User talk:GreenMeansGo

This user may have limited availability due to real world events.

Archives

1 2

Look, I'm in a photo.

And this one too.

Images

Hi GMG. Just wanted to touch base with you regarding a minor matter with images. In the past, we had users applying all sorts of sizes and properties to the images placed on pages. After some discussion (I'll have to search to see if I can find any of the conversations), we decided to remove size values and the "upright" property to the images so they would all render the same size. I noticed you had added upright to the image of Pope Leo XIV. Before I removed it, I wanted to bring it up to you. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I know that we stopped using it in an effort to maintain consistency - and it's something that I have removed every time I have seen it. What do you think? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@UDScott: I'm just accustomed to adding upright to images of this orientation, since the default image size applies to the width of the image, which means the height can vary significantly, especially if someone uses a non-standard crop. GMG^talk 18:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I just know that using it also makes the image shrink a bit and it ends up being a different size than those where it is not used. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It's generally used to differentiate portrait and landscape images, but you can also use a scaling factor (e.g., |upright=2.5|) to make it pretty much any size. GMG^talk 18:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understand - just that we found that if people tried to use it, we ended up with inconsistent sizing of images (because everyone used it differently), so in the end we decided not to use it at all. If we want to change that, that's fine, but a lot of effort went into making the images consistent - and a lot of effort will have to go into changing it now. Again, I'm not passionate about either way - just like to have consistency, if possible, in how the pages are presented. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either way honestly. GMG^talk 13:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Omri

Good evening @GreenMeansGo:, just to be acknowledged about the WQ policies, I have a doubt about the fact that biblical articles like Omri with no direct quotes (in which there is solely the section "Quotes about") are probable candidates for deletion. Is this true or similar articles (which I have derived from the Italian WQ) can stay also in English WQ? 176.200.115.180 15:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

When you think about it, every article that isn't biographical is entirely "quotes about". I don't know that I see it as excessively problematic. I'm not familiar with Omri, and for all I know there may turn out to be quotes available by or attributed to him. I'm that sense, I wouldn't want to discourage the creation of stubs that still include related quotes. GMG^talk 13:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

VFD closures

Hi GMG. Just wanted to point out that your closures of the Template VFDs might be a bit premature. See discussion here: Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikiquote:Votes for deletion for some background. It's not that I disagree that these should all be deleted, but rather about following the process. In these instances, no one other than the nominator voted before the expiration of the review period. Then one or two users voted afterwards - which are not supposed to count. Having only one user vote (or having some vote afterwards) should not lead to a conclusion regarding the VFD in question, per process. I had recommended that they be reopened (with a new review period) so that we could get more of a consensus to delete them. Just want to make sure that no one comes back later and says they were deleted without following the right process. Make sense? ~ UDScott (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@UDScott: If that's what the community wants then no bother from me. I was just trying to chip away at a backlog.

I do fear that if we hold ourselves to a strict standard that the !voting period is a maximum limit, and not a minimum one, then we're going to invalidate a lot of VfDs. I'm not sure we have enough people active at VfD to be too extremely picky without breaking something. GMG^talk 19:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you could be right - maybe we should have a discussion about altering the VFD process to accommodate that point - I don't disagree. But I'm just reacting to the process as it currently stands. In the end, I fully agree that those templates should be deleted (I nominated the first round of them for deletion). ~ UDScott (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@UDScott: Did we ever get a way forward on this? These noms are almost half the open threads on VfD. GMG^talk 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just looking at them again - no, but it seems pretty clear that they should be renominated and that they'll likely be deleted, assuming we get more users to comment this time. I just didn't want to violate the process in doing so. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Then we may want to have have a follow up discussion on AN to make the point exceedingly clear. As before, if we're talking about any !vote cast after the closing date on any VfD, that's a substantial change. What if there is ongoing discussion or if the article is being actively improved? So, for example, if we applied this to Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Gleichschaltung, the lone contribution would be deletion. GMG^talk 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused - I wasn't suggesting counting votes cast after the voting period ends. That is precisely what I didn't want to do. All of the voting (and discussion on the referenced Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Gleichschaltung were entered before the closure date of September 5. What "substantial change" do you mean? In the case of these Template VFDs, I meant that we should not consider the ones that were opened before because they reached the end of the voting period with either no one other than the nominator commenting or having late votes. So they are null and void. Now new VFDs should be opened on them, with a new voting period so that other users can comment. Really, those ones listed on the VFD page should be closed with no resolution and then brand new vfds can be started. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Disregard Gleichschaltung. I looked at the wrong date.

More to the point, you and Justin disagree on whether we should include prior !votes cast after the waiting period has ended. A strict reading of policy would seem to suggest that these should be all closed as keep, discounting !votes cast after the lag time. But the policy also presumes that discussions will be closed in about a day, and so doesn't necessarily account for those open for a month or more, which is often the current norm. GMG^talk 17:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, got it. Yes, I was acting with a strict regard for the policy as to the dates and counting votes. But yes, you are right - we seem to have a systemic issue where VFD discussions are quite light (and often drag on beyond the dates). Perhaps a larger discussion could be had regarding the proper length of time to have them open. The current time is seven days for discussion, but perhaps we need more time. But I believe such a change should be discussed and then the Deletion policy can be amended accordingly, based on the consensus. As for these ones we've been discussing, I would agree that they should likely be closed as Keep for now - and then of course they may be re-tagged for VFD discussion after that. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletion candidate: David Woodard

Hi GMG, would you be so kind and have a look at the Deletion discussion for David Woodard? This discussion closed on 7th July 2025, but there has been no conclusive action. For more context, this (quite astonishing) story has been covered by the Wikipedia Signpost. I have been giving a hand in the "cleanup efforts", and would appreciate if we could move forward with this deletion candidate ;-) 1904.CC (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Y Done GMG^talk 13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much 🙏 1904.CC (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This person should be blocked and banned - part of the sexism problem on this site

This person is part of why wikipedia has such a sexism problem. He is actively trying to delete sites that go against the community standards. This person should be ashamed of themselves. Why Wikipedia even has it's own entries on editors like this. Wikipedia has a significant gender imbalance because of editors like this one.

They misuse their powers and then act like they are doing something good. Accomplish something so that your legacy won't be just trying to minimize the real achievements of others. Help the community. Don't taint it with your sexism and misogyny. It only brings the community down. And you are part of the problem. MakingTheWorldBetter1977 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Deletion in general is a chore and a bore. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to delete anything at all, because pages created would all clearly meet project standards for inclusion. Unfortunately, many see places like Wikiquote as just another step in SEO. They pay for press releases presented as news pieces on sites on that look like news but aren't. Then they use that as justification for a page here hoping no one will look too deeply into the matter.

I question whether you have a deep commitment to the SheSaid campaign, rather than to this individual, given that instead of continuing to contribute content that amplifies the voices of women broadly, you seem to mainly care about whether this individual in particular has an article. GMG^talk 16:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the noble art of deletion—where building nothing is somehow seen as a contribution. If deletion is a chore and a bore, perhaps it’s time to stop treating it like a badge of honor. Wikiquote isn’t strengthened by pruning voices into silence; it thrives when contributors amplify, contextualize, and connect.

Calling out SEO tactics is fair, but wielding the delete button like a sword against genuine efforts to elevate underrepresented voices? That’s not vigilance—it’s gatekeeping dressed up as quality control. The SheSaid campaign isn’t about curating a museum of perfection, it’s about giving space to voices that history too often overlooked. And with the help of people like you—it fails in its mission.

So instead of questioning someone’s notability, maybe ask what you’ve built lately or done something to make the community better? Because deletion may tidy the shelves, but it doesn’t fill them—and a community that only subtracts will eventually have nothing left to say. SheSaidCampaign (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"gatekeeping dressed up as quality control" That's a trade off most of the community is willing to accept, though there are sometimes disagreements about where to draw the line.

I suggest you spend some time contributing in ways that don't involve Shadan Kapri, and maybe revisit the subject when you are more familiar with Wikiquote, and this person has had time to receive legitimate independent coverage. You can of course go on complaining about what a terrible person I am, but it's unlikely to make any difference either way. So it's not really worth your time. GMG^talk 19:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

From you: “You can go on complaining…but it’s unlikely to make a difference either way. So it’s not really worth your time.”

Right, because as a man you hold all the power and control?? And decide which voices should be silenced and amplified?? And other people’s opinions don’t matter?? Wow!! Isn’t that what you are truly saying?? That is how white supremacy grows. Bravo!! Your real legacy and purpose shines through. I didn’t need to reveal you. You did that all by yourself. You should be so proud of your “contribution.” SheSaidCampaign (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If you continue to go around accusing others of being sexist and white supremacist, you will likely see yourself blocked for personal attacks, and unable to contribute at all. GMG^talk 21:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I just pointed out your own words. I didn’t add to them. I just brought it to light. Don’t be mad because I quoted you. Maybe look within and choose your words more wisely. Better use of your time than misusing and abusing the deletion powers. But what do I know, right? Clearly your opinion is what matters—-not mine. You have made that crystal clear! Thank you for your “contribution.” SheSaidCampaign (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with VfD

Could I ask for your help with my recent VfD attempt. I'm struggling with making it work. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• Y Done
• @Koavf: That's not an unused template. It's just always substituted. GMG^talk 19:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, to be clear, if you look in my logs, I did deliberately try to retain deletion templates, since they end up going on pages that are deleted, so they probably won't have many transclusions at any time and may have none. Whoopsy daisy. Glad that someone else corrected me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't delete the article named Jack Landry

I think this patient not be deleted Matthew Raymond 12 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Your contribution appears to be an attempt at a television listing, and not a collection of quotes. I'm afraid that type of content isn't within the scope of this project. GMG^talk 19:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wrongly Blocked

It seemed that you wrongly blocked Như Gây Mê (talk · contributions), they helped us revert vandalism in fact. I've unblocked them. -‎Lemonaka‎ 03:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Ah. Thanks for following up with that. I swear there's some LTA out there who throws around Vietnamese so they can say "gay" over and over. Too quick on the trigger in this case it seems. GMG^talk 11:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Organ transplantation

Good evening @GreenMeansGo:, I've written on my talk page to create a thematic article entitled Organ transplantation. WQ blocks me from editing new articles. I don't know the reasons.

There is a minimum number of edits to create new articles? Can't anonymous users create them (but I've created an account)? I don't know what's happening. Divano81mi (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Divano81mi: Seems you've figured it out. Not sure what the problem might have been. GMG^talk 14:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)