User talk:GreenMeansGo/Archive 13

Orphaned non-free image File:Raiders of the Broken Planet video game logo 2017.png
Thanks for uploading File:Raiders of the Broken Planet video game logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

 * Thanks TomStar81. I hope the year was a productive and enjoyable one for you as well.  G M G  talk  19:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Aletta Jacobs
I am back with yet another photograph question. Sorry, but I confess my ignorance and must rely on others' expertise in this area. I want to use the cover of this book in Jacobs' article. De Vrouw: Haar bouw en haar inwendige organen, published 1897. It would seem from the Project Gutenberg License that one can use it even though the e-book was released by Jeroen Hellingman on October 3, 2007, but I have no idea how to determine what creative commons license that would be. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay SusunW. Looks like the Netherlands uses 70-years-after-death for their copyright term, as does the US. So you can upload pretty much anything she's ever done to Commons using . The only exception I see is if the work was published posthumously, in which case things get a little wonky, but since this was published in 1897, it wouldn't be a problem for this work in particular. In basically all countries, creating a scan does not make a new copyright, so long as it is a faithful "slavish" reproduction. The exception currently is "a museum" in Germany, because the German courts have recently lost their daggum mind, and Commons hasn't really figured out how to handle that exactly yet.   G M G  talk  12:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Social Emotional Development
GreenMeansGo, what is the status of your review here? I don't see any icons, and a review at DYK is not considered complete until the reviewer posts one of the symbols indicating its status -- among other things, the bot doesn't move the review to the "Approved" page until it sees that the approval icon has been used (and not superseded). If there's more than needs to be done, then use one of those icons rather than an approval one. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry SusunW and BlueMoonset. Had some IRL issues with things that probably should have exploded and/or caught fire but somehow didn't. I'll try to address both these over the next 24 to 48 hours.  G M G  talk  02:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, BlueMoonset. Everything was settled, I just forgot to add the super official tick mark.  G M G  talk  17:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Test editing
Hi GMG, what kind of editing are called test editing?Betour13 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm... I dunno. What kind of editing am I calling test editing?  G M G  talk  15:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't quite get you?Betour13 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what question you are asking or in what context.  G M G  talk  17:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL
There is another redirect discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

New account creations
Hi GMG, is there any page on Wikipedia which shows the list of recently created accounts?Betour13 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is...umm... User:Oshwah you have the link handy? I'm stuck on mobile in the middle of nowhere.  G M G  talk  18:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Betour13, the running log of account creations is here.  G M G  talk  13:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks GMG.Betour13 (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was late to the party here, but the link that GreenMeansGo provided is correct. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 GreenMeansGo , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.


 * I guess I missed your admin nomination (was very busy and unaware that you contested) thereby chipping away one support. However, the good news is that you became a very well-deserved admin! Also, I have a belated support for you: GMG is an editor who had to become an admin long ago, so what is the delay for? I completely support his adminship!  Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the well wishes Adityavagarwal. Here's to having an enjoyable a productive new year. Lots of encyclopedia out there to build!  G M G  talk  23:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, I thought you became an admin. I just noticed you withdrew. Anyways, when are you going to try again? You are a very prolific editor and I have a support for you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh you know, I'm sure at some point life will be too kind to me and I'll need knocked back down a peg.  G M G  talk  16:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Britishfinance. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Vipul Roy, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an annoying little feature of the curator tool isn't it?  G M G  talk  16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have rereviewed it. It now has reliable sources and a credible claim to significance.  ~ GB fan 16:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry , the editor stuck up a single line (again), and for some reason the curation tool wouldn’t allow me reapply CSD A7 per yesterday; and I seemed to be unable to post to the Talk Page, agh?? Still learning! Britishfinance (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm of the general opinion that being a "television and film actor" is usually a claim of significance, unless there's a link or something there to indicate that "television and film" is a youtube channel with 15 subscribers. Having said that, I don't do pop culture, and definitely not non-Western pop culture. So good on GB for taking that one on and finding some sources.  G M G  talk  17:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that, have created the talk page for the article and will leave for another to complete the patrol. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking for help
Hi,

Some message from the Teahouse, introduced to you. I was looking for some small help. I created a new article in my user sandbox. Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Bookku. I gave it a once over copy editing. Unfortunately I don't even read the Malayalam script, much less speak the language, so I can't be of much help otherwise. I happen to know User:Sreejithk2000 speaks both Malayalam and English. So many they would be willing to give it a look.  G M G  talk  16:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear GreenMeansGo,

It is very nice of you.Very much pleased with your efficacious eloquence in copy editing the article. Many many thanks for your swift support. Also thanks for introducing me to User:Sreejithk2000. I will try to get in touch with him.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is the second or third year I've been on the list...which mostly makes me concerned about our medical content.  G M G  talk  22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey Adityavagarwal, and thank you for everything you do, by all accounts mostly better than me. I'm still holding on to my couple of featured pictures, but now that I've mentioned it, I expect you will probably go out and find 10 Tongue.png.  G M G  talk  22:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, definitely not. You are one of the best editors I have come across and I am far behind. Wow, I really needed to know how to create featured picutures. It seems so complex, so could if you could help me with making one featured picture, I could probably start on my own! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been meaning to restore this image for a while now. It's in pretty good shape, it just has some dust spots that need cleaned up, in case you wanted an image to tryout your touchups on.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, where do you see the dust spots? His coat seems dusty but that is just the design of the coat right? Also, how to clean it? Like, I have Microsoft Paint. Do you use some software to do that? Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to zoom in really close, and you'll see random white spots. Basically where there was dust on the glass negative when they made the image. You can download GIMP (just google search it). It's a free open source version of Photoshop, and you can fairly easily find a tutorial on using the repair tool on YouTube. At least that's what I did.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey yeah I have gimp. Could you do all that editing on gimp? I thought you might need some advanced software. Yeah there are white spots when zoomed. Ill just try to first remove them somehow through gimp and try using the repair tool. What do we do after that? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominate it at *Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. If it gets five or more supports (arbitrary number for some reason) over ten days then it gets promoted, and it's eligible to be featured on the main page for picture of the day.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But before that in a day or two ill just improve that picture to remove the dots and first take your suggestions on it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rivalry
Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Elisa Brătianu
I am back with yet another photograph question. Looking at this I am confused by its wording. Does it mean that if the work is anonymous and was published 50 years before 1996 it is good, or does it mean that if it is now more than 70 years old? Situation is that the photograph I want to use was published in 1943 per this. Clearly under the 1956 law copyright held for 50 years, so it expired in 1993, if it is based on publication date, which is obviously before 1996. But if it is based on her death, she died in 1957, then 50 years wouldn't have occurred until 2007, which is obviously after 1996. If it means 70 years from now, published in 1943 means copyright expired in 2013. So bloody confusing. If I cannot upload it to commons, I can always upload it as "fair use" since she died in 1957. SusunW (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey SusunW. I'm travelling until late tonight. But I'll try to look into it this evening or tomorrow morning.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay SusunW. That is confusing. I presume you mean the photograph on page two? Assuming that Brătianu is the subject of the photo that you want to use, then her date of death I don't believe is relevant, since she wasn't the one who took the photo, unless she purchased the rights to the photo for the purpose of publication. Then what we really want is the date of death of the photographer. If the photograph isn't credited in the book, and we cannot ascertain the photographer's identity through any reasonable means, then it would be treated as an anonymous work, and would enter the public domain in 2013. But we would also need a rationale for why it would be public domain in the US in order to upload it to Commons, or even locally as a free image. We may be able to get that if we can reasonably believe that copyright wasn't renewed in the US before 1971. Whew boy.
 * Just to be sure I'm gonna ping User:Majora to double check me on this one.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is complicated. As far as I can tell, the photograph is uncredited. I found numerous uses of it on the web, none give credit to a photographer, nor is there a credit in the book. I don't think the book was ever published in the US and after the 1943 volume, was not reprinted until 2010. On another note for the US, would it not fall into published between 1923 and 1977 and is not eligible for copyright restoration because see the pop ups under 1923-1977 1) it was published without a copyright notice, 2) it was published in a foreign language, and 3) under the 1956 law its copyright expired in 1993 after 50 years from the date of publication. I have no earthly idea how to tag that for commons. But it seems to hit the chart at "work is in the public domain" to me. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well...my understanding is that if it was not published in the US, and was out of copyright in its home country on the URAA date in 1996, then it would be public domain in the US, and we would use c:Template:PD-1996, along with the template for why it was public domain in its home country on the URAA date.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It literally makes my head swim ;) I truly appreciate your help and hope can confirm one way or the other how to upload it. SusunW (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Romanian copyright law is...complicated. And that is saying something considering some of the laws of other countries. The template doesn't really help matters since it is trying to squeeze as much information as possible into a small space so that it remains somewhat manageable. c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania contains much more information in a better format. From what I'm getting here, and please note I only did a cursory review, you would use c:template:PD-RO-photo. It is in the public domain. You can upload it to Commons. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . If I did this right we are good to go. If I didn't, hopefully someone can fix it for me. Truly appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Sorry it took so long but we'll get em figured out eventually.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG, I am rarely worried about how long it might take, as long as we are working through it. It is way too complicated for me to trust my limited experience with photos. So much better to collaborate and sort through the mire for clarity ;) SusunW (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Interfere with others talk page edits, 04 FEBRUARY 2019
This is not permitted. ~ R.T.G 17:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The thread is pointless, multiple people have told you it is pointless, and you are edit warring. Please go do something productive with your time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Another draft?
I have a pretty good start on Draft:Mockery. Can you believe, after all these years, we have no article on the concept of mockery? It's crazy. bd2412 T 05:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're saying our lack of this article is ridiculous, perhaps... worth of mockery?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Our lack of an article could bring derision down upon our heads. bd2412  T 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there are some buttons you could push for me over on WQ if you're in the mood to close a discussion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure - at the Village Pump? bd2412  T 15:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, but I am planning on coming back to this. Just trying to finish out the members of Congress in c:Category:National Photo Company Collection.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Elijah Daniel
Elijah made a video announcing his engagement to Sam. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FDWSWZeGHXQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mando130 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Mando130. Youtube is not a reliable source for information on living persons, and this person's Youtube, someone known for creating and perpetuating personal hoaxes, is moreso not reliable for information even on himself.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rings they use in the video can be seen in Elijah's Latest Instagram Post. https://www.instagram.com/p/BtgsRvqnWgv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mando130 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SQ NSwitch FireEmblemThreeHouses.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SQ NSwitch FireEmblemThreeHouses.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fancy pants
Fancy pants, eh? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Never underestimate the power of needless trappings to make a stub look like it definitely belongs.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, without a list of fancy Harvard refs, someone could come along and speedy it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now what would be a really interesting study to have the results for is the effect of formatting on likelihood for deletion nomination. I've literally added zero substantive content to the article. But I'll be no one in their right mind from NPP would think of nominating or redirecting it in it's current state, as opposed to an unformatted stub with exactly the same actual content.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, my friend, you underestimate the power of a huge list of refs. NPP people can see a single, lousy ref, and think, this isn't notable and tag it. Of course, I'm not trying to say bad things about NPP people. I know many people in the North Pole and they're okay. The big mystery is why they are always patrolling these new pages. One day I will get to the bottom of it. Which reminds me of those people from Antarctica...don't get me started on them.... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I've probably patrolled a few thousand pages, but nominating A7s and G11s used to be something you could spend days at a time doing before ACPERM. But it is endlessly tedious work, and I have to spread my tedium out a bit. I really don't understand how some people concentrate only on things like OTRS or NPP and don't get burned out on it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Years ago, I did a heck of a lot of NPP and then had quite enough of that. I think users ought to spend a bit of time doing sock gum-shoeing. It is more challenging and sort of wakes you up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm probably due for another GA. That's the kindof work I find refreshing. I am still tempted to just bite the bullet and shell out the money to get Aurelia Henry Reinhardt to FA. It is super frustrating when the source you need exists at one library at one university 2,000 miles away, and the only option you have is to find an excuse to go to California or pay for an antique edition.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wot source is that, GMG? ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hedley, George Percy (1961). Aurelia Henry Reinhardt: Portrait of a Whole Woman. Mills College. OCLC 855512039.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'm missing something, but I see it's available—probably not very antique!—at Alibris for ~$11?  ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. ✅ Admittedly, I haven't looked for it in a few months, but last time I did I believe the cheapest copies I found were like 50 or 60 bucks.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Give me a shout for the FAC :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm impressed. Your dedication and intelligence are commendable. I cannot do FA anything. I have a condition. Experts have described it as, I think the terms they used were "poor memory" and "outright stupidity", but I cannot remember what they said and didn't understand most of it anyway. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. Writing an FA is more a measure of time than skill. If you can drive a car then you can drive cross country. It's the same basic skill set only applied over a longer period of time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think you need to be able to write. You can write. I cannot. To me, FA people are really tops here. They make the finished product that is the aim of the project. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal justice financial obligations
Many thanks for the edits on Criminal justice financial obligations! I told you you can write. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on it. You know in my defense, I'm a social worker by training who used to work in a prison. So it's basically entrapment.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Entrapment. :) That's quite good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I posted this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law and the same at two other projects to get some examples for the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Specifically, we would need documents generated from a government entity that releases its official works into the public domain. Most don't. (Shameless plug for relevant user box.)  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything from https://www.bop.gov/ or https://www.justice.gov/ should be okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Having said that Anna Frodesiak, there is a lot of nuance in the in general part. If you need a second opinion on copyright issues I'm fairly good at it half the time and fairly good at finding someone else who is the other half.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks Anna Frodesiak. I'm a little disappointed to find pretty much no sources dealing with the non-Western world, but all in all I think it's turned out fairly good.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps it's only an Amereican term. Like in Australia they could be called woonawollydeeras, as in "Oy mate, that bloody woonawollydeera is going to ruin ya when ya get out." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That can't be genuine Australian. There aren't enough curse words.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated images?
Hi, I hope you are well. Great work on well known topics with, I really enjoy seeing them pop up on my watchlist. I'd definitely join a wikiproject that is a central spot for articles like those. Anyways, what is the procedure for files that duplicate each other like File:Haakon Herdebreis saga-Kong Inges haerfylking-W. Wetlesen.jpg and File:Ingi Haraldsson (Battle of Oslo).jpg. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * fix ping. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are both on Commons, which has its own procedure for nominating duplicate files for deletion. bd2412  T 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Eddie891. Since they're the same file format, you can nominate the lower resolution version for speedy deletion. Just add  to the file description page.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry to be a bother, but which is the lower resolution? I don't really understand images... Eddie891 Talk Work 02:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This one, but only slightly.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  04:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Chronic deleter
Please keep an eye on User:S0091, a user who only does unwanted reverts for a living here. --2409:4064:796:63A3:62C7:19B0:C39E:FDD6 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey anon. I'm afraid with what appears to likely be your dynamic IP, and their prolific edits, if there's a problem that needs to be addressed, then you're probably going to have to be more specific.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that S0091 doesn't seem to adhere to the principles set out in User:GreenMeansGo/WP:Death by template, though I also think it was in response to this edit, which while going a bit overboard in the article gutting did trim a lot of extraneous and over-trivial detail from it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yeah. I'm really the last guy you want to go to over a dispute involving sports.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Appeal at AE
I wanted you to be aware that I have requested that my AE block be lifted. In my appeal I linked to your initial suggestion that I be banned from noticeboards for asking Cirt too many questions. §§ SashiRolls t ·  c 18:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No thank you. There are a lot of things on my to-do list, but arguing at AE isn't one of them.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't been following what you've been doing these days, last I looked it was good content work. SashiRolls t · c 20:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sun Angels Tungsak Tevi

 * Why Deleted this picture ? [File:Sun Angels Tungsak Tevi.jpg] ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokreas1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's apparently taken from Facebook, there is no information with which to verify whether the original artwork is in the public domain, and it was uploaded by a globally locked user.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of revision to entry on John A. McDougall
Hi,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._McDougall

Firstly, I'm not very well versed in manoeuvring around Wikipedia so I hope this is the correct method of making contact with you! Apologies if it's not.

Anyway, I'm just wondering why you reverted my revision of this page. As it stands, it reads like a review from somebody with a grudge against McDougall and/or his diet and the links are quite poor, especially the second one which quotes two people linked to the animal agriculture industry therefore highly biased against plant based diets. The arguments against his diet are weak whereas the evidence in favour of plant based diets including McDougall's show that they can be, and mostly are, beneficial to health. The fact that four of the largest groups of medical professionals all agree that plant based diets are suitable for all ages of human development speaks volumes. Also, the claim that it might be boring is just an opinion and quite ridiculous considering the amount of plant based recipes available these days.

Cheers,

Rob --Weirdunclebob (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Rob. I don't really have a strong personal opinion either way. (I just eat garbage and pay my penance at the gym personally.) But when we make changes to articles those changes need to be based on sources, in this case, high quality sources that meet our standards for medical content. So I would have reverted any similar change either in favor or against the worth of the diet if it appeared to be based on personal opinion and not based on high quality sources. If you can find such sources, then there may certainly be a discussion to be had about them on the article talk page, but otherwise, we have to stick to what the sources say whether we agree with them or not.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks for that. I'll have a look for some sources when I get time. Cheers! --Weirdunclebob (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Hey, no worries Vincent60030. If I have anything it's a thick skin. I just hate to think that we've driven away a new editor who hit a home run on their first article because we dropped the ball at DYK.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Jonathan Mitchell (writer)
I put the notability tag back as serious issues were noted on the talk page, and these issues are yet to be addressed. Also note that the person who previously removed it has a noted COI and should not be permitted to address the matter as he is inherently biased towards to the subject. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has already been through AfD. If you continue to edit war over the notability tag, then the article will be protected so that you cannot continue to do so.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article will be going back to AfD if the NEW issues aren't resolved. They are NEW issues that were not previously considered. 2001:8003:5901:B400:A5F7:B6A9:978C:1449 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then take it back to AfD. Don't edit war over a cleanup tag.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Brother in law
Silly me. I was only thinking about it as the husband of his sister. Didn’t know it also meant the brother of his wife. starship.paint ~  KO   14:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not vandalism
Re this, it is certainly not vandalism; see Talk:Karen_Uhlenbeck. --JBL (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the post on the talk page, and was looking around at sources. It certainly looked like vandalism given that it was directly contradicted by the cited source, and done with repeatedly with no explanation.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Confrontation
I think my next dabconcept focus is going to be Draft:Confrontation. I expect it to be a relatively short and straightforward article. Would you be interested in working on this? bd2412 T 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'll give it a look.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you review something for me?
GMG, somewhat against my will I roped myself into writing a response to a Signpost proposed article here [] (link to article []). My draft reply is here []. Primarily I would like to know if the logic comes across as sound but I'm also open to any and all suggestions. There is quite a reasonable chance I have some grammar or copy edit errors in the thing. Thanks! Springee (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Springee. Well, as a general comment, I would say that when I have written for the Signpost (and I've only just submitted my second draft), I've tried to approach it like I was writing for a non-technical magazine, by which I mean trying to write an easy-to-follow narrative as much as possible, and doing it at about a 10th grade level. Your style does come off at times as if you're writing to a graduate student rather than to someone in secondary school. That has to do with whether you communicate your point effectively as well as whether readers actually take the time to finish reading the piece because it flows naturally. Now, I'll be the first to say that intuitive arguments are often very bad arguments (most racist and homophobic rhetoric is based on deeply intuitive tribalism), but the key is to make a rationally sound argument, but do it in a way that is also intuitive in its delivery. I would recommend maybe that, now that you've started to organize your thoughts, try to abandon your structure and rewrite it conversationally from memory. Imagine you're giving a talk to an audience that has to follow your points in real time, rather than writing a piece where readers can carefully consider point against counter-point in their own time. In comparison, my current draft was about the third major rewrite of the point I was trying to make, before I got it to flow in a way that I liked.
 * Second, I think you may need to consider your focus a bit. You seems to aim primarily at refuting the first argument, rather than making an argument of your own. It's clear you don't agree with their thesis, but it's not clear that you bring an alternative. Compare my first Signpost piece, where my goal isn't primarily to attack the "sexism narrative", but instead to offer a compelling alternative "collaboration narrative", which I would argue is in many ways more meaningful in our context. Compare the modern gun control/rights debate at large:
 * Alternatively
 * One of those is purely rational and, while it may be technically correct, is probably only convincing to those who already agree, and already understand the constitutional history. The other is deeply intuitive and easily digestible, and makes the same point more effectively by offering a strong counter-narrative, rather than focusing on rebutting the initial argument. So my question is not whether you think the original argument is weak, but rather what is your strong counter argument that we should adopt once we reject your opponent.
 * Hopefully this is somehow helpful and not just long-winded rambling about rhetoric and writing style.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct reply was "perfect, couldn't have made any positive changes"... :( Kidding aside, while not the feedback I was hoping for I think that is the sort of outsider's view I was looking to elicit.  My take away is look at two areas.  First, try to make it more clear what the other side of the coin looks like.  I guess I would argue we are seeing nothing more than the typical content disputes that one would expect when politically charged topics are overlayed on articles.  There are certainly individual instances of problematic editing on both sides of the issue but there is no systemic, long term problem.  I might also note that this is somewhat like a good conspiracy story.  It's a compelling narrative to have an organized bad guy even though the truth is far more mundane.  Do you think it would help the case if I added some sort of intro outlining some of what I just said?  Since I didn't set out to prove anything, only to show that Dlthewave's version of events is rather questionable, I guess I have trouble identifying "the other story".  I will note that I deliberately chose to go forgo a point by point refutation and instead go for the broader picture.  It sounds like you feel the results were mixed.
 * One of those is purely rational and, while it may be technically correct, is probably only convincing to those who already agree, and already understand the constitutional history. The other is deeply intuitive and easily digestible, and makes the same point more effectively by offering a strong counter-narrative, rather than focusing on rebutting the initial argument. So my question is not whether you think the original argument is weak, but rather what is your strong counter argument that we should adopt once we reject your opponent.
 * Hopefully this is somehow helpful and not just long-winded rambling about rhetoric and writing style.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct reply was "perfect, couldn't have made any positive changes"... :( Kidding aside, while not the feedback I was hoping for I think that is the sort of outsider's view I was looking to elicit.  My take away is look at two areas.  First, try to make it more clear what the other side of the coin looks like.  I guess I would argue we are seeing nothing more than the typical content disputes that one would expect when politically charged topics are overlayed on articles.  There are certainly individual instances of problematic editing on both sides of the issue but there is no systemic, long term problem.  I might also note that this is somewhat like a good conspiracy story.  It's a compelling narrative to have an organized bad guy even though the truth is far more mundane.  Do you think it would help the case if I added some sort of intro outlining some of what I just said?  Since I didn't set out to prove anything, only to show that Dlthewave's version of events is rather questionable, I guess I have trouble identifying "the other story".  I will note that I deliberately chose to go forgo a point by point refutation and instead go for the broader picture.  It sounds like you feel the results were mixed.
 * The correct reply was "perfect, couldn't have made any positive changes"... :( Kidding aside, while not the feedback I was hoping for I think that is the sort of outsider's view I was looking to elicit.  My take away is look at two areas.  First, try to make it more clear what the other side of the coin looks like.  I guess I would argue we are seeing nothing more than the typical content disputes that one would expect when politically charged topics are overlayed on articles.  There are certainly individual instances of problematic editing on both sides of the issue but there is no systemic, long term problem.  I might also note that this is somewhat like a good conspiracy story.  It's a compelling narrative to have an organized bad guy even though the truth is far more mundane.  Do you think it would help the case if I added some sort of intro outlining some of what I just said?  Since I didn't set out to prove anything, only to show that Dlthewave's version of events is rather questionable, I guess I have trouble identifying "the other story".  I will note that I deliberately chose to go forgo a point by point refutation and instead go for the broader picture.  It sounds like you feel the results were mixed.


 * I get what you are saying about moving the text down to a more conversational level. I'm trying to think how to do that (often easier said than done).  The other thing I'm concerned about is the inclusion of quotes from The Verge and the two other sources who quoted The Verge.  Sadly, I have had to repeatedly explain why the articles are crap.  Dlthewave should know better and has acknowledged as much when I explained the issues a while back.  But I suspect it was just too compelling to say "Newsweek is on my side!"  I also run into an issue of length.  To explain the flaws in detail would require far more text that I'm allotted.  I've asked that they be removed since they aren't Dlthewave's views and I addressed them earlier.


 * Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I'll keep working on it.  Springee (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well...I agree that the Truth™ is often more mundane than we'd like to imagine and more nuanced than fits on a bumper sticker. The only real first principle I personally adhere to politically is "It's complicated, and if anyone tells you it's simple then they're a fool or a liar."
 * I can't help but draw a parallel to the current conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and the associated RfC. It's comparatively apolitical, but you again have this phenomenon of a small set of dedicated users in a niche subject that have exerted a disproportionate influence on their niche. But I think that being "pro-porn" is easier to see as a more purely in-group/out-group conflict based on personal interests without interjecting the menace of grand political POV pushing, which of course is the kind of thing that let's sources generate flashy stories. Don't expect any articles in Newsweek about PRO-PORN POLICE PUSHING POORLY PUBLISHED PROFILES ON THE 'PEDIA, because even though it's likely a similar effect of an insular in-group with an insular topic, it's not nearly as click-batey or interesting to a general audience.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry your pretty head
“Don't worry your pretty head”? Patronising. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not me patronizing you; that's me making a parody of the rationale that ArbCom offers you for unilaterally changing policy.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"Spies"
I'm taking this here because it really does not belong over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I think you still don't understand what happened with 's contribs. I'm going to ask you to please not be aggressive and snarky here, because I am not approaching you that way. I am honestly asking you to understand and stop this WP:Battleground attitude you seem to have. What it seems pretty certain that user did, and we've seen this many times with copyvio on the 'pedia, is they used a non-English version (probably German-language translation) of out-of-print frontier memoirs that are not available online. They then translated them to English, probably also via machine translation (hence, some of the odd wording), and then pasted it into their draft. '''They did not cite the source, so the source was not there to find in a web search. Even if the work is out of copyright, this is plagiarism. And since the text had gone through multiple translations, a search on the text wouldn't turn it up, either.''' But scholars of the material recognized it immediately. Some tried to talk to you, but you didn't understand.

The other thing about calling people who spot these inaccuracies, "spies", is that you are referring to the very people being written about in these articles. The people whose communities are being mislabeled as extinct, whose religious items are being called "relics", whose ancestors and even they, themselves, are being called by racist terms in many of these articles I and others at the wikiproject have had to clean up. Some of them are on wikipedia but others don't want to deal with the climate here. A hostile climate that you are contributing to. That you have responded to so much of our work with snarkiness, attacks, threats and hounding.... I honestly don't know if you understand how this is coming off. I am bringing this here because I do not want to fight with you. I assume you are doing these things to protect the 'pedia and because you truly do not understand how this looks. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, well a large part of the issue here is that you seem to fairly quickly see those who disagree with you as necessarily culturally incompetent and/or POV pushers. We can get into a pissing contest over our indigenous-Wikipedia-editing credentials if you like, but I'm fairly certain you lose, so I would recommend against it. You should consider that there are people who disagree with you based on the strength of your argument, and not the topic area about which they are arguing. If you manage to reach that point, then we can probably have a productive and collaborative discussion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Inline citations
what is with you guys using inline citations on talk pages? When you're trying to point out problems with sources, it isn't easy to put up "source #12" when the numbering changes or "the one by Deloria" when there are multiple references throughout an article. The exact quote is easier, but integrating that into the talk page is indeed problematic. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PM sent Buffs (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer inline formatted external links, but if you must use inline citations on talk pages, you should include a  so that everything doesn't bunch up either at the bottom of the page or at the next , which is liable to be unrelated and confusing.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for a pre-GA review of Hell's Bells (film).
Hi Green. I'm back from a 6-month block. And since I want to write a GA-article, I was wondering if you could do a GA-review for Hell's Bells (film). I want to create a better pictue of myself, because of my previous vandalism, and stupid sockpuppeting. Thank you. The Duke 16:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think I've ever gotten anything past GA that wasn't concerning US history in some way. Definitely not anything on a film or a book or anything like that. Maybe User:Ritchie333 can help? I know he's done some work on music topics, which is closer than I normally get to popular culture or entertainment topics. 20:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A better solution
Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're never going to hear me sing the praises of Teen Vogue or MTV as solid sources (although Teen Vogue has surprised me once or twice before). Having said that, I have no issues at all citing the Guardian citing Keene's blog. That's perfectly fine. Regardless, eight sources for a single statement is still pretty much cite gore.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree entirely, but seems to eminently make more sense than using a personal blog with zero editorial controls. Buffs (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail
I'm sorry, but policy prohibits me from disclosing that information to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe we've found ourselves on opposite ends of this predicament previously, regarding the partitioning of information between OTRS and functionaries. It is unfortunate.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Husky-logo-Black 2017.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Husky-logo-Black 2017.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexis Herman
Hi, you added Alexis Herman to Selected anniversaries/May 9 with the text Alexis Herman was sworn in as the first female U.S. Secretary of Labor, but that was Frances Perkins. She wasn't even the first African American woman appointed to a Cabinet position (Carla Anderson Hills). As such, I don't see that article as a good fit for that date. However, the article is in good shape so I will be happy to put her on her birthday instead. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 23:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I'd totally forgotten about that article. Thanks for catching my error. Much appreciated.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment
- Very few people to possibly no one should be ever negatively judged regarding their behavior resulting from being savagely tortured daily in a POW camp. While a select few may be able to "hold out," suggesting that this is a reasonable expectation for a human in this situation is profoundly unjust and inappropriate. This is particularly true of anyone who hasn't been through such a situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) Shannon @ mccoven.com Shannon McCoven, MA
 * Hello Shannon. I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a bit more context here. As far as I am aware, I have not been involved in any recent discussions regarding prisoners of war.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. - - > Allegations from POWs about McCain providing Intel to captors. I'm curious to see that there is no mention at all of the very numerous allegations from fellow POWs in Vietnam that Mr. McCain supplied the VC with Intel on US air sorties. I've noticed other political figures have numerous mentions of disputed allegations in their bio. Is this a normal degree of bias in Wikipedia? Lakeraider01 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Source? GMGtalk 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And if this was an inappropriate place to comment, feel free to delete it. I have a master's in clinical psychology (undergrad in Sociology and Philosophy). It really bothers me when people criticize other humans for possibly lack of courage (that law enforcement officer that didn't immediately charge into that school shooting) or some prison of war that signed some statement under torture, or disclosed military information under torture, especially relentless torture over the course of years. I don't believe that anyone knows what they will do in those kinds of situations. Hat's off to people who can "hold out," but I believe that expecting humans to do so is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:B1E0:3D2F:5F38:1955:BFBB (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, I hear you. My Masters is in Social Work, and I've been in or around the military my whole life. As far as I'm aware, the whole thing about McCain is a bit of a fringe theory. That's why I asked for a source, because I suspected they couldn't provide one that was reliable.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a complete idiot. I thought were you promoting or wanted to put that in. I apologize profoundly. - Shannon
 * Hey no worries at all. If I can ever be of any help feel free to drop by any time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Aletta Jacobs
Okay, so all the photos we have of her are not stellar and I have been searching for months for a better one. I think I have finally hit paydirt, but you know, copyright makes me nervous and I doubt myself. I found this image. And then going through Atria's files, I found this 1915 visa which was issued with the same photo. So my question is does publication of a passport constitute publication for our purposes? If so, as it was published prior to 1923, even though it was outside of the US, I think I should be fine, but wanted other eyes to tell me that. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah ha Susun! It took about an hour but I believe I've found some actionable information here. According to der Groninger Archieven the author of the image was the German photographer Max Büttinghausen (died 25 December 1906). So it seems that (in an era when access to photography was still comparatively rare) this was a professional photograph she had done previously, and which she later provided to the Dutch government for the purposes of printing her passport. So to heck with the three paragraphs I just wrote and deleted on the definition of publication, we can just slap on a judicious  and call it a day.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yippee! Except for the three paragraphs you deleted about publication. (I really do need an answer on the passport thingy, as I find passports a lot and never know if that constitutes "publication". My thought is that it is a government publication and I know mine has been seen by people in over 100 countries ;) .) How you found that Groninger Archieven link I do not know, but I am sooo excited because I think that means that now has an image to use for our effort to take suffragettes' photos to featured pictures. So far every Jacobs' picture I have asked him about has been of too poor a quality. I am stoked that he might finally say he can work with this one! I totally appreciate your help. As always, you are amazing! SusunW (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer to the "publish" question is..."I don't know". I didn't find any court case or any other precedent regarding either the EU or the Netherlands regarding whether a passport qualifies as "a publication". I could make a good argument one way or the other as far as the Berne Convention goes. I didn't really find any information at all regarding either pre-1950 passports, or non-US passports. Round about the turn of the century, cameras were pretty specialized, which is why you still often see etchings from this era (although they were falling out of style).
 * As always, my door is open. Feel free to stop by for any reason or no reason at all. Thanks for all your work in helping us build the encyclopedia my daughter will read.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I stuck the passport use on as "other information" in the upload. Not sure I used the right US tag, as it should be published outside the US prior to 1923, but in any case, someone will surely come along and fix it. Thank you so much for your always helpful open door policy. My sincere hope is that we will continue to build a more diverse encyclopedia for all of our daughters (and sons) no matter if they live in the Global South (or north). I strive to add women because our representation is so imbalanced, but am always also aware and most interested in those who worked internationally to build our global "village". SusunW (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help out on our sister projects too. Only a few days ago I made q:Myla Goldberg and q:Jessica Meir. I often find that it's hard to write a new article without finding enough quotes to make a Wikiquote page to accompany it. Digging gets all kinds of dirt.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

gun, crime and weight
GMG, a while back you weighed in on the topic of guns and crime []. Do you have a feel for when you think a crime should be included in an article about a rifle? I discussed this to some extent here but was interested in someone else's thoughts to perhaps clarify my own. [] Thanks (and thanks for your previous thoughts in the Signpost article) Springee (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's easier to get your head around if you put it in terms of something that isn't politically contentious. Suppose we were writing (for whatever reason) an encyclopedia article on Red Chevrolet pickup truck. I guarantee you can find a nearly endless number of sources where red Chevrolet pickup trucks were stolen, used in crimes, or involved in fatal crashes (e.g.,, , , , ...and all from the first page of Google news results). That doesn't mean that any of that figures into our WEIGHT calculation on Wikipedia, because none of those sources are about red Chevrolet pickup trucks, which is the subject we're writing about.
 * If any of those crashes or thefts or what-have-you turn out to be independently notable, then we should probably look at including details about the red Chevrolet pickup truck in the article about the event. But unless the preponderance of sources specifically about red Chevrolet pickup trucks feels the need to mention a particular event from the news, then it doesn't meet WEIGHT. That's why "Ford Bronco" is mentioned four times in O. J. Simpson murder case, but OJ Simpson doesn't even get passing mention in Ford_Bronco (except in a category that probably shouldn't be there).   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'm seeing this the same way you are. My view is that we follow what WEIGHT tells us to do and look at articles about the subject of the Wikipedia entry.  RSs about the Browning BAR do mention Bonnie and Clyde so we include that in the article here.  But in most cases RS's about the firearm don't.  Really the generic AR-15/assault weapon articles seem to be the most common cases where an article "about the gun" talks about the crimes.  I also agree about the abstraction.  I wish I could think of some examples beyond the automotive world since these discussions keep coming up.  Springee (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, most people are probably going to miss the point anyway. It's an argument that is liable to be effective for someone who can play the Martian scientist and try to find a set of principles that can be applied consistently across topics; not necessarily an argument for someone who sees gun control in a vacuum primarily through the lens of contemporary politics. That's a big reason why I've almost entirely stopped contributing in contemporary politics. It's not a terribly productive use of time sitting around all centrist-like advocating for nuance and amoral consistency while half the folks call you a libtard and the other half call you a wingnut. I find I'm more productive and less frustrated, when working with people who are on average more collaborative, on things that happened and people that died a hundred years ago.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniella van Graas
We have done a 5X expansion. I intend to submit a WP:DYK. I will include all the contributors. Any suggestions for a hook? <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well...not to be unduly harsh, but I'm not entirely sure what bits of the article are well sourced enough to make it to the main page. I removed the worst offenders, but that wasn't an endorsement of the rest; those were just the bits I was unequivocally willing to claim a 3RR exemption from if I was reverted.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Think about it.  If you have suggestions, they would be appreciated.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Meh. They'll always be a significant grey area where reasonable people can disagree. Won't hurt my feelings one way or the other. I would normally be a great deal more eager to AGF and accept pay-walled non-English sources, without (last time I looked) either a unique identifier or a named author, but having to remove things like this gives me serious pause that at least one editor there egregiously does not understand sourcing for BLPs. I figure it's not worth breaking out the WP:BLAME and finding out who it was. It'd probably just make things worse anyway.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts --valereee (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Actormonu


A tag has been placed on User talk:Actormonu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 12:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh noes. I challenge your speedy deletion! You shant delete my semi-automatically generated warning message! Tyranny!  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference
I found a picture published in 1919 that depicts women who attended this conference. A much clearer image can be found here. Is this one of those companies like Getty that tries to make you pay for images already in the public domain? Can I use it? SusunW (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Susun. Yeeeah, there's a special place in copyright hell for sites like those. I'll do you one better. Here is what looks to be the original without the annoying watermarks. But the good stuff is that the Minneapolis newspaper means we know it was published in the US before 1923. So you should be good to go. You can just cite the newspaper link in the file description as evidence of the date of publication.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! I still don't know how you find these originals, but I don't care. I know enough to ask you and that works for me. Gracias mi amigo! SusunW (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Susun. As far as I can tell, a lot of these public-domain-scam sites are bot generated using existing information from public archives. So other than the annoying watermark, everything else is often unchanged, meaning you can usually search for the file name verbatim and find where files by that exact name exist elsewhere.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I truly do appreciate your skills! On that note, can I get you to double-check the tags I put on the images mentioned at the GA review on the Inter-Allied Women's Conference? Just want to make sure I didn't screw any of them up. SusunW (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Susun. Poking around they look pretty good. i would caution one thing though: it's good to keep in mind mobile viewers and people with different monitors when arranging images (project wide, half or more of our readers are using mobile). So the long string of vertical images you have on the right probably looks fine on narrower resolution monitors, but it's going to probably be format breaking on ultra-wide monitors, and on mobile view it stacks about 20 inches of single vertical images in the background section that you have to scroll through before you get to any text. (You can check what it looks like on mobile devices by using the developer tools in Google Chrome.) I would recommend instead to go with the type of formatting I used at Indian Peace Commission. It still stacks them at the top of the section on mobile, but will stack them horizontally as much as it can depending on the screen width, and narrow or wide screen monitors are unaffected in the article display.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, as if I have any idea what "You can check what it looks like on mobile devices by using the developer tools in Google Chrome" means. I can barely use my phone as a phone (Swiping is virtuall impossible, making answering a call fraught with difficulty. Don't even get me started on the excruciating frustration of typing one letter at a time, when on a keyboard I type 120 words per minute). Would it make more sense to list them in "gallery" format at the bottom? There are so many that horizontally in the middle seems like it would be disruptive to the article flow. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the easiest way to check what it looks like on mobile is probably just to use a phone I guess. I'm not super tech savvy either. (I'm reminded of this recent thread on Wikidata, where I just vomited a little bit and ran away.) It's not going to fail your GA review or anything. It should fail an FA review but I don't have supreme confidence that it would either, since reviewers rarely check for that kind of thing. There are probably a number of solutions, and a gallery is probably one. Just something to keep in mind with regard to our readership.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of slow, but I get stuff done ;) We passed GA and Adam Cuerden, who beautifully restored the image on Aletta Jacobs, has agreed to try to work on cleaning up this image too. On your advice, I moved the photos from a vertical list to a gallery at the bottom of the article. SusunW (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome sauce. You are a GA machine. Also I envy Adam's excellent photoshop skills. I did work a little bit on a picture on my plane ride the other day. Will hopefully finish it eventually and maybe get a second FP. At least that's what I've been telling myself :P  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I need another favor, sorry if I am asking too much. At the suggestion of the GA reviewer, I submitted the article for Class-A review by the Military Project. One of the reviewers has asked that the signature be cropped from the photo of Lady Ishbel Aberdeen. 1) I have no idea how to crop a photo which has already been uploaded, 2) I think both the photo *with* the signature (for her article) and *without* the signature (for my article) need to be available for use. (Is this even possible?) Can you crop it for me and advise when it is done? As always, thank you for your help. SusunW (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can do it fairly easily using c:COM:CROPTOOL. But I'll give it a look tonight when I can get off mobile and back on PC for a minute.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ See File:Lady Ishbel Aberdeen 1899 IIAV 15541 (cropped).jpg.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again you saved the day. Thank you so very much :) SusunW (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am drowning in a mire of copyright issues Class-A review. Any chance you or any of your page stalkers can help me with any of it? SusunW (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry SusunW. I'm still out in sunny California at the moment and mostly stuck on mobile. :\  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting you to answer until you were back and hope you are having fun. I have a feeling the issues will still be there when you get back, as I am getting no responses to my pleas for help. ;) SusunW (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nujeen Mustafa at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Surviving Mars logo 2017.png
Thanks for uploading File:Surviving Mars logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monster Boy video game logo 2017.png
Thanks for uploading File:Monster Boy video game logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Permission
Hey, how are you doing today? Since those two accidents with the comic book images that I uploaded I'm now asking you this file I now uploaded. How do you think, am I allowed to used it on the Shi'ar page? Thank you for reading this. Penguin7812 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Penguin7812. I have updated the file information with a fair use rational according to our guidance on using non-free content. Such content can be used in certain limited instances, such as this one, where we are using a low resolution version of an image for the indentification of the main article for a subject, where no free alternative would be availalbe.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gears 5 video game logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gears 5 video game logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You're a 'Featured Host'
You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have used the image on your userpage (over the default picture of a cup of green tea). It would be great if you would now do two things:

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Teahouse/Host/Featured/8, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
 * Create a 'host profile' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.

DYK for Nujeen Mustafa
DYKUpdateBot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Another collaboration?
I have a dwindling stack of drafts at User:BD2412/sandbox. If any of these seem interesting to you, let me know, and I'll be glad to focus on that in collaboration. bd2412 T 21:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I'm going to have to take some time and poke around to see what the sources look like on these.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I may try to take a look at Toilet training if you're interested. It's a desperately anemic article that gets a sustained hundreds of daily views (and whatever happened on 10 December 2018 that prompted 276k views). The poor talk page is just a decade old desert of readers asking for a better article.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm up for it - I'll have a serious look over the weekend. bd2412  T 10:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be travelling over the weekend myself, but I was poking around some books this morning, and there is a lot of fluff parenting garbage, but there also seems a lot of really high quality sources available. In particular things like this .   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get around to working on this - I did mean to, but I have been on a project that pretty severely cut into my editing time. bd2412  T 02:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries. I still had fun working on it. Couldn't hurt to keep an eye out though. There are a couple of WikiEd students around who may need some guidance from more experienced editors.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll watch the page. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia i Rumârește?
Sâ, hioc teș caus sâ (Romǎnǎ) ul hioc có jîşnéc niop sâșteș. Sâ vémcóț ces hioc coș jîṣșnéc ju hua "Jan Diu" ul hioc "sâ" jaușṣ lufi hîmóp. Țaum hioc tías fém cóp jînéc niop, ă Wikipedia i Rumârește? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.128.249 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry anon. I don't speak Vietnamese, and unfortunately don't know of anyone who can translate for us. You may have better luck asking at the Vietnamese Wikipedia.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ne hioc "Vietnamese", hioc Rumârește. Jeal... :( 130.156.128.249 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Got the same message on my talk. Google translate seems to think it's some combination of Romanian and Vietnamese. --valereee (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Apparently it's Istro-Romanian. Are there  any other languages you speak? Sorry I'm not super helpful, but all I speak is English.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same message to Teahouse, where there's some detective work going on. Language is Rumârește, which has only 500 speakers left. I would assume this person speaks something else -- maybe Romanian, possibly some English -- in order to be able to find their way here. --valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Random ping for User: Alex Nico, who seems fairly active and apparently speaks Romanian and Aromanian as well as English. So they may be able to help?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, Istro-Romanian is a bit too different from Aromanian and Romanian to be understood by me.
 * Nu știu Vlășește/Rumârește, doar română. Putem vorbi în română? Poate așa pot răspunde la întrebare. Mulțumesc!--Alex Nico (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Da, o să-mi dau silința, țaum română ne este mamă mea limpa. Voiam sâ știu dacă există o Wikipedia în rumârește, dar ne există. Asta e tot. 130.156.128.249 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, I will give my strength, no Romanian is our mother's speak. I wanted to know if there is a Wikipedia in the Istro-Romanian, but there is not. That's all. (Thank Google translater) 130.156.128.249 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, only Aromanian and Romanian currently. But there are lots of language versions including languages with zero native speakers. So there might be an Istro-Romanian some time in the future.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (translated) Da, numai aromanieni și români în prezent. Dar există multe versiuni lingvistice, inclusiv limbile cu vorbitori nativi. Așadar, în viitor, ar putea exista un istro-românesc.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mulțumesc mult de răspuns (Efharisto multu!). Când se va face Wikipedia în rumârește, vă așteptăm să scrieți! --Alex Nico (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for IDW work
My god, you did a fantastic job in rescuing that article on the Intellectual Dark Web! Very balanced, very neutral, very Wikipedian. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. Feel free to stop by any time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment on User:Buffs: an apology
Concerning your comment on User:Buffs' talk page: If you believe I have mischaracterized your motivations or actions, I sincerely apologise for my description. I do not want to impugn your reputation as an editor or your judgment in interpreting the policy as to whether blogs can be used as reliable sources. The overwhelming majority of blogs or self-published material cannot be used as RS. We agree on this point. Again, I am very sorry if I said anything, by statement or implication, disparaging you. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries Mark Ironie. If I have anything, it's a thick skin, and I'm not sure I really have any reputation of any count worthy to be besmirched. El C just seemed intent on sorting things out and I didn't want them to misunderstand the situation. If I am anything, I am virulently contrarian. But that can be easily misunderstood by others as picking a side. If I can ever be of any help for anything at all please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to assist in any way I can.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad it's copacetic. I only mentioned your name because you started the RfC. It seemed pertinent at the time because it was the one of the three actions Buffs didn't start but I shouldn't have dragged your name into it. Thanks for the offer of help and that goes likewise for you. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I come from a...sympathetic personal background, but the parties involved don't seem to have any interest in working together, and I have very many more things that i could be doing with my volunteer time on Wikimedia projects. If they ever do decide to have a nuanced discussion without name calling and walls of text, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to offer a third opinion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation has been nominated for discussion
Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation, which you contributed to, has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to comment on Buffs page
Hi GreenMeansGo. El C asked me to please stay off of Buffs' talk page so I am going to respond here. I hope that's okay.

Regarding the extended relationship off-wiki, three of the events we were at I was the main speaker so there wasn't really time for friendly interaction. There is no concerted effort on our parts, I can absolutely see where that would be the impression though. I know it looks messed up that we agree on topics that we edit and I am not sure how to change that for the better. I hear you on the two person consensus. If there are only three people trying to gain consensus what do you recommend? I freak out over the idea of posting on Project Indigenous about things like that (I know that's what it's there for) because it feels like canvassing to me. Which is my problem, I get that and I should probably get over it for everyone's benefit. I would sincerely welcome any advice you might have. Thanks a bunch for your time. I really appreciate it. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally? I keep an eye out for editors who tend to agree with me as often as they disagree, and who make solid arguments regardless of whether we are on the same "side". I keep them in my pocket to ping when I reach an impasse. Unfortunately, that generally needs to happen before things devolve into overwhelming walls of text and bad faith name-calling. To that point, I also try to be the first person in line to call out people on my own "side" when they make poor arguments that are primarily driven by emotion and intuition rather than reason and evidence, and when they start approaching things primarily in terms of sides instead of arguments. If someone else makes a better argument than I do, then I should leave on the same side as they are, and thank them for their trouble. If someone is a Churchillian fanatic, who won't change their mind and won't change the subject, then Wikipedia is probably not the best place for them to contribute quite yet.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice and duly noted. I especially like and will particularly take into account, "If someone else makes a better argument than I do, then I should leave on the same side as they are, and thank them for their trouble." I think that's something that is a very important tool for rapport building. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerning speedy deletion of Passivdom
let me improve the article and make it encyclopedic. I see you point. The article looks too descriptive. --Graphenon (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Graphenon. The problem is not that the article is "too descriptive". The problem is that the article reads like an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a means of advertising or promotion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've declined the G11 for the minute to give the creator to clean it up a bit more. If he hasn't done so, stick the tag back on. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Irma Keméndy
Hope all is well with you. I need a photo and am not remotely sure how to do this. I found this image of "A Keméndy-ház 1883-ban" (Keméndy House circa 1883) in Toth's book, which says the sign at the top of the building says it's the "Institute of Irma Keméndy". It appears to have been cropped from this larger image which is on "Fortepan". The description about the project says "Fortepan is a copyright-free and community-based photo archive with over 100,000 photographs available for anyone to browse and download in high-resolution, free of charge. The images are free to share with the appropriate credit given as FORTEPAN / NAME OF DONOR. Please do provide the full credit at all times as it is a tribute to the selfless contribution of the donor." and the information on the photo says "1900. Hungary, Szeged Dugonics tér a Főreáltanoda (ma a Szegedi Egyetem központi épülete) felől nézve (a felvétel 1885 körül készült). DONOR: Fődi Gábor PHOTO ID: 24022 Results: 29 / 815". So, I want to use the fortepan image on the article for Adele Zay and the cropped one from Toth for the article on Keméndy, but I do not know how to mark one as a derivative of the other. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey SusunW. I don't trust any image credit that just says 1900, because a lot of people don't care and just put that as a round-about guess. Probably the more accurate date then is the 1885 one. Because 1885 was more than 120 years ago, and the author is unknown, you can upload it using c:Template:PD-old-assumed. You can either upload the larger version and crop it on Commons using c:Commons:CropTool. Or you can upload them separately and use c:Template:Derivative versions and c:Template:Derived from to indicate that one is a crop (CropTool will do this for you automatically). I would recommend doing whichever one gives you a higher resolution file in the end.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GreenMeansGo. I totally appreciate your help! I am not sure I understand, but I'll give it a go. I took the 1900 to mean when it was published. What I know for sure is the house was destroyed in the 1879 flood, permits to rebuild were issued in 1881 and Toth says this is what it looked like in 1883, so probably taken 1883-1885. There's other images from this same website loaded on commons, so I'll probably just copy that format. I'll let you know how it goes. :) SusunW (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Good luck with everything. There's also no harm in putting as much information in the file description as you can. Doesn't have to be a clean date only. It's not beyond me to argue to keep files at COM:DR based on newspaper clippings about buildings burning down, floods, and other assorted acts of God.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've done it, but not sure. Can you look at this and this. You have no idea how much I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of arranging, but I'd say if you're copying the style used by User:Fæ then you're probably good.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I did! Find someone you trust, do what they do :) It also helped that I had found the Toth book, because it told me who the original author was and thus, clearly it is well out of copyright. I really appreciate the help. I figured if I stuck the template on there, you would fix my mistakes. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Search engine (BMK case)
"I can't be bothered to look them up because they're too active at ANI and our search feature is crap." I hate our search engine. There must be more of us out there. We need to start a support group.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's been brought up previously at the Community Wishlist Survey, but it really should be. The search engine at Commons is so bad I just use google at site:commons.wikimedia.org in order to find images half the time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * +10 SusunW (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Marie Rennotte
Tis I (again) your most frequent pest. I have been searching for images to use on this new article, but alas almost all of them seem to be owned by the Historical and Geographical Society of Brazil. I found this on Colégio Piracicabano, ca. 1928 and am thinking it meets Commons:Template:PD-Brazil-URAA but am not sure. Reading the page for Brazil is confusing, as I don't really understand the right of panorama. Does that apply to buildings (architecture?) or just artworks in public spaces. But maybe it doesn't matter since this was published in 1928 without specifying any author and is not an artistic photograph? SusunW (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, most or all countries allow freedom of panorama for buildings (usually defined as something meant to be functionally inhabited by people). The differences are usually whether they allow FoP for artistic works, which Brasil seems to do. So you'd be fine either way. Since that book was first published in 1928, then obviously the picture was first published on that date or earlier, so you should be fine to use PD-Brazil-URAA as far as I can tell. I don't see a credit for an image author anywhere and I'm not really finding any additional information online (through I might be more effective if I spoke Spanish).  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * or Portuguese ;). I have searched and searched. Lots of images on Flickr for the Historical Society, but all are restricted use. As always, thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Derp. Brasil. Of course. I just looked at the source and thought "that looks Spanishy."  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Greedfall logo 2017.png
Thanks for uploading File:Greedfall logo 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just introducing myself.
I'm following some of your work with great appreciation. Mostly editor retention. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks BeenAroundAWhile. If I can ever be of any help feel free to stop by any time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

be wont to
Hey GMG,

Hope you are well. I saw your comment on the thread Snoog started at the HelpDesk and agree. Earlier I'd been reading your comments somewhere and had thought about mentioning the spelling distinction between want (need, desire) & be wont to (have a tendency to). I hope you'll understand this is just meant as a friendly English geek comment, not as an attempt to be unkind. It's odd how SS is multiplying venues rather than discussing on the TP, but I've yet to understand them... 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I am not from a part of United States renowned for our English prowess. I only recently learned that most of my adult life I've said "talking across purposes" rather than "talking at cross purposes". I blame audio books personally.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Spelling is annoying. Wont has got good roots, though.  Rejoice! Be content.  🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Debut (Jackie Evancho album)
Hello. I see that you are active on the DYK talk page. Would you be willing to nominate this article for DYK, please? The Debut (Jackie Evancho album). The hook could be: Please let me know either way. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "...that The Debut was Jackie Evancho's eighth consecutive release on the Billboard Classical Albums chart to debut at No. 1?"
 * Hey Ssilvers. I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be much more active in DYK than I am, with nearly 75 hooks to your name. What seems to be the problem?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just write 'em. I have not nominated any for years. Usually there's someone who is happy to nom them for me, but he isn't feeling well. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. Unfortunately I'm about as far as you can get from somebody who is competent in pop-culture topic. Maybe User:Ritchie333 is up to give it a go?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  21:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try him. Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/My Year of Rest and Relaxation
GreenMeansGo, just checking to see whether your most recent comment here was meant to be an approval not only of the ALT2 hook but also a final (re)approval of the nomination as a whole. If so, it's important that you add a new approval icon, since your original icon has long been superseded by other icons that indicate that the nomination has issues and/or needs a subsequent review; without the final icon, the bot won't take the next steps in the process. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was kindof holding out for the possibility of additional input from others, but since no one had bothered, ✅  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:unsigned
Don't forget that Template:unsigned says "This template should always be substituted". If you don't, the edit history gets cluttered by extra entries when the bot turns up to correct the mistaken transclusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for pointing that out.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Long time no chat! :-)
Hi GreenMeansGo! It's been quite some time since we've said hello, and quite some time since I've seen you on IRC and other places... I wanted to leave you a message and wish you a good day and happy editing, and just let you know that I was thinking about you... I hope you're doing well, and I hope you remain active in this project and that we keep in touch. You do great work here, and it's valuable and highly appreciated. :-) Keep in touch...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey  Osh. Hope you're doing well also. I'm still around. Well, at the moment I'm sitting in the middle of a field and sleeping on a cot in an abandoned building. But that's just for training purposes. I'll be back on desktop in a few days.
 * My IRC participation has gone down quite a bit. I've reached that point where more is required than mere parental supervision, and making sure there's no sharp objects within reach of a small child. Nowadays we gotta make up elaborate scenarios where the doggie super hero defeats the evil penguin. Doesn't lend itself very well to real time chat unfortunately.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * HA! Nonetheless, I'm glad you're doing well. Keep in touch. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My Year of Rest and Relaxation book cover (image file notice)
Hi! I hate doing the usual impersonal template-based notices for image-deletion process stuff, but since you're the uploader and a major contributor to the page in question (plus it's on the Main Page for at least a few more hours), I wanted to give a heads-up: I've marked My Year of Rest and Relaxation book cover 2019.jpg for deletion. However, it was for a totally chill reason! The cover is not actually eligible for copyright under US law—it's just a public domain painting plus some basic text, which doesn't rise to the threshold of originality for copyright—so I replaced it with a high-res version at Commons. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, etc., but hopefully this comes as either good news or neutral news at worst. —BLZ · talk 19:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you've hung out at Commons at all you know theres no hard feelings over a deleted file as long as there's good reason. Thanks for replacing it with a higher quality verion.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Kindly
Hey there GreenMeansGo, Im a relatively new editor, and keen to contribute. I recently found your page, and your referencing material has been useful. Best wishesJoshua.paul1300 (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Joshua.paul1300. Welcome to Wikipedia. If I can be of any help feel free to stop by.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Toilet training
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please help
Thank you. (223.230.155.100 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Sir, I had posted a request on Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil's talk page(Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil). I tried very hard to add those informations myself but I couldn't do that. Will you help in adding those informations in the article? I had provided reliable references as links.
 * Hey anon. Sorry for the belated response. I'm afraid I tend to stay away from southeast Asian topics, because to be honest, I lack the cultural competence to contribute effectively in the subject area. You might try User:Vanamonde93 or User:Winged Blades of Godric, who are more immensely more competent than I am likely to ever be.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look... Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Nestor
I saw your comment on the Michael Nestor article. This article was started by an editor who was eventually banned and I do not think it passes notability, and assuming the request posted was from the actual person whom the article is about, is there any way to address it? Considering the article was started by a banned editor, I think that there may be cause for a delete but would like to know your thoughts. Ricksanchez (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Ricksanchez. Sorry for the belated response. I think I saw this on my phone and couldn't reply at the moment, but forgot to reset the ping so I'd be reminded to reply later.
 * It looks like the article was started well before the user was blocked, so it wouldn't qualify for deletion under something like WP:G5, which only really covers block evasion by previously blocked/banned users.
 * The subject may very well be marginally notable enough to justify a courtesy deletion. The sources are pretty meh. This appears at first glance to be a piece in a major paper, but is really more of a routine listing. This appears similarly, and is a full article, but only mentions the subject twice in passing. This, this, and this are also just passing mention. This is more in-depth, but it's not clear that it's really a reliable source rather than just "some website". However, this actually seems fairly good as a source. Unfortunately, this seems to be a fairly common name, which makes looking for additional sources a little difficult.
 * You can always start a deletion discussion and see what the community thinks. It's not necessary for every AfD nom to be "OMG delete this garbage!" You can just start a deletion discussion and say essentially "I'm not totally sure, so I wanted to get broader community input."


 * Thank you so much for your suggestions! Ricksanchez (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Martine Dubin page
MartineDubin (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Why was this page deleted?
 * Hey MartineDubin. Did you have a specific question?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes User:GreenMeansGo. What can I do to disqualify my article from speedy deletion? User:MartineDubin —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably very little. The article was deleted for being unambiguously promotional, so much so that it would have needed to be entirely rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a means of self-promotion, and you are strongly discouraged from writing auto-biographies, because it is nigh impossible to write about yourself in a way that will be neutral, and such articles are highly likely to be deleted, as yours was.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

PD comments
Hi GMG. has a point here about your comments at the PD talk. Calling an editor a "toxic asshole" is inappropriate, especially in arbitration space. I've accordingly removed the paragraph. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can forgive me some measure of frustration. There is a reason I've made it a point to stay out of this mess almost entirely. I'm hardly a dispassionate observer. I should have continued to take my own advice and stay away. I've hatted my commentary entirely. It's at best a meaningless distraction for others with better things to do with their time. Yes, you are correct, and my personal irony is duly noted. Sorry for the bother .  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks GMG. I hope you don't withdraw from the discussion entirely - all views are needed by the Arbs and community to get a better measure of what is the best course. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with toxicity isn't it? It sticks in the air and the water and makes everything stink. No, I think the last thing anyone needs in this kaleidoscope of opinions is more opinions, and I ought not be so self-important to think that mine makes any real difference. At any rate, I can't very well expect to give any advice about someone else being toxic if I can't expect myself to take the same. There's no shortage of work to be done, and squawking about isn't going to accomplish any of it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Harshil bro is taking decisions very fast
See my talk page related to deletion of Anoop Mandal now, Anti-Jain Sentiments... He wants to delete but u have reviewed the article I am reporting this user..harshil Please explain him why u removed the deletion banner previously.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Rishabh.rsd. When I first nominated for speedy deletion, there was barely enough there to even figure out what the subject of the article was. I removed the nomination when I found the Vice article, because I expected that meant there was probably more sourcing available in non-English languages. Now it looks like the scope of the article has been changed entirely. I honestly don't personally know enough about Jains to know whether the subject is notable or not. However, if it's going to be a scope on par with similar articles like Persecution of Hindus or Persecution of Christians, then it's probably something you may want to consider incubating as a draft for a while before moving it into main space. As it stands, its currently an article about Anoop Mandal, but with the wrong title really. So I'm not even sure which one of these really the AfD should be addressing.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverts - September 2019
Saw you reverting some misgender vandalism on List of unlawfully killed transgender people. Thank you very much.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Gwen. No problem at all. I'm afraid it looks like school is back in session across Wikipedia, and I seem to be finding a lot more childish vandalism lately.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm
Your talkpage message was rather premature. Let's talk after you've figured out whats going on. Poveglia (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to an editor who is frustrated by a protracted content dispute with If you want someone to agree with you you should pay them for that service up front. is entirely inappropriate and wholly unhelpful.
 * If someone comes to a help forum with an issue that you do happen to be personally involved in, let someone else handle it rather than overtly fanning the flames with bad faith accusations. Furthermore, don't contradict others who do try to help on subject with which you are unfamiliar. I assure you, the OTRS team is diverse and competent, and well able to handle a wide variety of issues with professionalism.
 * You may consider this a warning. Help forums are specifically set aside as friendly places for editors to seek assistance. If you continue to contribute in a way that is counter productive, you will not be the first person I've seen topic banned from contributing to them all together.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I explicitly wrote: "Let's talk after you've figured out whats going on.". Yet you ping me already. Wouldn't it be better to give me the benefit of the doubt until you've figured out what's going on instead of jumping in with both feet and fanning the flames like you did? It's not that I don't want to talk to you, I am happy to, but let's do that on a level playing field where both parties know what's up. Poveglia (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Our conversation had a bit of a rough start; if you want to we can forget about that and start over. Poveglia (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The message here is fairly straightforward. You are more than welcome to contribute to our helping forums so long as you contribute in a manner that is helpful. If I see another response like this one Please do not post the same question twice, you are wasting our time (see also here, and feel free to read that essay in its entirety) to an editor who has made all of four edits, yet cannot find their sandbox, then the next correspondence you will received from me will be this one.
 * It's fine to make mistakes and occasionally get things wrong. Our helpers will be happy to give advice if you do, and contributing to our helping forums is a great way for everyone to learn about Wikipedia, whether they're asking questions or answering them. But you cannot be abrasive. A lot of people have put a lot of work into making these welcoming place for others to seek advice, and that much is non-negotiable.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's fine to make mistakes then I'll forgive you. But please, in the future, think twice about doing something like this again. Read, read, read, then act. That'll avoid uncomfortable situations like this. If you ever figure out what's going on then feel free to ping me again, no need to apologize, we'll just start over like nothing happened. Poveglia (talk)
 * If it's fine to make mistakes then I'll forgive you. But please, in the future, think twice about doing something like this again. Read, read, read, then act. That'll avoid uncomfortable situations like this. If you ever figure out what's going on then feel free to ping me again, no need to apologize, we'll just start over like nothing happened. Poveglia (talk)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Discovery Park (Chula Vista)‎
Thank you for the assistance! It's been a stressful couple of days, so it's very nice to meet helpful and courteous people! 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries 6YearsTillRetirement. Feel free to stop by on my talk page for either project if I can be of any help.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  15:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Ergh, was trying to undo a bad move, and accidentally ran into another editor doing the same thing, so ended up rv'ing the wrong way, if you follow. At which point (of course) my connection decided to lag. Thank you so much for fixing that while I languished in Lag Hell! Killer Chihuahua 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm usually floating about on some project doing something or other. Furreal though, the warning is automatically left by Twinkle. (That's why there's the little TW next to it in your talk page history.) There is an option to leave no warning, but then everybody gets their knickers in a bunch because WP:CSD requires the nominator to be notified. If you are concerned about BITING, then your beef is with whomever designed Template:Db-vandalism-notice and made it the standard warning Twinkle leaves for G3 nominations.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's ok. Srsly if he'd just said "ws accidental, was meant for other editor" it would have all been fine. Heaven forfend he not take offense and get bent out of shape about it! I got to offer someone the Barnstar of Bitable Ass, which wasn't on my to-do list today but every day has surprises, doesn't it? Killer Chihuahua 17:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I...should think to most editors it would have been fairly obvious that it was accidental. This kind of things happens all the time with semi-automated tools, because they're all too stupid to understand page moves. Probably why the other editor was taken aback that they were suddenly getting a lesson plan in basic policy.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Most days, you'd be right. Today, not enough coffee. Killer Chihuahua 17:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Poveglia (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Forensic Art image of Orange Socks
Hi GMG, hope I'm doing this correctly, it's my first time. Re my attempting to change the image in this page: The image I'm trying to add to the page is the one I drew. It is the image that led to the identification of this victim after 40 years of being unidentified. The image that is currently on the page was of no use to the case whatsoever and was not requested by or endorsed by the investigation. Can you advise me please what I need to provide to you in order to make this change? I am one of the investigators at the Williamson County Sheriff's Office Cold Case Unit and can have the Sheriff send a letter allowing this image to be used on the page if you need that beyond my personal permission as the forensic artist and case detective. I also have a better and larger image available than the small one on my website, but don't see how to upload it. I see I can't upload from my computer or from dropbox, you want it from a URL only. Happy to provide the best image possible. Thanks. Blacknatty (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Blacknatty. Thanks for following up. So it definitely changes things with the knowledge that you personally are the author, rather than someone just taking the image from online, which is what happens in a lot of these cases.
 * So the thing to sort out then is whether you own the copyright as the author. Basically, did you sign an employment contract with Williamson County stating that your creative works became their property rather than yours? If the answer is no, then you can release the content under a free license and use it on Wikipedia. You just need to follow the directions at WP:CONSENT and send an email to . When you send it, you should get an automatic confirmation email with a ticket number. If you can provide that to me here, I can take care of things on the back-end. If you want to use the higher resolution image, you can attach it to the email and I can upload it here too.
 * Hopefully this helps more than it confuses things.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you GMG, I went to the page and it stated you prefer I upload the image via Wikimedia Commons. I have gone through that, which also included a step talking about copyright. I then sent the email re the declaration of intent and received the ticket # 2019092510007412. I attached the higher res image to the email. Hopefully I did things properly. Thanks so much for your assistance! 47.221.164.37 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC) 47.221.164.37 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks the same to me? Blacknatty (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On the file's information page, there is a tag referencing the ticket you sent in, that will verify the permission, and should prevent anyone from nominating the image for deletion based on a misunderstanding.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you. But will the page appearance change? Does the other image get removed and my image added? Blacknatty (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry Blacknatty. I misunderstood. No, it doesn't get added to the Wikipedia article automatically, but I've gone ahead and added it there.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, GRG. I'm sorry to be persnickety here, but I've had other forensic artists attempt to get credit for the identification on this case and I'm attempting to make it perfectly clear here. Is there some way to separate the two images if you can't delete the other? The color image was done completely without law enforcement request or input, entirely on the artist's own with no interaction with the law enforcement agency several years before the identification. It did not generate any usable leads. My image was released in June 2019. The victim's half sister saw my image and called our agency immediately, saying she believed it was her missing sibling. We did forensic genealogy and a DNA kit confirmed the victim to be that missing half sister Debra Jackson. Since I did this work pro bono, I'd like at least to get credit for the ID. On a case this old, it's kind of a big deal in the forensic art world. Blacknatty (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Blacknatty. Let me look into this a little more in a little bit. I'm afraid I have to run at the moment and I've got a long drive ahead of me.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks for all your help today. Blacknatty (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Blacknatty. I changed the image per request, and left a note on the article's talk page about the change. If anyone has a problem with the change, then that would be the correct place to discuss it, and hopefully reach an agreement. I'm glad I could be helpful. I've also left you a message on your talk page with some links about contributing to Wikipedia. I'm glad you're first venture into editing seems to have gone fairly well and I hope you continue to help us build a better encyclopedia. If I can ever be of any assistance, feel free to drop by any time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  00:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

GMG - thanks so much for all of this, I certainly didn't expect you to get back to it tonight. I appreciate your attention and openness to making those changes. I'll look into the editing info and see what I can learn there. Wikipedia doesn't have the most user-friendly UI, but you've made it easier than I originally thought it would be. Blacknatty (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dropping by
It seems we have found ourselves in opposite corners on recent issues. I'm sure you know that I have thoroughly read many of your comments, and I know that you have read mine as I see them pop up as diffs occasionally! (Which is fine, I don't believe you are taking me out of context.) But no matter how many discussions we find ourselves in where we come from different perspectives, my main recollection of you is how helpful you were to me in improving a DYK I nominated a while back. So this seemed like a good enough time to say "thank you" again for that. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey 28bytes. I think there's fairly good evidence to suggest that spirited debate has an important moderating effect on our community over time, and probably prevents us from being one of those communities where everyone agrees, but the stuff they agree about is just fanatical bonkers. But a boxing ring isn't a battlefield, and the difference between opponents and enemies is that one of the two shakes hands when the bell rings.
 * I'm glad Cynthia García Coll worked out so well. A couple of us have been working on Eagle Woman, and I'm happy to say that RebeccaGreen has done such a fantastically detailed job at the DYK review, that she's dang near done our GA review for us.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! And that NBER paper looks quite interesting. I will have to give it a read. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally 28bytes. I'm quite pleased to see that the editor who was so discouraged by that review does seem to have come back around now and again, and that's very good news indeed.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  03:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the help from you and the other editors involved (especially that final, crucial push to the finish line from Gerda) was much appreciated by both of us! 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)