User talk:GreenMeansGo

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

Yo, Shield o' Sham-er

Could you take a look at this one? Strikes me as google-dredge gone wild. Anmccaff (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that you are technically correct but that User:Garuda28 is probably functionally/practically correct. By that I mean that dabs partly make up for the fact that we have a shit search engine (and I assume always will), and that we should err on the side of assuming readers are idiots assuming that some significant portion of readers speak English, but not as a first language. I think DABs should probably err on the side of, as you put it, "ignorant usage", and doing so isn't really a problem until a dab get's really big and hard to navigate. GMG^talk 23:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think, though, that a reference work should make clear when a usage is...substandard. Notice the arguments at the talk page; they mostly aren't suggesting it is a useful guide for the clewless, they are suggesting it's correct. That's one of the paths to Wiki-circular BS. Anmccaff (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that people who are clueless about the military think it's a reasonable disambiguater (sp?) (word?) is itself evidence for an argument to dab it (verb? IT IS NOW!). GMG^talk 23:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I would add that if the focus is making more knowledge more free for more people, and we're writing in the flagship lingua franca of all such projects, the incentive is clearly to err on the side of being functionally rather than technically correct. GMG^talk 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. It strikes me that even Google does this better; Did you mean for mistakes, and seamless substitution for variants. Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Google definitely does this better, but they have 74,000 full time employees, and we have 280 (plus contractors). We're not a company; we're a soup kitchen, at least when you compare us to Google. What we do have is around 300,000 volunteers who do things the best they can to increase access to free knowledge. GMG^talk 23:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Without going all meta, dunno if that's a relevant comparison here. Commercially, false inclusiveness -pays-; they have reasons to not make fine distinctions here, yet they do. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point regarding false inclusiveness. GMG^talk 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I type in "dod food", Google makes a good guess about what I mean, and brings up the Royal Canin and such...but it doesn't add a mistake to its standard vocabulary. It still asks "did you mean..."; it still points out the error. Here, the error is instead made official far too often. Anmccaff (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's... possible that I'm still missing the point, but... you're comparing an entirely manual process with the most sophisticated search algorithm in the world. That's kindof why I got all meta. That kindof stuff isn't easy... which is why google is google. GMG^talk 01:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that's the "how"; I'm talking the "what". These edits leave the victim reader with the imptession that "United States Military Occupation" is an official term of art for an MOS, which is simply wrong. This usage isn't an ambiguity, its an error.

Anyway, "meta", like "H*tler", is often a sign that a conversation has run its course, so I'll leave it at that.

I disagree. The only thing a dab, like a redirect, needs is plausibility. It's a pretty low standard. GMG^talk 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not technically correct, the standard for a dab is probably somewhere between a redirect and a list, but much lower than an article for inclusion. GMG^talk 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you point me toward where that's written up? If people can just make stuff up and add it like that, at whatever level, then this really is just a game, and maybe not worth the candle. Anmccaff (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:PTM - The standard is basically plausibly... in a sufficiently generic context GMG^talk 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Anmccaff - Best of luck, whatever it is your plans may be. GMG^talk 22:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• It could always be added back in with a note that it's an erroneous use of the term. I've been asked "What was your military occupation?" more than a few times by people who just couldn't exactly remember MOS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

United States military occupation

As someone who has consulted, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries Garuda28, and no reason to be super official. I restored. I hope I've explained my reasoning enough here to not be reverted, but if I haven't I will try to. GMG^talk 01:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Been dealing with this issue since it came up. Garuda28 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's all good Garuda28. Argument is what makes this thing work, as long as we don't confuse opponents for enemies. GMG^talk 01:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Apologies. This is the first time that I have canvassed, and I think only the second or third time an article I wrote (out of hundreds) was Afded. I think it is the second time I have disagreed with the same proposer, and over the same topic. Not realizing that canvassing is viewed as inappropriate, I canvassed four people with whom I have collaborated in the past on articles like the one in question. I am not sure why it is inappropriate to draw to their attention an Afd covering an article of the type that I know interests them because we have worked on them. (I.e., this was not a "friends & family" shout out.) Still, having been warned off, I will comply in the future. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Acad Ronin. As it says in the relevant policy, some types of notification are appropriate, such as with wikiprojects, where I would usually leave as brief and neutral a message as possible, usually something to the effect of "There is currently a discussion at PAGE which may be of interest to this project." These types of message would presumably be just as likely to attract editors who would vote delete as would vote keep, and do so based on the merits of the arguments and relevant policy. They may benefit from their own personal interest and experience in the topic area, and may even know the relevant policy better than the average AfD participant.

However, something like "I need your help urgently" is a pretty clear way of saying "Please come vote keep on this discussion", which can tend to bias the outcome based on who is notified rather than the relevant policies and arguments. At any rate it's usually a waste of time, since these kinds of inappropriately notified participates should usually be overall disregarded by whoever closes the discussion.

It is surprising that someone with your experience was unaware of this, but maybe that's just a sign that you may write really solid articles that are rarely deleted. At any rate, so long as you get the idea now and won't make the same mistake in the future then everything should be just fine, and we can go back to writing a better encyclopedia. Thanks for being receptive to some criticism. Hope to see you out on an article one day. GMG^talk 16:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that of the hundreds (possibly more than 7-800) articles I have written only one has been deleted, mostly because I didn't care enough about the topic (it wasn't about ships and was far out of my usual lanes) to try to spend the time to build it out. My call for help did have some positive results so far though: two of the people I notified edited the article proposed for deletion, with one putting in more good info and sources, building out its notability. Still, an Afd nomination and reaction seems a cumbersome way to draw help on an article. In any case, to reiterate, I will mend my ways. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That feeling...

...When you fought at Little Bighorn, Half the battles of the Indian Wars, testified in a case that went before the Supreme Court, and was invited to the inauguration of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and some random guys want to take a selfie. GMG^talk 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Express Entry Post

GreenMeansGo,

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)

A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one. (Mine got rejected and I was asked to consolidate it with the original that you had rejected last year):

Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant ( and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?

There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

Regards Onkreukbaar (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Onkreukbaar. I would recommend starting with news searches (like this one) before relying on websites. I'd say an oversimplified hierarchy of sources usually goes something like: academic publications > books > news > websites. Websites themselves are usually not a terribly reliable source unless they're somehow affiliated with an educational institution, usually things like universities, museums, NGOs, and educational non-profits. Usually any website that is not run by an organization with public education as their primary goal can be assumed to have some other motive (namely publicity and profit), and so less-perfectly aligns with the goals of Wikipedia (more knowledge, more free, for more people), and has to be taken with some level of skepticism regarding their reliability.

I would also say, looking at your draft, that you are probably taking a bit of a wrong approach to the subject. It seems like you're writing as if you were writing for a website, which, Wikipedia isn't really "a website" ... instead it's more like an "encyclopedia that happens to be hosted online", in the same way that a digitized version of World Book, Britannica, or (for anyone who remembers) Encarta. So for example, an encyclopedia generally doesn't write in the second person, using words like "you", and instead writes in the third person (e.g., "Individuals who qualify..." rather than "If you qualify..."). Also, rather than give an exhaustively detailed treatment of a subject in the way that a specialized website might do, an encyclopedia, as a tertiary source, seeks to give a broad summary of a topic, in a way that would take someone from knowing nothing to knowing something very quickly, but not necessarily make them an expert.

Hopefully this helps to clarify more than it confuses. But there does seem to be sourcing available, although I would add that I would probably start by looking at sources in that news search other than Canada Immigration News, which from what I can tell is essentially just a series of official press releases, and so maybe are a bit miscategorized in a "news search" for our purposes. You could also take a look at a scholarly search (like this one) to see what is usable, although looking through it, it seems to be getting a lot of false positives, and you'll have to take some time going through each source to see what is accessible and relevant.

Again, hopefully this helps. Feel free to drop by any time. GMG^talk 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback GreenMeansGo, I will rewrite my post.

Just to be clear, I did not write the post that you rejected, I wrote this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry_(2) one, and was simply told to consolidate mine with the original. I also relied too heavily on primary sources, and will rewrite my most with better sources - but I believe that I got the tone right. It is a short post, and I would like to know if you also think my style is correct.

Regards, Onkreukbaar (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah Onkreukbaar. I see now. Maybe Robert missed it as well. It's not uncommon for someone to submit two different versions of their draft, but I guess we probably shouldn't be declining this way if it happens to be two drafts on the same topic by two different authors. Honestly, I think it's probably the first time I've seen that happen. GMG^talk 17:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Onkreukbaar, User:GreenMeansGo - I did see that the two drafts were by two different authors. I didn't decline them for that reason. I will also note that the version that User:GreenMeansGo declined was almost certainly copied from the government's information brochure, which is why it is written in the second person, but that means it is probably copyright violation. I originally declined the two versions because they both were based on primary materials. I have asked for comments at the Teahouse. Please respond there. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mind = blown

So... apparently if you use cite journal through the semi-automated form in the text editor, and you enter the DOI first, it will auto-populate all the other information if you click on the little magnifying glass. How... exactly I only now came to realize this is beyond me, but would have saved a lot of clicking and switching back and forth between tabs. GMG^talk 15:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... WHAT??? EEng 13:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

EEng. See below. All you have to do is enter the DOI and click the auto fill magnifying glass. No idea which database it's pulling the information from, and only problem I've encountered so far is that the date format is sometimes inconsistent with the cite journal template. GMG^talk 13:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I get it, just my mind is similarly blown. But where are you doing this? VE? EEng 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I found it. Wow. Amazing. They create all these ridiculous new "features" no one uses, and here's something that's really useful and an experienced editor like myself has never heard of it. EEng 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• It'll try to do this with ISBN numbers in cite-book as well (I only noticed last week when I clicked the magnifying glass to see what would happen). I guess anywhere you see the magnifying glass ("autofill") you can try... It wasn't perfect with the ISBN I tried, but got most of it. -- Begoon 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried ISBN a couple of times since, but I'm down to wading through mostly irrelevant sources on my current project, and all the ones I've tried so far have apparently been too obscure to be in whatever database it's pulling from. GMG^talk 15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a nifty thingamajic that creates a ref from a googlebooks link: [1]. Best thing ever! EEng 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oooh fancy. I will abuse that happily. GMG^talk 17:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I love me some fancy article writing gadgets. GMG^talk 17:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Be carful of its isbns though—it doesn't always format them consistently, which could then involve a lot of pissing about with dashes, etc. Like that thing up there though. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• I actually just recently noticed this. Strangely enough, I was being filmed at the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Polyandry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyandry. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your post at AN/I

As a side note, for those here saying essentially "go the hell back to retirement" to various editors, you need to seriously consider your attitude. When we have someone accusing someone else of driving away editors, the appropriate response is not to try to drive them away, regardless of your opinion as to the merits of their complaint.

THANK YOU. Can we frame this and add it to the edit notice when posting at any of the dispute resolution boards? –FlyingAce^✈hello 13:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I get that the original post may have come off as pretty over-the-top, but I don't think the solution to that is telling... hmm... the apparently 121st most prolific contributor of all time by edit count, with enough featured content it nearly breaks the formatting on their userpage, to kindly sod off, we're better off without you. GMG^talk 13:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hanes page, Awards section

I am new to creating a page on Wikipedia. Just after construction I have noted that you have removed an entire section of the awards and recognition for the Hanes page. These awards have been verified by myself through both resume and bibliography. I am very unsure of how to best utilize the functionality of the editing/references etc. and would like to ask why the section was removed and how to return it. Yes, the list is lengthy, but in actuality it has been pared down considerably before publishing on Wiki. Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia and explain how I can restore this. Thanks----Twilder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilder43 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Twilder43. First, per our policies on conflicts of interest, you generally shouldn't be editing the article at all, and if changes absolutely need to be made, you should request they be done on the article talk page using {{request edit}}. Second, even if they were verified by you, they did not include references to sources that meet our standards for reliability, so that they could be verified by readers. Self-published sources, even if they had been included, are generally not sufficient for anything but the most mundane personal details, which generally would not include winning major awards, which would require independently published sources to back up. Finally, Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes, and generally seeks to summarize content in prose, and only that content which is essential for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and not necessarily every detail that is available. The list, if reliably sourced, and if added by an editor without a conflict of interest, would need to be severely cut down to only the most important awards most essential for readers. GMG^talk 19:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

hanes page, Awards section

GMG,

A couple of things, as I stated previously I am new here so the question I posed to you was regarding how to place the references you alluded to. No help there. Also you reference and provided a link to regarding "conflict of interest" and have referred to it twice. I DID NOT KNOW THE MAN. I NEVER MET HIM. The information contained on the page was compiled using multiple sources. If you had provided assistance regarding that it would have been helpful. Do you understand that? And finally, on two (2) occasions you have stated "This is not a place for resumes" As Mr. Hanes has been deceased since 2011 I find this not only ridiculous but offensive and don't want to see it again. Your reply is both arrogant and unhelpful and it is obvious why this is how you spend your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilder43 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said you knew him. What you said was that you were editing on behalf of your employer. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and our content is written by volunteers who donate their time and their content to help make knowledge more freely accessible for more people. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, and as such contains encyclopedia articles, not collections of resumes or indiscriminate collections of otherwise encyclopedic information. It also does not contained unlimited unsourced bits of original research by individual editors, and that you personally verified the content does not change that. I'm sorry that you find that offensive, since you do, you may want to consider instead trying to add the information to a different site that is not an encyclopedia, does not have these restrictions, and does host this type of content. GMG^talk 20:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Social policy of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Social policy of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my language... but...

What the actual fuck is this doing in Teen Vogue??? This looks like... actual... educational... responsible.... journalism. Is this real life? GMG^talk 17:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of Miss South Carolina Teen USA, 11 years later. Alex Shih (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean... if you take out obvious teen-isms like "kicking settler butt" then yeah... I guess Teen Vogue is growing up (not that I would expect this from regular Vogue). But yeah, kudos. I still can't bring myself to cite it in an article, but kudos. GMG^talk 17:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's likely cribbed from a ton of other sources, so there's probably not much there that isn't already on here. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of it seems to link back to the Wyoming Historical Society, which is okay I guess. But I... just imagine this "Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer, biologist, attorney, and former tribal judge" getting a call from Teen Vogue and being like "How did you get this number? Don't you know making prank calls is illegal?" GMG^talk 17:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"No, there is no such thing as a 'Native American makeup technique', cultural appropriation is still offensive even when it looks really good on you and none of your readers are actually descended from 'Cherokee princesses' no matter what their grandmother told them. Wait, what? History? Treaties? Who did you say you were writing for, again?"

But don't get too excited... I'm a liberal feminist ally and even I'm pretty sure that "cisheteropatriarchal" is not actually a word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Checks out, not in Merriam-Webster. GMG^talk 18:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What, MPants, you've never heard of the new trend of sticking as many Latin roots together as possible to make new words? Primefac (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No more Latin roots for you!

I've heard of it, I just believe in my heart that the proper response is... Well, not to legitimize them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A boy slaps another boy on this face. What an enlightening file description. GMG^talk 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It bothers me slightly though because he is clearly in pre-swing, so it's not "slaps" so much as "prepares to slap". Primefac (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nah. You can't see his other hand. The correct caption is Drunk man implores uninterested stranger that the fish "was really this big". GMG^talk 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Three of the tags on the original flickr image are "big bear", "witchcraft", and "people". Apparently flickr's categorization is even worse than Commons... Primefac (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, so it looks like it's from "Big Bear Valley", so that makes a little more sense.

• Since I've gathered you all here today for this joyous occasion... anyone have any idea how I can force Template:TOC limit to hide headers when I skip from level two to level four without a level three header in between? GMG^talk 18:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You might try putting a level three header (which lacks a breakline) that consists of nothing but a nonbreaking space in there. Enclose the whole thing in a div element with a fixed height, padding & margin of 0px to shrink it down so it doesn't create a huge blank line. Here's the code:

<div style="height:0px;padding:0px;margin:0px;>
====&nbsp;====
</div> (copy it from the page, not the edit tab)

I have no idea if it will work or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I tested it here and the "edit" section link screws it up. If there's a way to suppress that, then it might work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... it kindof works other than the fact that it creates a blank entry in the TOC. GMG^talk 19:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to go for a set of hidden lvl-4 headers, why not just use the ; markup? Instead of:

Article X

You would have

Article X

Same font/bolding, but without the mess of a hidden TOC. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd considered that. Depends on how long some of these subsections wind up being. GMG^talk 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Use '''bold''', not ; markup, for accessibility reasons. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)