(concerning your last post on my talk page) You should definitely speak out and state your case on the featured picture candidates page! —EdGl21:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two users who voted neutral but clearly like it and lean support, voting neutral only because of minor issues. In this case it's not really a bad thing, since there are a few support votes and no oppose votes. Only a few more days left. —EdGl04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says on the picture-of-the-day page that "featured images are currently selected in the order they were promoted". So, it won't be on the main page in a while. They have already selected pics up to March 1st. →EdGl01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made this barnstar myself. I think you qualify for it for your creation of the sewer cover barnstar, and for your tireless efforts to focus linking on targets that are useful to our readers. John (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your efforts in restoring the industry standard terms for memory size to the Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The IC is an Intel 2708, a 1 kilobyte EPROM made in 1976. SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, for taking the time to leave your comments here (and your barnstar, Xeno). I’m copying this to my talk page. Greg L (talk)00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You’re Welcome sir. It would appear that your Son knows the value of voting; be sure to tell him this story sometime - and that an Air Force ROTC cadet wants him to keep goin'. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent the last 55 minutes reading through your entire userpage. What I found there was really great; from your son's journey in the Navy to your brother's...interesting activities to the humor and seriousness throughout, well, I'm not really sure how else to describe it. Thanks for making the world, or perhaps just my own little world, a better place. NuclearWarfare(Talk)21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Would it possible for you to set up an archive system? Your page is very hard to open on a mobile browser, or even a slower computer. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself (like me), try bots like User:Cluebot III.
Seconded. Greg, if setting up a bot is a burden, I can do it for you. Or, you can just delete all the older stuff from your Talk page – nothing wrong with that.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does one just add their name and they are a “member”? Besides putting my name there, how could I be of assistance? Any suggestions for a specific task for me to do? Does that page need to be expanded with proposed “to-do’s’? Greg L (talk)00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly, I just found out about it the other day. The goals seems to be improving the coverage about units of measurements. Since you were involved with Kilogram, and at the MOSNUM, I'm sure you can contribute to that project in some way. Edit articles, assess, comment, increase compliance with MOSNUM, pick your poison.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, your other "fanboy" (as branded in an amusing incident) welcomes back your technical expertise and straightforward thinking about a number of difficult issues. Tony(talk)13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thoughts and opinions expressed above on this user page are not intended to be offensive to any particular minority group (based on race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, gender identification, disAbility, occupation, meat-eating/vegetable-eating practices, and hobbies—even hunting). Note too that parenthetically mentioning “even hunting” in the preceding sentence was not intended to signal any disapproval of the sport; the author does not wish to disparage the legal, safe, and most humane-possible methods of hunting. This preceding statement should not however, be construed as an endorsement of the sport; the author values all the biodiversity of earth and no animal should suffer at the hand of a human. However, that preceding sentence should not be construed that the author is indifferent to the plight of workers displaced by environmental issues; the author is mindful of the plight of timber workers vs. the plight of spotted owls. The preceding sentence should not be construed that the author thinks there is only one group of workers who have been financially harmed by environmental issues; there are others and not mentioning these others by name should not be construed as suggesting they are any less important than another. The author wishes to ensure all who review this communication that he values diversity and has the utmost respect for the law, government officials, the institutions of the United States, the wide variety of social customs and diversity of its peoples, and the civil treatment of other Wikipedians, even if the come across as assholes. This statement should not however, be construed as being intolerant of others who have contrary or differing values or who might hold the U.S. in disdain. The author embraces the wholesome notion that no person’s or group's values are any more meritorious or valid than another’s, and the author does not wish to suggest that by stating an admiration for America and the U.S. Government, that this ought to be construed as deprecating the many other fine systems of government throughout the world and the social practices of its peoples. Notwithstanding that the author wrote the word "he" three sentences ago, (the author happens to be “anatomically male” by birth) this should not be construed as diminishing in any way, the existence of the word "she" nor does it signal that the author is adverse to the use of the gender-neutral "he/she" where appropriate. Furthermore, the words "he" and "she" should not be construed as being exclusionary or diminishing to the transgendered. This paragraph was not intended to be understood by blondes.
Please stop calling things which clearly are not vandalism by that name (your reverts, your message on my talk page, and elsewhere). Doing so is a personal attack, and you should be well aware that personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia by now. —Locke Cole • t • c17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with the county coroner over there a month ago. They have about one death a year at that spot. In the case you cited, it was two recreational divers. What I have a problem with is deaths of trainees while under professional supervision. In each case, there is a lack of a dive buddy to render assistance. There is no excuse for such a thing. Greg L (talk)23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, except that I removed his strike, all the subsequent exchanges, and the 'oppose' votes he put into the votes section. I felt that not to remove them would create confusion which will then be used to discredit the poll. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Listen, I noticed you left a comment on my talk page. I don't particularly enjoy people who seem to think I'm an imbecile. I do not agree with some aspects of your "take-you-by-the-hand essay", and that is to be expected with differing viewpoints.
My point is, help articles should be understandable for those who need the points straight, not complex explanations. And that I felt your usage of "take-you-by-the-hand" was an insult to my intelligence.
Thanks. Yes, I hope they attract people to become editors at WP. I recommend a lot of academics and students visit them. Tony(talk)08:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.
I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.
Thanks for the heads-up. You raised an important point. As you can see, my 2¢ was to “conditionally keep”. I would need more information about the full scope of JEDEC Standard 21 to know whether or not the article is misleading or not. Compared to other, profoundly trivial stuff on Wikipedia, the article clearly seems sufficiently notable. But, notable or not, the article can’t be misleading by focusing overly intently on a small portion of the standard to the exclusion of other parts that are just as important. Greg L (talk)23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving him a taste of his own medicine to see if he is galactically clueless or just a dick. I don’t really give a rat’s ass. Greg L (talk)02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some undesirable additions to your links article. I'm also watching, but don't expect any more interference there because of the number of eyeballs on it now.
While I disagree with the MfD and have opted for keep, I think you should moderate the language of "brain explosions" as that is uncivil to the users concerned. I'm also concerned about the "fuck tards" comment, especially as (so far as I can see) it's actually you yourself that coined the phrase. I'm sure you'll find an appropriate way to address these comments, as you're a reasonable person. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“Brain explosions” is a term coined by one of my Wikifriends. It translates to “Epiphanies”. “Fucktards” is a self-deprecating, internal joke. I don’t need to justify any of this; the page is for the benefit of a particular group of editors who find it useful. Tennis expert’s malicious edits were just that: malicious. The page is a resource for relevant links pertaining the the date delinking and autoformatting issue and the related ArbCom. All the links are there for the benefit of our group. If Tennis expert doesn’t like looking at a list of links that are of benefit to us, he doesn’t have to look at it. Tennis expert’s nominating my own page in my userspace for deletion is now the subject of an ANI here. Greg L (talk)18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor and I were the lead proponents of the {{xt}} template. The virtue is when quoting someone who has quoted text within the passage; you don’t have to go back and change double-quotes to single-quotes. The {xt} template also sets off the quoted text better. I used to use italics to help set off quoted text, but then that would neuter quoted text that used italics on selected words for emphasis. The {xt} template preserves all this. You just copy the code, paste it into the {xt} template, and you get well-set-off text with all formatting preserved and you don’t have to mess with quotes. The {xt} template is particularly valuable whenever you are discussing the structure and style of text. That’s why it is now used on WP:MOS. Greg L (talk)02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting. Thank you for the explanation... I might just start using it if I can remember to do so, and congrats of the MOS inclusion.— DædαlusContribs02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching your debate but I can't reply on that page. Here are some comments:
Lightbot is does not currently have authority to delink autoformatted dates. That permission would have to be granted.
I am aware of some of the issues that you mention (e.g. commas). But because Lightbot has never had the authority, I have never invested any time in programming Lightbot to fix them. However, I have solved some (but not all) of the issues with the monobook script that delinks autoformatted dates.
If you created a test page with the critical examples, I could run Lightbot over it. It would not take long to work out which problems remain and whether they can be fixed with code changes.
In the course of reading the ongoing Arb case about the date delinking drama, I came across some comments of yours that were attacked as intemperate. I'd like to offer my congratulations on stating the matter so succinctly, and also my best wishes for the case. I've been delinking on a non-automated basis for years now, and I can't wait until the idiocy of datelinking is fully and finally deprecated...and if it isn't, I plan to submit a formal proposal to simply change the default color of wikitext to blue. 65.190.95.73 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your words of encouragement, I.P. editor from Virginia. You should know that the wishes of the community—which we understood perfectly well before we were dragged into an ArbCom by just one malcontent—prevailed. The formal ArbCom decision is expected any day now.
Wikipedia’s official manual of style (here on WP:MOSNUM) requires that dates not be linked to semi-random lists of irrelevant trivia like they used to. The guideline states that dates should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject … [and] … should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year.
Editors who were not parties to the ArbCom need not worry about that ruling; they may continue to improve Wikipedia by manually making its articles MOSNUM‑compliant. In case you haven’t seen it, I wrote an essay on this subject, which clearly explains this whole issue; it is Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked. Greg L (talk)15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the Sewer Cover Barnstar - do I also need to read the lists of references to qualify? I think the answer is either "obviously yes" or "obviously no", but I cannot determine which. Thank you.
If you read both the October 1, 2008 articles too in their entirety (the date this article’s photograph was taken), Greg L will award you your very own “Sewer Cover Barnstar” to show off on your talk page. Your Sewer Cover Barnstar will show the world that you can read anything, don’t even know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.
U3, to qualify for your very own Sewer Cover Barnstar, you must read everything written in these four articles: Oct. 1, Oct. 16, 1925, and 2008. Mind you of course, that you don’t have to read all the linked articles, just read aloud what is in all four of the required articles and completely understand what is in each. If you actually read all four, let tell me of your accomplishment and tell me why in the world you did so.
If you get through one article (thoroughly now, no cheating) and just can’t stand the prospect of reading three more, let me know and I’ll give award you an “honorable mention” Sewer Cover Barnstar (same picture; just worded differently). Greg L (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. The bug has dragged out far too long. They should have backed out and regrouped when it was clear they had inadvertently opened a can of “Oh… shit!” Greg L (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Greg L. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Message added 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Greg, which is the BLP that sparked your primary-source concern, and which material was it exactly? It could be that it would be acceptable without changing the policy, so I wouldn't mind taking a look. SlimVirgintalkcontribs18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It originated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aafia Siddiqui and Aafia Siddiqui. Editors who like to do stuff like insert “alleged” into “connections to terrorism” (you know; those sort of edits) then impugned how the shepherding editor had cited some primary sources, like—you know—the actual Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, by the Assistant United States Attorney, stating that it is “unreliable” unless also published in a secondary source. Simply asinine. What makes perfect sense to prevent unfortunate embarrassment (for both Wikipedia and the subject) in situations like Senator Byrd’s doesn’t fit this circumstance whatsoever. I’m not interested in arguments about how “civil lawsuits” have opposing points of view that can be cited to unfairly dish dirt. That is just one of likely several extraneous details than can be properly addressed with one sentence in a well-crafted section governing notable living figures of world-class infamy. If we want factual information in these sort of articles, we need authoritative and reliable sources. We can do better than require editors run around and find the precise and complete wording of the charges against Aafia Siddiqui without looking to Popular Mechanics and other secondary sources to see if they might include the entire wording of the complaint.
BLP is not currently properly addressing this subset of living people. We all know what the 800-pound gorilla in the living room is here with this issue. I simply want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in all our articles and hate to see exceedingly germane points totally absent from our articles because of a preposterous application of a policy which had never anticipated these circumstances.
My specialty isn’t terrorism-related articles. My specialty is ridding Wikipedia of retarded practices. It started with our past use of language on half of our computer-related articles that read “The first Macintosh came with 128 kibibytes (KiB) of RAM.” Well, no one but our resident propeller-heads uses that sort of terminology. It wasn’t (and still isn’t) used by any computer manufacturer when communicating to their customer base, nor by any computer magazine directed to a general-interest readership. So I lead the cause to reverse that one and Wikipedia now (*shock*) uses terminology that does not cause unnecessary confusion in our readership. That took three months, too. By tuning our “Common-sense-O-meter” to >50% and working collaboratively and constructively, we can properly address this issue. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am only peripherally involved as an editor on this, but the opposing editor complained about primary sources such as Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, which is Note [8]. For first-hand account of details pertaining to that dispute, I suggest you contact the shepherding editor, Epeefleche. I gave him a heads-up (although I suspect he is watching this anyway). As you can see from the FA discussions, some editors opined that quoting primary sources such as Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint constituted WP:OR and other policies that are clearly inapplicable here. As done there, such practices are simply ensuring accuracy. I know that I, at least, am better comforted by seeing Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, rather than Seveneen magazine or Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, either of which can contain selected information with a slant one way or another. Greg L (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to know what the disputed edit was, because there's almost certainly another source out there for it. I'm wondering if this has all blown up over nothing. With high-profile sources like that, there would be very little known by journalists that they wouldn't publish so long as it wasn't behind a publication ban. SlimVirgintalkcontribs20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are. That's why this is a non-issue, or at worst only a technical issue, IMHO.. The information is already in reliable secondary sources, if she could have been bothered to look. The court reference was there to simply be more authoritative backup to the secondary sources. Whilst it is true that there are instances where facts were cited to court documents only, but it was out of inadvertence, AFAICT. The editor who disagreed with the use of the court documents was looking to blindly parrot the BLP, whilst not bothering to go through the sources to find supporting citations. And frankly, I don't even see why she took it to the noticeboard, and kicked up such a huge fuss about nothing - it seems she just wanting to prove herself right, or be able to come back and say 'Look, you thickos who argued with me, See I was right. There are all those noticeboard bods who agree with me'Ohconfucius¡digame!01:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. How have you been, Slim? I received a note on my talk page that brought me here.
To answer your question, the documents objected to as refs (in just this one article .... an editor has been following me, and made similar claims in other articles) happen all to be public records that can be accessed on-line on open sites. I believe the focus was on what are now footnotes 4 (indictment), 5 & 41 (press releases), 8 (complaint), 16, 17 & 93 (court-ordered forensic psychiatric evaluations), 36 (Special Court for Sierra Leone: Office of the Prosecutor: Profile, Aafia Siddiqui), 39 (Biography of Ammar al-Baluchi", Director of National Intelligence), and 89 (Order Finding Defendant Competent to Stand Trial). The editor is militating for deletion of all of them from the article. In glancing through them I see the footnotes now have a couple of errors ... OhConfu has been working on the article, and I imagine they are temporary.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t you two take this to one of your talk pages? Give me a holler if you have something that doesn’t leave me aghast about how things can sometimes be done on Wikipedia. I’d prefer to believe (faith) that this isn’t gonna drag out into a three-month-long “kibibyte and mebibyte” thing. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This [3] is unacceptable. Article talk pages are for discussion of the article and its content. Personal statements about conduct of other editors outside their edits to that article are disallowed. If you have a problem with my conduct, take it my talk page, or seek dispute resolution.
I also will point out that the ruling you refer to is only a few hours old, was made by one admin personally involved in the dispute, in disagreement with the decisions of two other admins. It has already been challenged. If you want to base your conduct around such a millstone, I can't stop you.
Clean out the remark, or I will file RfC / enforcement.
Very well. You are correct. I shouldn’t have “neener neenered” at that venue. It might have been better to “neener neener” you on your own talk page. ;-) I have refactored my comment. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, thanks. BTW, I think we're coming slowly to true consensus on the al-Awlaki page. I didn't see anything to worry me in the last set of changes. Fell Gleaming(talk)17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pleased to hear that. I don’t particularly like those types of articles because passions often boil over. I think I’ll leave it to Eppe and Causa to sort out their differences on Awlaki and (no doubt) elsewhere. Happy editing.Greg L (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I: Abuse of sysop tools, and failure to follow consensus – Causa sui
Causa sui, I simply can not fathom the foundation for this edit of yours where you deleted a category tag to {Al-Qaeda propagandists} with this edit summary: “(no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda)”. The article states (and is referenced to four citations) that Malika was convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots in Afghanistan and the U.S. I have here reverted your edit as unsupportable and uncalled for given the clear evidence to the contrary.
The above edit of yours, and one, where you referred to Anwar al-Awlaki—arguably the most dangerous U.S. citizen on the planet (the only U.S. citizen a president has ever targeted for direct military action to kill in order to save innocent lives)—as a “conservative Muslim scholar.” This amounts to misinformation in the same vein as describing Osama bin Laden as a “traditionalist Saudi royal.” But coy descriptions like these are misleading. Surly you must understand that; particularly since you exceedingly familiar with the al-Awlaki article and can’t reasonably argue that you don’t understand the issues that make him notable.
Your edits seem to be clearly and increasingly part of a troubling and persistent pattern of POV-pushing. Please desist.Greg L (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a lesson from xeno (talk·contribs) on how to conduct yourself when handling this kind of disagreement. There is absolutely no reason to descend into this kind of dramatic histrionics when you are involved in a simple day-to-day content dispute. Your allusions about my motives are not welcome on my talk page and I am not interested in your mind-reading. We're here to work on article content and polite discussion is a normal -- even essential -- part of that. If you would like to direct your questions to me in a polite, sensible way then I would be happy to discuss them with you. --causa sui (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm now making this about your pattern of aggressively attacking people who make content edits you disagree with. This is one of many examples. You can't even ask me about an edit without descending into ranting personal diatribes about me, and attacking my character. I'm not the only person who has been the object of your rage. If you were at all interested in having a reasonable discussion about it, you could do it easily. My suggestion is that the next time you have a disagreement about one of my content edits, you have xeno (talk·contribs) approach me about it, because he seems to be able and willing to act reasonably toward others when he disagrees with them about something this minor. --causa sui (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you will not get me to retreat from properly criticizing you editing behavior by falsely suggesting I have “attacked” your “character”. Your stating, as you did here on your talk page, that “edit summaries are small” doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Notwithstanding that there is far more room available for edit summaries, you elected to waste your seven short words by stating something “(no evidence of a connection to al-qaeda)” that simply wasn’t at all true. This isn’t the first time you’ve edited in a way that stripped out the legitimate and topical mentioning of someone’s known links to Al-Qaeda or known terrorist organizations, like this recent one, only eight days ago on 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. By no stretch of anyone’s imagination would Anwar al-Awlaki be properly described as a “conservative Muslim scholar.” I’m not saying any of this makes you a bad person; I’m simply saying these are, IMHO, bad edits. Please learn to differentiate between the two. Greg L (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Causa sui. With regard to the category [[Category:Al-Qaeda propagandists]], I note your 16:11, 29 April 2010 post here on your talk page, where you illustrate a point by advancing an analogy via a rhetorical question: Are we going to add Bill O'Reilly to Category:United States Government propagandists? Am I reading you correctly that it is just a matter of ‘moral relativism’ in discerning a distinction between “Al-Qaeda propagandists” and “United States Government propagandists”. Your post clearly suggests that providing a category for one (in relation to someone convicted of the crime) begs the creation of a category that amounts to a counter-point view against terrorism. No? I further note your When we do it, it's public relations: when they do it, it's propaganda. It’s hard to escape the obvious thrust of your argument. Is this really your worldview? Greg L (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg L - let's go back to the beginning of your complaint here. I can solve part of your bafflement. You say that you: "can not fathom the foundation for this edit...The article states (and is referenced to four citations) that Malika was convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots in Afghanistan and the U.S." In your edit summary you say "Reverted as without foundation. The article states she was “convicted of participating in and supporting al-Qaeda plots”: There’s the evidence for the connection to Al-Qaeda"
The fact is, Greg L, the article did not state that. The portions you are quoting refers to the convicted terrorist Vinas. The simple solution, the reasonable and good faith solution, would be to read one or more of the articles cited in the article on Malika El Aroud, then add a supported statement regarding her Al Qaeda membership or propagandizing, and then add back the category. Otherwise, it does indeed seem like pov pushing for you to add or re-add categories that are not supported by the text of the article -- especially when you are at the same time, accusing others of pov pushing. Sincerely, "209" 209.44.123.1 (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was in error in quoting the wrong text there. What I should have quoted was this:In June 2007 she was found guilty by a Swiss court of supporting radical Islamist organizations via internet sites. The citation (SwissInfo.ch: Islamist website owners found guilty) stated as follows: The accused stood trial in Bellinzona for allegedly letting groups linked to al-Qaeda use internet forums they had set up to exchange information. Ergo, two facts are true: 1) There certainly is a connection to al-Qaeda. And 2) [[Category:Al-Qaeda propagandists]] is highly appropriate. Thanks for pointing out my error. Greg L (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that account who repeatedly misrepresented us and then said they made their last edit [4] when they failed to find any admins to believe that rubbish? Well he is back with a different account. Fnagaton00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice guess. Your reasoning seems to be predicated on the assumption that moon phases, celestial happenings, and/or biorhythms factor into the date ranges. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I’ll keep this thread as a reminder, since there are more templates than one can shake a stick at. BTW, I enjoyed the way you concluded your post over there: We become admins by nurturing hundreds of sockpuppet accounts, sucking up to the cabal, offering sexual favours, and making denial of service attacks against Citizendium - or at least that's how I managed it. …“offering sexual favours”… I like people who damn near need a disclaimer at the ends of their posts. ;-) Greg L (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine the timeline, et.al., would be particularly visible at a smaller size. I'd have to remove that. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anwar al-Awlaki. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please be aware that continued reverts will result in blocks. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two edits in 24 hours (1 and 2) over two different things. And I did pretty much nothing butdiscuss things on the talk page. And my whole message point was about gaining consensus and not editing against it. And all that was done civily too. That is not an edit war by any stretch. I did everything by the book. Anyway, the I.P. editor settled down, I’m happy with the compromise, and I am done for the evening. I’m not sure about your underlying reasoning for stepping in when you did—in the way you did; but I like the outcome nonetheless. So thanks for the intervention; it cooled people’s jets and no-doubt allowed me to go to bed bit earlier. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It came to my attention at WP:RPP where another editor requested full protection of the article due to edit warring. I picked the most recent reverters and warned them because I'm always reluctant to dole out full protection, but as long as it's resolved, we can all go home! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, just to clarify this. I have never accused you of being a paid propagandist. I am sorry when you misinterpreted it in this way.
The whole article could not be more biased and has even the smell of paid propaganda.
That refers to the article Aafia Siddiqui as a whole and anybody can have a look at it and make up their own mind about the article. Let me repeat it again I never accused you of being a paid propagandist. I am sorry when you misinterpreted this sentence in this way. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I found the 1925 article to be much more interesting than 2008 (apparently I'm only interested in history I didn't live through, even though I don't pay much attention to news so I don't really know recent history in the first place). I'll also opine that, while significantly less useful, date articles are so much more interesting than years. I think that your page might very well be the most interesting essay, or whatever you want to call it, that I've come across on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, all that buttering up and I don't even get a sewer cover to hang on my wall? What is the world coming to? Mostly kidding; but I'd hate to think that after getting a job that wasn't wasting my talents I couldn't apply such skills here too to some benefit. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would be my fault then, I did read them all since I had Friday unexpectedly free last week. I guess I just assumed that not that many people come around talking about sewer covers, even here. My mistake. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this. I had no idea there was even such a thing as “Valued Pictures.” I think I’ll stay out of the voting on this one as I am so new to the venue. I sorta like to know what the “group-think” is before I either reject the conventional wisdom or embrace it. (That’s a fancy way of saying I don’t want to go there and sound stupid.) Greg L (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. The rules are really simple. The picture clearly illustrates the article content particularly well so I voted “support.” Greg L (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will see no visible effect in that article in isolation. But when it is transcluded to Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, not how the page-flow tag prevents crowding and interference with editable sections below it. Try reverting my change (∆ here) and go back to the VPC page to see what I’m talking about. Greg L (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, just wanted to let you know I've nominated another image of Highway 401 for featured picture since the other one isn't going so well. Link: [5]. Hopefully the third time will be a charm! Haljackey (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well… just pardon me all over the God-damned place. Even though I voted “oppose” on that image’s FPC, I took an interest in an image you cared about and invested the time to download it, pull it into Photoshop, and clean up piles of dust in the scan. I then uploaded the cleaned image to here and also offered a suggestion on your talk page to make it easier to update more articles faster. It wasn’t “commentary”. If I knew I was dealing with someone prone to theatrical and adolescent behavior, I wouldn’t have bothered. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you misunderstand. I am about the least experience picture guy who comes by WP:FPC. I am saying that it does not really sound right to just copy it over the old one and I would not really know if it is. Thus, if you put your instruction on the discussion page, people who know what to do will comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. One wouldn’t simply change the file if it A) the edit won FPC but the original did not, or if B) the original won FPC and the edit was frowned upon. But if the entire nomination goes down in flames, the distinction between the two doesn’t matter. I’ve had dillweeds totally ruinthis image of the IPK by lightening everything until the blacks looked like a 60% gray and changing the original even though there are some 30 foreign-language versions of Wikipedia that use that very image of the Kilogram (rather than create a new file). As for creating a new file, I took this pile of poo (Anwar al-Awlaki original), and created this version. Check out what that article used to look like. However, in a simple case of dust removal and contrast cleanup, it doesn’t take an Act Of Congress to simply update the image—like as Fallschirmjäger already did, (though I can’t see the difference); all it takes is a consensus amongst those who care about the image (that may not be official, but its the practical way things work because it is uncontroversial). Now that I have uploaded the distinct version to the FPC, we wouldn’t want to do it now and would wait until the FPC is resolved one way or another. Then we can just make the darned change because the simple improvement should be entirely uncontroversial. Greg L (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be disengaging from the article, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I helped to do some research and add a bunch of sources which was fun, but it was taking up a bit of time and focus, and now it will be interesting to see what direction it takes subsequent to the event. Hope you are doing well. Feel free to keep me informed if you wish. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi greg, I just wanted to let you know that the evacuated 401 pic is now in colour as an alternative. Could use your feedback when you get a chance. [6]Haljackey (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you voiced support for your colour edit, but would you also support the colour alternative? Just a few more votes and it hopefully it will pass. Thanks for your input on all the 401 candidates! Haljackey (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards, Maedin\talk18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, further to your recent comments at the EDMD talk page, there is currently a discussion touching on the option of using collapsed galleries at the content noticeboard, so you might want to weigh in. Cheers, --JN46613:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, thanks for explaining re text size with File:Hematopoiesis (human) diagram.png at its FPC. Are you saying, then, that all graphics should have text that can be read at thumbnail? What about other FPs such as those at WP:FP/Maps and /Diagrams? There are many there whose writing is too small to be read at the thumbnail or even at full resolution if you don't zoom in.
I'm not saying that the Hematopoiesis image should be featured because those other ones are, or that those others should be delisted, I'm just trying to understand better :) Thanks, Matthewedwards : Chat 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. If one can make a graph usable as a thumbnail (by making the thumbnail as big as possible in the article and via layout of the graphic), then that is always best. In some cases, like yours, there isn’t so much material that it couldn’t be made perfectly usable at the first stage of enlargement at only 1018 pixels across. When I was doing an animal study at a university recently, I was outside of the P.I.’s office and in the hallway was a cork board-size graph of the chemical pathways of metabolism. It looked a bit like a lineage graph for a village in England dating back to 1650. That sort of thing would necessarily be usable only at full zoom. As for the others FPs that one must zoom in to, I wasn’t around when they were nominated. If they could have been attractively revised to make them usable as a thumbnail, that would have been my position. Greg L (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I understand what you're saying, now. I haven't decided which way to !vote yet. I'm waiting until my questions to the author can be answered first. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Thanks for the alert – I had not noticed, as I've been rather occupied with defending the integrity of Wikipedia, specifically the neutrality of point of view and other quality concerns in our new article IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı). I intended to come back to the issue at some time in the future – but in a fit of insanity I promised a presentation at a workshop two weeks from now, and all I have at the moment is a title, so I don't know when that will be. In any case, there was little risk of the innocent reader being deceived by the section, as it was "not even wrong" (i.e., totally incomprehensible). I think a comprehensive encyclopedic survey should say something about the concept of weight in GR, but clearly not what we had there. --Lambiam20:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, can you be a bit more precise: to you, what would be the actual disadvantages of using wikitags instead of their html equivalents in this 'special case'? To me, looking at the disposition of the pages in read mode, I see no difference whatsoever. It's really a bit like insisting on using <i>italics</i> instead of ''italics'' or <b>bold</b> instead of '''bold''' - I really don't see therefore why you would want to derogate from the Wiki standard in any of those cases. Ohconfucius¡digame!09:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting you, Oh, To me, looking at the disposition of the pages in read mode, I see no difference whatsoever. Indeed, you won’t see a difference when looking at historical versions because the [edit] tags disappear in historical views. To see how there was a perfusion of [edits] all crowded up against the photo, go to an older version, go to edit mode, copy the text, paste it into a blank sandbox page in your userspace and hit save. Go ahead and try it; I’ll wait. Then come back to this page…
♬♩ (*sound of elevator music*) ♬♩
Now do you see what I mean? Page layout should look cleaner than that. There is no compelling need to be able to edit such short sections. I had originally wanted to keep those subsections in the table of contents. After the pleasure of dealing with OnePt618 (who sure learns the ropes and wiki-lingo fast for someone who’s a “newbie” editor with only 20 edits), I decided there wasn’t really a need to have the subsections in the table of contents. Thus, the matter is resolvable by making those sub-section titles regular text. Greg L (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
--The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anwar al-Awlaki. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please be aware that continued reverts will result in blocks. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 
VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
_diagram.png){kind=link}
