User talk:Galatz/Archive 2018

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018 (Jan-Jun)
2018 (Jul-Dec)
2019
Barnstars

Happy New Year, Galatz!

Happy New Year!

Galatz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hope you had a wonderful new year. :)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Pichpich. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, United States Senate election in Idaho, 2020, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

PichpichAny particular reason why? - Galatz ^Talk 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

That was just a misclick and i didn't realize that you'd be getting this automated message. Sorry, Pichpich (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

DENR

Regarding this edit, please look at the preceding edits to that page. An editor wants to create a page for Density regulated protein, also known as DENR, but thought the existing redirect needed to be deleted first. I simply created a disambiguation page because that editor clearly didn't know how to do it, and I presume that Density regulated protein will be created shortly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@86.17.222.157: We dont create disambiguation pages based on thinking something might be created. After it is created then yes, but until then the redirect should stand. - Galatz ^Talk 16:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you value blindingly following rules over helping editors who know about their subject, but not much about Wikipedia, then you are correct. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2018)

I would just like to point about that a different editor just made the exact same edit I was trying to make on the article and Officially Goodenough immediately reverted back, calling it vandalism.

This tells me that this editor - no matter who tries to make that particular change - is always going to immediately revert it and call it vandalism. Looks like a case of WP:Own in my view.

I mean we can't ALL be vandals - can we?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: This is why I have opened an edit warring case in this matter here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:OfficiallyGoodenough reported by User:Galatz (Result: ) - Galatz ^Talk 19:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I apologize before for my part. I lost my cool (a little) when he referred to me as a vandal. That kind of stuff is a heavy charge, and I didn't appreciate it. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: No problem, and I even mentioned in my report that I appreciated the approach you took, with opening the lines of communication. - Galatz ^Talk 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"Add it as a reference if you have it from a WP:RS)"

YOu told me that after I tried to add in KFC as a sponsor to the 2018 Royal Rumble PPV. No idea what that means, could you or someone else do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.114.137 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@198.109.114.137: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources - Galatz ^Talk 21:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Taub

You added a blp tag to Joe Taub. Since he is dead, I don’t think BLP applies. Even if it did, specifically which points in the article require additional sourcing in your opinion? Will be happy to research and add. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 03:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@TastyPoutine: Good catch thanks, I must have grabbed the wrong tag. In reality its really the info around his death that doesn't have any references, so I removed the top tag and placed a CN in the appropriate section. - Galatz ^Talk 03:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mixed Tag Team

Hi. Why did you remove my editions? As far as I know, we include that line in every PPV, talking about the scripted nature of the tournament/PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: This is a TV show, the lead makes that clear. No TV has that line. - Galatz ^Talk 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the point is not TV or PPV or Internet. Is talking about a pro wrestling event. For example, the NXT Takeover events are Network/internet exclusive and include that line too. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: But those are more like PPV events than TV shows. WWE Raw doesn't have it, nor does WWE SmackDown. This page is more like Cruiserweight Classic or WWE United Kingdom Championship Tournament than any of the examples you have mentioned, which also do't include that language. - Galatz ^Talk 15:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a discussion about that line. "Is this useful?" As far as I remember, the project agreed to include that line. We can open a discussion in talk page to include/not include that line in tournaments like CWC, MYC, G1 Climax. I mean, a lot of people can find the article and think that the Mixed Tag Team is a legit tournament. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I don't see that happening. As many people pointed out during that discussion they can just click on professional wrestling in the lead and learn what it is. But looking at other examples no tournaments or TV shows have this, therefore there is no basis for including it. Therefore per WP:BRD you should have let the discussion happen before edit warring, which is what you chose to do instead. - Galatz ^Talk 15:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability tag on Express Wi-Fi

Hey, I wonder why the tag regarding notability has been placed on Express Wi-Fi. Firstly, as mentioned in the article, "express wi-fi is a connectivity service by Facebook", I doubt it falling under notability of company or organization. Moreover, references have been provided in the article which provide full coverage of the article title by dedicating their news title to the service. I thought it would be enough to write about the topic. I'd really appreciate if you could explain the tag. Thanks :) Simranpreet singh (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Simranpreet singh: Just because its run by a big company doesn't make it independently notable. To me such a small article is just a WP:CFORK that could be included in one section on the main facebook page. To me there is a big difference between this article and Facebook Messenger. I do not see anything that demonstrates Express Wi-Fi is notable for its own article. - Galatz ^Talk 14:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I won't really relate it to Messenger for notability, but rather to internet.org, which is a predecessor to Express Wi-Fi; but I agree that express wifi isn't that broad yet. I did consider the possibility of adding the content on facebook's article by making Express Wi-Fi a subsection but the page size of the article (~70kb) made me think of it again.

If page size is not that big an issue, I certainly think it'd better to merge it to facebook's article as content on nothing more than introduction of the service in countries is found. It can be made stand-alone later if more information becomes available. If you suggest I can try to develop a consensus regarding it on fb's talk. Thanks!Simranpreet singh (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Simranpreet singh: In my opinion that makes the most sense, thanks. - Galatz ^Talk 16:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact! (TV series)

The reason why I made this edit is that the anon (who is currently on his/her second block in the space of a week) had been making numerous edits introducing inaccurate information. I trust that you confirmed the accuracy of the information before reverting me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC) @Suriel1981:As far as I have seen that user makes the edits prior to the show airing, but not inaccurate with the match up of the date. If Jan 4 was correct than Jan 11, which had already aired by the time you reverted, by default would be correct. - Galatz ^Talk 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're just being a jerk to people that have did good things on the Impact page by making it better you're not the only one because that's bs Joshuapine1993 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleased

Hi. I'm pleased to see our annoying 'friend' from the Defiant Wrestling camp has, at last, been blocked. I really appreciated your professional approach to this subject, which is clearly dear to your editing heart. For my part, I'm glad I AfD-ed the articles, but regret having to become so being embroiled in a subject about which I, personally, have no knowledge or little interest. I'm sure our paths will cross again in the future. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks! What a mess that whole thing was. Hopefully no more socks pop up. - Galatz ^Talk 14:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WWE

Thank you for reverting my edit (you don't hear that very often!) to WWE. At the time I made the edit I was tidying up CWC, and Capitol Wrestling Corporation was then a redirect to WWE, so the wikilinks I removed were circular. I see now that the creation of that redirect has been reverted. I've made the appropriate change to CWC disambiguation page. Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: Thanks. That was a bizarre redirect to have been created and I dont know how I missed it for so long. I would get it if the page had just been created, but 3 years later with many edits since seemed a bit off to me. Glad you brought it to my attention. - Galatz ^Talk 14:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nexus 5

Please have a look at Talk:Nexus_5#Mods_and_OSes_removed

Regards --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

👀

Stay off my edits on the Impact page you're changing my edits that 😠 me off it's bs I don't change you're stuff and why change some one else stuff it's rude Joshuapine1993 (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Intentional or not

Perhaps it is not intentional. But please -- if you are going to quote MOS, don't undo what MOS clearly states is ok. That's either careless or intentionally disruptive. I hope the former, which is excusable, if regrettable.--2604:2000:E016:A700:94EF:F45A:4455:DBFB (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It says may, not should be. Meaning its acceptable, but the full year is preferred. Look at Joe Montana or Brett Favre as example. They all use the full date range, even for consecutive years. Don Zimmer, Pedro Martínez, and Al Leiter, once again, all full date range. - Galatz ^Talk 13:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Where it is acceptable - leave it as it is. Don't change an existing acceptable format. Ever.

There are multiple date formats that are acceptable, such as numbers or spelled-out-months for example, but the settled rule at the Probject is that - unless you are looking to engage in troll-like obsessive behavior to irritate people, and be blocked -- you don't edit war to move from one acceptable format to another acceptable format. You, however, keep on obsessively doing that, across a swath of articles. That's why people are finding your editing annoying in this regard.

Please cut it out. It is not appropriate, it is not collegial, it is not collaborative, and it is not helpful. 2604:2000:E016:A700:3470:3BC9:318:68AB (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would love to know who these people are you are referring to and what examples you are referring to. Additionally it is appropriate to change it to the preferred method. - Galatz ^Talk 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ocean's Thirteen

Hi,

How is all the material I'm trying to compile for a 'Trivia' part irrelevant? I take it that, initially, I was starting a sort of Edit warring with an active member that self-describes as "removing all edits from unregistered users, out of principle" (which seems a tad exaggerated to me).

I am taking a lot of time to add info on a movie, precisely about a few scenes, and the fictitious setting of its story within the actual city. As I know 'a little bit' Las Vegas myself and found lots of people wondering whether the Bank casino depicted in the movie actually existed, it seemed very relevant that an exhaustive and precise encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, would include such information.

Maybe the title 'trivia' is unsuiting and that is the problem? But then, just re-titling the subpart would be enough instead of deleting all the changes I tediously make, trying to validate the infos and facts with links...

Thanks in advance for all infos and discussions trying to make that page the best possible. Letsseewhatwillwork (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Letsseewhatwillwork: I suggest you read the guidelines for this information, which you can find at WP:TRIVIA, which another user has pointed you to already. Additionally you should read WP:RS which will help you understand how to source information on Wikipedia. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing, just keep in mind the guidelines. Happy to help if you have specific questions. - Galatz ^Talk 17:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am following the guidelines.

Well, indeed, naming one part "references in the dialogues" and another "locations" could probably solve the "trivia" question.

However, as for adding and referencing the sources, the slightly frustrating part is that during the time that I am working just on that, the post itself gets deleted before I can fully implement all that is required.

How can I then just post the "trivia part suggestion", with full code and links so far, and start a discussion, so that maybe someone else, out of consensus, decides to add those infos (and create one or more categories for that)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: by the way, does translating content that is already included and got consensus in another language on Wikipedia count as reliable source or a wiki-translating endeavor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Letsseewhatwillwork:No wikipedia cannot be used as a source, however the content might have a source there which you can then use as your source. As for playing with your edit, you can check out WP:SAND where you can fool around with your edits until you've got it right. It is a great place for new users to play with the different things they can do. - Galatz ^Talk 17:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, it might be useful to make the edit fully sourced before it gets removed. And typically, getting the sources as identical to other sources of related Wikipedia articles needs that time.

I finally figured out how to start a talk from a mobile device (the talk button not being at the top left-hand corner menu where I was looking for it thanks to the info I was given... for computer users^^"), and although I currently cannot find it back, I hope it will stem into a good enough addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Socks

Did you notice that TheCorageone1 got busted for sockpuppetry?

@LM2000: Yeah, what fun now that he is back - Galatz ^Talk 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling and operations systems

Galatz, looking at your contributions you seem to be focused on wrestling. Would you kindly notify the WP community about your motives to remove information about a secure operation system for a mobile device? The connection between the two fields is not really obvious. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bernd.Brincken:I edit lots of different type of articles, so you once again make absolutely no sense. I have thousands of edits regarding Israel, thoughts regarding baseball, thousands regarding TV shows and thousands regarding mobile devices. I have made the explanation extremely clear to you. If you disagree with me then utilize the dispute resolution. - Galatz ^Talk 14:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the Nexus article, it's real curiosity what connects a wrestling fan with mobile phone systems software. Or the latter with Israel, baseball, TV shows. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bernd.Brincken: I find multiple things interesting. I am sure you do the same. So I edit the topics I find interest in. - Galatz ^Talk 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, let's book this in the humour account. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Israel World Cup record

Template:Israel World Cup record has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Giant Snowman 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Storylines

Other wresting pages contain the header "Background" not "storylines"(unless contains different sub headings such as "production" I.e. articles like WrestleMania 34. So why on Earth are the Elimination Chamber (2018) and Fastlane (2018) articles an exception? Do your homework before you revert the edits! Zerobrains94 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerobrains94: We have a guideline that makes it very clear. Just because others are wrong, doesn't mean these shouldn't be correct. Read WP:PW/PPVG, its very clear. - Galatz ^Talk 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to storylines

Okay, I get the point, however, there are previous wrestling pages that have the background heading. Why aren't you correcting those? Zerobrains94 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerobrains94: In the process of it - Galatz ^Talk 17:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine

Keep the page incorrect if you want. Sorry for trying to make Wikipedia correct. Keep ganging up on people and ignoring every point they have. This is why people think Wikipedia isnt a reliable source. You put what you want and not what is correct. Goku4Star (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Goku4Star: Everything on wikipedia needs to be supported by what a WP:RS says. Not what a user states is correct, no matter what a source states. - Galatz ^Talk 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you expect me to source a TV show? You just revert without bothering to answer my question. WWE uploads only small snippets to YouTube. It's very obviously a typo. Not to mention you guys are using a different time for Seth Rollins than what WWE.com lists. Why is that okay? Michael Cole said something like "Sheamus hasn't been having a very good week, he only lasted 2 seconds in the Royal Rumble." Do you even watch the product? Goku4Star (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Galatz, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ethan Carter 3 Wikiapage

Ethan Carter III Wikapage issue it says "After a public vote, fans wanted to see EC3 face Cezar Bononi as his first NXT opponent.[103]" This information note be worthy to be posted there, but people keep saying its not...some veteran editors say it is undo. Can you review change thanks. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 5:00PM, 7 February 2018 (PT)

Renee Young

While she did claim to change her name, a name change would be officially recorded but there's no evidence of that. VenomHeart (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@VenomHeart: Did you listen to the source given? She is very clear. - Galatz ^Talk 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did listen but I need more proof than simple her word. VenomHeart (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@VenomHeart: It might not be enough for you, but per WP:PRIMARY its fine. - Galatz ^Talk 19:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to this. VenomHeart (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, I'm Anchorvale. An edit that you recently made to Rey Mysterio seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Anchorvale ^T@lk 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anchorvale: Next time check before you blindly revert. And even if the page didn't exist, and it was a redirect WP:DONOTFIXIT would have applied, and it should have always been piped through a redirect. It would have been a clear redirect with possibilities - Galatz ^Talk 14:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Source Wrestlemania 34

Did you see the source I gave you in wrestlemania 34 This Guy 99 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Advice Thefanofwwe (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	congrats Thefanofwwe (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania Speculation

Including Brock Lesnar is a form of speculation. It may be that he is champion at this precise moment in time and that story lines may be indicating he is going to be champion. It is though not confirmed. The final PPV's have to take place. Lesnar may also have a match at Elimination Chamber, which is yet to be announced. Please do not keep re-adding Lesnar to the match card or the type of match which the Universal title will be defended in until after the PPV's before Wrestlemania have concluded and the match actually confirmed. Sport and politics (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: Your argument is just terrible. If you add it back again I will report you for edit warring. - Galatz ^Talk 12:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll happily see you there as well. You have been engaging in the "warring" too as you have labelled it. Sport and politics (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Royal Rumble

Do not insert incorrect information back into the article or make wholesale reverts when you disagree with one. First, one edit was correcting Seth Rollins time which was wrong even according to WWE's website, to which you reverted to non-sourced information. Second, the onus is on you to prove that WWE's website was not a typo as it appears to be. Basically every other reference on the internet refers to Sheamus' time as two seconds, or that he almost matched Santino Marella's time of 1 second years ago. If it is 20 seconds, you'll have no problem verifying that with another reference saying it was twenty, then we can change it to twenty and say it's disputed. A reliable source can make mistakes and we don't have to treat every character as gospel if we know it's inaccurate. You won't find anything that backs up twenty seconds because the logic doesn't hold when you compare it to the rest of the match. The only argument you could possibly have is that they counted how much time he spent outside the ring, and according to WWE, Heath Slater entered fifth, lasted until eleventh and only spent thirty-three seconds in the match. This is because they didn't count how much time he spent flopping around the outside of the ring. The only thing that matters is once they enter the ring, and you know as well as anyone it was two seconds, so stop inserting garbage and presenting it as fact. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: Incorrect, there is an on going discussion which you chose to ignore, knowing it was there, and unilaterally decided what should be there. - Galatz ^Talk 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that your only argument is WP:RS and anyone else being WP:OR, which is some kind of bullshit cop-out to post garbage onto Wikipedia. Your arguments are "maybe they have special criteria" which is no and "have you checked that outside time doesn't count" which as I explained above, is also no. Do you have anything else saying twenty seconds other than WWE's website? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: This is not the place for this discussion. Gain consensus in the talk page, per WP:BRD which your edits are in violation of. - Galatz ^Talk 17:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've given up trying to quote policy and moved to, "you're in violation of an essay", got it. This is the exact place for the discussion since you seem to be the main crusader for this nonsense. Like I said, do you have another reference, or are you going to dodge the question again? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I will gladly engage in this conversation in the correct place. - Galatz ^Talk 17:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have commented there to no reply, twice, I expect to see you there then, with a reference saying twenty seconds. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

As I said here, apologies for my earlier comments at ANI [1]. I did not read your initial comment properly and thought the extent of the incivility was a single instance of calling someone a wanker, which while not ideal my experience at ANI suggests to me is not the sort of thing ever likely to lead to action. However with the "typical of tiny endowed males" part, I do agree that the behaviour was worthy of bringing to ANI, whether or not any action results. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: No problem. I probably would not have brought it for just that, but the totality of everything definitely made me think this user is not interested in working with other and or even considering being polite. - Galatz ^Talk 00:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the edits that weren't an addition of an empty section. I thought that all of that IP's changes were doing this - apparently not all of them ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I am guessing this is the same IP user that I have seen do similar stuff in the past. They come in and make great edits and then seem to get lazy and just add empty sections instead. - Galatz ^Talk 03:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galatz! Correct, this does seem like the user you're describing. It's interesting that you're reverting so many pages back - I remember spot-checking this user's edits quite well and found all of the changes I saw to simply be the addition of empty sections. Apparently I didn't spot-check well enough, as you've found over 10 changes I reverted that I shouldn't have. Again, thanks for undoing those - I really do appreciate that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: As soon as this IP was blocked, the exact same edits began being made by a user [2]. Both users also have a tendency to edit season articles for sports. Do you think there is enough to open a WP:SOCK investigation into block evasion? - Galatz ^Talk 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The user you're referring to has been around for some time (account creation was in January 2016), and the edits made to that article in comparison (1, 2) don't seem to be the same thing or made in the same section or area. Sure, it can be seen as suspicious that two edits were made within a somewhat close proximity of one another timeline-wise, but looking into this matter in a "big picture" perspective doesn't give me anything that I see as solid evidence that the IP continued the disruption as this user. Plus, there wouldn't be much (if anything) that anyone could do in an SPI anyways, since that noticeboard is for proving that two different accounts are being operated by the same person. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Cheers, and happy editing - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: There are definitely some strange similarities in the users edits. Take a look at this. Last month the IP address was adding empty championship tables, with only empty brackets for the incoming champion and nothing else, see here [3]. On the exact same page, the registered user just made the exact same type of unhelpful edits [4]. Seems a little bit more than just a coincidence to me. - Galatz ^Talk 03:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WrestleCircus

Why u reputed tag i puted the article with reliable sources like u guys said the content is three has nothing to do with the previous one TheAnthem67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheAnthem67: I have zero idea what you just wrote. - Galatz ^Talk 16:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Im sorry for saying do what u have to with WrestleCircus im sorry for what i said and sorry for the problems i just want to start new a journey in wikipedia u now TheAnthem67 (talk)

@TheAnthem67: I know nothing about the federation and have not read through the entire article. I came to it because you added it as a notable independent yet I see no justification for that, plus it was a direct violation of WP:BRD. After you did that I notice you removed the PROD from an article you created which I reverted because you cannot. Follow the instruction and contest it properly. Just click the huge blue button in the box, you cannot miss it. If it survives the PROD then create your case and bring it to the talk page for why you think it should be listed with the notable ones. - Galatz ^Talk 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Re Wrestle Circus

Good idea. Consider it done, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A problem

What is ur problem with me and my articles and please don't be false, though cause I'm talking about this "Thanks for deleting WrestleCircus. This same user just did the same thing with creating a draft of Defiant Wrestling which has been deleted more than once. Perhaps should this be SALTed like the other one? - GalatzTalk 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)"

What are u gonna do are u gonna delete and salt each and every article that I create?TheAnthem67 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't delete any article of yours, nor did I nominate any (unless of course you are admitting to being a SOCK and creating Defiant). I have noticed a trend with you and all your other SOCK accounts however. There are procedures for a reason and you seem to think you are above them. All I keep doing is pointing out the policies and guidelines to you, which you don't seem to like. - Galatz ^Talk 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A sock, what? Dude, what are u talking about? and no, like I told I wanna start a new journey but do u know what? Point me all the policies and guides to understand what this, wikipedia is all about.TheAnthem67 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange how you claim to be new, after Defiant article was deleted yet you created an identical article. Amazing how you were able to do that. You also say new journey, what was the old one?

You can read all about being a sock here WP:SOCK. You can read about the article for deletion process at WP:AFD. You can read about restoring your edits after the have been undone at WP:BRD. You can see about creating an article that was deleted already here, and other great info on creating articles at WP:YFA. - Galatz ^Talk 17:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You continue to change acceptable formats

This is per MOS an acceptable format.

See MOS:DATERANGE: "Two-digit ending years (1881–82 ... may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years")..."

And since it is the first used format do not change it. Please stop changing already chosen acceptable formats.

That sort of edit warring is not acceptable. If you continue, I will seek sanctions. --2604:2000:E016:A700:88BC:545A:BD53:F393 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please go ahead. You are changing it from the preferred to an acceptable alternative. Per WP:BRD you changed and were reverted and must gain consensus before restoring. - Galatz ^Talk 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time this discussion has been engaged.

Correct and I explained how it works to you there. I also provided you with tons of examples of why you are incorrect. If you don't agree go to dispute resolution. - Galatz ^Talk 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are going around wikipedia acting as though it says just the opposite. As though it says it "may not" be used.

This is a waste of everyones time. And destroys others' enjoyment in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:88BC:545A:BD53:F393 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC) :You are wasting time. Its very clear what the preferred and alternate are. The shorter is not the preferred method, yet you keep changing it to that. - Galatz ^Talk 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Link spam

You reverted my text on elimination chamber, I've just added some information that I know about WWE. You sed a reason that I added more than 2 links ok. IM Adding same text again with the only 1 link to my site. is it ok or not, plz replay me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi seeram (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ravi seeram: It was reverted because you are spamming links. One or seven, its still spam. Your edit history shows every edit you have ever made is to add links to the same website. - Galatz ^Talk 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Award Received from Fountaineditor

		The Israel Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Israel articles

Fountaineditor ►

Weird userspace page

Hi Galatz. I noticed that, shortly before TheAnthem67 got himself blocked as a sockpuppet, he created User:Galatz/Field of Honor (2014). I have no idea why he made this in your userspace but I thought I should drop you a note in case you were not aware of it existing did not want it in you userspace. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: thanks, he actually created it but it was speedy deleted after his ban since only he edited it. I request the admin move it to my user space since I was planning on creating the page anyway, so I wanted to use it as the basis for creating the actual article. Thank you for the heads up. - Galatz ^Talk 00:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss - removing spam link

The reference was a court document. The link provided a way to see the document. As far as I know, it is the only direct link to this document available. Pacer.com, which provides court documents, does not give direct links. Why delete the link? Lexjuris (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You didnt provide it as a reference - Galatz ^Talk 21:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The reference in footnote 3 is "Notice to the court, filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, to the Middle District Court of Florida. United States v. Weiss, Case No. 6:98-cr-99-PCF-KRS. Doc. 2446" The link goes to the document being referenced. You can see by the title, case number, document number and content. It is the reference. What am I missing? Should I have put at the end of the reference: "See the Notice to the Court here"? Lexjuris (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I Do have it

Yes I Do have a source for John Cena vs The Undertaker. Thefanofmariobros. (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions} 06:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Genesis (2018) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Genesis (2018). Since you had some involvement with the Genesis (2018) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of list of anchors

I see that you've edited articles for malls in New Jersey and wondered if you would be interested in weighing in at Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza regarding the subject of inclusion of a list of anchors. Your input would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Triplemania

Well the main page actually should be too according to the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms. Right now I am fixing XXVI with a revert, the main Triplemania page can be fixed subsequently. MPJ-DK 22:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Where does it say made up words for a foreign event should be in italics? And even if it did, proper names should not be in Italics, as the link you gave clearly states. - Galatz ^Talk 13:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You know I am really not in the mood to argure this or get into an edit war over italics, so whichever you feel like. MPJ-DK 15:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not have time to look for this previously, but after reflecting on it I believe that wrestling PPVs/Major shows should follow the italics approach as outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works - which includes television shows, series etc. Reading that WrestleMania VII should actually be WrestleMania VII if we follow this MOS. MPJ-DK 03:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: Our consensus has always been that PPV events fall more in line with recurring sporting events such as World Series which is not in italics, rather than a TV show which is. This is why our style guide at WP:PW/SG specifically says to not put PPV event names in italics. This was added to the guide 10 years ago to avoid this confusion [5]. This is also clear because MOS:TVNOW does not apply, as these are all written in past tense, if it were a TV show every article should be written in present tense. - Galatz ^Talk 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay this is where the conversation veers off into the abyss of no return. The tense it is written in? This is clearly pointless now. MPJ-DK 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: How do you figure its veering off? Either its more like a TV show or its more like a sporting event. My point is that everything about them is like a sporting event, italics, tense, etc. The two go together. You can't argue its a TV show for the purpose of italics in the title, but an event for the tense. It needs to be treated consistently, and clearly the style guide has been built based on the feeling its more like a sporting event than a TV show. If you disagree then open the discussion at the wikiproject and try to gain a consensus, but right now the current guide clearly says its not in italics. - Galatz ^Talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Butler

He isn’t on the Patriots no more he is an free agent. As of today Dkane95 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dkane95: As of TOMORROW - Galatz ^Talk 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lozansky

I don't understand what's wrong with the Mike Lozansky article. What did I do wrong with it? Maybe if you could help me please I will really appreciate that. Thanks!

Hi Galatz, I wrote on Lozansky's talk page's and explained why I think it should not be removed and why he is notable. I also added more external links for more information on him. Check what I wrote on the talk page and see if this satisfies wiki standards.

.

WP:CUSTOMSIG When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind:

A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.
A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult.
Complicated signatures contain a lot of code ("markup") that is revealed in the edit window, and can take up unnecessary amounts of narrative space, which can make both reading and editing harder.

@Galatz: BusriderSF2015 (talk) 2:34PM, 16 March 2018 (PT)

@BusriderSF2015: As you have been told before, per WP:SIGLINK Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. - Galatz ^Talk 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: Beta feature enabled years back caused signature to not work properly. What done is done. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

Mark Henry has been announced as the next inductee. 72.184.23.194 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Years in professional wrestling

Hello Galatz, remember me from a while ago, well i was looking at 2018 in professional wrestling and i noticed that the 'calendar of notable events' section looks a bit messy with all the notes put into each event, maybe it could be replaced with an event section for every promotion separately, just like the one before. Please let me know what you think, thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: I do not see what is messy about it, nor do I see how having it organized by company rather than month would change what your concerns are. The point of a year summary is to get everything in one place that summarizes everything in that year. If you wanted to just know about WWE events you can just go to List of WWE Network events#2018, so why separate them out here?

Take a look at any sport year summary 2017 in basketball as an example. They list national championships in one section divided up by championship, current version has a championship section broken up similarly. They then list everything by country of events in the same table, we are now listed everything in the same table. 2017 in association football is set up similar to basketball. 2017 in baseball is actually set up even more similar to what we have right not. So what exactly is your reasoning that professional wrestling should be different than everything else? - Galatz ^Talk 13:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Prison Break

Prison Break has been renewed for another season, so living characters have no last appearance yet, so please stop reverting my edits.^[1] The Optimistic One (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.narcity.com/entertainment/season-6-of-prison-break-is-officially-confirmed-and-its-easily-going-to-be-the-best-season-yet

Kayfabe memories

Please provide evidence that Kayfabe memories is not a reliable source. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to add that James Ellsworth helped Carmella win the Womens's MITB Ladder match in the History of WWE article

This article is aimed to summarize historical facts like introduction of the WWE Network or the first women's MITB ladder match, not give elaborated details of individual achievements. You gave details of James Ellsworth helping Carmella win the match which is unnecessary, and such information should go to their individual articles. This is not an article to give match details, otherwise there have been countless MITB ladder matches in which people interfered on behalf of wrestlers (like Paul Heyman interfered in the 2013 one of the MITB ladder match to cost CM Punk the match). We should only summarize significant matches not elaborate details. For instance there is no information that Andre The Giant vacated the WWF Championship due to a controversial ending in the Main Event 1988 when Hogan raised his arms while the referee made the counts. There isw no info even about the event though it was historic, it had 33 million viewers largest number for a wrestling match/show in history. It is mentioned "In August 2002, Shawn Michaels would also return as a wrestler at SummerSlam after a hiatus of over four years." Neither the result of the match or name of his opponent is given, only thing relevant was his return because he is a legend thats why it is mentioned. Match details are for the individual articles of HBK's wikipedia and the wikipedia on SummerSlam 2002. So why should we give the details of the con controversial ending here? Is not mentioning that this is a controversial ending enough? These details regarding James Ellsworth are not necessary, only thing note worthy in a history article is that it being the first women's MITB match and because of "controversial ending" a rematch was held. So I request that the info on James Ellsworth be removed, but I leave the decision to you, but there is nothing noteworthy specifically mentioning what the controversial ending to the match was. This is just a request, but I leave the choice to you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, if its a controversial ending, it should be explained as to why. People often take a hiatus for non-notable reasons. But a controversy is different. - Galatz ^Talk 18:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Galatz, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How to create a article

How do you create an article? I want to create one and I don’t know how can you help me out, if so leave a message on my talk page TheKinkdomMan (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WWE Mixed Match Challenge is completely messed with vandals.

@Galatz: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Mixed_Match_Challenge&action=history Rollback time 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For always tirelessly adding projects to categories. ★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WWE HoF

As I said on the project talkpage I think all the article should be expanded greatly with bakround, info on the event ceremony, potential controversies and general reception. Also, would you mid chiming in on the projects Sources talkpage? It's been quite dead recently it feels.★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: I agree. There is definitely a lot more room to add more. Just need the time to do it :-). - Galatz ^Talk 19:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm planing on helping you out if I can as well.★Trekker (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the bit about Snuka before I realized you put it there. Is there a reason you put it there? In the past I noticed you removed the disclaimers about his removal from the website after the discussion we had on the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@LM2000: I felt that when we have a page dedicated to each year we can discuss that sort of stuff to some degree as an aftermath. Before when we had one page for just the Hall of Fame it didn't belong. Part of what makes the individual years notable however is the coverage they get later, per WP:LASTING. The main page I agree it has no place, but for the individual years it tells more of a story. Similarly on the main page we never went into what happened with madusa and why she was gone for so many years, or Jarrett or Bruno, but in the individual year pages we have the place to discuss. Not in the section about the ceremony or the Hall of Fame itself, but as background or aftermath. Even though 1996 doesn't have its own article, I set it up like it in the new format, as text rather than in the table where it definitely didn't belong. - Galatz ^Talk 10:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you say something like the Owen Hart or Chris Benoit stuff would be worth talking about on the main article?★Trekker (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Millennium-class cruise ship (Carnival)

The article Millennium-class cruise ship (Carnival) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ship class doesn't exist. It's supposed to be the Excellence-class_cruise_ship

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling families

It is "sports entertainment", please see the sources on the article which confirm that. Giant Snowman 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Correct, which does not make it a sport. The consensus is that sport specific categories are not added to professional wrestling. - Galatz ^Talk 13:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the entries in that category from 'Sports families' on that basis. Giant Snowman 14:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you refuse discussion of Professional Wrestling talk page.

Listen, I really do want to discuss this with you and you have accused of not discussing on the talk page yet you have reversed my edits over and over again without discussion. Please meet me on the talk page I want to talk it out -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I did respond on the talk page, but its clearly performing art. Read the source I added. It shows its choreographed, it shows there is an audience. Can you honestly say the source does not say they are performing? Its clear as day! - Galatz ^Talk 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I want you to know I'm might not reply to you directly on the noticeboard. I'm hoping that other people will comment on our argument. Maybe others will support your argument. I want you to know this is not me ignoring you I just feel my view has been stated and am looking for input from other editors for right now. BTW חַג כָּשֵׁר וְשָׂמֵחַ. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and same to you. I assume based on your profile (which BTW seems very outdated since its said you are 22 for many years), the conversation will go on without us for the next couple days. - Galatz ^Talk 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you saw one of my comments on the noticeboard and replied to it. I want you to know I think you might have missed another comment.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Kitty

Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

I know it might not seem like it but I think you are a great editor and our argument is nothing personal. I look forward to learning from you as an editor.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wweuk

WWE United Kingdom Championship Tournament 2 has been announced. Can you please check the infos I added in List of WWE Network events since you are an experienced editor? TheBiz (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And yes the tournament isn't called King of the Ring according to WWE.com TheBiz (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with New York Life?

Hi there, Galatz! I've been looking around for active editors who have experience editing articles about insurance companies, and saw your name in the edit histories of a couple of pages. Would you potentially be interested to help with reviewing some proposed updates to New York Life Insurance Company? I've been seeking some updates on behalf of the company and would love to get feedback from an editor like yourself who has some knowledge about similar companies. My current request is to add a brief overview of the company's insurance operations; at present, there's essentially nothing about this in the article, aside from a mention in the infobox of the major types of insurance. If you're able to take a look, it would be much appreciated! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WWE Hall of fame 2013

Hi. During the last episode of XPac 12360, Sean Waltman said D-Generation X would be inducted if Bruno declined their invitation to the Hall fo Fame. Do you think we can include it in the article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree:That is obviously an unsubstantiated claim. I suppose there is some possibility that in the aftermath section it could be written in a way that say Sean Waltman claims it...but not sure I have ever seen similar claims in other articles before. - Galatz ^Talk 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, these articles are new. For example, in 2010 Honky Tonk man declined the invitation. https://411mania.com/wrestling/the-honky-tonk-man-declines-induction-into-the-wwe-hall-of-fame/ I don't know if we can include these kind of thing, the source are the wrestlers itselfs, not Meltzer rumors. Maybe some kind of "professional wrestler Sean Waltman claimed DX would be..." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Yeah. I meant in terms of, do we ever include "Roman Reigns said he was supposed to win the match but it was changed at the last minute..." Also these article right now are set up as events, so I am not sure what section that would go in, aftermath? - Galatz ^Talk 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, At SummerSlam 2010 "According to Jericho and Edge, the original plan was to put Barrett and The Nexus over and establish them as legitimate threats to WWE. However, Cena refused to lose to The Nexus as he thought it would make him look weak..." I don't know, maybe background? In a background section we can explain the career or the wrestlers or maybe, previous issues with WWE (ex, Sammartino declined the invitarion several times, Savage negatives to WWE unless he was inducteed with his brother and father as Poffo Family...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I dont think I have anything on Bruno, but I did include similar things in background about Jarrett for this years. I guess if you wanted to go into the details about why Bruno had been distant for so long and tag this at the end it makes sense. - Galatz ^Talk 01:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: take a look at how I added it and let me know what you think - Galatz ^Talk 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There is zero point in having these split articles for each year unless they have mores stuff. They might as well be merged back if we can't add more commentary.★Trekker (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I dont think either of us are disagreeing with you. I think we are both saying more needs to be added to them. - Galatz ^Talk 13:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Greatest Royal Rumble

According to your definition, what would be a reliable source worthy of covering the information? Because Saudi Arabia's poor women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights record is common knowledge at this point. Tom Danson (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tom Danson: You are drawing your own conclusions (or The Sun or Mirror), that women cannot compete due to that. You need a source that is reliable that confirms that is why. - Galatz ^Talk 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: Then why not just modify the wording of that one clause rather than delete the whole section as you did? It sounds to me like you are complicit in silencing any legitimate concerns...especially disheartening considering you're Israeli and the nation with these cruel laws wants yours wiped off the face of the earth. Tom Danson (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tom Danson: My issue is not with the content, my issue is you need a reliable source that states these things are fact. Because its reception/criticism there is a little bit more leniency in terms of their opinion on it, because they can say they dont like the fact that women aren't allowed at the event, or that gay people aren't allowed at the event, but you first need a WP:RS that says women/gays are not allowed there. Since I have not seen anything from a RS stating that, that is why I removed the entire thing. But if you can find a RS that says women are not allowed, then the mirror being critical of it is fine to include, but you first need something reliable saying that they aren't. - Galatz ^Talk 21:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ocean's 12

I've asked the LeMarc question at the article's Talk page, as I can't find a comfortably reliable source for any of at least three spellings of the name. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Founding of WWE

Then if that's the case, then why did it say it say the WWE was founded in 1952 by Vincent K. and Linda McMahon? There's no possible way Vince K. McMahon could've founded the World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment in January 1952 when he was 6 years old. I mean, I know Vince McMahon is an intelligent man, but I don't think it's in any way possible for a 6 year old child to start up a wrestling company. Powderkegg (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Powderkegg: A bunch of kids did start a wrestling promotion back in the 80s I believe. They even had their own TV show. But when it comes to Vince McMahon, he didn't start the WWE. He took it over from his father Vince McMahon Sr. who took it over from his dad Roderick McMahon and Toots Mondt. Vince Sr. ran it as WWWF than WWF til 1982 when Vince Jr. bought it from his Vince Sr. In essence It's right in the article. If the infobox is wrong, you fix. But some might deem that a controversial edit. If you want to bring it up, you can do on the WWE talk page and or the professional wrestling project talk page. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that WWE, the entity we know now, was founded in 1982 by Vince McMahon, as Titan Sports. His grandfather started Capital Wrestling, which eventually became WWWF, then WWF. When Titan went public it was renamed to WWFE, while the subsidiary continued to operate as WWF. Then in the early 2000s both became known as WWE. - Galatz ^Talk 02:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Galatz, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 19:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WrestlingNews.co

I put WrestlingNews.co up for discussion on the sources talk page of the project which you can see here. Nobody has posted their thoughts on that site as of yet. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Your Retracting of ROH PPV Edits

I have some additional sources that prove that the events I added happened on PPV.

Vengeance and Night of Champions

I posted this on 2 different talk pages but didn’t get a reply but WWE lists them as seperate events. In the NoC archives its listed from 2007-2015, link - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/archive. It seems they consider them seperate and the 2007 event is considered a dual event. Ron234 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary revert of part of the WWE Hall of Fame (2018) article

You have did a uncalled for and unnecessary revert of my edit on the "Event" section of the article on this year's WWE Hall of Fame even before you have checked that the first part of that section and realizing that the event DIDN'T take place before WrestleMania XXX but before WM 34! As such, I hope you undo the revert and don't make this mistake again. Kyrios320 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kyrios320: I really hope this is a joke. If not read your edit [6] read it really carefully. According to your edit WWE Network has only been around for 2 months. Great work! - Galatz ^Talk 00:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already read your revert and I didn't read the section properly before editing it, sorry about this. Please, don't ask for a full ban of my Wikipedia account, I'm truly sorry about this. Kyrios320 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my Simpsons page change

I added a bit to the section on the "decline in quality" pointing out that the last 4 or 5 seasons have had a distinct shift in their quality compared to the previous 10-15. Just wondering why you reverted it? Thirdprize (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC) @Thirdprize: I assume you are talking about this edit [7] from 3 months ago? Its pure WP:OR and WP:POV - Galatz ^Talk 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

XFL

Hello. I added WWE as a minority owner because of the articles which recently came out. Here is the link http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2018/0505/639608/wwe-listed-as-a-minority-owner-in-the-xfl/.

Thanks, iceman45575 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman45575 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of IPWA Heavyweight Championship (Israel) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IPWA Heavyweight Championship (Israel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPWA Heavyweight Championship (Israel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heavy Machinery and Street Profits articles.

Hi Galatz. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly at all so if not I apologize. I recently set up two articles for official tag teams competing in NXT (WWE brand), namely The Street Profits and Heavy Machinery. To be very honest with you, I'm quite new to to the editing side of Wikipedia but have been a major fan of the site, in general, since its inception. I may have unknowingly broken rules and if I have, I'm sorry for that. I'd like to maintain the above named pages if possible and I promise to look after their upkeep with references but at the same time not to pointlessly add redundant information.

Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwaig (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fwaig: The issue with the page is that currently they do not meet WP:GNG which is why they were deleted based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Machinery (professional wrestling) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street Profits. - Galatz ^Talk 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Galatz . Thank you for replying. I see. So do I need to include a wider variety of sources?

@Fwaig: At this point those two pages will likely be deleted again because as I said, they currently do not meeting WP:GNG. A team/stable takes a lot longer usually than two individuals to become notable. If they broke up tomorrow would they ever be remembered? As an example, The Undisputed Era just got their own page after doing a lot more over a much longer period of time than these teams. - Galatz ^Talk 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz:I suppose that comes down to what one's interpretation of notable is. Heavy Machinery are around since 2016 and are the longest serving legitimate tag team on the NXT brand. I take your point on their achievements though. I'd be happy to monitor the page's progress and keep things up to date and free of spam if it's allowed to stay, as well as adding some more outside and recognised sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwaig (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Fwaig (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC) User:Fwaig

@Fwaig: What is needed to be considered notable can be found at WP:GNG and what wrestling specific websites are notable can be found at WP:PW/Sources. Note that certain websites like cagematch are notable for things like supporting information, but cannot be used to establish notability. - Galatz ^Talk 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: Thank you for the advice, I shall have a look at those links now. Fwaig (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fwaig: If you do find appropriate sources, the next step would be a listing at WP:Deletion review. —Cryptic 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Galatz, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ECW/FMW Supershow

If it wasn't shown on PPV in the US and only in Japan, should it be considered an official ECW PPV?--Stco23 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stco23: Were the WWE Rebellion and WWE Insurrextion PPVs not officially WWE PPVs because they only were shown in the UK? - Galatz ^Talk 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about putting it only as a official FMW PPV with ECW being a special guest. It was never an official ECW PPV since it was never announced as a PPV by ECW.--Stco23 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stco23: Do you have a source to support your claim? - Galatz ^Talk 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This shows FMW/ECW which should indicate that FMW was the one that ran the PPV with ECW being a special guest.--Stco23 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stco23: Sounds to me like that means its jointly produced. - Galatz ^Talk 21:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the FMW Wikipedia article and it talks about their brief history with ECW.--Stco23 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Stco23: ROH/NJPW do events where its one promotions events and the other one also has wrestlers there, just like Impact/Lucha Underground. They also do jointly produced events. - Galatz ^Talk 21:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Two purposes for categories

Re: today's reverts, please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#What is the purpose of categories?. In this case, Ohio Valley Wrestling is a sub-topic of the topic "Sports in Louisville, Kentucky". The topic category isn't meant to be a list of individual sports. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Stevietheman: Per WP:PW/SG "Categories should not include sports specific categories." It is entertainment, not a sport. If you want to create Category:Entertainment in Louisville, Kentucky go right ahead and create it then add this to it. This would be consistent with Category:Professional wrestling in the United States - Galatz ^Talk 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see now. Thanks. It would have been nice if this was in the original removal edit summary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In Wrestling

I only saw the discussion recently. When I started a discussion on Diva Dirt, I made sure to notify people to get more of a wide range of opinion. If a major change like this was wanting to happen, it would have been nice to have been notified about such a discussion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: It was on the wikiproject, which you clearly follow since you comment all the time. - Galatz ^Talk 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean I see everything. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Galatz, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

reFill

Diff broke about 20 references (fixed). reFill is not perfect needs to be closely checked. -- GreenC 13:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Highlighting

If you highlight me again I will report you. --Tarage (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Go right ahead, not a problem. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI: Highlighting harassment by User:Galatz

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tarage (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert

You reverted right when I was sourcing it. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That is why the reference should be included with the first edit. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @71.219.141.37: Then next time just wait until you have a source next time and there wont be a problem. The sentence also didn't make any sense, so check your wording - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I can’t put the reference tag as the thing won’t take the right code. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Violations of the Manual of Style

Hello Galatz,

The Manual of Style states:

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be."

That community consensus has just been reinforced quite strongly at AN with regards to the scripted and acted fictional events called "professional wrestling". As an administrator, I intend to enforce that consensus.

The pro wrestling guideline you linked to says that all pro wrestling content must comply with this section of the MOS. The content from Israeli Wrestling League that we discussed at AN is in direct and blatant violation of the MOS and therefore that guideline. That guideline has serious problems that I will discuss later but at least it is a start.

The lead of the article does not state that the events produced by this Israeli company are scripted fictional performances and the article presents these events as actual athletic competitions. Completely unacceptable. There is no distinct plot section which describes the plot of these works of fiction. Your comparison to film articles is absurd, since all well-written fiction film articles describe the plot details in a separate plot section, and never hint or imply that the fiction is real. Your comparisons to articles about actual sporting events are also invalid since these pro wrestling events are not sporting competitions in any sense, but performed works of fiction.

I am not biased for or against the pro wrestling topic area since clearly this style of live fictional entertainment is notable and popular, and deserves coverage in this encyclopedia, in full and rigorous compliance with our policies and guidelines. I occasionally watched and enjoyed and laughed at these performances on TV as a child over 50 years ago, but was quite surprised that many other children thought that pro wrestling was real rather than a fictional performance.

I am biased instead in favor of a high quality encyclopedia that never confuses fictional performances with athletic events, and biased against kayfabe garbage being presented as real. This is simply not negotiable.

I see that you are a major contributor to Israeli Wrestling League, an article with severe problems that is now under discretionary sanctions. If you are going to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, then remove every trace of kayfebe from that article except in a separate plot section and make it clear in the lead and throughout the article that these events are scripted fictional performances. I will be watching carefully. Please keep me posted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I have added the disclaimer to the top of the events section, outside of there everything either focuses on the championship or the organization itself. All championship articles do have a certain sense of in universe depending on how you look at it, but to say XXX lost to YYY or AAA beat BBB is not inaccurate, even though that outcome was predetermined. That is where professional wrestling falls into the gray area, where things do actually happen, even if its predetermined. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amir Jordan

Hello Galatz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amir Jordan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WWE signing and competing in notable tournament are claims of significance. Thank you. So Why 07:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback notification on WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship

Hello, Galatz. You have new messages at Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship#As of dates.
Message added 16:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reidgreg (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Professional wrestling moves

Hello. I used to be an active editor on Wikipedia a number of years ago. I'd like to know why the professional wrestling moves are being taken out of the biographies of wrestlers? Within the scope of professional wrestling, the moves they use, the most significant ones are generally a part of their character, and if a biography is written and someone plays a character, leaving that information out makes the biography incomplete. Plus, for those seeking knowledge, it often linked to other pages which would detail what the moves are. In the 15+ years I've been using Wikipedia, the moves have always been there. I'm just wondering as to why the sudden change? And where did the consensus take place to remove the moves to begin with? Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me 05:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi James Maxx, you can see the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Trying to gain clarity (closed).LM2000 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@James Maxx: The decision was that this information, if important, should be covered in the article itself. The moves you mention, if important to the performer, will be discussed in the text with the relevant links. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.narcity.com/entertainment/season-6-of-prison-break-is-officially-confirmed-and-its-easily-going-to-be-the-best-season-yet

[1]