User talk:GreenMeansGo

Warning: this page is watched over by ancient and powerful spirits. Be civil, or you will invoke their wrath.

StableNet

Hi GMG,

I did partially copy the information from the company's website, but being _very_ careful to delete any language and statements that were clearly promotional. Could you point out any sentence that's unambiguously promotional?

Full disclaimer: I work at Infosim, the company which develops StableNet, and decided to create the stub when noticed that several competing network managers had a Wikipedia entry, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_FMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRTG_Network_Monitor among others.

As a long time contributor, almost-every-day user, and one-time donor to Wikipedia, I honestly believe that the addition of this entry to corpus can't be detrimental to the project. This software is relevant - has been in the marked for almost 20 years and is being used by big companies (e.g. BMW) - and, again, similar pieces of software have not had their entries challenged. I hope you reconsider your position.

On time: thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stafusa (talk • contribs) 13:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Best regards, Stafusa --Stafusa (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Stafusa. The current entry is little more than a product listing. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and qualify for an article, the subject needs to have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like magazines, newspapers, and books, so that there is enough verifiable content available with which to write a neutral and well sourced encyclopedia article. If there is little more than product specifications available, then there is insufficient verifiable information with which to write an article, and such an entry serves little purpose other than to act as an advertisement for the product. Such a page belongs on the company website, and not on Wikipedia.

You should also carefully review our guidance on conflicts of interest and be sure to abide by them, as failure to do so will likely attract a good deal of unwanted attention. GMG^talk 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey GreenMeansGo. I'm not sure how to proceed: there's no real conflict of interest here, from what I gathered from the guidance, since I'm not in the marketing department and I'm no other way being paid for adding this entry - I literally did it during my lunch time. I tagged it as a stub precisely because it was just a description - but, if I start to flesh it out and start searching for whatever media coverage it's received, then it'll start to be part of the job. So, could be page be left as it was, short and stub-tagged? Or it'll then again be tagged for deletion?

--Stafusa (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Stafusa. The reason Wikipedia has guidance on managing conflicts of interest, is because having a COI makes in exceedingly difficult to write about a subject and do so in a way that is neutral, even if one is contributing in good faith, and even if one takes great conscious care to be as neutral as possible. These types of contributions do wind up deleted through one form or another, not necessarily because there is a COI per se, but because having a COI overwhelming produces content that is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The easiest answer, although not necessarily the one you might want to hear, is that Wikipedia contains nearly six million articles, and has more than a quarter million volunteers working to expand coverage on all types of content. So if the subject is notable, a volunteer will likely eventually create an article for it. However, attempting to circumvent that natural process most often does little but waste everyone's time, and has a tendency to actually make it less likely that a volunteer would write such an article as they normally would.

Having said that, you are more than welcome to contribute in areas for which you are not conflicted, and there are no shortage of folks willing to help you along in doing so. GMG^talk 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So, in short, you don't think even a stub (if written by an employee) is acceptable?

--Stafusa (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Most often no. It is usually painfully obvious to our experienced editors when a contributor has a close outside connection to a subject, and if such an article were not nominated for deletion by me, it would likely be nominated by someone else. Moreover, repeatedly recreating an article which is subsequently deleted can lead to the protection of the title, so that no one may create the article without the prior approval of an administrator. That's part of the bit I referenced above, where trying to circumvent the normal process actually makes it less likely that an article will eventually be written. GMG^talk 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Message from N32756377

Thanks. But, you talking to the original former D3323 here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N32756377 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. No worries. I just try to make it a point to welcome anybody with a red linked talk page who seems to be making good use of their time here. GMG^talk 18:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge

• Hi. Just fyi, I would have changed this [1] wording in a few days, but at the time I wrote the hatnote, my main concern was to be user friendly to the thousands of people who had come to wikipedia looking for a man in the news cycle, and found a Victorian era sanitation engineer. I was trying help them with an unusual - but temporary - descriptor. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I reckon it is a bit of a pickle, where our obligation to represent the breadth of the entirety of a topic runs perpendicular to the motivation of many readers to seek out information on a subject because it happens to be the most recent hot shit to read about. I guess I'd argue that maybe that's one of the reasons why we've made such a valuable resource, that the average of all of us has the ability (on average) to resist at some level the hot shit of the day, and because of that, if readers aren't careful, they might screw up and accidentally learn something they didn't realize they wanted to know. At least that's what the optimist in me would say, and he has the pessimist in me bound and gagged and locked in the basement. GMG^talk 21:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey, how's it been? We haven't talked in a while, and you seem to no longer be as active on IRC. Vermont (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what's up man? Yeah. Lately I've mostly just been logging on when I need a quick back alley favor from a steward. Figured I'd give it a rest for a while, and try to be productive when I'm online, and be a person when I'm offline, instead of always being pseudo-online on IRC. And anyway, the muchkin is getting old enough where it's not quite sufficient to just to be in the same room and pay enough attention to know she's not eating things that aren't food.

I noticed you've made your own little fan club that's been creepin over into my territory on Quote and Commons. It's usually a sign that you're doing something right. I'm not totally sure if the WMF has extended cookie blocks to global locks, but if they haven't they really should. GMG^talk 21:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your good fight on the Toad article. I just found the Gizmodo piece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Much appreciated. Always happy to fight the good fight against fallacious phallic fungus. GMG^talk 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

deleted file

FYI Yann confirms the file and deletion log were oversighted. Unclear why the upload log is still there, though. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Kolbert cleaned up the stray upload log btw. GMG^talk 17:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No!

I definitely did not get a feeling of pure joy watching this twice today. FAKE NEWS. GMG^talk 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm listening to it now (they're talking about Oscar in a fishnet stocking right now), and I'm wondering which part in particular was the good one? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I've just listened to all of them so far, he's been on the JRE like five times, and I didn't realize another one had come out. Pretty much a stupid fan boy for both these guys mainly because they're the kindof people where you don't ever know their opinions until they've told you, but it usually makes sense once they explain it. If you haven't listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History yet, it's far and away my favorite podcast of all time. It's actually more like a lecture series than a podcast, and reminds me more of the iTunesU courses I would listen to at the gym in college. GMG^talk 17:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, I just heard of him today, but I'm going to check out Hardcore History for sure. I've never much listened to the JRE, but I'm frequently surprised by how much I agree with Rogan whenever I do. I just keep expecting him to be an ignorant douche, but then he surprises me. It's entirely my own fault, though. I spent a long time learning that professional martial artists are frequently (though not always) self-important dicks; like the Simpsons Comic Book Guy, but with abs and a willingness to bully people. I keep forgetting that Rogan was a comedian first and foremost, and comedians tend to be really smart and insightful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also growing quickly fond of this guy. I'll bet he has a butterscotch in his pocket that he's just waiting to give to a passing child. GMG^talk 22:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a subscriber on the podcast anymore, I just catch him on YouTube occasionally these days, but you gotta have some kind of appreciation for Rogan, that he'd have someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson on, and then turn around and have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos on, and then turn around and have someone like Elon Musk on, and manage to talk to them all like they're people, and actually have a fairly reasoned discussion, even though I'm pretty sure he's at least mildly stoned for basically every episode. GMG^talk 22:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mildly" is probably putting is mildly. Also, one look at that dude and I'm 100% convinced that he's got the best butterscotch. And a Ruger P89. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably my fault

The IP at Eugenics put up a rant which was nothing but a complaint that another Wikipedia editor was on the page at all. I deleted it with the context of WP:NPA and they deleted the very next comment somebody posted. So it's probably my fault... Sorry. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, if they keep edit warring on the talk page I expect they're gonna have a bad time. Although I'm not sure anybody really has a good time on the talk page of an article like that anyway. GMG^talk 16:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I do... I dunno what that says about me, but it's probably nothing good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Masochism GMG^talk 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Povertonians

It is a real term and I’d thank you to not edit something you are not aware of. LittleWiki10210 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. GMG^talk 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No, it's not. [2] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, this isn't an argument! In any case, I thought the Povertonians were that small wooden animated family in In The Night Garden. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess on the bright side, there is an inventive (I presume) pre-teen out there somewhere who's figured out how to use the Media Wiki software. Maybe they'll come back one day and be productive. GMG^talk 12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s entirely possible that their description was accurate and honest; lecturers use wordplay all the time, and a one-off remark might be taken as a recognized term by someone in the audience.

Fellow-at-the-rostrum makes a joke about Harovians, Oxonians, and Povertonians; fellow-in-the-seats takes it as recognized term. Given Wiki’s underload of neuronormals, stuff like this is a constant. Qwirkle (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I could imagine Overtonians, assuming Joseph P. Overton gained some sudden popularity. I feel badly for Cambridge if one of their instructors has apparently become so isolated in the halls of academia that they forget the word for "the poor". Just think of all the poor Hungarians hungarians dying of starvation during a famine, or all the Chileans chillyians suffering frostbite during a bad winter storm. GMG^talk 14:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Povertonians

Please re-add my correct submission that you have deleted. LittleWiki10210 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to try to popularize a word you invented. GMG^talk 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

the USSR was *not* founded in 1917

[3] Please read the first sentence of USSR for your own education. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I may be confusing the USSR and the SFSR. But it's still not clear that this was accomplished by the Russian Republic in the few number of days it existed, and not the SFSR. Of course that would be a great deal easier to decide if this statement actually came with a source. GMG^talk 15:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The source, stating that the voting rights pre-dated the Russian Communist Revolution, was already there in Women's suffrage#Russia. I've now added a second ref. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it, but it's still not totally clear which government actually granted the right to vote and when. GMG^talk 16:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing Women's suffrage#Russia: on July 20, 1917 the Provisional Government enfranchised women with the right to vote. I don't think the exact date nor the name of the specific government belong in the top section, though. --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear that is supported by the source, from page 116 "the socialist parties' programs called for universal suffrage" and on 117, "a realization that women would have the right to vote." But neither says when that was actually granted, and you have a six week window where timing changes what government actually did the granting. GMG^talk 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

All that said, it ain’t the USSR yet, and Russian republic, with a suitable level of vagueness, covers the governments intevening between. Also, this looks a bit like the drunk-under-the-lamppost, searching where it’s easiest (on Wiki itself). Qwirkle (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see page xv of the book: July 20: Provisional Government extends right to vote to women., and additionally page 294 (search for "right to vote"). --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha! Now we're getting somewhere. But shouldn't the article then link to Russian Provisional Government instead? July 20 was almost a month and a half before the Russian Republic was created on September 1. GMG^talk 17:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Done --109.186.147.144 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)