User talk:Gregmg

About Wine

It is a bit unfair to judge the countries with best wine by their share in the market. Some countries will never be major market players due to their small size, but still have some of the best wines in the world.

I assume this is in reference to my removal of "Slovenia" from a list of producers of collectable wines on the wine page. First, I never take lightly any change I make of someone else's edits on any Wikipedia article. I didn't immediately make this change either. I saw it in the morning, but waited until later in the day to give myself some time to consider the matter and do some research.

You, or someone else, edited the article to list "Slovenia, United States, and France" as producers of exclusive or collectable wines. This suggests to the reader that Slovenia is perhaps the most notable or largest producer or exclusive wines. I checked several wine references for this, both hardcopy books and online, and I just couldn't find anything to justify that. Quality is of course subjective, but in terms of notariety and quantity, I just couldn't find anything to suggest that Slovenia was a major player in this market. In researching this, I found the following to be the most recognized, talked about, and award-winning producers of collectable wines: France, Italy, Spain, the United States, Australia, and Portugal, in that order. To keep it short, I only listed the first four, but that was an arbritary decision on my part.

If you feel that Slovenia deserves special mention, please discuss it on the wine talk page. I obviously don't agree, but if the concensus sides with you, the article will change accordingly. Gregmg 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't change the piece in question, but was there when it was done. I was just iritated by the reason of reversal - it seems that quality is equated with quantity, which i believe is very problematic, since it makes it impossible for any small country, not just Slovenia to enter the list of the countries with best wines. If the list actually contains the countries that are actually largest producers, than that should be noted, IMHO.

Again, I looked at the issue from every angle. Awards, coverage in the press, interest among collectors, etc. I just couldn't come up with anything to suggest that Slovenia was well known for its collectable or exclusive wines, or a major player in the collectable wine market. Perhaps I should have made that more clear when I made the change. Had I been the one to initially list any countries, I would have provided references. I may go back and add references for the list as it stands now, since I did change it. We really need to move this discussion to the Wine talk page. Gregmg 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on Assault Weapon

I've been watching the progress of this article, and trying to help out here and there. I'd only known the political definition previously, but you've done a great job explaining military usage of the term too. This article is getting better all the time. It's great to see someone providing neutral and informative content. Thanks! Friday 03:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, the most recent edit to incorporate a military definition was someone else's work. Thanks though for your kind comments. Gregmg 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user removing Compuserve sentence on Rush Limbaugh

I don't know what this guy's deal is, but there have to be better steps to take than just reverting his changes. I've tried reporting it to WP:VIP but he uses an ISP that has different IP addresses. Let me know if you have any ideas. I think holding a vote may be the only way to stop him. MicahMN | Talk 14:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page should be protected until he loses interest and goes away. The thing I can't figure out is what his angle is. Does he really think this makes Rush look wierd? While I don't consider myself a "Dittohead" (Rush fan), I do kind of like him and listen to his show once in a while. I think this reference makes Rush look... well... smart. Gregmg 14:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good revert on the Limbaugh page. I did it at almost the same time, but you beat me to it. Great minds...Gator1 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Racial slur

This whole nickname thing is a new one to me? Where is this guy getting this? I've never heard this one? Have you?Gator1 21:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew. I don't listen to Rush very often, so I can't say it's totally bogus. It seems out of character for Rush to say anything even suggestive of a slur. Perhaps someone who listens to Rush every day will respond to this. Gregmg 22:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Same here, I work during day, but I've heard him recently and I haven't heard him say this...you'd think someone would have jumpred on THAT right away. What do you want to do if this guy declares an edit war? I've got 2 edits left on the day. lolGator1 22:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This smells a lot like the NAALCP controversy. Rush has repeatedly defined NAALCP as National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People when pointing out that the NAALCP never embraces conservative black politicians. But somewhere along the way someone swapped out Lazy for Liberal and people are still up in arms about it. I posted a comment to the talk page. Maybe someone with access to the transcripts will clarify or totally discount this new alleged quote. Gregmg 22:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Golbez

You tell me. Was Golbez's response to me on the Limbaugh page over the top or did I deserve that? Be honest, I trust you.Gator1 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been participating in online forums (Usenet) since '89. In my experience, it's best not to get too wrapped up in anything other people say in these forums. Just let their comments roll off of you and keep your cool. Your edits on the Limbaugh page and elsewhere have been a huge contribution to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, but take my advice and don't let anything get to you.

Gregmg 14:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,I'll clarify. It was his response in his edit summary. See history. You're right. He can act like a real jerk sometimes and it just wasn't necessary. I mentioned "deafening silence" ONCE. How is that "harping?" Loo up "harp" in the dictonary......not cool. You're opinion is appreciated.Gator1 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for removing my redundant links; didn't realize what the convention is.David Justin 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion

Greg- That's a good suggestion, which I'll follow.David Justin 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

MobyGames

Greg- Within certain communities MobyGames is highly regarded. Specifically game developers consider MobyGames notable. Admittedly MobyGames is not consumer oriented. However it is the only website with a comprehensive database of video game credits. example 1, example 2, example 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipkin (talk • contribs)

I apologize if I implied at any point that it wasn't a highly regarded site. On the matter of your autobiography, I was merely suggesting that it wasn't prominent enough to convey notability to you. On the matter of linking to it from various game articles, I was suggesting that per the External links guide, in some cases a link to it from a Wikipedia article was not justified. Gregmg 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny. The statement, "Everyone and their dog has a website these days... if that's the criteria for being worthy of an encyclopedia article, then I want to write one for my dog." would imply something else.--Flipkin 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not disparaging your website. At no point have I suggested that the MobyGames article should not exist. I have only suggested that your biography should not. Didn't you feel at least a little uncomfortable creating a biographical article for yourself? While not against policy, per se, it certainly runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines. If your notability is such that a biographical article is warranted, someone else will write it. It's also considered link spamming to add external links in articles to your own site. Please review the External links guide for more information regarding what should and should not be linked to. Gregmg 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Greg, I beleive in the democratic nature of the Internet and Wikipedia. In fact MobyGames is very much a community driven project. If you look at the history of MobyGames article it was not written by me, but there was wiki link someone create for David Berk. I filled it in trying to adhere to the NPOV guideline. Heck the thing said 'David Berk' article doesn't exist why don't you create it. Additionally I discovered wikipedia and there were a few links to mobygames. I created some and this was the feedback I got. At no point do I try to game the system or not adhere to the guidelines. There are a lot of opinions out there. I agree with some and not with others. If there was some other David Berk I could understand the removal of the bio. However I cofounded a website. It gets one million visitors a month. In a small niche of the industry ( which is growing ) a lot of people really consider what we are doing important.