This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 6 August 2022 (→184.101.12.14 disruptive edits: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:38, 6 August 2022 by GregJackP (talk | contribs) (→184.101.12.14 disruptive edits: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
| Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive |  |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| 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. | |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
2022 thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in January! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
- Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Your RFA oppose
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks, BusterD. I appreciate your comments more than you realize. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thank you for accepting my apology.
- 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)
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 20:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Your RFA oppose (redux)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
A barnstar for you!
|
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) |
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| 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. | |
Your GA nomination of Haaland v. Brackeen
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)
184.101.12.14 disruptive edits
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)
- @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)