User talk:GreenMeansGo

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

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Scheer. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the speedy deletion on the Genohm page

Hello, can you please give me more information about how did you find the page promotional? In stead of deleting it why don't simply participate to improve the text ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadjem007 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nadjem007. As to what part of the article is promotional, the short answer is all of it. The long answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a means for you to promote your company, and that you need to review our guidance on managing conflicts of interest and be careful to abide by it.

As to why I do not help rewrite it for you, to try to turn it into an actual article rather than an obvious advertisement, the answer is that we get hundreds if not thousands of similar advertisements every day, and it is a strain on our volunteer time simply to identify and delete them. It would be much appreciated if you did not actively work to further strain that limited resource. GMG^talk 12:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello GreenMeansGo, Who told you that I am working for that company? Who told that I am not volunteer? Well It's much better to spend a little bit of your time explaining to me what I did wrong (one time), instead of spending your very precious volunteer time deleting all the pages that I will creat. Because I still don't know why this my text doesn't fit Wikipedia recommendations.

...You...do realize LinkedIn is publicly available don't you? And no. I will not spend my time training you how to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement. The only recommendation you need from Wikipedia is to go advertise your companies elsewhere. If you one day decide to come back and write about topics for which you are interested, rather than writing for self promotion, I'll be happy to help. GMG^talk 14:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Feminist Perspective of Rhoda

Hello, I am a student at wingate university and I posted the link to my two articles of the Rhoda page. I understand that you flagged the comparison to Mary Magdalene (because it is not very necessary), but I do not understand the feminist perspective article? I would like that one to stay just as a suggestion to other readers on Rhoda. if its okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey WilliamColeEdwards. Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate the efforts you're putting into these, but I'm afraid they're a little bit misplaced. Generally, information about Rhoda or information about Mary Magdalene should go into their respective existing articles as appropriate, rather than creating spin off articles comparing the two. The exception to this would be if the comparison between them in particular was itself the subject of sustained in-depth coverage across a wide variety of published sources, such that it would uniquely qualify under our standards for notability.

So for example, the play Hamlet has its own article, but there has been such an overwhelming amount written about the play itself, that Critical approaches to Hamlet also has it's own stand alone article. But this kind of thing is comparatively rare, and you have to go to the likes of Shakespeare in order to find examples of it. GMG^talk 17:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand why that should not be there! I apologize! I have deleted the link to that page. however, can the link to the Feminist perspective stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well William, we kindof have to look at the whole context here when deciding how and when to make stand alone articles. In this case, Rhoda (biblical figure) is only a short three paragraphs long article, and content should really be added there first, since presumably that's where readers interested in Rhoda are going to look first themselves. Then if certain sections of that article get too large, we would at that point look to spin off stand alone articles for particular sections, so that they don't overwhelm the rest of the article.

Also in this case, for example, it looks like nearly all of what you are adding is based on the Chambers source, which can be perfectly fine for adding content to existing articles, but we shouldn't be basing entire new articles on a single source, because it's difficult to tell whether we're representing the topic neutrally (without anything to compare our source to). Also with only a single source, you can't demonstrate that the subject (in this case feminist perspectives on Rhoda, rather than Rhoda herself) definitely meets our standards for notability, because meeting those standards necessarily requires that a subject be written about in more than one source, in your case, you would need a fairly wide variety of feminist scholars dealing with Rhoda in-depth, but you can gather those sources through adding content to the existing article for Rhoda, and then once they're gathered, we can look at whether they amount to enough to have a stand alone article. GMG^talk 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand! I did try to edit the Rhoda page but that made people unhappy until they finally edited my work down to the small last paragraph. That is why I didn't want to add it directly to the Rhoda page. I along with my professor (who is a biblical scholar) will continue to edit and add sources to the Feminist perspective page so it meats the requirements. Would that be okay? I would just like that small link to stay there so possibly other feminist biblical scholars can edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well William, getting your edits reverted occasionally is normal for any Wikipedia editor, but tends to happen less often as you start to get the hang of the way things work. One of the most difficult things for new editors to get a feel for, and probably one of the reasons why your edits were reverted, is that unlike almost any other form of writing, Wikipedia is the one place where you don't write about what you, William Cole Edwards, personally think. Here, that's called original research and is explicitly not allowed. Instead, what Wikipedia does is simply restate what is written in reliable published sources, without going one inch beyond what the sources say.

So in my experience, if you're having trouble writing something without going beyond what the sources say, it's usually an indication that you need to go out and find more sources, so you can say more on Wikipedia, because you have sources that say more themselves. So it looks like this book and this book might be good places to start, although you might have to access your university library system to get the full texts, and if you look for scholarly commentary you are likely to find a good deal more.

But one thing is for sure, writing for Wikipedia, and doing it the right way, without personal commentary or opinion, is always much easier when you start with a whole big pile of sources to choose from. GMG^talk 17:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Curious again.

Sorry, if you have seen this before me, and had different impression. All I know is that I reported them using WP:TW, but fortunately now I am checking my contribs I came across this weird diff. I didn't remove yours manually. Do you have clue why it happened that way?. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? That's very strange indeed. I didn't even notice. I normally don't monitor my UAA reports once they're made. Oh well. I guess it doesn't matter all that much as long as it gets the job done. Twinkle works in mysterious ways. GMG^talk 18:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I see that. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha!

Classic. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I just...I just don't understand honestly. If I really had basically no interest in writing articles...I think I would just go play video games or...have really awesome landscaping in my yard or something. Grow a vegetable garden. I definitely wouldn't hang around just to shoot the shit on noticeboards and ArbCom. That's just...all the weeds with none of the juicy tomatoes. GMG^talk 10:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent metaphor :) stores away in lumber room of brain —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm weird, but I like weeding. Gives a feeling of accomplishment. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the better metaphor is the folks who weed the community garden, the folks who plant and water the vegetables, and then that one guy who shows up on the weekend and does nothing but tell everyone else how they're doing it wrong. And when someone suggests they grab a hoe or a spade, they complain that it's a community garden, so they have the right to hang out just like anybody else, and after all, their hands are too delicate to do any digging, on account of the fact that the only way you get digging hands is to actually dig. GMG^talk

I can dig it. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

community ban on use of administrative privileges

Just an fyi, banning an administrator from using administrative privileges has come up before, as I mentioned in the discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Db-g0

Just a little heads up, I created Template:Db-g0 from the one on your userpage. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(watching) You might want to tag that {{humourous}}...there are certainly plenty of people here (whether logical constructs or otherwise) who have the sense of humour of a British rail pork pie. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

done. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy is fun. I still have a big leather bound edition of Descartes sitting around on a shelf somewhere. I actually tried to get a paper on the treatment of positivism in social work textbooks published when I was in grad school, but wound up screwing up and getting a degree and a job and now it's just sitting on an old laptop hard drive somewhere in a drawer. It's still probably publishable, although it would need updated for the last decade worth of sources. GMG^talk 10:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Q11

Meh, A10 re CT_scan#Medical_use would have probably worked for me.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GreenMeansGo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, my previous account is already declared on my user page. GMG^talk 06:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to redirect to this account.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done And yeah, A10 probably would have worked on that article. But A1 was just plain wrong. GMG^talk 11:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Marlon Bundo

On 29 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marlon Bundo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a children's book illustrated by Gerald Kelley parodies another children's book written by Charlotte Pence about her pet rabbit Marlon Bundo (pictured) by portraying him as gay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marlon Bundo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marlon Bundo), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hah! Top spot and everything. The bunny has finally hit the big time boys. GMG^talk 12:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

RFA questions removed

I added to your RFA questions section but then removed what I put in because I am not experienced like those people who participate there.

Tell me about you being approached for paid editing. Company? Individual? How did they contact you? What did they want you to write? What was the offered pay?

Good luck! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Vanguard10. i was referring to this thread on my talk page a while back. GMG^talk 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Phew

Just putting this here, because I've got nowhere else to put it and probably no one that cares to listen anyway. That Nazi comment on RfA. Phew boy. That got me in the gut, and right before I tried to lay down for bed too.

I...I remember the first time I was spit on. I was in seventh grade. Someone I'd never met took a big draw from the water fountain and just spit it all over me. I...presumed it must have been a mistake. Like he got choked or something. He looked me in the eye and walked away, like I should have known what it was I did wrong to deserve that. I had no idea. And that was my introduction into modern race relations in the US.

I...I wasn't born in Germany; I was born in West Germany when there was still a wall and everything. I was barely old enough to remember that checking our car for extra stray wires was a thing, because being a US citizen living in West Germany, it wasn't out of the question that someone would try to blow us up to prove a point. So, when I came back to the states I wasn't really used to our particular type of racial tensions. I was completely naive to the point of stupidity, and I was only starting to get used to people trying to blow me up because I was American, and not distrusting me because I was brown.

Turns out, most white people think I'm Mexican. Mexicans tend to think I'm Puerto Rican, and visa versa. By that I mean that I'm not taken off guard anymore if someone just walks up to me and starts speaking Spanish, and I have to ask them in broken Spanish to please speak English. Black folks tend to think I'm half black. I'm not, I'm just brown. I look like my mother and she looks like her mother. We're Cherokee. Somehow we missed that whole thing where Jackson marched half of us to our deaths on the way to Oklahoma. My dad's white. So is my sister, my wife and daughter. If...you've never been a brown dad in a grocery store in rural Kentucky with a white baby in your cart, well...good for you then. It's not always a pleasant experience.

I...I do reserve the right to defend bigots, because I'm better than them. And that's something that someone who is better than them would do. I don't want to be their enemy. I want to be their friend. Because those type of people are looking for enemies, and when they meet a friend that doesn't look like they do, they're dumbfounded. I want to dumbfound them. I want nothing more than to befuddle them and make them think differently than they do, because the way they think is wrong, and toxic, and I'm tired of it. GMG^talk 04:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate your sharing this. The context is really clarifying in terms of understanding where you're coming from in your perspective on how best to deal with bigots; and (would that it went without saying) you have all my sympathies for everything you're describing above.

That's really the thing I most wanted to say. If you want to discuss further about the implications for how we handle things on the site, ping me, happy to discuss, but this didn't necessarily seem like an invitation to debate policy just now! So I just wanted to acknowledge and say I appreciate your sharing this with us. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Hmm. Well that's all an unpleasant scenario to wake up to then. I'm glad it was enlightening for somebody. I think it mostly just needlessly offended everybody else. I...didn't look super deep into the details of the scenario from so long ago. I just...sortof felt like saying I'm pro-Nazi was...unfair, and it was disturbing. I apologize if I've taken an overly flippant attitude to everyone. I am sad to have offended people that I deeply respect. That was never my intention and I'm sorry. GMG^talk 11:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'll clarify myself. Maybe I'll immediately regret posting this. At first I was deeply embarrassed, because I had shared a deeply shameful part of my past, and wound up just making a lot of people angry, people I respect, and people who I will continue to respect, even if they oppose me in the strongest terms possible.

I read Letter from Birmingham Jail a long time ago. I reread it last night actually before I posted this thread, and I've read it today a few times over. I dug up this thread from BLPN from February. Am I wrong there, to explain to that person no differently than I would explain to any anonymous someone at the Teahouse? What happens when that person looks at my user page and sees that I describe myself as racially ambiguous? Does he think that I railroaded him because of who I am? Or does he think that I explained things like I would to anyone else, because I don't have to hate back?

I should have never opened this can of worms to begin with. But since it's open, I feel like I should at least be maybe understood on an uncomfortable topic, that nobody really likes talking about anyway, or at least that I should hopefully not be despised for choosing my words poorly. But there is no law, and there is no policy that can force me to hate back, and if there ever is, then it is an unjust law and I have a moral obligation to consciously break it. I take King at his word on that. I'm not saying that I was right two years ago. I was still comparatively new to the community. I don't think that Obama was disarming white Americans before the coming race war and I don't think that's okay to put in an article. I was pig headed and wrong. But I do think that we should tell people they're wrong because they're wrong for the reasons they're wrong, based on the strength of their arguments and their foundation in sources, and not based on who they are. That is exactly the standard that I expect myself, to be told when I'm wrong, and why I'm wrong in a way that helps me be better. That's why I don't say probably lots of things that I might have said two years ago, and it's the reason I'll hopefully be a better editor in two years than I am now.

I'm honestly tired of pages like  Talk:Identitarian movement. I'm tired of explaining the same things over and over again. But I will continue to explain them so long as people show up and ask. To the best of my ability, I won't insult them or belittle them because they believe things that are wildly out of synch with what I believe. I'll tell them why they're wrong for the reasons they're wrong and not because of who they are. If I fail in that standard, then I hope that someone will explain to me that I'm wrong. But it's wrong to use immoral means to achieve moral ends. We don't accomplish anything, including building an encyclopedia on the wheels of inevitability; we do so through the tireless efforts of people willing to be coworkers. I will be a coworker, even if someone happens to hate me. If they are disruptive, then they should be treated according to their disruption, and not according to who they are or what they believe. That is the only point that I was trying, and failing miserably to express. I chose my words incredibly poorly, and I'm disappointed in myself for doing so. GMG^talk 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

GMG, I may not be your favourite person right now (since I am oppose #1), but I did want to express my moral support for what you're going through, especially about this so-called Nazi remark. I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're supporting bigotry. Without having looked into it in full detail, I think some people are reading too much into that one situation, and some others have a dangerously slippery-slope approach to "we don't want people who have point of view X editing". I *do* think this is a particularly unfortunate (and in the end overwrought) example of the pattern I commented on in my oppose, however: a complex situation where you see one (important) angle, and double down with increasing stridency on your point, rather than reflecting on and explicitly acknowledging why it is that others seem to be focusing on a different angle. That, combined with your plain speaking, gets people primed to take offense, to feel the situation is going off the rails, and to take a single-angle, tunnel-vision approach themselves. Anyway, I didn't come to lecture or moralize, but to genuinely express moral support for someone who is a nice guy doing his passionate best. And, to be explicit: I'll support you as admin, whether now in response to overall consensus, or a few months down the road (which would make me more comfortable, but that's beside the point). Martinp (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Martinp. No worries at all. Thanks for the comment. I kindof use my talk page for... pretty much randomly opining on Wikipedia stuff all the time. I've got no one else to talk about that kind of stuff with other than other people on Wikipedia. I guess I should have known better that this wasn't the best time to spitball on Wikipedia philosophy or off the wall ideas for policies, like I normally do. Old habits die hard I guess. But you're certainly welcome to put me on your watchlist and let me know when I've next formulated the worst idea ever for a new CSD criteria. I reckon that kindof thing happens about every few months, so it shouldn't take long. :P GMG^talk 21:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Since it's my comment that you're reacting to, I thought I would clarify here. I believe you have demonstrated that you don't have the temperament to be an admin based on your emotional response to something that was inherently a non-political activity - the blocking of a troll vandal who wanted to insert anti-Obama conspiracy theory into an article. This merits an indefblock, but aside from that, your response to it was the problem. The fact that you saw fit to bring in your own personal story with racism is inappropriate, because this block wasn't about you at all, but you made it personal. An admin needs to keep a cool head under fire and separate himself from editing or blocking disputes. Empathy is important, but I wonder why you need to strenuously find commonality with someone who would not do the same for you. Sometimes, a troll is just a troll, and a block is just a block. Your own experience with racism doesn't give you special license to dispense with dispassionate thoughtfulness in dealing with charged issues. Andrevan@ 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well Andrevan, I'm sorry you feel that way, and I wish there was something I could do that would change your mind. But there probably isn't. I expect that what I was trying to get at, and very badly got at, was that in an area already covered under discretionary sanctions, TBANs are preferable to blocks whenever possible as a general rule. But that doesn't mean it's the case every time. I chose a bad case to argue that with, and a bad way to argue it, and an indef was perfectly appropriate and within normal discretion. I should not have started this thread at all, and was mostly just taken back by the diff that surprisingly brought back some hurtful memories that I had mostly forgotten I had. I'm probably overly comfortable bantering on my talk page, and this was a poor time to do that.

I'm sorry that I've probably mostly just managed to waste a lot of good people's time. And I totally expect that this will spiral down over the next few hours to an obvious withdrawal. But I would like to think that most of what I do here isn't arguing over blocks, but doing my honest best to help people however I can. That's the reason I wanted the tools, and that's what I intended to use them for. But I'm sorry that I didn't warrant your confidence, and I doubt I can be of much help to you, but if I ever can feel free to ping me. GMG^talk 03:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"In an area under discretionary sanctions, TBANs are preferable to blocks." There's a statement, but it's not the statement you made in the diff I posted on your RFA. The problem with the statement you did make is that it wasn't about TBANs or blocks. The statement you did make is that you believe that your past experience with discrimination and racism somehow was relevant to the conversation of blocking a vandal. I have also been spit on before, but I don't bring it up on Wikipedia, let alone when discussing unrelated blocks of disruptive editors. Seriously, it's awful and it sounds awful, racism is truly ugly and tragic. You can say that these were hurtful memories to bring up, which I totally empathize with, or that you almost forgot you had them (which I don't understand at all -- I'll never forget my memories of that traumatic experience), but the fact remains you are standing for RFA and this interaction is in your not-so-distant editing history. The comment you made on your talk page is lurid and disturbing, but I wonder what point it was intended to serve? I think you're a well-meaning editor who has made many good contributions. If your RFA passes, I hope you remember to take a deep breath. If not, I hope you consider that, when it comes to insane trolls, you should not feed them, or defend them. They aren't newbies who mean well but are being bitten by a tough process, they are intentional hoaxsters who need to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Even if you feel you must argue that TBANs are preferable to indefblocks, don't veer into the horrible experiences you may have had with racism, as they are not relevant. That doesn't mean you're a neo-Nazi or have neo-Nazi sympathies. It is purely a comment on your temperament as an admin. I'm sure you do lots of great work here and I hope you continue to do that. Andrevan@ 00:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well Andrevan. You're right for whatever little that's worth on my part, and thank you for the well reasoned and overall emphatic explanation. It is hypocritical of me to argue that we should be judging people based on what they do, rather than who they are, and base that argument on who I am. It's also overall, probably letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, even as I argue that that's not what we should be doing. Come what may, I will make a conscious decision to do otherwise in the future. GMG^talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

GMG, I've been reading some of the concerns expressed in the oppose votes - primarily because a few were by editors I consider wiki-friends who have earned my respect. From there I did some random spot checking to see what I could learn before I voted and eventually landed here. While I'm not brown, my family is a colorful lot, and I can relate to what you said. I'm old mature enough and worldly enough to know that prejudice and bigotry are not limited to race and that the motivating forces in human nature are very complex. I see individuals, not race, social status, religion, nationality, education, etc. I've been that way all my life, dating back to early childhood as the member of a yankee family who invaded Texas which is how we were made to feel (almost a century after the Civil War ended). Before Dad moved us south, I was scorned as the "spawn" of a "mixed" marriage (Irish father x Italian mother) in Providence, RI, (Dad attended Brown, which is the only brown in my immediate lineage) so I was often called either a "wop" or a "mick". If that wasn't enough scorn in a child's life, I grew-up having to defend my handicapped sister against ridicule and physical attacks - some kids can be very mean and so can some adults - so I grew-up as a scrappy kid. The majority of my friends were people of color, and that hasn't changed over the years. During my first few years on WP, I was stereotyped and placed into just about every pidgeonhole one can imagine, simply for trying to adhere to our written policies, specifically NPOV and BLP. Like you, my first impulse is not to reject but to befriend in an effort to introduce/influence others and help them see things from a different perspective, more as fellow human beings rather than as a particular body style and paint color. Some people have become so irreversibly entwined in their own preconceived notions and first impressions they don't even realize that what they're doing is just another form of bigotry. Anyway...thanks for sharing your story, and thank you for volunteering at RfA. I wish you luck and minimal grief during the process. Hmmm...for some reason "process" brings to mind processed food, and procession ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone whose interaction with you consists of a few (generally dissenting!) votes in AfD, I wanted to add another voice against those thinking that defending a bigot indicates, in any way being one. Wikipedia frequently becomes a howling mob, and having another admin willing to defend their victims is of benefit. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll bite (photo 2)

I assume it's your daughter? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Totally. She was diagnosed with a Cystic hygroma at 36 weeks, which is fairly unusual. And of course we looked up the Wikipedia article first thing, even before calling my sister who is an OBGYN, and immediately found pretty much the worst case scenario. But the diagnosis meant that we had a whole surgical team standing by and my wife had to have a C-Section. So I had to go into the other room with the surgical team and then bring back my phone and show my wife what she looked like. She might be aggravated at me one day if she realizes her picture is on Wikipedia, but gee fizz. If that prevents a single other couple from having their hands go numb when they get a similar diagnosis? Totally worth it and if she has a problem with it when she grows up, I figure I can always nominate it for G7 on Commons. GMG^talk 22:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing; replied via email. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hang in there

It looks like this is going to be a nail biter. Some RfA's are a walk on the beach, and some are more like dinner with the Inquisition. As one who went through the latter kind I wish you well and appreciate your work here, however this turns out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, the vote total at the end of yours and GMG's currently (153/42/8) are almost the same. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the key difference, however, is the rate at which the support percentage is falling. Whereas Ad Orientem got to this point after seven days, GreenMeansGo's RfA still has more than 3 days remaining. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think he will pass. I hope GMG won't withdraw. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say, GMG has been rude and sarcastic on talk pages I've seen. Not any more than hundreds of other editors but thank the Lord none of those others are Admins. Eacn new Admin should be better than the average Admin -- that way each new one raises the level of Administration. He would likely do OK as an Admin, but it's not clear that GMG meets that test. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As you can't measure "better than average", as you have no average value to compare against and no scale against which to make such a measurement, then it's clearly not much of a "test". Eric Corbett 23:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Very generous  ;) I think you just replied to one of the most unnecessary talk page posts ever made in the history of WP! :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty high bar (or a low one depending on your point of view), which I don't think Specifico comes anywhere near reaching. In general though I think that GMG's RfA is an excellent example of the extent to which WP is subject to mob law. Not what he signed up for, I'm quite certain, but an interesting example nevertheless. Eric Corbett 13:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

And I was just about to say, EC is obviously way better than average, even if we can't measure it. [1] SPECIFICO talk 13:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Very true. :-) Eric Corbett 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well Ad Orientem, I appreciate your encouragement. But I wonder if we haven't wound down to a good time to withdraw. A crat chat, even if I'm still in the discretionary zone after two more days, which is far from certain, is going to be pretty controversial, and I wonder if it's not just needlessly wasting even more community time than I already have. GMG^talk 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not Ad Orientem, but that would be my advice, which I took during my own last RfA. There's nothing to be gained by continually exposing yourself to the negative comments of others, along with the very real danger that it will begin to get to you, if it hasn't already. Eric Corbett 14:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not to withdraw is a personal choice. Unfortunately the !vote trajectory is not encouraging and with two days left to go it's likely that things will continue to deteriorate. I hate looking at an RfA as a mathematical equation, but yeah... the numbers just don't look good. Additionally holding out past the point where you have any reasonable hope of passing might provoke even more opposes, or be held against you in any hypothetical future RfA. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that's that then. Although I think you're probably being a little to optimistic to think that that is an RfA you ever come back from. GMG^talk 15:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done the paperwork and closed your RfA. For further thoughts, I suggest email, otherwise I may upset people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, but it has helped reassure me that flying the Black Colors is the right thing to do. You asked for the Mop and the Voban, and instead you got a tour of alt.virtue-signal.ain't-I-great.and-don't-you-suck.

To use a somewhat strange analogy, Wiki has a case of type two diabetes. You know how that goes? You get some (initially repairable) damage to the Beta cells, and some of them shut down...then the rest slowly die of overwork. Anmccaff (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Welly looky there, it's Anmccaff. I figured you'd forgotten about us. Welcome back. GMG^talk 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nahhh. Take a look below and see what happens to you, you stick around for a goddamn decade. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

"Hopefully I'll meet you out there on an article soon."
... you were recipient no. 1646 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I was away the last hours, - sorry to see what happened, and you on medication. All the best for your health, and family! - I would like to take you by your word about meeting at an article. Today I had the death of a woman whom I have admired for a long time on my watchlist. I struggle to get her In The News. All refs were practically dead, all writing (with love by JackofOz) needs to be sourced otherwise. All help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sending you both well wishes and would love to join the effort on the entry if I could be helpful! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, - you are helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey all. Sorry for doing a poor job at replying to everyone. As I've tried to say as much as possible, thank you all for your support and sorry I wasted your time. You all know hopefully that if there's anything I can do to help, you can always ping me anywhere. GMG^talk 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I spent little time, sorry, didn't even manage to check the broken link in the precious archive, fixed now. Article work, article work ;) - I nominated her for ITN, but more sourcing and formatting still needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Email

When you have a mo - TNT^❤ 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I can't put it any better than the descriptive text of this barnstar This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. - TNT❤ 15:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll echo part of my email again publicly - I won't disrespectfully ask you to stick around and continue contributing after that, but I hope you do - TNT^❤ 15:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I very much hope you stay as well and that you make a speedy recovery from your back issues you mention above. Your content contribution of FA and GAs is ultimately of more lasting value than many admin duties anyway... without the quality content that makes up much of the pedia, and the diligent editors such as yourself who go out and research and develop it, there wouldn't be much to administer. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seconded - I stand by my Support vote, even with what was brought forward. I thank you for every contribution you've made to the project thus far, and I hope to see you continue that effort in the future, if you so choose. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the support. Let's go build an encyclopedia. I've always found that fun personally. GMG^talk 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note

At the risk of treading where I'm not wanted, I did want to leave a note saying how much I do appreciate you as an editor, and that your demeanor in what I'm sure was a stressful experience was nothing less than graceful, and that it did nothing but increase the amount of respect I have for you, regardless of my stance in the RfA. I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I landed on the side of posting it publicly since my criticism was so public. Anyway, all the best, and thank you for all that you do for this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just want to add on that we hope you will overcome your stress, continue to be a good editor, work on level-headedness and apply again in 6 months or a year. Andrevan@ 16:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, forgive me if I am found to be overreacting but I find this remark in the grand scheme of things rather insensitive and condensending; who are the "we" here anyway? Alex Shih (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite being in the opposers' column and someone who probably ought not to show up here, I have to concur with Alex. Whilst I am certain that it wasn't your intentions, I'm afraid that the the bit about level-headedness wasn't necessary and condescending by a mile.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, all this is nice and well fellas. Unfortunately, since any follow up RfA regardless of time frame is almost guaranteed to start out with Have you stopped beating your wife "have you stopped being a Nazi", it kindof renders the "come back and try again later" bit still ostensibly polite but probably largely meaningless. And anyway, the time to sympathize with or defend me, and/or attack one other was about three hours ago. I withdrew so we could go get some work done instead and stop wasting time. So lets go get some work done instead. GMG^talk 18:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Point taken and not to belabor anything. I apologize if my comment came off condescending. Nobody thinks you are a Nazi or sympathize with Nazis. The concern is about temperament, which I do believe you can improve. I will leave you alone now. Best of luck. Andrevan@ 22:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you are a Nazi or sympathize with Nazis. Sorry Andrevan... but I suspect you need to reread the RfA. GMG^talk 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, that’s certainly not my view of you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

...I'm...going to make the conscious decision to not quote anything at all here, and just move on. Thank you for your service to the community. GMG^talk 00:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Time for a stiff one

There are some moments in life where there is only one civilized recourse.

There are some moments in life where there is only one civilized recourse.

This was a dreadful RfA. I'd take the rest of the day off and sample some of the finer things in life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If there's some practical way that I can buy you a drink, I'd like to do so. Happy to share a paypal address by email? I'm very disappointed that this RfA didn't fly. GoldenRing (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries GR. And anyway, I'm on some god awful medication for my back at the moment that I can't drink on anyway. So it looks like I'll have to take a rain check. GMG^talk 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice

Hi. I'm Protonk. You don't know me from Adam. Like some other people you've never met or interacted with I showed up to your RfA and decided based on what I read of yours and/or what other people wrote about what you wrote (which is often the case as in any discussion about a user) that you should not be an admin. That's...a hard experience to go through. Even my RfA which was pretty uncontroversial and forever ago engendered serious anxiety and concern for me. Total and near total strangers summing you up is stressful. I won't offer more sympathy, not because you don't deserve it but because sympathy from a total stranger who--by all appearances--just got the outcome they wanted at your expense is at best valueless.

I implore you to think carefully and long about why a bunch of total strangers showed up to your RfA with strong and severe opinions about you. I suspect you've already given it some thought and I can see that other editors have offered their thoughts to you. In thinking about it, consider that the answer may not be one which flatters you or your conduct. You'll certainly find or be offered answers that do. Those answers will come as a balm and will almost all seem to stem from a place of understanding and nuance, especially when compared to categorical rejection. They will, to the last, have a grain of truth or more. Many will feel clever or speak to a platonic detachment which feels so appropriate to our mission here. The most potent will make you feel proud of your iconoclasm.

Those words are poison.

"I...I do reserve the right to defend bigots, because I'm better than them." The pause you telegraph here is instructive to me. It indicates that not only did you consider your words by writing them in the first place but you considered your consideration. Consider it a bit more. The idea that we're better than bigots therefore we can consider their ideas without being captured by them (because we're not ignorant, stupid, biased--take your pick) is as seductive as it is wrong. We all came from the same dirt which we'll all return to. There are bigots who founded colleges and bigots who won wars just as there are bigots whose crowning achievement is shooting up their Keurig. I live in America so I've had to spend much more of my time than I expected in the last year marching against nazis. At one of those marches I ran into some asshole very proud of his white genocide shirt that didn't even have the right 14 damn words on it. I don't flatter myself that I'm better than him. Doing so only accomplishes two things. First, it allows me to dismiss the threat he poses without engaging it. Second, it leads me to believe that whatever challenge he is facing and failing I am overcoming from the start. The thread between both of those is there is work to be done on ourselves and with others at all times. You have work to do. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

You might object that the work you've set out to do is outlined in the end of the paragraph I quoted above. Engaging with racism in the way you describe can be useful but most contexts on wikipedia (including the one spurring the comment you made) aren't a personal and private intervention. What you say and do is not just for the consumption of an intended audience of one. You're finding that out rather rudely right now but so might an editor engaged in a dispute with someone who is promoting racist views on wikipedia. They might be surprised to discover you've set out to "be [a] friend" to bigots, as a rule. They would rightly expect you to treat them fairly and just as rightly feel unfairly treated when you act to demonstrate your friendship. They won't know that deep down you don't harbor the same feelings as the bigot (how could they!) and fundamentally it won't matter. They also won't know your intent in establishing this friendship (again, how could they) nor will they (I suspect) feel validated that you've 'dumbfounded' the other editor. From their perspective they'll have only seen an administrator who treated them unfairly and in doing so offered comfort to a bigot.

I hope you'll read through your RfA when you're able and seek out those who offered strong criticism. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not on a mission to find and cure racism. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I do believe in the presumption of respecting basic human dignity, and I would do my best to treat the fascist as I would the black panther, the communist as I would the priest, the misguided teenager as I would the Pulitzer prize winner. I've met all types on Wikipedia. If they can learn to get along, and play by our rules, and not be disruptive then they're welcome to stay. If a consummate moderate cannot learn to get along, play by our rules, and not be disruptive, then we should show them the door just as well.

If you mean to say that my words were woefully inadequate at expressing that sentiment, then I agree with you wholeheartedly, and that's already been well demonstrated. If you mean to say that being an administrator means that need to abandon the presumption of human dignity, then I'm not cut out for it, and it's a good thing I didn't get it after all. GMG^talk 19:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant to say what I meant to say. I don't think I'll offer more except this: it is possible that every single editor who came to your RfA and found your comment both serious and disqualifying was misguided as to the mission, blinkered by social justice or insufficiently attentive to the plight of the oppressed. It is possible. But it is also possible that some of them had real concerns. I leave to you which seems more likely. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I take the concerns seriously, and I'm not at all trying to accuse anyone of being blinkered by social justice or anything similar. You seem to be saying that I handled things badly, and my statement was poorly advised and poorly communicated. I agree with you. GMG^talk 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am emphatically not saying that. Nowhere did I say that your statement was poorly advised or poorly communicated. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid we may be talking across purposes, and I'm missing the point. Do you think it was well worded and well advised? Because on that we would certainly disagree. GMG^talk 21:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this comment was worded very well, given what I thought you meant to say. You established your perspective by talking about your childhood. You explained your bonafides with respect to how you live IRL. You made and justified your claim that you were unrepentant about defending bigots with an appeal to the preceding paragraphs. It was as well worded as one could expect. What I'm saying is it betrays a lack of judgment I found both serious and disqualifying for reasons I explained above.

In your reply you give me a promise of your even-handedness in dealing with every editor and then indicate that your original comment was meant to express this sentiment. If that were the case I would say the original comment was poorly worded. But I don't think that's the case. I think you're expressing two separate sentiments. One in the comment where you say "I don't want to be their enemy. I want to be their friend. Because those type of people are looking for enemies, and when they meet a friend that doesn't look like they do, they're dumbfounded. I want to dumbfound them." and another above. They're not two attempts at describing the same thought; they're two different thoughts and I should have no reason to think one not reflecting the other is a result of poor communication. Protonk (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The strict construction you insist upon in reading these comments suggests either a failure of understanding context, or a failure of good faith, on your part - it's conversation, not a policy statement, and it no way deserves the most immoral reading possible, which you seek to impose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is linked in my signature. Protonk (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason to tell me what I already know - at any rate, the matter belongs, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If that were the case I would say the original comment was poorly worded. That is the case, which is why it was poorly worded. I have no particular interest in Nazis. But they exist, so I do happen to come across them on occasion. The particular instance I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote was related to this editor, which had a run in with a current admin, who felt that they could apparently be as dismissive as they pleased with editors who disagreed with them ideologically, and because of that, it bounced around from ANI, to RFEA to BLPN. I caught it at BLPN, and instead of piling on with flippant disregard, I did my best to explain how the editor's concerns conflicted with policy and practice. Because I did so, it stopped bouncing. The editor didn't get their way, but they had an explanation for why they didn't.

If the situation were backward, and the editor had been a radical black nationalist, or...I dunno...a radical anti-Catholic Nativist time travelling from the mid 19th Century, I would have attempted to do exactly as I did in exactly the same way. The only difference between what I originally wrote, and what I subsequently wrote, was that the original post dealt in the particular, and the subsequent explanations dealt with the general. That I chose to move from the particular to the general, and not visa versa was a mistake. I felt it would be poignant, because it is more difficult to apply the general principle in the case of someone who probably actively hates you, and it's much less difficult to apply that principle to someone who hates someone else instead. GMG^talk 12:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As I mentioned above, my advice is for you to find the folks who read the comment as I did--folks, I might add, who aren't ideologues or neophytes but are long term editors, admins and other folk who you've worked with before and those you haven't--and seek to learn from them what they found so troubling. Not to to seek to explain to them how you think it is innocuous. It's clear you do. I hope you'll do so. And I hope in doing so you won't start as you did with me, lecturing (in the very first line of your reply) an admin who has been on wikipedia a goddamn decade about the mission. Protonk (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just because you wish to appeal to your authority, is no reason why anyone should accept what you say - your view was not even a majority view of experienced editors, support or oppose. He did not lecture you. You may have lectured, here, though, as your appeal to authority suggests. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you want from me? Do you want me to say that I said some stupid things? I said some stupid things. Do you want me to feel bad because I offended a lot of people? I feel terrible. I feel awful and publicly embarrassed in a way I've seldom if ever been. Do you want me to apologize? I have. Do you want me to get feedback on what a piece of shit I am? I've gotten at least a little bit. I was opposed by people who offered to nominate me and who have encouraged me to run for months. I was opposed by a crat who thought I was such an exceptional piece of shit that they couldn't possibly be neutral in a crat chat. Do you want me to take that seriously? I do. I'm sedated enough right now to make a horse sit still and I still haven't gotten a full night's sleep.

Do you want to curse at me and feel superior because you passed an RfA once? Please don't. Please go build an encyclopedia instead, because I don't want to argue with you. I just want to go and check the copyright status on three more fucking images please. Thanks. GMG^talk 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Protonk's is quite the impression they wish to give; or, indeed, the path to follow. But as for all that bollocks about "I've been here a decade": I'll just leave your last 100 edits in eighteen months here. At least they managed to keep their tools. "Legacy Admin Alert" :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfair

Sorry your RFA failed. In my opinion that's completely unfair. Still, I hope you'll continue to be the great contributor that you've been so far. Kind regards, Yintan  19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I promise that I will continue to strive to be as mediocre but persistent as I've always been. There's no shortage of work that needs done. GMG^talk 19:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. It is making me doubt my willingness to work here, though. We'll see. Cheers, Yintan  19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the last thing I want is to be the RfA that scares people off of RfA. And it's not like I carefully chose my words throughout in a way that leaves me blameless for giving people the wrong impression. The encyclopedia will still be here tomorrow, and so will I. I hope you are too. GMG^talk 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Sorry about that mess. The fact that you were able to keep a cool head throughout is truly a highlight; Possibly the greatest thing I've ever witnessed on this site. Compliments on civility are not damaging, and no matter what anyone else says, that is an indisputable fact. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 20:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. And thank you for all your help with new editors that I seem to keep coming across. GMG^talk 21:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not much more I can add....

...but that I'm sorry you had to endure what you did. I'll spare you the patronizing and simply say that I thought what happened sucked out loud. - ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries Atsme. Thank you for the kind thoughts. GMG^talk 07:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(Another) barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I really appreciate how you went through a grueling RFA even with a lot of oppose !votes. It would be hard for any editor to keep their composure in any RFA, let alone one with a lot of opposition. Keep up the good work ethics and civility, and I hope you'll run again soon. epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no promises epicgenius. At least I got some honest criticism from it. I certainly can't fault anyone for pulling their punches. GMG^talk 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

la renaissance sur rouages

I look forward to your next RFA, hopefully as GreenMeansGoOnWheels! (power~enwiki~on~wheels) 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks power. No promises on a rerun, but there's still no shortage of work to be done. GMG^talk 07:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Perhaps it's insensitive for me to say so (and if it is, I apologize for my lack of tact), given my vote, but I'm truly sorry about that RfA: if I could have found a place to put it, I'd have noted somewhere in my comments that you've always been a fine editor, and an exemplary gentleman, in all our encounters; yet I cannot help but feel that saying so would have just been twisting the knife more. All that aside, though, I hope this doesn't sour you on Wikipedia: we need good editors, excellent editors, and (let's be honest) you're one of the best, GMG. I certainly hope we don't lose you, but I'd understand if you decided that your family takes priority. One last thing: if I'm ever in Kentucky, how's a beer sound? My treat. — Javert2113 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries Javert2113. Thanks for your feedback. If you ever drive through Appalachia hit me up. GMG^talk 07:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Surreal

Don't know if I understand what went down. Perhaps it was just too surreal. I happen to observe offhand that you write & communicate well, so additionally don't understand the self-deprecation re same. (What seems to be "amiss" is reaction -- fear of exaggerated possibilities untied to the real world, that somehow cross an "Accepted Politically Correct Values" pillar?! Can't get the comparison out of my head Kanye West scolded recently by a politician w/ same skin color: "He's a creative young person but sometimes speaks out of turn. He needs assistance in forming his ideas [properly]." Surreal needle off the gauge!?) Warm or cold? --IHTS (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry IHTS, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about Kanye West to really understand the reference. But I certainly can't say I've never spoken out of turn. Hopefully that's something I can improve on. GMG^talk 07:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Speaking out of turn" in that case was euphemism for "We don't like your ideas getting traction; please shut up." And now Kanye's even been threatened. --IHTS (talk)

think that's called a silver lining  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My time was not wasted

Please don't suggest that you "wasted time" by coming forward to run the gauntlet of detractors and being willing to take on a job whose difficulty is seldom appreciated by the community as a whole. I hope you will try again before too long. Deb (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Deb. I appreciate the feedback I got. I'm not totally sure it was a net positive for the project though, and justified in using up the time of 200 some odd people. At the very least, hopefully it doesn't scare too many other's off of running for RfA in the future. GMG^talk 07:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to echo Deb's sentiment - I don't think you wasted anyone's time. The only RfAs that applies to are the hopeless NOTNOW ones. You had every right to put yourself forward. Better luck next time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)