User talk:Gregmg

About Wine

It is a bit unfair to judge the countries with best wine by their share in the market. Some countries will never be major market players due to their small size, but still have some of the best wines in the world.

I assume this is in reference to my removal of "Slovenia" from a list of producers of collectable wines on the wine page. First, I never take lightly any change I make of someone else's edits on any Wikipedia article. I didn't immediately make this change either. I saw it in the morning, but waited until later in the day to give myself some time to consider the matter and do some research.

You, or someone else, edited the article to list "Slovenia, United States, and France" as producers of exclusive or collectable wines. This suggests to the reader that Slovenia is perhaps the most notable or largest producer or exclusive wines. I checked several wine references for this, both hardcopy books and online, and I just couldn't find anything to justify that. Quality is of course subjective, but in terms of notariety and quantity, I just couldn't find anything to suggest that Slovenia was a major player in this market. In researching this, I found the following to be the most recognized, talked about, and award-winning producers of collectable wines: France, Italy, Spain, the United States, Australia, and Portugal, in that order. To keep it short, I only listed the first four, but that was an arbritary decision on my part.

If you feel that Slovenia deserves special mention, please discuss it on the wine talk page. I obviously don't agree, but if the concensus sides with you, the article will change accordingly. Gregmg 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't change the piece in question, but was there when it was done. I was just iritated by the reason of reversal - it seems that quality is equated with quantity, which i believe is very problematic, since it makes it impossible for any small country, not just Slovenia to enter the list of the countries with best wines. If the list actually contains the countries that are actually largest producers, than that should be noted, IMHO.

Again, I looked at the issue from every angle. Awards, coverage in the press, interest among collectors, etc. I just couldn't come up with anything to suggest that Slovenia was well known for its collectable or exclusive wines, or a major player in the collectable wine market. Perhaps I should have made that more clear when I made the change. Had I been the one to initially list any countries, I would have provided references. I may go back and add references for the list as it stands now, since I did change it. We really need to move this discussion to the Wine talk page. Gregmg 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on Assault Weapon

I've been watching the progress of this article, and trying to help out here and there. I'd only known the political definition previously, but you've done a great job explaining military usage of the term too. This article is getting better all the time. It's great to see someone providing neutral and informative content. Thanks! Friday 03:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, the most recent edit to incorporate a military definition was someone else's work. Thanks though for your kind comments. Gregmg 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user removing Compuserve sentence on Rush Limbaugh

I don't know what this guy's deal is, but there have to be better steps to take than just reverting his changes. I've tried reporting it to WP:VIP but he uses an ISP that has different IP addresses. Let me know if you have any ideas. I think holding a vote may be the only way to stop him. MicahMN | Talk 14:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page should be protected until he loses interest and goes away. The thing I can't figure out is what his angle is. Does he really think this makes Rush look wierd? While I don't consider myself a "Dittohead" (Rush fan), I do kind of like him and listen to his show once in a while. I think this reference makes Rush look... well... smart. Gregmg 14:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good revert on the Limbaugh page. I did it at almost the same time, but you beat me to it. Great minds...Gator1 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Racial slur

This whole nickname thing is a new one to me? Where is this guy getting this? I've never heard this one? Have you?Gator1 21:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew. I don't listen to Rush very often, so I can't say it's totally bogus. It seems out of character for Rush to say anything even suggestive of a slur. Perhaps someone who listens to Rush every day will respond to this. Gregmg 22:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Same here, I work during day, but I've heard him recently and I haven't heard him say this...you'd think someone would have jumpred on THAT right away. What do you want to do if this guy declares an edit war? I've got 2 edits left on the day. lolGator1 22:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This smells a lot like the NAALCP controversy. Rush has repeatedly defined NAALCP as National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People when pointing out that the NAALCP never embraces conservative black politicians. But somewhere along the way someone swapped out Lazy for Liberal and people are still up in arms about it. I posted a comment to the talk page. Maybe someone with access to the transcripts will clarify or totally discount this new alleged quote. Gregmg 22:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Golbez

You tell me. Was Golbez's response to me on the Limbaugh page over the top or did I deserve that? Be honest, I trust you.Gator1 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been participating in online forums (Usenet) since '89. In my experience, it's best not to get too wrapped up in anything other people say in these forums. Just let their comments roll off of you and keep your cool. Your edits on the Limbaugh page and elsewhere have been a huge contribution to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, but take my advice and don't let anything get to you.

Gregmg 14:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,I'll clarify. It was his response in his edit summary. See history. You're right. He can act like a real jerk sometimes and it just wasn't necessary. I mentioned "deafening silence" ONCE. How is that "harping?" Loo up "harp" in the dictonary......not cool. You're opinion is appreciated.Gator1 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for removing my redundant links; didn't realize what the convention is.David Justin 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion

Greg- That's a good suggestion, which I'll follow.David Justin 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

MobyGames

Greg- Within certain communities MobyGames is highly regarded. Specifically game developers consider MobyGames notable. Admittedly MobyGames is not consumer oriented. However it is the only website with a comprehensive database of video game credits. example 1, example 2, example 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipkin (talk • contribs)

I apologize if I implied at any point that it wasn't a highly regarded site. On the matter of your autobiography, I was merely suggesting that it wasn't prominent enough to convey notability to you. On the matter of linking to it from various game articles, I was suggesting that per the External links guide, in some cases a link to it from a Wikipedia article was not justified. Gregmg 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny. The statement, "Everyone and their dog has a website these days... if that's the criteria for being worthy of an encyclopedia article, then I want to write one for my dog." would imply something else.--Flipkin 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not disparaging your website. At no point have I suggested that the MobyGames article should not exist. I have only suggested that your biography should not. Didn't you feel at least a little uncomfortable creating a biographical article for yourself? While not against policy, per se, it certainly runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines. If your notability is such that a biographical article is warranted, someone else will write it. It's also considered link spamming to add external links in articles to your own site. Please review the External links guide for more information regarding what should and should not be linked to. Gregmg 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::Greg, I beleive in the democratic nature of the Internet and Wikipedia. In fact MobyGames is very much a community driven project. If you look at the history of MobyGames article it was not written by me, but there was wiki link someone create for David Berk. I filled it in trying to adhere to the NPOV guideline. Heck the thing said 'David Berk' article doesn't exist why don't you create it. Additionally I discovered wikipedia and there were a few links to mobygames. I created some and this was the feedback I got. At no point do I try to game the system or not adhere to the guidelines. There are a lot of opinions out there. I agree with some and not with others. If there was some other David Berk I could understand the removal of the bio. However I cofounded a website. It gets one million visitors a month. In a small niche of the industry ( which is growing ) a lot of people really consider what we are doing important. FYI it is late at night for me so I am not sure I am as articulate as I could be. --Flipkin 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't have any issues with the MobyGames article. As I've stated several times, I was only suggesting that its importance and notariety does not convey sufficient notability to you for you to have your own article. On the secondary issue of the appropriateness of external links to MobyGames in specific game articles, while you have received some positve feedback from some, I know, as do you, that many others have been less enthusiastic with some even calling these links link spam. As I've stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, links to MobyGames need to be considered on a case by case basis and examined against the External links guide. You should consider the possibility that on matters concerning MobyGames you have a conflict of interest; as a Wikipedian, one is concerned with the quality of the content on this site, but as a proprietor of a website, one is concerned with promoting that site. Having a conflict of interest does not mean that one has allowed that conflict to interfere with good judgement, and I certainly do not mean to suggest that you are guilty of any bad judgement, but it does call into question the motivation for your edits. In any case, there are a bunch of Wikipedia guides and policy articles that define what is acceptable and what is not in terms of Wikipedia contributions and edits. It isn't really my place to decide any of this. If you have concerns with these policies and guidelines, your energies are best directed at the associated talk page(s). Spending your time hashing this out here isn't going to accomplish much. Gregmg 05:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Greg, I am strinking my last comment. It was not very well thought out. It was late and I wasn't being very smart. You are right, except about the notability point. We disagree there, but of course I am biased. : ) --Flipkin 15:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do about copied material?

It seems that [1] is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia's Wine_making article. There's no license or source information on vinopinions.org, at least none that I can find. I'm sure there must be a process for reporting and investigating this, but I can't find it. Gregmg 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted something at Wikipedia talk:Verbatim copying page. You can report the copyright violating mirrors and forks at WP:MF if you have not found it yet.

This is becoming a rather a big problem, but we currently do not have enough people to properly deal with this problem. Perhaps you can help us? – WB 07:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I happened to see this. The other site is a Wiki site, so I simply blanked two pages (wine and winemaking) with an explanation. Maybe the owner simply forgot to put the GDFL/Wikipedia link in his templates. Han-Kwang 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Handling linkspam

Hi, I saw your comment on Winemaking. Next time you might add one of the templates {{spam1}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}} to the anon talk page, preferably directly after the fact before the person changes IP address. After spam4, you can request a block, although it is of limited use for someone who changes ip addresses all the time. Han-Kwang 08:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Noble Wine

Thanks for the info. I figured it meant something more specific, but as it was i felt it was pretty silly. Feel free to revert the change, and maybe add a sentence explaining what it means? Or maybe there needs to be an article about noble wine. *shrug*

--Johnjosephbachir

MDK3 petition link on MDK2

Okay, its just that this is the first MDK3 petition I've ever come across.

I disagree with this link being removed (twice, once sent by me, other time sent by someone else) from the page as it is canon. If enough people sign it, perhaps we may have a MDK3 wiki article to type up. I find this behavior very ignorant, as most pages of Wikipedia, game, film, fiction is written for the fans. I don't care that Wikipedia doesn't like it in its criteria. Call me ignorant, but thats how I feel. Fansite links ARE canon. This petition link does not at all make the page 'biased'.

Its approaching the 10th anniversary of the original MDK and its hightime the fans do something, pestering someone to make MDK3, or even a possible fan project, maybe in other media, etc (as its slowly beginning to get forgotten about.) If you look up [Stargate SG1: The Alliance]'s page you'll find a petition to keep it running. A few other wiki's have similar petitions too.

If you can come across a more relevant link of a petition, for MDK3, then I'd be willing for you to share it with me, and the rest of the fans. Not only are the MDK games fantastic action series of games, they have deep thought and very clever concepts and art between the gameplay.

However, things such as 'Credits' are not needed. As there are clearly written IMDB articles on such details. Also I split the 'story' part into chapters, as it was just a whack of text shoved on a page and uneasy on the eye. I also added spoilers for the reason that any unsuspecting person that is curious about MDK2 can accidentally read everything that happens in the game, start to finish, without a sign of a warning.

I am also responsible for a large portion of the original MDK page if you look up the history page, yes, I'm a MDK fan, but I'm pretty proud of it. My aim is to write up as much as I can about the MDK series and further Shiny and Planet Moon games as quite a few need to be tidied up.

If you wish to continue this converation, enlighten me on my talk page or you could just call me a geek. --Fr3k3r 01:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't for me to say what should or should not be linked to. The External links guide already does this, and it carries the weight of the concensus of the community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Links should add value to the article in question. I don't believe a link to a petition adds any value to the article, and further, I believe it meets the spirit of links to be avoided as defined in the External links guide. Any further discussion of this matter should be carried out on the MDK2 talk page where it might provoke further consideration by other parties. Gregmg 04:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Me again, this time about MDK.

Okay, right, the petition link has gone on the MDK page.

This is not specifically a problem now, as over the days its been there, no ones signed it :(

So, we'll just forget about the whole thing, no-one else is complaining. However, It would be nice to have a way, to get MDK out there again. But the game world, such as the coilsuit, minecrawlers, deserve to be documented as they are just as innovative as B-movie plots.

I will also see about typing up the real copyright details for the images on the article, but are SERIOUSLY found on the MDK2 DC CD, presuambly making them public domain by Bioware/Interplay (I believe that either Bioware or Interplay own the MDK licence). Otherwise, why would they be there?

However, about the other links:

• The BZK end vid is a bit edgy, not sure what the copyright is for this, but its technically a game recording/video, so it should be allowed as a public viewing video as long at it is not downloaded etc.

As far as my knowledge, this song was not released as a single, the only problem is a piece of trivia says that the song however, is a cover of another band. Thats the only thing really stopping this being linked to, is there a way to note the copyright of the original song/artists/song writers? Link to version of song vid. (Thats actually pretty weird to watch)

• http://www.dpfiles.com/showthread.php?t=201

This link is David_Perry's forum section on his offical website. (Yes, this is a community site) But as he previously WAS the president of Shiny_Entertainment and he posted all the concept art on the page,; which as I said is very hard to find any on the net, let alone any MDK related stuff except reviews or MDK2 reviews. Also if you look futher down, that really large video for download is that very video off of Google you were inquiring about, (Have a test, I presume someone uploaded it on Google videos) for any futher questioning of the copyright of this video (or the image content of that forum); I suggest one of us actually pop onto the forum and attempt to have a chat with the man himself.

--Fr3k3r 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I will look into this a bit more as time permits, but you would really be better off discussing this on the article's talk page. Other's might get involved in the discussion and offer their own perspective. Gregmg 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I don't appreciate you reverting my edits to Rush Limbaugh with the edit summary "Some" is not a weasel word. Please see WP:Weasel..." I ask that you yourself please "see WP:Weasel" and read it because this is listed (it's the next-to-last example under "Examples." I further note that the guideline specifically says that "The consensus of editors responsible for Wikipedia encourages you to name a source rather than assign an opinion to an anonymous source."

I'd appreciate if you would apologize. --ElKevbo 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some is allowed when the sources are numerous. Please take another look at WP:Weasel. In the Exceptions section please note the following allowed example: "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

I don't take lightly reverting another Wikipedian's edits. I do so only when I'm confident it is necessary in order to stay consistant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to maintain the quality of an article.

As Wikipedians, we are called on to assume good faith. I must assume that the true motivation for your edits to the Rush Limbaugh article is a desire to enhance the quality and content of the article specifically, and Wikipedia in general. In requesting an apology, it would appear that you are making a different assumption about my motivations.

Thank you for your comments. Gregmg 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh Request For Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Motocross

Can you have a look at the recent edits;

The largest indoor motocross facility in the world, known as Mototown USA (Mototown USA) recently opened in 2006, in Windsor, Connecticut. The complex is over 200,000 square feet in size.

by Jacksonian3623, i don't want to breach of WP:3RR.

Thanks in advance --Pickle 12:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Pickle 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion in Talk:Gun violence in the United States

I noticed you've done some work in the above referenced article talk page regarding NPOV issues. I wanted to invite you to take part in a discussion I have initiated to change the page name to "Guns in the United States" or "Gun Culture in the United States". This title is much less slanted and clears up a big POV problem with the article. The discussion is located here: [[2]] DesertPhox (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gregmg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)