Jump to content

User talk:GreenMeansGo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macustan (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 19 April 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


DYK for Tsamma juice

On 9 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tsamma juice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tsamma juice is named after the mother of all melons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tsamma juice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tsamma juice), 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) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert's Rules of Order. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to make Wikipedia's collective mind implode

The community can enact for a TBAN that's pretty much tailored in scope to whatever there's consensus for, as far as I'm aware, with no practical policy based restrictions. It is therefore in theory possible for the community to TBAN a sysop from doing any administrative action whatsoever (although something like viewing deleted revisions would be outside any practical scope without an admission), effectively enacting a community neutering, and justifying a bona fide desysop case if they violated the ban without getting prior approval from the community to lift it.

I don't think I've even ever heard someone joke about it, but if there was ever a situation where someone screwed up so badly there would be consensus for it (and yet ArbCom refused to do anything about it), as far as I know, there isn't anything anywhere in policy that would actually prevent it. You know, just in case ArbCom does one day decide to totally lose their marbles. GMGtalk 17:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'll just be bookmarking this then... Primefac (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, despite my best efforts, I've had occasion to think about ArbCom quite a bit over the past week or so, and spitball/day dream about what might be changed or tweaked. I had also considered that it would be interesting to institute a Tribune of the Plebs, but the obvious counterargument would be that if the community wanted a tribune, they'd vote one in. GMGtalk 17:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the community did effectively that for Arthur Rubin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the community doesn't yet realize the awesome power available to them, and thus have not done anything. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the community doesn't realize how awesome I am power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with great power comes great responsibility... and absolute power corrupts absolutely... so... maybe it's a good thing? Primefac (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why we have a cabal, to prevent this sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I totally forgot about that. I was at a field exercise for most of August playing in the woods. Well, AFAIK, blocks and bans are generally a separate issue altogether from user access levels of any type. Even indeffed users retain whatever user rights they have by default. So nothing the community can do can ever force ArbCom to desysop against their will, even outright site bans, but we could, like I said, through simple consensus create a lame duck admin (or even crat for that matter). That still wouldn't technically compel any action from ArbCom, but it would create a situation where any admin action whatsoever, and any other passing admin could hand out unilateral blocks for obvious and willful TBAN violations. GMGtalk 18:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)  [reply]
Wait. Am I correct in thinking that a blocked admin can only unblock themselves if it is a self block? Or did I just make that up? Also, what happens if an admin blocks a crat? (Other than a 2% likelihood every article gets oversighted and we have to start over.) GMGtalk 18:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A blocked admin can unblock themselves, but only if they want a speedy trip towards a desysop. Same probably goes for blocking a crat. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just in case a crap does get blocked, here's what to do: [1]. EEng 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick! Someone get me Dweller and a hammer. No time to explain. We're gonna do science! GMGtalk 18:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we will do science to it. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, then we just have to go to ArbCom and have a handful of arbs tell us that unblocking themselves was only an administrative action, and they had never been in any prior disputes with themselves, so it wasn't an INVOLVED action. GMGtalk 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't they lucky. I'm in dispute with myself every damn day. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your defense, policy restricts you to one account, not one personality. GMGtalk 18:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I topic banned Mike V from picking on The Rambling Man (or words to that effect) and he promptly quit the project (and is now desysopped for inactivity) - so it can happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...you know, I had not at all considered until now that ACDS does not clarify the role of administrators in any meaningful way (to this bit of rambling at least) other than as the "enforcing administrator", and leaves the door wide open for one admin to enact DS on another. GMGtalk 22:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's what I think WP:NOBIGDEAL boils down to - essentially, though being able to be trustworthy to pass RfA is a big deal, simply having the tools is not important when considering sanctionable behaviour. Failure to do this leads to the so-called "Super Mario effect", where an admin can do something severe enough to warrant major sanctions and get desysopped, whereas a non-admin doing the same would get banned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a problem. I had considered while just blankly standing under the water in the shower thinking, what the effect would be if we said something like...every three years every admin get's desysopped for three months as a matter of policy. Although it wouldn't remotely approach consensus, it'd be an interesting experiment. I do think part of the problem at ArbCom currently is people just getting too darn used to the thing and losing a bit of perspective. But as long as any one admin must necessarily degrade into a spectacular catastrophe to undo a decision reached at RfA, NOBIGDEAL rings a bit hollow. I know how I would have fixed that if we were having this discussion 15 years ago, but I've yet to find any obvious solution right now that doesn't immediately result in a logistical nightmare when you consider that we have to account for 15 years worth of history.
Of course the most expedient solution would be to simply elect an ArbCom that is especially conservative in their interpretation of things like ADMINACCT and INVOLVED, but there's essentially no reliable way of ensuring that given the institutional culture of ArbCom being a naturally reticent body. But I do think that the core problem with recruitment to the admin corps isn't the barrier to entry; it's the barrier to exit. GMGtalk 23:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have...

...some bloody bad timing. Two minutes between these edits. Have fun. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bold

¡Ay, caramba! or oi veh if you prefer. or even Ach! du l i e b er!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worst case scenario is I take it to AfD fishing for a redirect. Although it's probably in the best interest of our dear friend if we don't, since I have serious doubts about whether they can maintain their composure through a whole week worth of sustained discussion. If the organization is notable, it ain't by a wide margin.
Prime is indeed a merciful overlord, and/or possibly has an undisclosed conflict of interest with a major domestic rope manufacturer. GMGtalk 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I keep meaning to put a {{paid}} template on my userpage, but I figure if I've made it this far I can keep going. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, what we certainly do not do is use the self-description of a hate group to make them sound like the Mouseketeers, when the only substantive disagreement among sources is exactly what type of hate group they are. As to that much there was never any doubt. It was, and is, pretty much just still a question of whether we carry on honky dory and I can go back to writing about a park, or whether a block comes before or after needing to call in the cavalry. GMGtalk 16:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

© Machine translation

Perhaps this will help.Given the situation of a Wikipedian using Google to translate compatibly licensed content, it is very unlikely that the use of that content on Wikipedia violates any Google copyrights. Assuming that any derivative copyright attaches, it is most probable that the Wikipedian would own it. Since the source material is presumably available by CC-BY-SA 3.0 or a similar license, the translated work would be safe for use on Wikipedia as long as its source is properly attributed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. I just found that a few minutes ago and posted it on the talk. Seems like the verdict is "unlikely but untested". At any rate, maybe I'm missing where this is outlined elsewhere in existing recommendations, but I still think the bit about posting a translation on the talk is distracting from the core goal of the RfC, and at best is creating a separate largely superfluous policy addition in the process of creating a meaningful common sense policy addition of moving non-English articles to draft as standard procedure.
Frankly, even without the bit about copyright, I don't intend to start posting translations on the talk page, because I presume the patrolling admin can open a new tab all by their lonesome. In the case that no talk page yet exists, it also creates an unnecessary additional page that needs deleted. I think you'd be better off narrowing the focus as much as possible to what you really want to accomplish, namely moving non-English articles to drafts, rather than tacking on an extra bit that is just going to be distracting and wind up with at least a few opposes for instruction creep, from people who probably agree with the core issue.
As it is currently worded, my early !vote would be:
  • Support moving non-English articles to drafts. Oppose the requirement to post translations on talk pages as unnecessary.
I don't think it does anybody any good to have the white noise of early !votes like that clouding the main issue. GMGtalk 17:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point of the RfC - and the main issue. Those are not offered as debating points. There is A - support it or oppose it; and there is B - support it or oppose it. Anyway. I've taken the draft RfC away. I should have got it peer reviewed offline. I have come across a dozen non-English pages recently where our so-called highly qualified reviewers were to damn lazy even to find out what language it was, let alone run it through Google to see what it was about. Not only are such Reviewers wasting their own time, they're wasting everyone else's. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I...I'm not totally sure how we can be in such broad agreement and yet disagree. All I'm doing is trying to ensure that a common sense change has the highest possible chance of success. My initial comment had a little too much banter in it, but it did help me narrow my own thoughts on the issue. I think you should narrow your own thoughts on the issue as I have done, and simply propose that non-English articles should be draftified as a matter of policy, full stop. I think that has the highest chance of success if it is a concise as possible. GMGtalk 20:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)`[reply]
Back to the copyright of machine translations: Computational linguistics is not a recently invented field of study. I was working with my publishers as long ago as 20 years on developing semantic search algorythms, and the issue of copyright of language snippets in the database was mentioned but not considered to be a serious concern for derivative works. We concluded that a piece of software not being a juristic person cannot possess a copyright. Linguists at large are still somewhat divided, but there appears to be a consensus that the products of SAS are original or derivative works. On a final note, language per se is common property, no one can lay a claim to it except perhaps the creators of constructed languages, such as the Klingon language, that are created for example for Sci-Fi movies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm pretty much an idiot as far as computers go. Editing Wikipedia is probably the most technically advanced thing I know how to do. I have a graduate degree in community based social work/non-profit administration. That's a lot of why I like Wikipedia, because I like community organizing and coalition building.
I think your idea is a good idea. I think your proposal can be improved to increase its chance of success. GMGtalk 05:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of administrators being "INVOLVED":

Doug Weller has just reverted an IP on the talk page. The IP was complaining about a six-month block by Future Perfect at Sunrise for removing an unsourced fallacy from an article. It was reverted by Doug Weller who made four edits to the article in five minutes removing the IP's factual edit and restoring the speculation, claiming the factual summary was "original research". Next day, after the IP pointed out that the restored text did not mention the "Common era" (the subject of the article) he wrote to Future Perfect at Sunrise suggesting he block, because he personally didn't think the edits blockworthy. Surely he is too involved with Future Perfect at Sunrise to handle this case impartially and should recuse. What's your view? 86.152.38.229 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think? I think I honestly hate all this crap and I wish it all just would go away, and that nothing is more effective at killing the joy I get out of Wikipedia than bureaucratic bickering. I wish people wouldn't act like jerks, and I wish it didn't take a congressional committee to ask someone not to act like a jerk in the future. I look forward to going back to writing articles for my daughter to read one day and forgetting about the whole things as soon as possible. Assuming you're somehow not a block or ban evading user, which seems unlikely given an anonymous editor with such a strong opinion about ArbCom, Charles P. Mattocks could probably still benefit from a fourth opinion on a copyedit, and here is a 200 page report from the National Park Service that needs to be incorporated into Cumberland Gap National Historical Park. That's important. All the other crap is a distraction. GMGtalk 17:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change Jbh Talk 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I figured. It's just been a shitty day and I took the opportunity to vent. GMGtalk 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope tomorrow is less shitty and you are able to enjoy next weekend if not this one… :) Jbh Talk 19:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technicalties...

(edit conflict) Huh? Wow. I totally missed that short lived request. That's what I get for rambling at the village pump right before bed. But the point still stands that this would have been a situation where a community review could have long ago reached a consensus for a re-RfA, and he would have needed to choose whether to stand for one, or whether to resign voluntarily. It may have even saved an editor, if we had separated him from the drama of admining before things got bad enough that they left entirely, blocked and demopped for good measure.
Other than that, mostly I was just interested in any opinion you might have on the whole thing. It's the only real compromise I've been able to come up with between an outright community desysop process, and the bureaucratic mess we have currently. But it's still really just a two factor community desysop, or community desysop once removed, depending on how you look at it, and I pretty much still expect that it will probably go nowhere in the end. I'd also be interested in any input from my dedicated wiki stalkers. GMGtalk 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. But see the thing is it actually is permissible under policy. You just have to word it as a TBAN rather than a right removal. By which I mean that I probably just need to be "lucky enough" to catch one of these threads before someone closes it with "ArbCom or gtfo" and point out that there is another option, and one that is perfectly aligned with existing policy. GMGtalk 13:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like your TBAN idea but I think there would be a large psychological barrier to implementing it. The community has a pretty big "its Arbcom's problem" block when it comes to complaints against administrators. That is part of the problems. Taking the events of the current ArbCom case as example; it would have been trivial for another administrator to a) warn about edit warring b) said 'do not protect the page like you are threatening' c) treated the page protect as a revert and blocked for 3RR. Personally I think 'c.' would have been the way to go. It would have shown that the action was wrong and documented it in their block log.
I have been thinking about accountability and recall. I do not know if it is solvable considering both attitudes within the community and the complexity of any system which could address it. I started a comment for the VPP thread but it is more spitballing ideas than a proper comment. If you or any stalkers have any ideas or comments please let me know. My notes are at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 06. Jbh Talk 15:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a forced re-RfA is the only thing I've found that sits well with me. It's intuitive in that it employs two existing systems we already know how to use as a community: normal consensus building and RfA itself, without creating anything new that users have to learn to navigate. Keeping in mind that part of the barrier to exit of the admin corps, is not just screwing royally up and pissing off the community, but pissing off one person in particular that has the experience and motivation to file a case request and do it correctly, and then follow through to a successful desysop, which is a skill set that basically no new editor and comparatively few moderately experienced editors have.
It also perfectly aligns the standard for getting the mop with the standard of keeping it, when in comparison, ArbCom puts the standard for desysop at a level higher than RfA itself, and a direct community desysop at AN sets a bar that is lower. But it's probably doomed to fail as a proposal currently, and the current system would probably need to degrade further into dysfunction before the community would support a major change like that. Basically, ArbCom would need to continue to screw up as they currently are, and demonstrate that they are more likely to bicker about the wording of slaps on the wrist rather than take any meaningful action.
The TBAN thing is...a thing...and I'm just waiting for a test case honestly. I think it could be a useful tool if it became part of the "standard tools" used by the community to solve disputes at AN/ANI, but that's an issue of organizational culture that would have to change over time with successful precedent. If we get a case or two where TBANs are successfully enacted, and at least one instance where 1) ArbCom backs up a violation with a desysop, and 2) someone actually spends six months or so in the trenches and the community lifts the ban in good faith, then I think it may become a part of the project to stay. But that's a long process that has to happen organically. GMGtalk 16:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, GMG, Jbhunley, and Winged Blades of Godric, I actually agree with at least two of you re: the current issue at ARC (I have very strong thoughts on involved full protection), and I think that the comment of at least one arbitrator there is very disappointing. I don't think a community based process would have resulted in much different: ArbCom is actually arguably more insulated from people taking care of their friends than ANI, and I think the current motion is likely more than you would have gotten elsewhere.
    One reform proposal that might work, and that I would support, would be a shortened case request process for situations like the recent Gryffindor situation: if there is a clear community consensus that the actions need to be reviewed, the committee could accept it on an abbreviated schedule of one week per phase (that is what they did with the Salv issue.) or if need by handle it by motion (which they have in the past).
    While I do oppose any direct desysop process, and don't think it would have any impact on lowering the RfA standards like GMG thinks it would, I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that it should be streamlined and that when a legitimate case for a desysop has been brought, the committee should accept it even if they do not end up removing the bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether it affects standards at RfA is going to always be an educated guess unless we try it. I also personally more interested in improving the behavior of some of our mediocre-ish-ly bad admins who often live in that spot beneath being a good admin, but above an ArbCom case. I'm also more interested in improving the rift between some of our most prolific content creators and our most prolific admins, because there is often a general feeling that "the overlords are held to a different standard" and in some cases that is a legitimate point, even if in many others it's vitriol for the purpose of vitriol. All that is much more important to me than whether any individual admin ever actually get's desysopped through a community process. The process isn't an end, it's a means either way, and I'm always open to alternatives. GMGtalk 17:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first, and hardest, cultural change is having the members of the community actually accept that the community can censure administrators. The idea of 'forced re-RfA' is good but the only way I can think to get it to work is to lobby the admin corp to each accept binding recall procedures. Otherwise we must create a new authority/right which explicitly gives the community the ability to, through some process, force it. We have never gotten any consensus for that authority.
Another option is to use the 'no confidence motions' which have popped up at ANI every now and then to make a community recommendation for de-sysop to ArbCom. ANI threads though are the worst place on the project to examine an admin's actions/behavior, for obvious reasons. It also requires ArbCom to accept such a recommendation as valid.
The idea of a shortened ArbCom process would be good — assuming ArbCom has any desire to actually address mid-tier admin issues. It would prevent the "well this is bad but not worth a full case" canard. That could be handled much like the FPaS case, through extended discussion. The two things I would want to add to that though are; compulsory participation of the admin whose actions are being examined, and the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on. I'd limit that last to a single motion per participant but the vote requirement forces a bit of accountability on ArbCom members which could influence the votes of people who care about such things when elections come around.
All that said, nothing will actually change because no one really cares about accountability — if they did every admin would have a binding recall procedure. Those editors who do care, usually because they get hit by some bad call and have no recourse, burn out or get labeled "critics" or "haters" and finally, if they bring it up too often "trolls". Often those labels will be deserved because people who have been unjustly wronged, or think they have been, and have no legitimate way to seek 'justice' get mad. Frustration leads to contempt leads to confrontation leads to a bad reputation leads to blocks leads to bans leads to bitching about the injustice of it all over on WO. All in all I'd rather edit and have fun.
One final observation, being an administrator requires a vastly different skill set than being a good content creator. Being a good Arbitrator requires a different skill set than either. Each needs to understand the perspective and difficulties of the other but being good at one role does not remotely qualify one for another. Jbh Talk 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on Now that's an interesting idea.
Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. (from WP:AP) So we can force internal changes in process even if the committee objects, which I hadn't considered all that much really. I'm not sure exactly how that might work though, or whether there would be a potential for abuse. I mean, this discussion has just been spitballing ideas all the way down, so it's definitely an interesting suggestion to be sure. The suggestion to have abridged cases I like also, but you would have to pretty much leave it up to arb discretion when to do that probably.
As to a voluntary recall process, that's pretty much what we have already. But of course almost anyone with any real chance of being recalled has not chosen to opt in. GMGtalk 19:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the ability for participants to propose motions which ArbCom must vote on: This sounds very similar to this proposal, which I have enthusiastically supported. Alex Shih (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all except for the "must" part. So for example, the (arguably POINTY) motion that I proposed which was predictably ignored, because I would expect that any terribly controversial motion is going to be ignored similarly, even if it may be of some benefit by telling the community exactly where each person stands. GMGtalk 19:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of reform, most of the things discussed her can be done without an RfC, and honestly, it’d probably have more of an impact than a major policy reform RfC anyway: those only work when there is a strong preexisting consensus and the proposal is narrowly worded. The great advantage to how en.wiki works is that we don’t need a policy to do the vast majority of things: practice is policy. I think Jbh’s point re: censure is good: propose it more often. We’ve already seen recently the community is fine with it. I think the TBAN thing will be a harder sell, but you’re welcome to try it. There is *a lot* that can be done within existing confines, people just need to be willing to do it.

Re: the arb stuff: ArbCom can already resolve things by motion (it has desysoped by motion in the past) and it can also set shorter than standard timelines for cases (they did for MisterWiki, and I think at least one other recent case). The thing is just getting them to do it, which is often just saying “Hey, would you mind making this exception to normal procedure” to whichever arb is being most active on the case request page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I do agree that ideally policy codifies rather than creates consensus. I don't think we have a strong current consensus for community review, but I don't think we have a strong current consensus against it. That division waxes and wanes according to ArbCom. I think the TBAN idea has support in policy, in addition to isolated precedent. It's just waiting to be tested in a situation where it will gain consensus. I also think the discussion has been productive, even if it's just for helping me sort out my own thoughts on the issues, although it's not been a particularly productive day because of it. GMGtalk 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Is this kind of comment actually ever a more effective use of time than just notifying them?

Saw your comment, and I wanted to reply without derailing the thread. In answer to your question, they don't pay me enough (such as it were) to do other people's notification work for them, and if you lack the courage to tell someone your dragging them before the admin inquisition then in my opinion you've got no faith or confidence in your position which speaks volumes as to whose really causing the trouble in the article(s), don't you think? Its not that hard to say "the problem's moved here, please come and discuss it" any more than it is to notify users of xfd or rfc or rfa discussions, and yet somehow no one wants to, and if editors and contributors can't be bothered to take ten seconds to leave a message then I won't be bothered to do it for them. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. It was a rhetorical question, and the answer we're looking for is "no". It is rarely if ever more productive to start an ANI thread with a distracting side bar about procedure, rather than taking 15 seconds to copy/paste a template. Failing to do so is rarely if ever a grand political statement about having the courage of your convictions. It usually means they didn't realize, forgot, or in this case, did notify them but did so without using our handy dandy template. Kindly take my word for it dear janitor, I have about ten times as many edits to ANI as you do. I've seen a thread or two in my time. GMGtalk 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflict) Courage? Couldn't it simply be neglect or indifference or apathy or ignorance? I think it could, but, in this case, Flyer22 Reborn notified JMccoy13 19 minutes before you told them to do so and added "Once you've done that, then we will consider your request". Or am I wrong? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In all honesty, its just not worth it when you can do it yourself (although honestly I'm a little surprised that at this point we do not have a bot to do this sort of thing). That being said, I can still dream of the day when editors will actually follow procedure, right? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sluzzelin: I didn't see one on the user talk page, hence the post. If I was mistaken, then the responsibility is mine to bear, and I shall take my leave for 24 hours as a measure of reconciliation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out man. Not everything is a referendum on the state of the world. (I've had probably plenty enough of that today already. See above.) Just...use common sense and don't be a jerk. GMGtalk 22:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G.H. Sheldon Wholesale Bakers page - marked for deletion.

Hi GMG

Thanks for reaching out. The page I have created is not promotional, and not intended to be so. I am working on it, as it is about a UK business containing only factual information.

Please can you provide any guidance on what you believe to be promotional?

Thank you.

Sheldonsbakery (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheldonsbakery. The short answer is, basically the entire article is promotional from top to bottom. The long answer is, since you appear to have an outside connection with the subject given your choice of username, should review our policies on conflicts of interest, and while you are welcome to help us build a better encyclopedia in other ways, you should ideally not be editing in areas where you are conflicted. GMGtalk 13:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am following the layout and content of similar articles. My sources come from the company website and news articles. I shall continue to edit, including references from external sources in the hope that it will pass review. Sheldonsbakery (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:CSA Steaua Bucure?ti (football)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CSA Steaua Bucure?ti (football). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please admonish this editor

Since you are already involved in on Category talk:Jews, please tell Triggerhippie4 that handing out commands or saying that editors should be barred from editing (for no other evident reason than that he they disagree with him) is not acceptable. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you realize neither of you have done anything here other than escalate tensions, and this entire situation could have probably been avoided if one or the other had tucked their feelings away and approached things with a cool head from the get go. Going forward, hit the preview button, ctrl-f "you" and delete anything that contains it before publishing. You'll find you get much more joy, and much less frustration out of editing. GMGtalk 10:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix NPP forever

Make an edit filter, and prevent any editor with less than 50 edits from creating a new article with the word "solutions" in it. I give it 95% that if an article includes the word "solutions" it's going to have a very G11 time. The other 5% are probably articles about solutions in mathematics and/or physics. No independent good faith editor ever wrote:

NFQ Technologies is a Lithuanian and German-owned international software development company that builds web and mobile solutions for the travel, logistics, aviation and retail industries and also develops the proprietary platform ONGR for accelerating large-scale e-commerce projects.

It's just not a thing. Because it's a vaguely positive meaningless word designed to be vaguely positive but meaningless. It is the king, no... emperor of advertorial jargon. GMGtalk 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPPbrowser gives nine articles with "solutions" Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh. Science. And I wonder how many of them are already in CAT:G11. GMGtalk 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. There's a real gem. "Solution" x 4. "Solutions" x 2. Based on those two numbers alone you could just about auto-delete this via bot. GMGtalk 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into this

The creation of a separate page was to expand on different segment of the organisation. SIM Global Education, the brand and provider of private education and SIM Group. It is normal to port over information 1st and build from there.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreenMeansGo&oldid=837234759"