User talk:GreenMeansGo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning: this page is watched over by ancient and powerful spirits. Be civil, or you will invoke their wrath.

Brother in law[edit]

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. GMGtalk 14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

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. GMGtalk 15:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


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. GMGtalk 10:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you review something for me?[edit]

GMG, somewhat against my will I roped myself into writing a response to a Signpost proposed article here [[1]] (link to article [[2]]). My draft reply is here [[3]]. 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:
Proponent: Gun ownership is a constitutional right.
Opponent: Well actually, in order to interpret the constitutional wording, you need to consider the role that militias played in local and national security prior to the establishment of semi-professional reservists and a strong national military along with a centralized federal government. It was only much later when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of...
Proponent: Gun ownership is a constitutional right.
Opponent: We have to take action to make our schools safe, and protect our children from gun violence.
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. GMGtalk 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.
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)#PORNBIO 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. GMGtalk 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry your pretty head[edit]

“Don't worry your pretty head”? Patronising. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: That's not me patronizing you; that's me making a parody of the rationale that ArbCom offers you for unilaterally changing policy. GMGtalk 00:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


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 Naawada2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'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. - CorbieV 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. GMGtalk 21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Inline citations[edit]

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 {{reflist talk}} so that everything doesn't bunch up either at the bottom of the page or at the next {{reflist talk}}, which is liable to be unrelated and confusing. GMGtalk 20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for a pre-GA review of Hell's Bells (film).[edit]

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[edit]

A better solution[edit]

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. GMGtalk 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[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 7 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fees and penalties charged as part of criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States may lead to the justice system becoming both a result and a cause of poverty? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail[edit]

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. GMGtalk 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Husky-logo-Black 2017.jpg[edit]


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)