User talk:GreenFrogsGoRibbit/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome
|
GreenFrogsGoRibbit, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi GreenFrogsGoRibbit! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
June 2020
Hi GreenFrogsGoRibbit! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Hi! Sounds like I made a mistake! If you don't mind, could you link me exactly where I erred so I can be more conscientious in the future? If not, thanks anyway for informing me! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
PA
This [[1]] is an unnecessary and confrontational, PA, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: You're right. I got too involved. I'm genuinely sorry. I'll remove it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers, its enough to say close as wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Source link?
Pardon me if I'm posting this in the wrong place, I'm new to the "talk" communication. You are reverting an edit I made to this page: [2]. Initially your reversion was valid, as I had not made the source link properly. However, I corrected this on the next edit, and it was still reverted with the same reason (invalid link). At first I thought I must have edited an older revision of the page, so I did it one more time, but this time it was not only reverted, but I received a warning about continually reverting. Please let me know why this is continually being reverted, as the source link was corrected and works properly. --Fzimmerman (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Fzimmerman I only reverted your edit once, because it had an error on it which you acknowledged if I'm correct. The newest person who reverted it wasn't me. You'd have to ask them why they did. I wish you luck in solving your dilemma :) GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
RFC
Hi there, re: this RFC, the RFC phrasing is supposed to be neutral, not top-loaded with the POV that you're trying to force. WP:RFCNEUTRAL It's probably too late to change it now that others have responded. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, how is it bias? What specific part of the title or question is "top-loaded with the POV that [I'm] trying to force"? The RFC itself said, "We included "disputed" for cause of death for a very long time and it was removed pursuant to the conversation above me. Therefore, I think Consensus should be invoked to definitively affirm or reject it's removal." Which specific part is bias and how? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- You know what, I think my reading comprehension skills are totally botched. After reading it a few more times, I don't see anything wrong with it. For some reason my brain was interpreting the statement as a request to keep the content. I'm very wrong here and I beg your forgiveness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, aw it's okay, I forgive you. I was considering doing another RFC to see if people agree with you or me on whether to keep the original RFC up and view it's end result legitimate, but I suppose that's no longer relevant now. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- You can't imagine how stupid I feel. Thanks for the forgiveness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, if you didn't concede, do you think using rfc on the original rfc would have been a good solution? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I think an RFC on top of an RFC is probably much. In a case like that, it might be wiser to withdraw the RFC and start anew. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, if you didn't concede, do you think using rfc on the original rfc would have been a good solution? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- You can't imagine how stupid I feel. Thanks for the forgiveness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, aw it's okay, I forgive you. I was considering doing another RFC to see if people agree with you or me on whether to keep the original RFC up and view it's end result legitimate, but I suppose that's no longer relevant now. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- You know what, I think my reading comprehension skills are totally botched. After reading it a few more times, I don't see anything wrong with it. For some reason my brain was interpreting the statement as a request to keep the content. I'm very wrong here and I beg your forgiveness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, how is it bias? What specific part of the title or question is "top-loaded with the POV that [I'm] trying to force"? The RFC itself said, "We included "disputed" for cause of death for a very long time and it was removed pursuant to the conversation above me. Therefore, I think Consensus should be invoked to definitively affirm or reject it's removal." Which specific part is bias and how? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
RfC
I see that one was closed. I have to admit I'm not fond of closing RfCs. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: The rfc I linked you has not been closed. Sorry, that I keep pinging you to close RFCs, it's just that you're the only admin I'm comfortable with. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Thanks for closing the convo. So in the future, you'd rather me not tag you in my rfc's right? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- It could be a problem as it could look as though you think I agree with you. You do know you can request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, right? Doug Weller talk 13:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: No, I was not. Can I still summon you every now and then, if you consent? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I promise not to summon you again to close an rfc until 10/29/2020. So basically a month. Unless if you want more time. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: No, I was not. Can I still summon you every now and then, if you consent? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It could be a problem as it could look as though you think I agree with you. You do know you can request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, right? Doug Weller talk 13:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Michael Corcoran (musician), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Elizium23, I'd like to alert you that a link has been included to the edit here Michael Corcoran (musician). I did not anticipate someone would respond to my initial edits within seconds, before I could add my source. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- GreenFrogsGoRibbit, I am not sure that Spotify can be considered a reliable source for a WP:BLP item such as date of birth, but I will not remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23 I've seen other Wikipedia articles link to Youtube videos or Tweets when determining age, so I assumed this would be typical. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Social media can be used with caution, if we can conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY. If someone Tweets through his verified account that it is his birthday today, then that can be usable. It is definitely not preferable, and should be supplanted by a secondary source ASAP. Spotify is a completely different situation. We don't really know where they drew their biographies from. Perhaps a press kit? We do not know of their editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking. Take for example, IMDb. We have long known that IMDb cannot be used for biographical data because it is user-generated and very unreliable. The discussions on WP:RSN indicated that AllMusic might be reliable for track listings and album releases, but I think they excluded biographical data like this. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elizium23 I've seen other Wikipedia articles link to Youtube videos or Tweets when determining age, so I assumed this would be typical. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- GreenFrogsGoRibbit, I am not sure that Spotify can be considered a reliable source for a WP:BLP item such as date of birth, but I will not remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Effective comments
I've noticed where you've commented about editors being Lost Causers. I would avoid doing this. Comments about an editor's personal viewpoint, even if correct, can divert the discussion about improving the article to be about the editors, generally leading to accusations of not assuming good faith, and diminishing chances of reaching consensus on changes to the article. No editor being accused of something like this will ever respond "sorry, you're right, I'll go away now"; instead, they're much more likely to take offense, and dig in for a long fight. Even if an editor is being consistently disruptive by POV editing, that cannot be solved on an article talk page; that would require a discussion on an administrator's noticeboard page like WP:NPOVN. So, even if I agree with you in general terms, I think this type of comment may be counterproductive to your goals.
Take this as you will; no reply necessary. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- A D Monroe III Yeah, you are absolutely right. Maybe I am being too aggressive. My apologies. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited J. Edgar Hoover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATF.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Re: Michael H. Simon
Hi,
Can you explain why you keep adding the title of "Justice" to the QFR link? It makes no sense. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Snickers2686 Because without having some title, the page has an explicit cite error. Pages should not have an explicit format error under any circumstances. It makes Wikipedia look sloppy and it's against H:CE. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Bernstein (law professor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BA.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
RFC's
Should last longer than a day (let alone less than one). Moreover, it is bad form to close an RFC after less than a day when you are the person who created it in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Also please read WP:RFCST, your RFC was incorrectly created.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven On the contrary, I fully complied with the rules set forth by Wikipedia. You said it is "bad form" to close my own RFC in a short time period, but that's just your subjective opinion and with all due respect, your opinion holds no actual weight. Actual Wikipedia policy holds all the weight and such policy, unfortunately, supports my actions. See WP:RFCEND.
- You cite WP:RFCST, but you fail to cite what provision I did not follow. There are four prongs, the first one is: "Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in." Complied with this objectively. Let's see the second prong: "Choose a category and insert an "RFC" tag at the top of the new talk page section" The Rfc is closed so no tag is necessary. See WP:RFCEND - "the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the "rfc" template." Let's see if I violated the third prong: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the 'rfc' tag." I want you tell me what is non brief or unnuetral in this statement: "This RFC is to establish Consensus. Do you support the following sentence starting the lede "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian alt-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views." Tell me the part where it's overly long or clearly bias. Let's see if you're correct with the last prong: "Publish the talk page." Yikes, I don't think you met a single prong that makes your invocation of WP:RFCST and your claim that my "RFC was incorrectly created" wrong. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is no RFC template at the top of the RFC, or did you remove it when you closed it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- No [[3]] there was not. You did not insert the template as required by policy. Policy requires that an RFC is given enough time for all interested parties to respond, you gave it under 6 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I dealt with the "wrongful invocation of RFC" comment earlier, since the RFC was withdrawn and did not establish consensus, it does not create a binding precedent going forward. If the Rfc was closed pursuant to a consensus then you can argue that the consensus should be ignored since the RFC was improperly started, but since it's withdrawn the Rfc is irrelevant now. The main issue is, was the Rfc closed down in the wrong way and the answer is clearly no. As WP:RFCEND clearly says "There is no required minimum or maximum duration;" yet you are trying to create a minimum in clear contradiction of the rules. Sorry, but I'm sticking with Wikipedia policy here. I reasonably believed "the community's response became obvious very quickly" which is all that WP:RFCEND requires. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Make sure this time you launch the RFC properly next time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven Make sure you read and use WP:RFCEND properly next time. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Make sure this time you launch the RFC properly next time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven I dealt with the "wrongful invocation of RFC" comment earlier, since the RFC was withdrawn and did not establish consensus, it does not create a binding precedent going forward. If the Rfc was closed pursuant to a consensus then you can argue that the consensus should be ignored since the RFC was improperly started, but since it's withdrawn the Rfc is irrelevant now. The main issue is, was the Rfc closed down in the wrong way and the answer is clearly no. As WP:RFCEND clearly says "There is no required minimum or maximum duration;" yet you are trying to create a minimum in clear contradiction of the rules. Sorry, but I'm sticking with Wikipedia policy here. I reasonably believed "the community's response became obvious very quickly" which is all that WP:RFCEND requires. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- You cite WP:RFCST, but you fail to cite what provision I did not follow. There are four prongs, the first one is: "Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in." Complied with this objectively. Let's see the second prong: "Choose a category and insert an "RFC" tag at the top of the new talk page section" The Rfc is closed so no tag is necessary. See WP:RFCEND - "the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the "rfc" template." Let's see if I violated the third prong: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the 'rfc' tag." I want you tell me what is non brief or unnuetral in this statement: "This RFC is to establish Consensus. Do you support the following sentence starting the lede "Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian alt-right white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster, blogger, and banned YouTuber, who promotes conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views." Tell me the part where it's overly long or clearly bias. Let's see if you're correct with the last prong: "Publish the talk page." Yikes, I don't think you met a single prong that makes your invocation of WP:RFCST and your claim that my "RFC was incorrectly created" wrong. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Pleae read WP:LAWYER.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven That's an essay, not a policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Th[at] page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
December 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josh Hawley. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Disambiguation link notification for February 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lubbie Harper Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSW.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Hello, I'm Heavy Water. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Indictment of Donald Trump, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Heavy Water (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Heavy Water. Your edit has been undone. I created a general statement without a citation along with the "Reactions" section, in order to give faster editors the ability to add a citation to either my general statement or create their own additional statements under reaction themselves. Creating a reaction page was super necessary to the page. As you know, at this moment the Democratic reaction part Indictment of Donald Trump lacks a citation. The solution is not to immediately take it down without giving the editor a chance to even amend it. As WP:NEEDCITE tells us, we should allow the editor to make one or allow another user to cite itself, only removing the claim if it's truly uncitable. Thank you. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not "take down" anything. I merely rewrote the statement to fit the sources I found. I intended originally not to split the Reactions section into sections, which would have preserved the citation's application to the entire Reactions section. I apologize for that oversight, but I stand by what I said in regards to the original sentence. Heavy Water (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water I accept your initial apology, but for the remainder of your comment, my view is let's just focus on making the page as great as it can be which I think is both of our main goals when we edit it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not "take down" anything. I merely rewrote the statement to fit the sources I found. I intended originally not to split the Reactions section into sections, which would have preserved the citation's application to the entire Reactions section. I apologize for that oversight, but I stand by what I said in regards to the original sentence. Heavy Water (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion closed
The discussion at Talk:Deep Learning (South Park) has been closed. casualdejekyll 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Flag
Hey! I just wanted to flag that I went WP:BOLD and tried to find a compromise {{main article}} use per your edit summary at Donald Trump. [4] I realize that page is on a 1R restriction, but if you disagree with that just let me know and I'll self revert.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, Jerome Frank Disciple! I find your edit perfectly acceptable! No need to self-revert. Thanks!! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)