User talk:GregJackP

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

January songs

Thank you for improving articles in January! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

- Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to have your own idiosyncratic rules for how you vote on RFAs, and it is another to bait editors who say stupid things in response to your vote. Please don't make comments such as I'll be happy to respond as soon as you post a legitimate reason for supporting the nomination. PS, I'll be the judge if your response is legitimate or not. on RFAs, even in response to people who don't have legitimate reasons to support the RFA. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing about my reply to his questioning my oppose !vote that was inappropriate. I'll be happy to listen to your advice when you question some of the less than adequate support !votes. Until then, you are free to have whatever opinion you want, but I'm not all that interested in hearing it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • To be honest, I really feel bad and I was out of line to have called your criteria obtuse nor user antagonist words like “laughable” I violated my own oath to myself which is not to (speak) when i am upset. Myself & Ritchie333 always butt heads but nonetheless they have always defended me whenever I was in trouble, we have a great deal of respect for each other, so when they mentioned that your criteria has remained the same over years, I paused for a minute and thought things over. I apologize for my rude comments, please do accept my apology. Even if I didn’t understand your criteria I could have engaged you in a more productive manner. If you choose to not to reply I perfectly understand & if you choose not to accept my apology I understand also, just know that I am indeed truly sorry for being rude to you. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 - that was very gracious, and I accept your apology, as I hope that you'll accept mine if I offended you. GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my apology. It does mean a lot to me, you didn’t offend me in any manner, it was I who acted irresponsibly. Once again thank you mate. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take an unpopular position and thank you for your oppose on the RFA. Not on the merits, because that's entirely between you and your higher power. I'm thanking you for your WP:BOLD. In my RFA, the first person to oppose MY run was acting bravely. I think occasionally a senior user might feel the need to give permission for others to disagree with a clear consensus, just because. In this case invoking your completely reasonable personal criteria (which I'm glad I passed) helps others to not "go along to get along." All of us want more and better sysops. We can't do it unless RFA is allowed to work itself out. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BusterD. I appreciate your comments more than you realize. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tell people to just let Greg have his say and ignore it, but do people listen to me? *sigh* Now, that out of the way, I'm going to disagree slightly with the "must have 2 GAs" criteria, simply because sometimes that might not actually be sufficient. All GAs are not equal, and on some niche subjects like obscure species of mushrooms or minor hurricanes in Antarctica, it may be possible to meet the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria without too much effort. While working on a Million award-worthy subject to GA takes far more time and effort, and is more likely to be the place where you'll encounter disputes, petty MOS wonkery, and all the general things trying to maintain a popular article at GA status will throw at you (especially if it involves living people or ongoing events - in fact, I would avoid taking any BLP to GA if you value your sanity). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I tell people to just let Greg have his say and ignore it - this comment is the perfect response, IMO. Thanks Ritchie333. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that you misgendered the candidate in your stint on Lozman; kindly correct to either she or they? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) it seems i confused the sections! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used generic pronouns in my response and will properly address her in the future. It was not an intentional slight, but I'm not inclined to go back and edit my post on something this minor. If she's offended, she can say so and I'll work out an amicable solution with her. Regards: GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on the RfA page—I think you're mistaken about the Bluebook form for the article titles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, I've been wrong before. I'll look at your comment and dig out my Bluebook. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I've seen you from time to time vote in RfAs, and I want to applaud you for sticking to your principles and not changing your stance in the face of adversity. I've been striving to do that myself lately, so seeing an example of that in practice is very refreshing and encouraging. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Haaland v. Brackeen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vice regent -- Vice regent (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this IP continues to make disruptive edits and he has already broken the 3 revert rule. Please if you could take action it would be much appreciated. thanks. Oz346 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346: You'll need to contact an administrator or one of the notice boards on this, I'm just an editor like you. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August songs

Thank you for improving articles in August! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such as below! Will you take it to DYK? Should I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already have nominated for DYK. Once SCOTUS rules, I'll take it to FA. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great plan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Haaland v. Brackeen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Haaland v. Brackeen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vice regent -- Vice regent (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Haaland v. Brackeen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a pending case at the United States Supreme Court, Haaland v. Brackeen, "could completely erase tribal sovereignty"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Haaland v. Brackeen. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Haaland v. Brackeen), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,508 views (625.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

November songs

Thank you for the article in November while I was on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January songs

happy new year

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was on vacation, click on songs for images. - Melitta Muszely died, RIP - the other story is 10 years old OTD ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GregJackP. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting inputs @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines
• This request has been made to you since you seem to have previously updated page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal

Bookku (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi GregJackP! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregJackP. I notice you worked on the United States v. Kagama case. I just created an article on the lawyer involved in that case, Joseph Redding. I was more interested in Redding as an opera composer and librettist, and as a person involved in the founding of the San Francisco Symphony. I thought you might like to assist on building out content on his law career. Apparently he was also a polymathic chess expert (see https://www.readex.com/readex-report/issues/volume-7-issue-2/untold-talent-joseph-redding-profiling-polymathic-chess) 4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berghuis v. Thompkins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]