (Special Court for Sierra Leone: Office of the Prosecutor: Profile, Aafia Siddiqui), 39 (Biography of Ammar al-Baluchi", Director of National Intelligence), and 89 (Order Finding Defendant Competent to Stand Trial). The editor is militating for deletion of all of them from the article. In glancing through them I see the footnotes now have a couple of errors ... OhConfu has been working on the article, and I imagine they are temporary.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some substantial editing and moving bits about. They may not be the same numbers as you mentioned any more. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don’t you two take this to one of your talk pages? Give me a holler if you have something that doesn’t leave me aghast about how things can sometimes be done on Wikipedia. I’d prefer to believe (faith) that this isn’t gonna drag out into a three-month-long “kibibyte and mebibyte” thing. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Comments

This [3] is unacceptable. Article talk pages are for discussion of the article and its content. Personal statements about conduct of other editors outside their edits to that article are disallowed. If you have a problem with my conduct, take it my talk page, or seek dispute resolution.

I also will point out that the ruling you refer to is only a few hours old, was made by one admin personally involved in the dispute, in disagreement with the decisions of two other admins. It has already been challenged. If you want to base your conduct around such a millstone, I can't stop you.

Clean out the remark, or I will file RfC / enforcement.

In passing, as incongruous as it might sound, kudos on the NURBS render; very impressive work. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very well. You are correct. I shouldn’t have “neener neenered” at that venue. It might have been better to “neener neener” you on your own talk page. ;-) I have refactored my comment. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. BTW, I think we're coming slowly to true consensus on the al-Awlaki page. I didn't see anything to worry me in the last set of changes. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m pleased to hear that. I don’t particularly like those types of articles because passions often boil over. I think I’ll leave it to Eppe and Causa to sort out their differences on Awlaki and (no doubt) elsewhere. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui

Hello. This is to let you know that there is now a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue that you commented on here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the sudden silence on terrorism-related articles?

For those who might be wondering why I’ve laid off the terrorism-related articles, I say this…

They aren’t my cup of tea. So unless I see a colossal abuse under color of authority going on, I can think of better things to do that try to convince some admin—who fancies him or herself as having Unique and Unequaled, Keen Insight Into WP:BLP Powers©™®—to make the article more factual or balanced one way or another. After all, if I go somewhere on Wikipedia that puts me in such a foul mood that it partially spoils a top-down Miata drive on a perfect spring day, then I think it better to do things that put me in a better mood.

Ergo, I created File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif today. And I am now in a better mood, too. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. What tools are you using for that? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it is up for FA. Nicely done.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It’s now on several articles (in place of an uglier version). I use Cobalt (company Web site), (Wikipedia’s article), and GifBuilder. I also use QuickTime Pro. I do the modeling, lighting, an raw animation in Cobalt. Then I convert it to gif using GifBuilder. If I am creating a Theora .ogv video (color, but requires a “play” button, like this animation I made for the Cobalt article, then I use a add-on from within Firefox. Greg L (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Here are other illustrations I made. Commons:Created with Cobalt. Four of those (#2–5) were created by someone else—an expert I contacted while writing the Cobalt article. Greg L (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Baffling edits on terrorism-related articles that have no foundation

Causa sui, I simply can not fathom the foundation for this edit of yours where you deleted a category tag to {Al-Qaeda propagandists} with this edit summary: “(no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda)”. The article states (and is referenced to four citations) that Malika was convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots in Afghanistan and the U.S. I have here reverted your edit as unsupportable and uncalled for given the clear evidence to the contrary.

The above edit of yours, and one, where you referred to Anwar al-Awlaki—arguably the most dangerous U.S. citizen on the planet (the only U.S. citizen a president has ever targeted for direct military action to kill in order to save innocent lives)—as a “conservative Muslim scholar.” This amounts to misinformation in the same vein as describing Osama bin Laden as a “traditionalist Saudi royal.” But coy descriptions like these are misleading. Surly you must understand that; particularly since you exceedingly familiar with the al-Awlaki article and can’t reasonably argue that you don’t understand the issues that make him notable.

Your edits seem to be clearly and increasingly part of a troubling and persistent pattern of POV-pushing. Please desist.Greg L (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You should take a lesson from xeno (talk · contribs) on how to conduct yourself when handling this kind of disagreement. There is absolutely no reason to descend into this kind of dramatic histrionics when you are involved in a simple day-to-day content dispute. Your allusions about my motives are not welcome on my talk page and I am not interested in your mind-reading. We're here to work on article content and polite discussion is a normal -- even essential -- part of that. If you would like to direct your questions to me in a polite, sensible way then I would be happy to discuss them with you. --causa sui (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I replied to this on your talk page, where it properly belongs. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm now making this about your pattern of aggressively attacking people who make content edits you disagree with. This is one of many examples. You can't even ask me about an edit without descending into ranting personal diatribes about me, and attacking my character. I'm not the only person who has been the object of your rage. If you were at all interested in having a reasonable discussion about it, you could do it easily. My suggestion is that the next time you have a disagreement about one of my content edits, you have xeno (talk · contribs) approach me about it, because he seems to be able and willing to act reasonably toward others when he disagrees with them about something this minor. --causa sui (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, you will not get me to retreat from properly criticizing you editing behavior by falsely suggesting I have “attacked” your “character”. Your stating, as you did here on your talk page, that “edit summaries are small” doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Notwithstanding that there is far more room available for edit summaries, you elected to waste your seven short words by stating something “(no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda)” that simply wasn’t at all true. This isn’t the first time you’ve edited in a way that stripped out the legitimate and topical mentioning of someone’s known links to Al-Qaeda or known terrorist organizations, like this recent one, only eight days ago on 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination would Anwar al-Awlaki be properly described as a “conservative Muslim scholar.” I’m not saying any of this makes you a bad person; I’m simply saying these are, IMHO, bad edits. Please learn to differentiate between the two. Greg L (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, Causa sui. With regard to the category [[Category:Al-Qaeda propagandists]], I note your 16:11, 29 April 2010 post here on your talk page, where you illustrate a point by advancing an analogy via a rhetorical question: Are we going to add Bill O'Reilly to Category:United States Government propagandists? Am I reading you correctly that it is just a matter of ‘moral relativism’ in discerning a distinction between “Al-Qaeda propagandists” and “United States Government propagandists”. Your post clearly suggests that providing a category for one (in relation to someone convicted of the crime) begs the creation of a category that amounts to a counter-point view against terrorism. No? I further note your When we do it, it's public relations: when they do it, it's propaganda. It’s hard to escape the obvious thrust of your argument. Is this really your worldview? Greg L (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Exactly, I believe it could well be in breach of WP:NPOV. Perhaps the answer is to put the category up for deletion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Greg L - let's go back to the beginning of your complaint here. I can solve part of your bafflement. You say that you: "can not fathom the foundation for this edit...The article states (and is referenced to four citations) that Malika was convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots in Afghanistan and the U.S." In your edit summary you say "Reverted as without foundation. The article states she was “convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots”: There’s the evidence for the connection to Al-Qaeda"

• The fact is, Greg L, the article did not state that. The portions you are quoting refers to the convicted terrorist Vinas. The simple solution, the reasonable and good faith solution, would be to read one or more of the articles cited in the article on Malika El Aroud, then add a supported statement regarding her Al Qaeda membership or propagandizing, and then add back the category. Otherwise, it does indeed seem like pov pushing for you to add or re-add categories that are not supported by the text of the article -- especially when you are at the same time, accusing others of pov pushing. Sincerely, "209" 209.44.123.1 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. I was in error in quoting the wrong text there. What I should have quoted was this:In June 2007 she was found guilty by a Swiss court of supporting radical Islamist organizations via internet sites. The citation (SwissInfo.ch: Islamist website owners found guilty) stated as follows: The accused stood trial in Bellinzona for allegedly letting groups linked to al-Qaeda use internet forums they had set up to exchange information. Ergo, two facts are true: 1) There certainly is a connection to al-Qaeda. And 2) [[Category:Al-Qaeda propagandists]] is highly appropriate. Thanks for pointing out my error. Greg L (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

New quote

I like your quotes. Here's one from Einstein you might (or might not!) like:

• The purpose of science is to simplify as far as possible. But no further. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something Will Rogers or Yogi Berra would have said. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Remember that account who repeatedly misrepresented us and then said they made their last edit [4] when they failed to find any admins to believe that rubbish? Well he is back with a different account. Fnagaton 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Greg L (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jack-in-cube (lighter)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Challenge: Mystery dates

Can anyone correctly guess what these dates and probabilities represent(?):

	Date or range of dates	Probability of occurrence during date or range
Opportunity #1	May 14–22	15%
Opportunity #2	June 12–21	20%
Opportunity #3	July 12–21	25%
Opportunity #4	Aug 10–19	30%
Opportunity #5	Aug 12th	6%

Greater specificity: A certain thing may happen during any of the above opportunities but will not occur between these ranges.

The answer can be revealed only after a certain event occurs.

Greg L (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1. You get your wife pregnant? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Nice guess. Your reasoning seems to be predicated on the assumption that moon phases, celestial happenings, and/or biorhythms factor into the date ranges. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2. <next>

Lucy Merriam

Nice, well done :) J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Animated image resources

Please see:

• commons:Commons:Animated image resources

Feel free to add more info and sections. You might also be interested in this thread:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#GIF thumbnails in fact greatly increase file size!!!

Removing comments

No biggy, but instead of removing chatter like this you can use Template:collapsetop and Template:collapsebottom to hide the comments. Fences&Windows 18:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Roger that. I’ll keep this thread as a reminder, since there are more templates than one can shake a stick at. BTW, I enjoyed the way you concluded your post over there: We become admins by nurturing hundreds of sockpuppet accounts, sucking up to the cabal, offering sexual favours, and making denial of service attacks against Citizendium - or at least that's how I managed it. …“offering sexual favours”… I like people who damn near need a disclaimer at the ends of their posts. ;-) Greg L (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

re CSA gif

I can't imagine the timeline, et.al., would be particularly visible at a smaller size. I'd have to remove that. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anwar al-Awlaki. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please be aware that continued reverts will result in blocks. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Two edits in 24 hours (1 and 2) over two different things. And I did pretty much nothing but discuss things on the talk page. And my whole message point was about gaining consensus and not editing against it. And all that was done civily too. That is not an edit war by any stretch. I did everything by the book. Anyway, the I.P. editor settled down, I’m happy with the compromise, and I am done for the evening. I’m not sure about your underlying reasoning for stepping in when you did—in the way you did; but I like the outcome nonetheless. So thanks for the intervention; it cooled people’s jets and no-doubt allowed me to go to bed bit earlier. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It came to my attention at WP:RPP where another editor requested full protection of the article due to edit warring. I picked the most recent reverters and warned them because I'm always reluctant to dole out full protection, but as long as it's resolved, we can all go home! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, no

Surely the last words of the captain of the Titanic were "I thought you were fucking steering"? – iridescent 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Love it. I’ll work it in now. Greg L (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WRT allegations of "paid propagandism"

I saw that User:Iqinn recently accused you of being a "paid propagandist". User:Iqinn has also accused me of being a "paid propagandist".

For the record their allegation against me is completely false. For the record, can I assume their allegation against you is also completely false?

For the redord I considered the allegation very insulting, and I am going to assume you did also.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned their comment in a comment I left on User talk:Iqinn. Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, just to clarify this. I have never accused you of being a paid propagandist. I am sorry when you misinterpreted it in this way.

The whole article could not be more biased and has even the smell of paid propaganda.

That refers to the article Aafia Siddiqui as a whole and anybody can have a look at it and make up their own mind about the article. Let me repeat it again I never accused you of being a paid propagandist. I am sorry when you misinterpreted this sentence in this way. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Very well, thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sewer cover

I must say that I found the 1925 article to be much more interesting than 2008 (apparently I'm only interested in history I didn't live through, even though I don't pay much attention to news so I don't really know recent history in the first place). I'll also opine that, while significantly less useful, date articles are so much more interesting than years. I think that your page might very well be the most interesting essay, or whatever you want to call it, that I've come across on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)