User talk:GreenMeansGo

Warning: this page is guarded by Mr. Fuzzybottom, and he don't mess around.

Talkback

Hello, GreenMeansGo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Message added 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review Joe Ikhinmwin article

Hi. Please review Joe Ikhinmwin article. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bbarmadillo. I normally don't deal very much with sports topics, but since they appear to have played professionally, it seem the article will likely be accepted once it is reviewed. I would add a caution that posting this on probably a dozen user talk pages is generally going to be considered bad form, and probably isn't something you should get in the habit of. GMG^talk 17:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: thank you. I've already been warned by another admin. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure its necessarily a warning per se. It looks like you've put a lot of work in, and I'm sure you're eager to have it reviewed. Just some advice. Feel free to stop by anytime. GMG^talk 18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Very kind of you to say this. Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

maintenance tags

Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC): Hey! I've been looking for an experienced user to look into a page that I've created, Rizwan as a user has left maintenance tags on the page of me having a conflict of interest with the sub and using vague language, despite having backed my artcile with various citations. Please look into this and remove the tags if you seem fit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Ghafoor (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rashid Ghafoor. A few things to unpack here, assuming you're referring to Rizwan Ahmed (Pakistani official). First, if you do have an outside connect with topics you write about on Wikipedia, then you should review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them, including disclosing these connections, usually by posting a notice on your user talk page.

Second, the article does currently seem to contain quite a bit of language that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. For example:

• high-ranking Pakistani government official currently - According to whom? What position does he actually currently occupy?
• largely considered to be among the most influential bureaucrats - Considered by whom? As judged by what standard?
• enjoys a reputation of being an upright and competent officer - Why is this important? Presumably most people who are good at their jobs are also upright and competent. Why is this singularly important to an encyclopedic understanding of this individual?
• almost four years (July 2013- May 2017) - Assuming this is in the source, an encyclopedia wouldn't normally say "almost for years"; it would just give the dates.
• one of the longest-serving chairman in the history of the Corporation - One of? One of how many? Is he fourth? Fourteenth? Who's criteria are we using to determine the cut off point for "one of the longest serving"?
• made headlines for his achievements - Why is making headlines itself important? Why are we not just using these headlines to source content about what he has objectively accomplished?

Learning to write for Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve, because it can be quite different from writing for other venues. In a nutshell, an encyclopedia is kindof supposed to be written by a "neutral editorial robot" that just gives the bare facts and isn't really able to understand colloquial or colorful language. To our neutral editorial robot, a lot of the language above would come back as does not compute, because the words sound quite nice and complementary, but at the base of it, it doesn't really convey a lot of cold hard facts, doesn't really convey very much actual information to readers.

Hopefully this helps some. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you may have. GMG^talk 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Firstly, thankyou so much for such a helpful and detailed insight. Can I fix these issues, the high profile rank is later on described in the Career and one of the longest serving chairman is referred to the official website of the organization. If I fix these issues, can I myself remove these tags. I think not because I created this article, so that's why I wanted a third user to remove the content which they think is vague and hence, remove the tags. Thank you!

Well Rashid Ghafoor, I think the first thing that needs to be gotten out of the way is to unequivocally state whether you do or do not have an outside connection with the subject. That could help clear up a lot of things. But if you want to have a go at cleaning the article up, feel free to drop a note when you have and I'll look over it. GMG^talk 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC) As stated when creating the article itself, no outside connection. The mere problem I have with the COI tag is this.

For Wikipedia's editorial policy on using the Daily Mail as a reference, see Wikipedia:Citing Daily Mail

See if the new wording changes your mind ... or suggest better wording. We now have about a dozen sites that are not blacklisted but are not to be used as a reference, our editorial policy needs to be clear, or people will waste time adding references that are going to be deleted. --RAN (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense RAN, but I think you're looking at things a little backward. To my mind, readers should always be our primary concern, and editors are our foremost secondary concern precisely because readers are the primary one, and without editors we don't have readers. But editors are aware of the back end. Most readers aren't, and probably don't terribly want to be, although we hope to glean enough of them into the back end in order to keep the project running. I don't think this link would make sense to me in 2004, before I ever ventured to click the edit button. And you're talking about a page with average of about 1.6k views a day, putting many more readers in a place they don't understand why they're at, for the benefit of a comparatively few editors who should probably already have grown to understand things. GMG^talk 01:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why object to this one and not the >1,000 other ones at Template:Selfref? --RAN (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. GMG^talk 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Either way, I guess I would add that WP:DAILYMAIL exists, and doesn't seem terribly hard to remember. Also the DAB only seems to get about ten hits per day, and overall is going to be much more visible to editors, and much less visible to readers. So, seems like putting an XNR there, rather than the main article, is a pretty good compromise from all sides. GMG^talk 13:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carter Page

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carter Page. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

hey mr greenmeansgo sir so sorry about writing on your page i am a new user you see and i don't know how to use the website properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqra Ali (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Iqra Ali, it looks like you know how to use the site well enough, and if you make another vandalizing edit, as you have done many times now, you will be blocked from editing. GMG^talk 17:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok mr greenmeansgo i will follow your advice seeing as you have been using the website for over 9 years. Also, what would you consider as a 'vandalizing edit'? I might just quit Wikipedia tbh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqra Ali (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I suppose I should have added in retrospect, that you may also be blocked if you continue to feign ignorance over what vandalism is. Oh well. GMG^talk 17:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Santa Fe Relocation company logo 2017.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Santa Fe Relocation 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) 18:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Iqra Ali

Yo GreenMeansGo remember me I'm unbanned now so yeah!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqra Ali (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Iqra Ali, I would recommended going through our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, and learning a little bit more about the way things work to avoid future blocks. Wikipedia is not a place to experiment and doing so can waste the time of others who are trying to improve articles. GMG^talk 19:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the advice! I tend to usually experiment on my sandbox anyway because it's SUPER fun!!! :D I will definitely check out the Wikipedia Adventure thing. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqra Ali (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please review page

Rashid Ghafoor (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC) I have erased vague statements as well as made corrections on the page Rizwan Ahmed (Pakistani official) such as mentioning the position instead of 'one of the longest' by actually stating the actual number and mentioning the high-profile post the subject owns being second-in-command of the country's Federal Cabinet. Also the matter being an influential officer is backed by references by the news where the officer has stated him to bring upon drastic changes in bureaucracy and government affairs. The reputation part has been removed as you pointed out.If you think something is vague and promotes conflict of interest, please remove it so that the maintenance tags are dealt with. I have tried my best to back matter with references hence a small length article has more than 20 citations! Thankyou