User talk:GregJackP/Archive 14

Allen v. United States (1896)
Thought you might want to improve this article. There's so much material, and this seems to be right up your alley :)  Minor4th  19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

RfA
I don't see why you have to be so unpleasant. You surely must be aware that the major problem with RfA is the behaviour of the participants. I don't do blocks for incivility, I also rarely leave warning templates, but if you contribute in a less collegial manner again, I will raise the matter at ANI and let others decide. I will also begin an RfC for the community to decide what are acceptable criteria for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you won't look at the other guys comments in the same light - or is it because he's also an admin, and it is OK for him to make aggressive comments alleging that I think that he's a less than capable admin. Second, do whatever you feel you need to do. ANI doesn't bother me, nor does ArbCom. On the RfC? Go for it. It's been tried before, but if you really want to help, do an RfC for Admin Recall by the community. In the meantime, stay off of my talk page. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudpung this may be hard for you to hear or understand, but you have been one of the most unpleasant participants recently at RFA. There is nothing uncollegial about Greg’s oppose, and in fact they have an essay explicitly stating the rationale behind it. If you want to have an RFC then open one, but stop threatening good faith users under your view for how things ought to be. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's worth noting that Kudpung has been rather civil during this discussion. I'm on his side, not that I need to be. Squeeps10 04:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - you can stay off my talk page too, if you are going to defend someone who came here making threats. GregJackP   Boomer!   07:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I expected unpleasant behaviour in the RfA but all I see (I didn't check history) is the most factual kind of oppose I could imagine: a link to specific criteria. What is it you see differently? As you can't reply here, could you post something on your talk, or the RfA talk? - GregJackP, I'm always delighted to see your name on my watchlist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also struggling to see what Kudpung has taken issue with. A major issue with RFA is the way oppose !voters are almost invariably badgered, often quite aggressively. It should be enough to say "I don't think this person would be a good admin because..." and for the Crats to appraise the !vote's worth.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  09:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - I deleted your post on my talk page, and will do so for any future comment that you make here. Last warning, stay off of my talk page. Next time, I'll take you to ANI for harassing me. GregJackP   Boomer!   15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - since you are a relative newbie, I'll explain this one last time. A user may request that another user stay off of his talk page, and the community will normally support that. Second, I posted a link to my criteria when I opposed the nomination. I have no need to explain anything else, and the 'crats know how to evaluate my !vote. Third, the posts by the two admins were meant to harass and intimidate, and I won't put up with it. Fourth, while Wikipedia will continue with or without me, it needs me more that I need it. I create content, and in areas where most editors won't go. I have no problem going away again, but it will take a lot more than threats of ANI for "civility" issues to make me change the way I conduct myself. Finally, I wasn't uncivil, although I was blunt. There is not a requirement to say please and thank you when someone tries to intimidate and harass an editor for their position on an RfA. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your RFA Criteria
Just curious how you go about determining the number of FA or GA that a particular user has created and/or brought up to that level. I know you get hammered for your opinion all the time, and I'm not one to get into those sort of philosophical debates, so this isn't anything to do with any of that. I'm just wondering if there is some sort of automated tool that I don't know about that combs through an account's edits and compares against a list of FA and GA, or if you have to manually look at the editor's most-edited pages and check if they are FA or GA, or if you had a different technique. Thanks. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Useight, User:Useight's Public Sock, I'm not Greg, but you can find that sort of stuff at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages . Squeeps10 18:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , in addition, during an RfA/RfB, there is a toolbox with links to all sorts of tools. In addition to what posted above, there is an articles created link. Mine is here and shows 87 total articles created, 2 FAs, and 13 GAs. That's not the whole story though, and you have to dig deeper as the editor may not have created the article. For FAs, you can also go to [], where it will show that I have a total of 5 FAs. It will also show how many former FAs they have. It's more difficult for GAs, but I usually use the Xtools link, then go to most edited pages and look for GAs. Then I check the talk page of the article to see who nominated it and the history to see if they did any work on it.  GregJackP   Boomer!   20:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nifty, thanks both of you. I didn't know we had a way to see article creation breakdown by assessment level.  Useight (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Agree, and said so. Different topic: I also agree with your Bier for Ritchie, but did you see what came before the (no suitable printable word available) block? Secret arbitration. We seem to reach a "culture" where complaints behind the scene rule. User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 97 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did see it, and I wrote and rewrote my comment on the block several times. Originally it had something to say about ArbCom too, but I thought better of posting it that way. BTW, that type of culture flourishes when the rules are more important than the people, and janitors are more important than content creators. GregJackP   Boomer!   08:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't comment on the block because of the bracket above, but I talked to some arbs who signed that nonsense of a one-sided iban, those I trusted most, so who disappointed me most. They seem not to understand, though, but what's new. The ultimate guide to arbitration didn't loose its point in 6 years, sadly, nutshell: "Arbitrators usually work from broad impressions and do not consider details, nuance, or context." - If two people don't get along, I'd look at what they contribute to content, and if one is good at that, I'd tell the other to leave him alone. Two people not getting along, is that really anything arbs should deal with? Seems of almost no consequence for content ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar
Even though I think your RFA criteria may be slightly too strict, I support your choice to use them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
... for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * I'm just sorry that you didn't make it. I hope you'll try again in the future. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Giving thanks
Happy Thanksgiving! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for United States v. Washington, "about the U.S. District Court decision on American Indian treaty fishing rights in the state of Washington. Although a lower court decision, it is a landmark case that has been litigated for decades."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:GregJackP/Admin criteria
User:GregJackP/Admin criteria, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GregJackP/Admin criteria and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:GregJackP/Admin criteria during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Stay off of my talk and user pages. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...
... for a new article in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Timeless Triple Crown


Hi GregJackP. Thanks for nominating yourself, and congratulations on indeed meeting the criteria. Having read the incredible articles in your nomination I'm thinking the only thing that stands out in need of improvement is the lead at Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, which is only a single sentence. I think the article could be improved by fleshing that out a fair bit. I briefly considered asking you to do that before giving the award though figured it would be a shame to delay conferring it for something that I'm sure won't take you long (not to mention you would still have been eligible for the award with only two piece of content in each category), though I'd appreciate it you could take a look at expanding that at your earliest convenience. Have a great day! Damien Linnane (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Greg! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

United States v. Washington scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the United States v. Washington article has been scheduled to be rerun as today's featured article for October 12, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in further editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 12, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

AS with any rerun, it's possible that it may be replaced if suitable article that hasn't run before is requested

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RallyPoint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Harvey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

November thanks
Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)