User talk:GuzzyG/Archive 1

So, at some point is there a weeding down process, where different articles compete for space? I think you've done a good job with your additions. You show a much wider spread of knowledge than I have.Jacqke (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jacqke: Some point when it is all done there will be a cut down, i do not know exactly when though. Thanks for that, appreciate it. GuzzyG (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)pro

You are welcome! I am interested to join when discussions start. Will they be on the vital articles talk page?

@Jacqke:Probably here, [4]GuzzyG (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GuzzyG. I wanted to enquire about an edit that you made here: Special:Diff/836652519 I was wondering if you would reconsider having the Billy Mitchel article as a vital article, given that he is currently shrouded in a cheating controversy and no longer holds his records. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Just a reminder that {{WikiProject Film}} does not cover biography articles, such as actors, directors and filmmakers. This applies to all of the film task forces as well, which means that the American cinema task force does not include articles about American actors, directors and filmmakers, and consequently should not have the |USfilm=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject United States}} banner. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There seem to have been some mistakes made.

• 1. Royce was an engineer. Do you consider this makes him a vital artist?
• 2. Rolls was a rich young playboy investor. Does this make him a vital inventor? Why might anyone have that idea about him?

May I suggest you remove those mistaken links from their talk pages. Eddaido (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: May i suggest you click on those links and see the section is "inventors and engineers", i can't control what the template says. They are on the vital articles list, which multiple editors work on, so the links cannot be removed at this time, either way both were engineers. I am tagging the people on a list, not just adding the template on a whim. Thanks for the little tip. GuzzyG (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you must remove Rolls, there is no cause for him to be there. If someone considers an engineer to be "a vital artist" then that's fine by me for Royce to stay there but Rolls must be removed. What gave you the idea he was an inventor or an engineer? Eddaido (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Do you click the links or just drive-by mouth off? The artist link is removed and was replaced with the one to engineering, but it lead to automobile design on the arts page. For Rolls the early life section on his article states he was involved in engineering, the section where most of the automobile industry people are, but since you're acting very fussy, i will move Rolls to business, happy? GuzzyG (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guzzy, it's me again. I recently filled in some entries under the cattle which only had one, Bodacious (bull). I added some more bucking bulls. I ran the list by another editor I work with in the bull riding section of Wikipedia. Then I thought well there should be some more cattle that are other than bucking bulls. I thought of Babe the Blue Ox, he's suprisingly popular. But he is an article with Paul Bunyan. Then I recalled there is an article List of individual bovines that added some of my bucking bulls to it when it was created, and I then I added some but it also has other cows in it. So I added Elsie the Cow and Ralphie the Buffalo from the article. But I don't feel I should be the only one to add items to this category. Can you be the other eyes here? See if you recognize any of the other cows on this list of individual bovines. Changing the subject, I left out the other ProRodeo Hall of Fame bulls (7 total) from where I selected Red Rock (bull) because the rest don't have enough source material for an FA article. Have there been any other issues with articles that should be FAs but are tight on sources? Any advice on that? Thanks much! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@

Herman the Bull and Ratón would be good additions. The lack of source material is not a issue and those additions should be alright, many articles on the list do not have enough source material for a FA, this list does not have a completion deadline, we can always wait for it. GuzzyG (talk

) 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! By the way, you made a great pick putting in Bodacious as the first entry; he's infamous and many know him who know nothing about rodeo. And, he's definitely one of the top two greatest bulls ever. Duh, regarding Elsie, I will pull it. I had just reminded some editors in the WikiProject Horse Racing about no fictional characters when someone suggested The Black Stallion. Interesting to hear you've heard of Oscar. I will look through your suggestions and also mull over the ones I made in light of the fact that sources don't matter and make a few adjustments. Great advice, it will help me in future too. Also interesting thought about advertising characters, I guess you know who to run that by. Also, Babe the Ox is fictional too, so moot on him. Thanks again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guzzy! I've still been working on some categories with my mentor montanabw. She's a well established editor of about 12 years and an equine expert with her own horses. Also, knows a quite a bit about rodeo. We are both members of the Equine, Horse racing, and Agriculture WikiProjects and want to see the horse, cattle, and rodeo categories end up with fitting entries but w/o monopolizing them. You had some good picks there yourself which we left. I had a question about the Vital Article WikiProject. Is that still a thing where people join up? Is this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vital_Articles/Right/Participants mean anything still? I added my name and added the VA userbox to my user page. I was trying to become one of the members of the group, not just someone who fills in categories. I mean I know there are votes and such that are taken, and how does how get more involved? Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: Hey Dawn, yes, you two have done a good job expanding the individual animals section. I wouldn't worry about monopolizing them, you have the expertise there, noone else does so it'd make sense if you two make the additions there, i only have a basic knowledge so i added the few i recognized. I have never seen the WikiProject used before, i think it is outdated and people just use the talk pages of the lists themselves. The VA list/project itself is pretty inactive so there's not much discussion or ways to get involved except for voting and starting discussions on the talk pages, there's currently a vote to increase the biographies section, if you want to vote on that, basically any community discussion is mainly done here [5], [6] and [7]. I don't think any proper community will form until the lists are actually complete, then people might collab to start improving the articles. GuzzyG (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansive reply, I appreciate it so much. It looks like I just need to get in there and get involved. The links are very helpful too. It's possible we could be more helpful in some of the other animal categories too. There are definitely other areas that I have a lot of knowledge in so I will look around. I was a technical writer in software development for about 25 years, for example. I would be happy to start voting and commenting in the talk pages too. And yes, I do intend to contribute when it comes time to improve the articles; I look forward to that. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.63% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for May: Women of the Sea Villains Women in Sport Central Eastern European women #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Guzzy, I thought that the VA template was going to be added by the bot now so I wasn't putting them in the talk pages of the writers I've been adding. But I noticed you have been adding them to the articles I added yesterday and today. You shouldn't have to do them for me, so I will start adding them. I also noticed that some of the articles I looked up on Wikipedia were missing the VA tag in their talk page, so I added them, for example Mark Twain had no tag, so I added one. So as long as the quota is not filled, it's okay to add items? Right now it looks like there is still more space for all of the writer lists. I've been a professional technical writer for about 25 years, but I spent my youth and my spare time reading and writing fiction and poetry so I thought it made sense to see what I value I could add here. There's an excellent showcase of writers and poets already in the lists. I'm just filling in a few here and there; it's good to have a different perspective. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey no rush to reply. Just adding a note. I think I went over the quota on the writers. Let me know. I can remove the least notable that I've added. Hope you had a great holiday! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When you do get to it, let me know if you think any writers I added are borderline notable, I'm willing to remove some that I think may be on the bubble. No doubt some I added were obviously belonging there such as Dr. Suess, e.e. cummings, Carl Sandburg, S.E. Hinton, Louisa May Alcott, the Brownings, Lucy Maud Montgomery, but perhaps some other might be so-so such as some authors whose books are more notable them they are such as the author of Curious George, Madeline, etc. Let me know when you have time...no rush like I said. All of you have obviously been working these lists for years. It's a really cool thing you are doing. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: Sorry for the late reply Dawn, i have been extremely busy and have had no time for Wikipedia recently and probably until Monday. The bot should do them whenever it is set up by Power but it's just a habit for me to do the biography ones myself, it's no trouble. Mark Twain did have a tag it was just hidden under the "other talk page banners" shell, so i have removed your one. Yeah, aslong as the quotas empty you can add whatever you like. I'd wait and see, the quota could be increased later on, it's just i do think the modern writers section is finished, we need way more early writers to balance the list so it's not just focused on modern writers. I have no idea on the writers you have added and who is borderline, Dr. Seuss was under cartoonists but i removed that listing to accompany yours in writing, you have added some ones i have missed so thanks for that, you have done good from what i have seen. Thanks for the compliments, sorry for the rushed comment, but alas i am under some time constraints, hope you understand. GuzzyG (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand completely. I will leave you to catch up. I will leave the modern writers section alone. If I see a must have, I will swap it for another I added not as notable. If a time comes when it would be good to remove some modern writers, just let me know. Ok, Dr. Suess is a children's author, so didn't think to check comics, thanks. I had to add those extremely notable writers like Browning, Sandburg, etc., but then I probably should have stopped. I can add some more early writers, though. I did add some of those already. I will leave you to your many tasks. I'm actually behind a bit myself from the last two days. Thanks for your help as always. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, do you can look

First of all, no, there is no "mistakes". This list was based off [8] and various other sources, clearly Cha will stay as he is regarded as the "greatest asian player of the 20th century", you need to remember that we list one person from each continent/country. Anyway lucky for you we are voting on increasing the limit here [9], if the quota is updated, some of your suggestions could be added. Also the parkour people, youtubers and skateboarders are irrelevant to this discussion as they are completely different subjects and will not be removed for more soccer players. GuzzyG (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about add Jari Litmanen and Teófilo Cubillas? you need to remember that we list one person from each continent/country - at some countries we have more than one player. Litmanen,Cubillas have more views per day than some relevant players (for example Allan Simonsen)

Socrates (added in 2012 as level 4, currently is at the level 5) is a player who has never won World Cup and in some rankings he is much worse than other Brazilian midfieler Rivaldo who is not listed (see: FIFA Player of the Century#Background#FIFA internet vote, [10]). Socrates also has not been regarted in the top of Brazil greates players by IFFHS ([11]). I am not sure he should be listed. Ayway if the vote does not pass (=90, but I do not belive in it), he should be swapped for Cafu ( WorldSoccer magazine regarted Cafu as one of defenders in "eleven of all time" [12]) ) or Roberto Carlos (a deffender who is more popular than Cafu ----->[13], [14]).

I am also not sure Gascigone and Zanetti should be listed. See comprasion of views for various British players: Greaves (born 1940) 895 views per day Lineker (born 1960) 3153 views per day Gasciogne (born 1967) 1826 views per day, Lampard (born 1978) 3408 views per day, Gerrard (born 1980) 3515 views per day, Rooney (born 1985) 8344 views per day

In the case of Zanetti, see (page views and statistics on chart excatly): Rooney (born 1985) 8344 views pern day, Zanetti (born 1983) 809 views per day, Iniesta (born 1984) 3419 views per day, Xavi (born 1980) 2530 views per day, Raul (born 1977) 1962 views per day Vieira (born 1976) 1559 views per day, Figo (born 1972) 1498 views per day, Bergkamp (born 1969) 1382 views per day, Klinsmann (born 1964) 1333 views per day, Rijkaard (born 1962) 1001 views per day

It seems to me

Sandor Kocsis (Hungarian player of Golden Team

)

Thinking about it more. Including Falcao (futsal player) instead Falcao ( football columbian player) maybe you were right? (Radamel Falcao should be removed?) Football player Falcao, currently is more known than Futsal player with the same nickname but the football player currently also is not the most famous Columbian player. Currently the most vital Columbian player is

James Rodriguez who is not listed. What is in your opinion more important; more important is fact that Falcao is most famous futsal player; or fact that there are diffrent football players nicknamed Falcao who are more famous than futsal player? What would be right solution? Anyway what do you think about this swapping: [Socrates, Simonsen, Gascigone, Zanetti, Sarosi] -----> [Kocsis, Litmanen, Cubillas, Lineker, Rodriguez]? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk

) 20:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you e-mail me using the "e-mail this user" function, I'll get you a copy.

Hello, GuzzyG. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter Nr 3, 2018-12-25, for WikiProject Zoo Wikiproject Zoo wish you a Happy New Year 2019 The activity within the project has been rather low this year, and therefore we want to tell you that any kind of help to develop the project further next year will be extremely valued, like meking some of the red links blue, and participating any categorizing or whatever you want! Participation: This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo, to everyone who added yourself as a member of the Wikiproject Zoo. This is the second such message, however we hope that this can be used to coordinate editing and development of articles later down the road. If you wish to opt out of further messages remove yourself from the mailing list here , and if consider yourself not active within the project, please remove yourself from member list here. For Wikiproject Zoo general discussions and suggestions, please use the project talk page. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Zoo coordinator Dan Koehl. Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! Hello GuzzyG, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Hi. I've been thinking about your comments on Talk:2019 and I feel that we are both trying to achieve the same ends but currently not agreeing on how this should be done. I have spent some years trying to get the lists of births and deaths down to a manageable level whilst improving balance, and like you I believe that the English-speaking world is dominating these pages at the expense of others; however, there are a few intrinsic problems. If you look back over some of the things I've done/proposed and some of the arguments I've had with other editors, you'll see that I've mostly been banging my head against a brick wall, but I'm intending to carry on doing what I can to improve these pages - as I see it. I hope that we can start working together. Deb (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, it just got to the point where it was unproductive. I hatted the discussion and you kept going. There should have been a point where you should have ignored him and disengaged.

@Purplebackpack89: I pinged you so you knew that i never noticed the hatnote before i added to my support vote, yes it took me 40 actual minutes to develop that thought and double check the typos/bad grammar, i didn't respond to him first after the hatnote. Ofcourse i am going to respond when i am addressed, i'm not gonna make it look like i avoided him when he responded reasonably for once. I get my bad style of writing is probably annoying but yeah, i am just uneducated in the ways of English, i can improve certainly, but that's not going to happen quickly. Doesn't justify being called crazy lol. I don't really care either way it was just such a shock from him and that's why i kept responding, but i am not going to accept going down as a equal participant either way. I even asked him about a compromise/for his opinion in my original vote, not once did i personally attack him, so yeah not a equal participant and that's all i want on record regarding this. GuzzyG (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have messaged Cobblet and asked him to stop. But I think there were ways you could've handled this differently. You wrote a lot and it didn't change Cobblet's mind, or anybody else's for that matter.

p

16:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed you have the WikiProject Socialism userbox in your user page, but you didn't sign up in the project. You can do so in the WikiProject Socialism page, clicking the Join WikiProject button. If you have any doubt, feel free to ask it in the WikiProject talk page. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That I removed one person from VA you added: [15] per my edit summary rationale. I'd be happy to help discuss who should be included or removed (I am a professional sociologist and familiar with the field and literature). I will be reviewing this section of the vital list shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Hard to comprehend how Hans Eysenck is level 4 notable but his co-partner isn't for level 5, how bad he is isn't relevant, we don't list only good people (Ed Wood is in filmmakers); this list doesn't legitimize someone just because they're listed. Hans Eysenck is up for removal for level 4 though; but until that happens it makes sense a co-partner is listed a level below their partner GuzzyG (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This (his inclusion) should be discussed. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page if you want to include him. In my professional opinion, he is not vital, a minor researcher who got a bit of negative spotlight in recent controversy. He makes for a fine DYK (which is why I worked on his bio), but hardly merits an inclusion in the Vital list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please explain this edit. I see no discussion for removing them at

@

WP:BOLD edits at this stage. My opinion means nothing on it's own but at the same time i added Baker too; i don't think he makes the cut; but if you want to see other opinions than you can start a discussion. GuzzyG (talk

) 17:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I was more concerned with Bierstadt being removed. He is widely considered representative of the Hudson River School, perhaps even moreso than Cole. ···

Join WP Japan

! 17:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Well you can start a discussion on who is the better rep if you want but at the same time with artists like Antonio del Pollaiuolo, Francis Picabia, Albrecht Altdorfer, Fernand Léger, Frédéric Bazille, Jan Steen, Eugène Boudin, Pontormo, Karl Bryullov, Vasily Perov, Max Liebermann, Umberto Boccioni, Oskar Kokoschka, Pinturicchio, Émile Bernard, Giulio Romano, Fra Bartolomeo, Gustave Caillebotte, Ferdinand Hodler, Max Beckmann, Isaac Levitan, Vasily Surikov, Raoul Dufy, or Vasily Vereshchagin not being listed there could be argument that none might make it too. GuzzyG (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't arbitrarily remove people you don't like personally from Level 5. You say "start a discussion" but you removed him without any prior discussion. What makes you qualified to make these one-sided decisions? He is not a "bland French actor" as you called him. If you don't know him that doesn't mean he's not important. Philburmc (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Philburmc: I added him MYSELF today without any discussion, realized my mistake and removed him; if you want the article you're currently editing added, go ahead and nominate it and do it the proper way. GuzzyG (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

and let's be honest the person i removed for him Claude Brasseur and Cassel are both more important. GuzzyG (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: I submitted him for Level 4 per your previous suggestion but was told he had been already listed on Level 5 ("he's the perfect candidate for level 5" (your own quote), "Level 5 is good") in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4"). Now he's not listed anywhere. P.S. It's debatable that Claude Brasseur and Cassel are more important than him but I see you've already made up your mind and aren't open to any discussions. Philburmc (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Philburmc: I would've never suggested you to nominate to level 4 because i know it would be a instant fail, i had a hard time getting Alain Delon and Jean Gabin listed. So no way would it succeed, i added him because i was trying to be nice, but i realized its better to have a discussion because you're the primary editor. I'd rather list another Filmfare Award for Best Actor winner anyway, India's cinema affects more people than French cinema on a day to day basis. Which means it is way more important to cover, for you to oppose Kumar and suggest Bouquet means you're incredibly biased towards your own article and that's something i can never support; i would never add a article i am currently working on to a list. GuzzyG (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Please don't misrepresent my intentions. The reason I worked on the Bouquet article is because he is important nationally and recognized internationally, and the article had almost nothing on him except the list of awards (also incomplete). Then I noticed he wasn't listed even on Level 4. I didn't "nominate" the article itself, I only submitted his name for discussion. And please don't use the expressions like "incredibly biased". Philburmc (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

GuzzyG, if you want, you can add this prefix onto your user page. It could help you and VA project for easier analyse biographies on the lists. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this, i appreciate it. GuzzyG (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually the word "infleuntial" in it should no doubt be replace by "influential".--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Sdkb (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We're now over quota in that section. I gather you may be in the middle of making additions, so I'll let you finish your current round, but when that round is over, we'll probably have to stop making BOLD additions and start discussing cuts.

@Purplebackpack89: Nah, not in a round - although i could add another 200 politicians i have presaved covering everything missing lol, just added some things i was surprised were missing. Modern politicians in Europe is severely underrepresented though and pre modern African and Asian countries/empires are too. I went over the limit with the South American and Central American additions, but now that section is fully fleshed out. Now, it may all be cut if it goes down to 10k but it's relatively needed for now so South America/Central America has a base to start from. I still think we should cut misc by 300 (criminals/cut some of the fluffier things down 5-10), artists/musicians by 200 (cut some rock, rap and other modern things etc), entertainers by 200 (cut comedians/dance down 100 - they're over loaded, especially when we have more comedians/dancers than modern Europe politicians) and writers by 200 and sports by 100, and add another 350 to politics, 450 to science and 200 to religion. We're severely, under covered in politics, science and religion and overcovered in fluff areas like misc, artists/musicians, entertainers and writers - maybe it'd quell some descent too and we can remain at 15k. GuzzyG (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also if you think it's a good idea, i'll be happy to do a free run in my sandbox where i swap around the quotas like i've suggested here and finish what i think is good for the list in my sandbox, and we can compare to how the list is. The worst sections are the writers and activists, they're in need of the biggest clean up. It's just i'm not happy with alot of the fluffy things i added staying when we're missing politicians like Mir Osman Ali Khan around the world. There's so much we're missing. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, create as many sandbox versions as you want.

p

15:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you add all of those sexual topic articles to level 5? What are you basing that on?

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And to be clearer, why are you listing them as vital articles? I have not seen that every Wikipedia article gets a vital article listing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly nothing more than my judgement, but i am one of the lists major contributators having contributed to it's creation and built most of the biography section myself - i am just trying to flesh out every sections quota to see if we're missing anything super important and if a cut from 15k to biographies to 10k is needed - so we can add the biographies sectiion quota to anything else. I have no strong interest in the topic and don't care either way regarding anything tbh. As you can see on my talk page, it's filled with vital articles related inquirys, the list is all that i care about. Most of the stuff will probably be removed eventually anyway - we're not at the stage where we discuss every single entry as for 15, 000 that is unreasonable, it's just better to fill the quotas, see what number we have in total and cut from there. As you can see here - i just fleshed out the section [16]. That section is just supposed to be an overview of general sex and gender related topics. GuzzyG (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the "alot" should be replaced with "a lot", "is the main stakeholder in L'Oreal" should be replaced with "is one of the main shareholders of L'Oreal""a area" should be replaced with "an area", and "would be one of the only European" should be replaced with "will be only two European" (I've read the lede of Nestlé and come to know what you actually mean in the proposal). Next time you make another proposal you should not repeat such mistakes.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You typed the sentence "We're over quota and i say we dont need anymore writers." twice in that talk page, yet "i say" should be replaced with "I say", "dont" should be replaced with "don't" and "anymore" should be replaced by "any more".--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually you commited typographical errors in

I really appreciate you work on the Vital articles list(s). Although, I did disagree with about as many of your suggests as I supported! :) I thought I'd run this by you: surely Beethoven's 3rd belongs as a Lv 4? It can easily be argued as the most important symphony ever written (and has been voted as such, various times like here and here) and perhaps the most important piece of music ever written! While I recognize Beethoven is already very present on the list, I think his unprecedented and overwhelming influence warrants an exception. Also, I'm not sure why Mahler's 8th is on the list, Mahler's 2nd or 9th would undoubtedly be more appropriate, thoughts? - Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Thank you!! We definitely need more editors on the vital articles page, so you're certainly welcome too! Yes, i would support Beethoven's 3rd if you nominate it, we have Shakespeare represented above everyone in literature works, so it's expected we have a bit of Beethoven too. I would support you on a Mahler swap, i think Mahler's 2nd would be better of the two. I think there might be one or two opposes if we're being realistic because some editors have expressed not wanting alot of individual musical works on the list, but that shouldn't be a deterrent, i agree we could use more very notable compositions. I see you know a bit about classical music and the vital articles page could certainly use your knowledge. I've been thinking we list too many modern composers and not enough older Medieval and Renaissance/Baroque/Classical period composers.

Names like

Orlande de Lassus, Carl Maria von Weber, and Georg Philipp Telemann or even missing some more recent composers with modern works that are widely known like Bedřich Smetana, Erik Satie, Gustav Holst, and Edvard Grieg. Which is why i nominated people like Eric Clapton, Patsy Cline, Sam Cooke and Stephen Sondheim for removal. I also think that we should list as many violinists as cellists, since from what i know (admittedly basic), i thought pianists/violinists were the most prominent instrumentalists in classical music. A name like Jascha Heifetz, Fritz Kreisler, Giuseppe Tartini and Yehudi Menuhin. Would you agree? Also i think we should list a woman, we don't list any as classical instrumentalists and Alicia de Larrocha and Martha Argerich might fit, but i know nothing about classical music. Either way, i would support your two suggestions here and would be happy to see you around the VA project more, we need many more eyes on it, and your votes are appreciated very much! GuzzyG (talk

) 15:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, a lot of the names you mention don't really stand up next to the other people on the list, even Pérotin. Telemann I definitely agree with you about though. While perhaps a good argument could be made for Smetana, a strong one could be made for Grieg, especially considering the fact that Sibelius and Dvorak are already on the list. In terms of earlier composers, the only person who might stand to the level of the others is probably Johannes Ockeghem but the ones that I'm really surprised to see missing are Glinka, Purcell, Corelli and potentially Schütz, although he's more of a toss up.

In terms of pieces, Moonlight does not belong on there, especially compared to the other pieces. A good substitute would be Liszt's B Minor Sonata, which people have written entire books about. L'Orfeo, Missa Papae Marcelli, Missa Pange lingua, Messe de Nostre Dame and Nuper rosarum flores are all hugely important pieces all missing from the list, and by themselves would summarize everything before Bach. For Violinists, Heifetz and Kreisler should undoubtedly be added and I would even argue that Yehundi could as well. For women, Jacqueline du Pré is a good choice and could help balance out the cellos if those violinists are added. Aza24 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I just think we should have a bit more of a representation of classical music and flesh it out a bit more in the medieval/renaissance, baroque and classical sections. Mainly for making sure music history across centuries is represented well. We cover only 5 medieval/renaissance composers, 4 baroque composers and 3 classical period composers but cover 2 electronic musicians, 6 musicians from country/folk, 4 lyricists/composers from musicals, 2 musicians from funk etc. My point of view for the music section of this list is of someone tasked to cover every kind of music from it's start, from Kassia to a modern rapper like Tupac Shakur. My outlook is that someone like Kassia may not have the reputation of a Ravel or Fauré, but for her era she is one of the most vital. I would support everyone of your suggestions in people, especially if a 20th century musician was removed for them.

I would support additions of all of your pieces, we don't list any renaissance/medieval pieces. Moonlight being removed probably wouldn't get support from other members though. I think L'Orfeo, Missa Papae Marcelli and Messe de Nostre Dame might have the best chance for a addition. I'll be happy to support any either way, we're going through a bit of a drought in terms of votes on the project, so don't be disheartened by that. All in all, i like your suggestions and think they would be a big improvement for this list, especially Johannes Ockeghem, Arcangelo Corelli, L'Orfeo, Missa Papae Marcelli and Messe de Nostre Dame. GuzzyG (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

GuzzyG, thank you for your work on Vital articles and swapping pro-wrestling to entertainers. Us at

What's going on with Prithviraj Chauhan? It seems like User:Cewbot just unpromptedly demoted this guy. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Guzzy G, I hope you are doing well since we last spoke. I've been doing more search on Byzantine music lately which has included creating a List of Byzantine composers. While I'm unsure if any of them had enough influence to be on VIT4 lists (My research is ongoing), I'm aware of quite a few that definitely deserve to be on LV 5. I see this list is "completed" so I am unsure how to proceed. Best - Aza24 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Hey Aza! I have been doing well, thanks for that! I hope you have been well too. The list is missing music from that era so just add them for now, the list is nowhere near complete, i spoke too soon. We're missing Troubadour's too. Although some are listed under writers. Either way, the list needs to be completely reorganised to de-focus on modern music/non-western music. I am working on/researching that now (it'll probably take a month or two, as i plan to work on the whole list), but just add the Byzantine composers, it's a ongoing process, noone will complain, just add them under non-Western art music as that's probably a better place. The list will be much better with some Byzantine composers and they'll fit in with the Japanese and Ottoman ones. Rock (and it's offshoots) and Hip-Hop will get cut down later, so there will be room. GuzzyG (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello G. I have a question regarding the

@MarnetteD: Hey there, i have no recollection of that or what or why i did it. I work on databases of names so i end up on various random articles and probably seen the move happen and moved it back because of sources at the time still using Neiers and the fact her primary notability was gained with the Neiers name. If you wanna move the article to Haines or start a move discussion i will support it, i have no problem whatever the fate of the article is. No worries :). GuzzyG (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. With your edit being over a year ago I thought it might not spring to mind. My dusty old memory banks are forgetting stuff all the time :-) I'm about to head off-wiki so I'll think about what the best way to proceed next is when I get back here. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to all of us it seems!! Feel free to let me know if im needed for anything. Thanks for the well wishes, appreciate it, enjoy your week too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your astute and wise comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Texas (2nd nomination). Your well thought out rationale is a reasoned dissection of double standards applied to certain types of topics on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexis Texas; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I've removed it for further discussion on why it's necessary, i have a legitimate good faith question, which you avoid. I'll be happy to goto a content resolution if you want. I just think it's bad faith to consistently place that tag on a editor genuinely trying to improve a article. I don't want a editor discouraged from editing because of a unnecessary tag. The tag should go until further dicussion on why specifically it's written by a fan or COI editor. The burden is on the tag placer to prove that. GuzzyG (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have a legitimate good faith question,

refactor

(strikeout would be fine) all your inappropriate comments so the good faith is apparent.

I've answered with edits demonstrating ongoing problems and lengthy comments on the talk page. I don't see any need to repeat myself. All the inappropriate comments come across as disruption from actual content policy. I hope you'll refactor your comments accordingly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You're edit-warring further in a BLP. Please revert. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal:You're repeatedly placing a tag that implies negative behavior without seeking consensus - infact going against it. Get more consensus that the article is written from a biased POV. GuzzyG (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the tag isn't about behavior. You're assuming and accusing me of such is inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: It is, when one editor is working on the article - it implies they're bias. The consensus is against you so far, the fact that you repeatedly add a contentious tag in the middle of discussion is starting to appear to be bad faith and is not helpful. GuzzyG (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No it does not. It means that there are POV problems that need work. Your assumptions and accusations are inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: What POV problems exactly? GuzzyG (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I already answered the question on the article talk page. If you want further clarification, that's the place to do so.

I take it you're not going to revert then. Please consider refactoring your comments. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi GuzzyG. I'm sorry that our interactions have gone so poorly. I'd like to find ways to collaborate together. Your thoughts are appreciated.

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the Vital Articles Arts-page. It has been unfinished for a long time. I have one question though. You might not be aware that it was decided to keep power metal in the popular music genres by vote back in 2018 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Archive_4#Remove_Power_metal). Maybe it shouldn't be removed. It was a majorly popular genre of heavy metal in Europe, Asia and Latin America, so keeping it would keep the genre list more geographically diverse. You made such a good job trimming the list, that I'm not sure what to swap it with. Maybe Cuban rumba or tango music, because rhumba and tango are already listed as dances and so they currently have two articles in the Arts page. What do you think? --Makkool (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Makkool: Thank you, took forever haha. Yeah, i voted to keep it before - but there's no justification for so many metal genres (more than rap for instance) when it's more niche compared to other genres; it's better just to keep the mainstream ones, black metal covers Euro specific metal better, Visual kei/Glam metal represents Asia too and Thrash is big in Latin America, so we're covered just as much. Groove metal, Symphonic metal, Industrial metal, New wave of British heavy metal, Speed metal and Metalcore are on a similar level as power metal; so it does not stand out as much to deserve front loading metal with so many extra genres. I think it's perfect as is. Rumba would be the weakest out of it and Tango but i think yet another metal genre would be weaker. GuzzyG (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey GuzzyG,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- Vermont (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have recently created the article on

Precious

First years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

Writing to you since you are having membership of a related topic Wikiproject

Requesting you to visit Draft:Love in Pakistan please help expand the same if feel you would be interested in the topic to write more about.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, so I would appreciate it if you removed your slanderous comments directed towards me (as well as Jim Michael), specifically the accusation you made towards me of “bias towards myself” when I have explicitly demonstrated otherwise from the beginning. We can have disagreements on Wikipedia without resorting to personal digs such as that and dismissing our legitimate concerns about political figure inclusions with the accusation that our motive is anything pop culture related.

You're on a encyclopedia seriously arguing that a American vice president is not notable, especially compared to every other bad figure on that list. I do these kinds of historical lists as a full time thing.. it's too ludicrous. If it's slander to say any normal encyclopedia would cover a American vice president and that comparing your own country seems to be done in self interest, then i'll own it lol.. But i can tell you.... as a Australian who wishes otherwise, unless you're Ned Kelly or Don Bradman, maybe Errol Flynn you're just not historical in any international sense, go check the numbers for Cold Chisel. they suck, zero international importance. Banjo Paterson does not even get attention. There's no logical comparison with Doug Anthony or a American leader. Either way, start a RFC, there's no way it's consensus to leave out Mondale.GuzzyG (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m saying it’s slander to accuse me of “bias towards myself” and to accuse myself and

talk

) 13:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, civility is compulsory on WP. We need more editors on year articles but hostility discourages contributors. Statistics can't accurately measure international notability. Accusations of racism aren't backed by any evidence. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@

Thescrubbythug: I'm surprised a socialist fundamentally misses the point of structural racism, but sure, take me to ANI for it lol, i 100% stand by the fact that this rule enforces structural racism and favours European soccer players and British sitcom stars due to the ease of the Schengen area to make things bigger in Europe. You may think this rule stops "American exceptionalism" but we already see affect taking place with figures like Tochinoumi Teruyoshi and Johnny Pacheco

being left off, let's mention some other names that would miss out due to such a rule;

African artists like Ladi Kwali, Bruce Onobrakpeya, Diamond Platnumz, Hukwe Zawose and Esther Mahlangu

Asian artists like Tô Ngọc Vân, Phyu Phyu Kyaw Thein, Muboraksho Mirzoshoyev, Sarantuya

Pacific islander artists like Laisa Vulakoro

Indigenous figures like Angel De Cora, Dat So La Lee, Emily Kame Kngwarreye and Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri

Now some may be listed, you may list some to prove a point - but by this rule they should be left off, there's no ifs or buts. Someone like Vulakoro doesn't have a Schengen area to easily spread her work. It's so obvious, it shoulnd't need explaining. I'm speaking about two issues at once here. The issue of American vice presidents not being notable is completely laughable and not worth my time, but i will fight this rule and if i have to use American figures to break it down to support other countries i will. A Vulakoro figure has no sway with authority unfortunately, so i have to use the American footballers because they have backing. Either way this is undeniable, this are some of the top artists of their thing, to leave them off because they're local is an insult to them and is to enforce them to be famous in other countries (like the west), qualifying their worth by western acknowledgment. You may get rid of some Americans, but you get rid off nearly anyone else. Unfortunately in life, the United Nations Security Council is like the world's police, any top level country from these 5 (and India/Brazil/Nigeria/Egypt/Japan to cover every main region) should have all forms of their top figures listed - absolutely. That's life, anyone professional writing a encyclopedia would see that.

Please do take me to ANI, i will sacrifice myself happily to bring more eyes on this and continue to fight this dumb standard. (and enjoy a Australian socialist taking me to the tone police for trying to banter a bit lol and enforcing civility standards hahah). I 100% stand by the fact that listing Tanya Roberts, but not Michelle Obama is racist, i 100% agree that not listing Tochinoumi Teruyoshi and Johnny Pacheco but listing Paul Ritter is racist and enforces Euro exceptionalism, if you choose to see that as a implication on yourself. (because you guys set this in motion) that's on you. But i call it how i see it and this standard does more harm than good. It's just so funny that the German wiki is known for super strict standards and they list Mondale to.... (and not Peacock). Look i do biographical dictionaries for days, i can go deeper if you want, you may moan about civility but i'll moan louder that this negatively affects smaller countries.

Yes, i actively think that books being written about figures in other languages can actively track international notability (just like tracking library holdings worldwide is a good start or google scholars for academics. did i mention newspapers mentions - these are just basic too). Such a ridiculous notion that there is no way to track international notability lol, especially coming from someone who said Willy van der Kuijlen is internationally notable because as a Dutch player he scored 7 goals in Belgium, Scotland, Denmark and Finland (with Belgium/Scotland being friendlies) - surely "statistics" must be a better method than 7 goals lol. I can confidently say Walter Mondale is more notable as a US VP than a soccer player who scored 7 goals, can you? Give me access to a Dutch newspaper archive and we'll see. I even guarantee who Mondale is mentioned in Dutch literature more. (it's a shame google does not track it). (but see notice this soccer player being let in and defended while other countries athletes like Hu Ronghua would not make it. Ronghua doesn't have a chance to participate in countries that neighbour him, how in the world is this not exactly structural racism favouring Euro countries? Take me to ANI for asking that if you want.... GuzzyG (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The only part of this I will dignify with a response is that I leave my personal political views and inclinations (which, to be precise, is actually democratic socialism) completely out of my Wikipedia work, and that your personal jibes in relation to that is nothing short of deplorable.

talk

) 16:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Main year articles don't include people who lack significant international notability, regardless of how much domestic notability they have. You mention various people, implying that structural racism & difficulties travelling internationally are the reasons that they aren't well-known outside their countries. However, the main reason is that their work doesn't appeal to the vast majority of the world. Even if the reasons you suggest for them lacking international fame/recognition were true, it still wouldn't justify their inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

Actually there are two typographical errors: "a" before "independent" should be replaced by "an" and "underrepresentated" should be replaced by "underrepresented".--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hey GuzzyG. I know you work substantively on Vital Article listing. I noticed that Level 5 Animals is around half-filled and has over 1,000 vacancies. What is the correct procedure to fill them? I have been proposing them on the

Oops. I should have checked earlier. You’re not very active at the moment. Hmm. Perhaps I can ping some more active people. @Thi, RekishiEJ, and Dimadick: any comments on the above? starship.paint (exalt) 14:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If the number of articles in a particular subpage of the Lv5 VA list is still below the quota (especially substantially lower than it), then Wikipedians can add articles related to the subpage's corresponding topics to the subpage without any prior discussion.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was myself unsure if it was within the limits of WP:BOLD and if I had correctly understood the rules to answer, even if one of the project's members had previously seen and corrected some of the edits I made. Larrayal (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi GuzzyG,
I appreciate your insights on improving the people sections of the vital articles on level 3 and 4. I would be interested if you did your own list of the vital people like Zelkia did. Here is his/her list: User:Zelkia1101/Vital people. I'd be interested in your thoughts about Zelkia's list and would you change anything about it. I think if you created your list, we could compare it to Zelkia's which would help improve both levels of people in the vital articles. Interstellarity (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Interstellarity: - sorry for the late response,

Thanks for the message, i would be very interested in this actually. I have some disagreements with that list (say; why two baseball players and no cricket players - despite the massive difference in audience and Don Bradman being just as important worldwide; among many others) and would be happy to work on my own. I would be happy to do a 50 person, 500 person and 5,000 person list to match Zelkia's; along with a 100 person version of the current lvl 3 and my version of the level 4 2,000 list. Give me a month or so and i will work on this; when i am finished i will fully lay out my differences with existing lists. Again, thanks for the encouragement and i will let you know when i am finished. Maybe you should do one too? I think it could only make the lists better if we consider everyones ideal list and where we agree or disagree. GuzzyG (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You and I are both aware that we’ve had our differences, and that we obviously have different viewpoints regarding who should or should not be included on the year pages. But when it gets to the point where yourself (or I) end up fixated on each other, and make personalised comments on each other, that’s where things become toxic. I was uncomfortable with the fact that you looked through my user page and used the fact that I had

As a encyclopedia; it's fundamental to seek answers from experts or people with more knowledge; i included you in the discussion about Nesmith; cause as others have pointed out; listing him stands out from normal procedure. To ask your input to dissect his global notability; is only natural; cause you probably know more about him and you are the leader in pushing for these standards on the year pages. This is a sign of respect; for your knowledge on this subject and input. To ask for sources to back up your claims and then to review these sources is proper procedure in these types of things, i do not see the harm. Throughout this you have repeatedly made negative accusations towards me, which i have ignored in good faith - you've consistently implied i shouldn't post in a matter similar to

WP:OWN. Which again, i have ignored out of good faith. I will continue to post; to what ever is said on that page as i believe i can contribute extra to it; as i like analysing sources and my full time thing is building an encyclopedia. (working on my own private project relating to people's historic value with close to a hundred thousand figures, aiming for millions with people as small as beauty pageant contestants or members of my local council!). If you feel i am in the wrong; you're free to get other opinions; but i believe i have repeatedly acted in good faith despite your implications to leave and general toxicity and that my posts are overall a net benefit to that page. GuzzyG (talk

) 09:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am no more the “leader” of pushing any standards than is Jim Michael, Alsoriano, or anybody else. The regular users on the Talk page have a simple way of going about things on the Talk page. When we question the inclusion of a particular figure or figures (be it neutral or with a specific position), we start a thread asking people about the subjects and make our arguments specific to and relevant to the subject. Jim Michael’s last thread, to do with figures namechecked in the Dole thread, is one such example. If we wanted to include a figure and make an argument in favour, we start a thread to do with them. For example I did this in the event of

WP:HOUNDING towards me, firstly after you commented on the Salinas thread (while not saying a word on the previous thread started by Jim Michael in large part due to the calling out of several figures on the Dole thread by yourself) and again (and much more strongly) in your response to my response to GoodDay’s false comparison? TheScrubby (talk

) 10:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You are the main participant on that page by participation, to me this is a "leader". Poor vocabulary maybe, but it fits to me. I would be happy to chat with other regulars, i missed Jim's post. I asked Alsoriano a question on global sources for Brines and they ignored it. I asked again and they said they didn't wanna participate. It's a hard bargain to try and communicate when the other parties ignore questions. You continuously implicate people in bad faith, "hounding" for asking questions to your massive claims like "But although you downplay the importance and significance of The Monkees, these are not views widely shared by music critics and historians, especially today" (always a statement with a remark in bad faith); then instead of answering these questions to your claims; you claim "derailment"; despite you ignoring my questions consistently. How can one participate in such a discussion? Most people compare people (Jim with Sarah Harding, GoodDay with Dole); you've only claimed false comparison with me and GoodDay. (again with the constant negative implications). It's natural to compare figures to discuss importance, to discuss rules, to discuss inconsistency with how these rules play out. (first the hall of fame rules, need individual global importance ala Sarah Harding, but not for Nesmith etc). How are comparisons not valid in this case? If they weren't all of me, Jim and GoodDay would not be comparing figures. Like i said, if you think my behaviour of asking questions after you refer to me derailing the thread constantly for making comparisons like everyone else and asking you to cite sources for big claims, while continuously invoking bad faith implications instead of answering the questions - report me to something and let's get other points of view. I've continuously ignored these implications in good faith and think it's odd that after you continuously say my views are not welcome after i have always made a effort to ask your opinion on something you're more knowledgeable on (Monkees fandom) - frankly odd if you find asking for a more knowledgeable opinion bad behaviour - this is how encyclopedias operate - checking sources and asking for expert opinion. Maybe it's time for others to have a say on these claims of hounding etc. GuzzyG (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, I don’t and never have seen myself as any leader or head figure in terms of pushing standards, and that over the months I’ve not always agreed with the other regulars - which is perfectly fine, and I’ve always respected consensus there even if I don’t necessarily agree (such as with Norm Macdonald, who I still feel is at best borderline). I don’t claim derailment on the Nesmith thread, actually - my main objection with it was how it started from the derailment of the Salinas thread, rather than being started as a separate thread from the beginning. Although I didn’t agree that Jim’s equivalence between Nesmith and Harding was entirely accurate, it wasn’t a false comparison or anything because at the end both were members of boy/girl groups and therefore were from roughly the same field. Likewise, with Dole I wouldn’t object if he was compared to another political figure (be it from the US or internationally), but how can one possibly compare a political figure to an entertainment one (with the exception of figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan and Peter Garrett, all of whom were entertainment figures turned politicians). If comparisons are to be made, they should be with other figures from the same field - and even then it should be somewhat limited lest the discussion be dominated with whataboutisms. I will admit as well that I wasn’t in the best mood in general last night, and the whole thing w. GoodDay really took me by unpleasant surprise and made me feel as if I was being targeted specifically. But I do hope you at least take on board the suggestions that if you feel certain figures ought to be included or excluded, and if you feel for example that G20 Opposition leaders merit inclusion, you should start threads on them rather than bringing it up mid-discussion to make some sort of point. TheScrubby (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

GuzzyG,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Interstellarity:; thanks for the well wishes; happy holidays to you aswell and hope you enjoy this holiday season. I hope 2022 will be good too; looking forward to some good discussion over the lists; thanks again - GuzzyG (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)