User talk:Galobtter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Galobtter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Edible plant stem. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ϫ 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! You are encouraging me to work more on helping wikipedia. I'm hoping to get time to add references to plain. Galobtter (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Galobtter! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:11, Monday, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! Galobtter, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


INCOTM March article

Hello, most probably you have noticed that Environment of India has been selected as the article of the month. In March we'll collaboratively attempt to improve article. Please spend some time and help to improve this article. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Egg-xactly what the day calls for, of course! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't celebrate easter, but happy easter to you too! Galobtter (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Drive Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Galobtter for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Properties of water units

Regarding this edit, what unit is "t"? DMacks (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's tons. I guess its not very clear, it took me a few seconds to figure out what unit it was (I just copied the same format for the ice density as for the liquid density) Galobtter (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@DMacks: I've changed "t" to "ton" for clarity. Galobtter (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Please think before just pressing revert; you spend a lot of time doing only that. 217.28.6.255 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not realize the nested bracketing was a problem. However if you had taken a few seconds to explain your change in your initial edit summary then I may not have reverted your edit. I think, though, that if nested parentheses is a problem (which I don't think it is as it isn't confusing in this case) then using square brackets is a better solution. GalobtterTalk to me! 06:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If you were taking time to actually try and build a better Wikipedia, rather than simply waiting around to revert edits you don't like the look of and are unwilling to actually review, I might heed your placement of blame; alas, I do not believe it to be so.
I don't like nested parentheses whatever shape they are. A comma is perfectly grammatical and syntactical for a series of alternatives that some might term a list. Also, I would expect square parentheses to be less common than commas in common usage. 217.28.6.255 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
For a list of two "and" has to be used not a comma to make it grammatical. I don't see the problem with nested parentheses unless it makes reading the article unclear. Clarity is the whole point of grammar.
If you don't give a reason for your edit in an edit summary then it is very hard to figure out why you are doing something, especially if one option isn't immediately obvious to be better. After all it is your opinion that nested parenthesis are bad in any form. I personally found the previous version read better. GalobtterTalk to me! 08:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Properties of water, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pearson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Hallo

At Talk:Potassium permanganate (medical use) I added a wrong R sentence (and a wrong person too) and thought I could fix the R sentence before anyone replied. But you did, and I "reverted" my fix, and you have removed your comment at the same time. Sorry for the confusion. You are welcome to revert youself, because you didnt make any mistake. Christian75 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Galobtter (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Water

Re: your revert of the link. I'm aware that "links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead", but here's the thing, Properties of water is an article that inherently refers to the Water page, and yet there's not a link to that page anywhere, until the very last of the "See also" items at the bottom. Can you see how that's a problem? At the very least a "Main article: Water" should be placed at the top the introduction, don't you think? Kumagoro-42 20:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kumagoro-42: {{Broader}} is the appropriate template. I'll insert it. Galobtter (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Kumagoro-42, the other option (which is specifically mentioned somewhere in the MOS) is that for things like "properties of X" or "list of X" the title can be un-bolded, allowing for a wikilink of the main subject. Galobtter's suggestion works fine, but it's something to think about in the future. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

October 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm MorbidEntree. I noticed that you recently removed content from Donald Trump without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: I didn't remove the text; it just looks like that because of diff. Scroll down in the diff and you'll find the text below. Galobtter (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

I disagree with this edit. It isn't "off topic". Sremoc raised the concern of it "being for sale", which is a licensing problem. The others (myself included) are clearly stating that it isn't. His name calling (which I clearly used as well (for another) may not have been needed, but overall the it was about licensing. I'd highly recommend you self-revert or I will revert your edit myself. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Galobtter, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Draft:Alec Oxenford

I don't think you broke anything; it looks like you spent a long time commenting and in the meantime I edited the page. AFCH doesn't do very well with edit conflicts... Primefac (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope it doesn't seem to be that. I tried again inserting the comment, "There are numerous links to youtube clips that are copyvios, as they are not from the news network. Those should be removed," and again it happened. I think its the unclosed ref tags that the script is complaining about causing the error. Galobtter (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it's rearranging the comments to be in chronological order, which is what it should be doing. As for the random punctuation, no idea. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the weird stuff with the refs is because something got split. Give me a minute to clean it up. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so as near as I can tell what it's doing is removing all of the named refs from inside {{AFC comment}}, which I suppose makes sense because if/when a page is accepted the comments are removed and there could be orphaned refs. I have zero idea why half of a comment was copied below to the article itself, though.... Primefac (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Weird. Hey enterprisey, would you mind taking a look at Special:Diff/809006503? Something strange is going on here... Primefac (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
enterprisey et al. I deleted that copied half comment before I saw this thread. I just thought it was a manual error. Sorry if you needed it to track a technical issue but I supposed you can revert versions. BC1278 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Draft: Alec Oxenford

Hi,

Thanks for working on cleaning up Draft: Alec Oxenford. Since you paused, another editor came in and declined the submission the grounds that it was too promotional, mentioning the art patron section. He said it passed notability, though. Since it seems like you spent about 45 minutes on this, I thought you might want to weigh in before I start changing language or deleting sections. It's hard for me to know what this other editor has in mind, other than the art section.

It seems like you and the other editor wouldn't have spent that much time on it today unless you were thinking it was about ready to be published, but I'm guessing.

Thanks,

BC1278 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278

BC1278 I agree on notability. In the art section, I think you can just remove the somewhat offtopic stuff praising arteBA, but I don't think that's a big problem. The whole article seems slightly promotional overall, but I'm not exactly sure what needs to be done to fix that (if there's anything to fix). @Primefac: What do you think? Also the page Alec Oxenford needs to be unsalted. Galobtter (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I've left a note with the latest reviewer, waiting to see what they say. I have the page on my watchlist, which generally happens when I'm INVOLVED in a situation, so I won't comment on the draft itself. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah that note is pretty much what I wanted to say. Galobtter (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the editor in question. Primefac left a message on my talk page saying that if it wouldn't be G11'd then i should go ahead and accept. I will take that advice in future. Regardless, good job on the work on the article. ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ProgrammingGeek, that's slightly more simplified than my original intent; I meant more in the fact that if the page isn't blatantly promotional (i.e. the promo issues are relatively minor) then it should be accepted. It seems that there is a rough agreement that it's (at the very least) acceptable (for now), so I'll accept the draft. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dick Lehr

Hi,

I have removed promotional words.Jaksmes (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 16:27:09, 10 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jwhentz2


I based the National Earth Science Teachers Association page on what I saw for the National Science Teachers Association page. That page even contains the following message when viewed on Wikipedia - This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

The NESTA page contains very similar information since the organizations are very similar. Very frustrating that the NSTA page was excepted when it looks like what was submitted for NESTA.

Jwhentz2 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jwhentz2: Sorry, but not everything on wikipedia should be there. Sometimes articles are there which should be nominated for deletion. I'll actually look into the national science teachers association article, and I might nominate it for deletion as I cannot find any coverage on it. Galobtter (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jwhentz2: It survived as people were able to find sources. [1][2] See if you can find sources on NESTA. The second book is searchable in google books, so you can search for NESTA there. If you can find a few sources I'll probably accept it. Galobtter (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Also NESTA has a membership of 1,000 teachers as far as I can see, while NSTA has a membership of 60000. So huge difference in size and notability. Galobtter (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Galobtter. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Pardon of Joe Arpaio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pardon of Joe Arpaio 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/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination) 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. Atsme📞📧 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act

Dear User:Galobtter,

Thank you for reviewing my submission for a new article, Draft:Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act. You wrote that "If it is notable you should be able to find news stories on it that you can cite." I do not understand why you wrote this, as Democracy Now! and NPR stories were already cited, and I believe these are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent on the subject. However, I went ahead and cited additional news stories per your comment, and hope that you (or another editor) may reconsider approval of the article on a second review.

I believe it is imperative to include this article on Wikipedia as it is significant in the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. That is why I created it in the first place.

Thanks for your time on improving Wikipedia!

Sincerely,

User:Mattomynameo (User talk:Mattomynameo 21:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mattomynameo: I meant news reports about the act itself, not mentions elsewhere. I'll take a look at the draft later. Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mattomynameo: Okay I accepted it. Just remember that we don't state the notability of something within an article. You should instead use those sources to talk about the act and its effects. Galobtter (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Galobtter: thanks very much for teaching me, will do! Kind regards, --User:Mattomynameo (User talk:Mattomynameo) 21:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ethanol article edit

Hi! Since you messeged me about reverting my change on the Ethanol page, I seize the opportunity to tell that I actually think it was a mistake. The section in question (soaps and detergents) that I deleted is not even about ethanol, and it is also incorrect. That's why I deleted it, and I still think it has no place in the article. Thanks for listening. 84.0.44.172 (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes you're correct. I reverted myself. Thanks for pointing that out. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó mió) 14:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Guru charandas mehta

Hello Galobtter, As per your reply i have made changes in the reference provided on the article 'Guru charandas mehta'. I have removed blogs and random websites and have added few more links to it. The websites now added are the one which follows the tradition to which Mehta ji was associated to, so it gives and authentic information. Morever these websites are not random as they are officially owned by the enterprise and are considered to be reliable source of information. However I have given references from other sources too, added PDF's of books and news.There are only 4-5 lines in this article,and i have tried to add best of the sources possible. Hope you find this adequate and approve the article. 47.8.9.13 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My article

Hi, I submitted an article for review, which you recently turned down based on source quality. Can you give me some more specifics? We had multiple cirations by academics and others notable in the field of ethnomusicology, which were published in online sources, rather than print form, which quite frankly does not make them less valid. With regard to the issue of notability, the content of the article should have made clear that the fact that the contributions of this artist have been erased by rock historians represents both a racist narrative about music history and an extremely limited view of what "counts" as contribution to a particular style or field. These are issues that have been discussed extensively both by academics and by members of activist collectives of musicians, both of which were also cited in the article.

In short, I'm happy to reorganize or make anything clearer about the article, but I suppose I find it somewhat hard to believe that these were the criteria used for its rejection. Can you give me some clarification on what you were looking for? Graperjl (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grapejl: Could you point to those sources. I only see interviews, and mentions or descriptions on affiliated organizations. Also many of the urls only point to the main page of the website and not the specific page so I can't check them. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 05:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC) @Graperjl: Whoops, correct ping. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft Austreme

Hi, thank you for reviewing my draft. You left a comment saying my sources are not independent enough. Nevertheless, most of the references are from news medias or government agencies. And the awards I mentioned should show the notability of this company. Can I have more suggestions on how to improve? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ho0904 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ho0904: See WP:CORPDEPTH. Essentially we need in-depth coverage of a company. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. and routine stuff (mergers, announcements of partnerships) mostly based on press releases. Awards don't really establish notability. Also the whole thing reads promotional. Talk about the company, not how many awards it has. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Pi Phi

I got the article REFUNDed. I've got a few secondary source newspaper references for it. I think we agree that there is quite a bit that needs to be deleted as well. I may not manage to do the work until after the Thanksgiving holiday, though. (Note, the reason that I saw they deletion is that while I didn't have the article on my watchlist, I did have the ΑΠΦ redirect)Naraht (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eric Ly has been accepted

Eric Ly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Zanhe (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Galobtter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page

Hi, thanks for dropping by. I sandboxed a page on Colin Carlson if you would like to look it over. Subuey (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: His notability seems to derive mostly from being a child prodigy. That paper doesn't seem that significant. Should put that first in the lead - something like "Colin Carlson is a child prodigy who won the Harry.." and then "He authored the paper.." Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with those chages. I lead with it because it was covered by dozens of outlets. Subuey (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Subuey Well looking at the ones where he gets more than a mention in the context of the study - the child prodigy articles that give him most of his notability- there that is not mentioned. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion log

Your edit here appears to be vandalism and I have removed it. Please don’t do it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Ooh, I didn't notice I duplicated -. Should've checked the diff. However, like I explained in the edit summary, Faizul Latif Chowdhury's relist was undone by Ritchie333, so I put it back in its correct place so it can be closed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Oh dear, a script that I had did that. Whooooops. What a coincidence though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: that edit is a mistake, not appropriate but it is not Vandalism. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

First image on right

Re this, I don't recall seeing that in MOS. Do you know where it is? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss Huh, I can't find it from a perusal of MOS:IMAGE - don't know where I got that idea. But anyhow, it says that In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. and IMHO it looks better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I assume you won't assert MOS for that in future. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

I will give you an opportunity to self-revert what you removed at Matt Lauer, and advise you to read Wikipedia:Delete_or_merge because you just violated consensus. I explained the process at the TP. Atsme📞📧 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme Many people expressed that the material should be trimmed. There is definitely no consensus that all the material should be kept. A result of merge doesn't mean that all the material needs merging in. If there's a quote from that page that supports your interpretation please provide it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme I've reverted to your version as I'm too sleep to do a proper merge. I'll ping the closing admin on the talk page to clarify this first too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll forego the ping as Serialnumber explained it well enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, Serialnumber explained it incorrectly. You also need to self-revert that last edit regarding Lauer's behavior. It is not too much detail - see the multiple descriptions of victims at Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations which he denied. Lauer did not deny his behavior, he apologized for it, and our readers need to know what it was he did to be fired. Atsme📞📧 18:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
1. People generally said in the AfD that it should be condensed and unnecessary details removed. 2. I'd like that article to be a little condensed IMHO. 3. That article doesn't even have as much details as that, and these details really don't add anything to "sexual assault". Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Ooh + the reason I removed it then is because having so much detail on one allegations is undue, and problematic for a BLP. He said "there is enough in it". Someone apologizing for it doesn't give a free pass on UNDUE or on BLP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No, not true. I broke it down on the TP. I disagree with you - see Roy Moore sexual misconduct - what I'm seeing at Lauer is pure whitewashing and that is noncompliant with NPOV. I have opted to try to resolve the issues amicably at the TP but the last revert by another editor who has consistently stalked my edits and shown ill-will toward me since 2015 may force me to file at ANI. Those reverts were uncalled for - I provided a side-by-side table showing exactly how I merged following consensus. Reverting without discussion to restore old material violates the consensus sanction on BLPs. Atsme📞📧 14:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Galobtter. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni. That was fast! Also I dispute any claims I'm "respected" :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

31 hour blocks

I was interested to discover this statement on your User Page regarding 31 hour blocks.

  • "Guess it's really true that things are done in wikipedia because that's the way it has always been done."

Perhaps another way to look at it is that (1) wikipedia is creating its own traditions and/or (2) having conventions such as this keeps us from having to reinvent the wheel over and over and over again. I am not a conservative by nature, but I do appreciate a sense of history. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another way to see it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
As my wife's bump be sticker reads, "On the other hand we have . . . ...more fingers." Carptrash (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

John Astor

Thank you for reverting the posts by 'SNUGGUMS'. He ought to be banned, but I don't know how to make a report. I have the relevant Times Guides to the House of Commons, and will add sourced details for John Astor in due course. 88.104.149.26 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For your recently contributions. Nice. HindWikiConnect 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Nom Nom Nom. Thanks HindWIKI! Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's really nice. Keep it and Thanks. HindWikiConnect 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Galobtter, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

Hi Galobtter, Why can't we have a separate article on Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery just like MBBS or any other degree courses? Why did you redirect the BHMS article to Central Council of Homoeopathy, which seems to be a govt. organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton-Rodrigues The degree is only in india unlike say MBBS. It's regulated by that organization - which sets the qualifications. Also unlike MBBS, I didn't see enough coverage for a separate article, so I though it was better to merge there. (The material is still there) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter; Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) is an Indian govt. recognized undergraduate degree course just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. No matter if the course is only in India. University Grants Commission (India), AYUSH has recognized it, what more recognition does it require? About coverage, there are plenty of sources available on the Internet. After my initial research over Google, I am sharing some of few news refs, i found TheWire, DNA, Livemint, and Times of India, Deccan Herald. There are great refs available on HighBeam and Google Books as well. I think we can create a separate article just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. What do you say?--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton-Rodrigues Do you see anything in the sources that would allow you to expand what is already there in the Central Council of Homeopathy article? You can add any material there, and if gets too long, then it can be split off. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump North Korea

Hi Galobtter.

I'm trying to sort out what happened on the little bit in the lede where you reinserted the "pressured NK" language after I had reverted it and it was under discussion. I can see that you briefly accepted Anythingyouwant's view that this was OK, but then the discussion continued -- I don't think that I was aware of your reinstatement at the time -- and I continue to find the argument for "pressured" without any specifics to be a POV insinuation that the Administration is actually pressuring or doing anything at all about the issue, when in fact we have no reports about what if anything they're doing to counter NK. Do you feel that the single word "pressured" is better than "mocked and threatened...", or "mocked and threatened NK to pressurr it..." ? I couldn't tell whether this got lost in the wash or whether you now prefer simply, "pressured". As I've said, this sort of thing, which comes up in many of these active Trump articles, adopts the statements of the Administration as true descriptions of their policies, even when RS consistently tell us that their self-descriptions are false. To take an example from recent news, WP should not report the current tax legislation as a "middle class tax cut" or "jobs bill" -- both repeated assertions of the Administration -- when RS cite expert analysis to the contrary. Tweeting insults and threats vs. North Korea do not constitute "pressure" because they have no demonstrated effect on NK nor any basis in theory or policy for expecting such effect. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think pressure seems reasonable. It has been reported in RS. I do agree we shouldn't use the administration's talking points, but RS do use pressure. Maybe "mocked and pressured", but to be honest I really don't care that much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't care either. I have more or less given up trying to whack-a-mole all the POV language tilts that come up in these articles. Some of the users are not native English speakers and may not be fully aware of their mistakes, but I think in some cases the twists and turns are too clever by 1/2. The idea that Trump has applied pressure is treated by most RS as a laughable and frightening misrepresentation of his actions. Even Sen. Corker spoke out about this. The American Politics articles have lost nearly a dozen great editors over the past year simply due to disgusted attrition at the tactics of the motivated partisans. The good news is that eventually there will be much less room for spin and deflection as historical perspective on these events becomes clearer. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Did you look at the talk page before making this edit? I only ask, because I literally just posted there about 2 minutes ago an explanation that we don't change content based on WP:OR, which is what he provided. I was trying to encourage him to learn about OR a WP:RS and adding proper sources. Then you just go and make the change anyway. I thought perhaps the timing was so close you missed my reply. - theWOLFchild 09:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I did see your reply. However he was not trying to add material; WP:OR only talks about adding material - not removing. It's uncited, and so can be removed as having failed verification (does it make sense to leave false information in an article?). It would be different if he was trying to contradict a reliable source, but in this case it's actually quite likely the original material was OR too.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. But in light of my reply, it sends the wrong message. We want to encourage proper sourcing. And in light of that, and that fact that I agree with you about it being unsourced, I am going to add a ((cn)) template to see if we can flesh out a source. Better than straight up deleting. If no source can be found in a timely manner than I agree it should be removed. Thanks for the reply. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Bleach Blonde Baby

This track is more significant than interweb which is an independent wikipedia page. The music video had a lot to talk about but I hadn't exactly finished it yet but I saw it as acceptable to be published at that certain stage. smartalek22 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and here's my edit conflict comment. I see that you reviewed "Bleach Blonde Baby" (I didn't write it but reviewed and edited the page for its original author) and are concerned about its notability. The 18-second preview of the newly released video just trended #1 to #3 on YouTube, and the video itself was released yesterday to hundreds of thousands of views. The song itself is one of the main songs on an album released in October which has been listed as one of the top 20 pop albums of the year by Rolling Stone magazine. It should have more references, and will undoubtedly receive those, but I'd say its notability has been established by the tour and album, and will be established further. Just my two-cents French Euro. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartalek33 and Randy Kryn That interweb song looks quite possibly like it needs to be merged in too. Also it's preferable that instead of having lots of short articles on songs, we instead have one good and long article on the album - Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. So you can add the content (viewable here), to the album article instead, and only if there's too much, then you can split it off. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully differ, as Poppy is a prominent artist and the album and songs having their own separate notability per other single-song pages related to other artist's albums. The "Interweb" page is picking up quite a few views, and these will increase. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Randy Kryn I mean I don't see more than a good paragraph or two being written it. I quoted from WP:NSONG, a guideline - assuming the song is notable, it doesn't make sense to have an article on it when a lot of the stuff on the page is just repeating content from the album article. The material is still there and people can still see it. People can still read about the song "Interweb", it's just not on a separate page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The music video was only released yesterday for Bleach Blonde Baby it has already trended on youtube. As for interweb. It has been performed on national television in the US and that is why they deserve independent articles. smartalek22 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartalek33 It is possibly notable. However why not include the content in one nice article on the album? (perhaps under a section called "Singles") Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The #1 trending on YouTube for its preview (of all things) may count as a chart listing, although I'm not sure. Would that get it over the hump? I'm assuming it will pick up more notability, and one unique thing about the video for the song is that the artist spells out quite clearly "Everybody dies" in happy fuzzy party-style presentation and lettering, fuzzy lettering that she has used as an identifier for her videos. Quite interesting actually, and I advise you not to listen to it or any of her videos, as soon you will be addicted and then where would we be. In any case, if kept both these song pages should probably be simple names without the qualifiers (song) etc., as BBB doesn't have any other listing on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I just don't see the point of having 3+ separate articles on each song + one on the album when they can be included in one article. As the guideline NSONG says, even if the song is notable it still may be preferable to have merge all the content into one page if there isn't enough material for a seperate article. The title of the song will still redirect to the description of the song, just they're all collated in one page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I will add more to the article and include references. There are quite a few details I haven't added. smartalek22 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fly, Smartalek33, fly. In the meantime, many albums and artists have article for songs, and these two from this debut studio album will, I'd say (WP:CRYSTAL at hand), stand the test of time, and by time I mean how about giving these a couple of weeks and see where they land? I again implore you, Galobtter, not to delve too deeply or at all (sort of like The Simpsons opening saying that nobody should view it) into Poppy, as you may be trapped into a very interesting artist, singer, and the overall patterns that she and her associates have been creating for several years now. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tether (cryptocurrency), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Banks and First Commercial Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason of Tagging for Deletion?

About BambooHR, The issue of wrong writing style is solved about award list. The Software page cited references from PCMag, Deseret News, Inc. (magazine), Entrepreneur (magazine), Bloomberg, Daily Herald, The Financial Express, Forbes, and The Salt Lake Tribune so there is no need to raise question on notability of the topic.

Please consider deleting the Tag you added in page. EShami (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

EShami The point of the process is so we can discuss whether it should be kept or not. If you can convince people that it is notable, then it will be kept. The awards list still seems to be there, just into prose. Its still entirely promotional, writing about how it's "known for being the best place to work" etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on resubmitted page

Hello,

I authored a page on Hitachi Vantara. You declined the page so I reworked it and resubmitted it. Not sure if I resubmitted it correctly. Can you check to see if you see the revised page and let me know? Or point me in the right direction? Thank you!

Momoflisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoflisa (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Momoflisa You have submitted it correctly, however the problems still seem to remain. Like I said, I'd suggest adding to Hitachi rather than having a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion at Donald Trump in violation of 1RR restriction - Arbitration enforcement

Please undo your last reversion, as it is within 24 hours of your last reversion on the article. The current page restriction reads: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. Thank you in advance! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coffee Whoops! Done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your expedient response! Happy editing! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Coffee Hey, I'm not sure exactly how this works (there are so many rules I've probably got this wrong), but is that formal warning technically a sanction (being logged in the sanctions log)? If so, I don't believe I met the awareness criteria..(not that I care that much) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Less a sanction, more of a saved log of your new awareness. There's nothing bad about it being there on you (in fact if there isn't a violation in the future, it has no impact to your account whatsoever), it's just to ensure other administrators are aware that watch this area. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Coffee Ahh cool, yeah I know it isn't bad or anything, was just wondering. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

But

2019 in film is not an empty article. But whatever. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

el cid, el campeador Well, there are films in bollywood that are slated for 2019. Will have to add them of course, but in a just a minute I found Housefull 4, which is for diwali 2019. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MetaShare

Hello Galobtter, I will take the actions you request for improving the page MetaShare during the day. I will come back to you later to ask for a new evaluation. All the best Epicurus One (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Epicurus One: Well, I was unable to find sources, if you can find some good. Just remember the sources have to be independent, so anything overtly positive with a lot of quotes from the people behind metashare is is not going to be independant. Also, need sources about the software, not just its features (which should just be removed - it's overly positive and reads like an advertisement) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Galobtter:Thank you for your valuable feedback. I’ve now tried to improve the article. The reason I like to have a MetaShare presence at Wikipedia is all the MetaShare's competitors are there already Dropbox (service), Google_Drive etc. I used SharePoint as a template when creating the MetaShare page, hence the section with features that differs the different editions. (The same sections can be found at the cloud computing services Wiki-pages I just mentioned as well.) I’ve now removed all references from MetaShare itself, and replaced them with other trusted and verified sources. I also tried to clean the article from what can be considered as promotion according to Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If you think it now meet the requirements you may remove the plate, otherwise I will continue to improve it in line with your directions. All the best Epicurus One (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Epicurus One You can remove the template yourself, as it says on the message. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Sharepoint isn't a good model - I don't like the feature section there. Blogs are not reliable (see here for a simple explanation of sources). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New page patrolling

As someone interested in new page patrolling, I wondered how best to deal with articles such as companies of dubious notability. There are three main options that I see; tag the article for notability, take it to AfD, or do nothing (mark as reviewed). There is presumably a category of articles tagged for possible notability issues, and if so, can you identify it for me? If it contains thousands of items that seldom get actioned, that would put me off adding more and I would be more likely to nominate it at AfD. Alternatively it might contain relatively few entries, being a source of articles for people who want to list things at AfD. Do you know? I just went the AfD route for Red Canary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I'm not that experienced with patrolling either - actually I've done way less reviews than you have..I'd ask TonyBallioni for someone more experienced. But anyhow, the easiest way to find a category is to go to the template documentation - it's Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability. There are about 64000 tagged....most tag categories are huge, so I prefer to not add to them if I can help it. So I prefer to AfD - especially for companies, as they usually aren't going to be notable under the strict WP:NCORP and assuming they are less than 5 years old all sources should be easily searchable on google and google news etc. So it usually doesn't take more than 5-10 minutes to do WP:BEFORE. Most of their articles are promotional etc so I don't feel they should stay around. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Looking at that category, I see it has over 50,000 entries and I agree that there is really no need to add to it, leaving the company adverts in place indefinitely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I typically go the AfD route, especially if by an SPA or non-extended confirmed account that doesn’t show signs of being here to contribute outside of promotion. The difficulty with corps is that they’re often reference bombed with primary or promotional sourcing that doesn’t count towards the GNG. Learning how to spot it is something that takes time. I used to hate reviewing corps for the same reason, but I eventually got the hang of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni I'd say there isn't much spotting to do when it's like pretty much every article on a corporation, but yeah it's pretty annoying. Also annoying in AfC reviewing, going through 30 sources that don't have anything. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed in general, but if you’re new to working the NPP/AfC it can take time to learn things like TechCrunch and Crunchbase haven’t been considered to count towards notability in virtually any AfD for the past year or that Forbes Contributors is a blogging platform with no editorial oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah forbes contributors is one of the vaguely wtf things. Maybe there can be a guide called, "Field Guide to Company Notability" that has all this crap.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
If these recently formed companies were notable they would include references to the mainstream financial journals in which they were discussed to back that up. But they don't, because they are small scale, local, not publicly traded, have raised a couple of million dollars in seed capital, have won a tech award etc. There must be hundreds of thousands of such companies in the US alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Even raising 100 million doesn't mean much unless something significant is done with that money. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Corporate notability is one of the most difficult things to deal with and it is made more difficult because basically any company can meet the wording of the GNG within a month or two of incorporation if they try: they don't even have to be selling anything yet to do so. NCORP tries to explain what the GNG means and what sourcing is acceptable and isn't but it still requires a lot of judgement. The important thing to remember from a notability front is that for companies, we require intellectual independence from the subject. That means a WSJ article that is 90% an interview with the CEO doesn't count, but a NYT piece covering the products they sell would. I've started arguing more from WP:NOTSPAM at AfDs: the text of WP:N makes it clear that passage of the GNG alone is not enough for inclusion if an article fails WP:NOT. When you're dealing with subjects of borderline notability with a lot of PR based references, its difficult to sort through the mess. If an article fails both NOTSPAM and is questionable on the GNG, that should be taken into account in an AfD, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Me too, yeah - I've been seeing you do that, and it makes perfect sense. Just because something isn't eligible for G11 doesn't mean it can't be deleted as advertising. That helps with dealing with coi/paid editing too. Unless it's clearly notable, if it's anyway promotional (which it almost will be considering the references), I've been taking it to AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

21:12:27, 19 December 2017 review of submission by Momoflisa

I revised it significantly. Thanks for that tip on adding it to the Hitachi page. I’ll add to the Hitachi page as you suggest. I see that page has a list of Hitachi subsidiaries and divisions, some of which link to standalone pages for the sub or division. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Data_Systems , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Consulting . I want to post a similar kind of standalone page for Hitachi Vantara. How can I get that to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoflisa (talk • contribs)

Momoflisa Just add the section, and then put {{main|Hitachi Vantara}} below the section header. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Not exactly sure if I've answered your question actually, but that similar standalone page will be there after the draft is accepted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How did I misinterpret the source?

He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, a greater absolute margin than any prior U.S. president. Is your objection that he did not lose by a greater percentage margin than any prior U.S. president? I didn't say he did, and I took a direct quote from the article. So how did I misinterpret anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.68.52 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Roblox

I'm was still editing that site a bunch of people have group pages on wiki like phantom Jordan9766 (talk)user/talkJordan9766 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Jordan9766, not sure what the "phantom" group page is, but I don't think your group is significant enough to have an article (not every small group gets an article). You can create a group page elsewhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Household name, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hype (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

MfD tag mistakenly removed

I decided to send the draft Draft:Riot Of The King to MfD. But then you removed the MfD tag from that draft, only then to realize that you have made a mistake and restore the MfD tag back in. Why did you do this? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000 Just misclicked rollback. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Tropical Medicine Tuebingen

Hello, this is a translation of the German article on this institute. There are no other external references than the webpage of the institute. In the German Wikipedia this was accepted. Why do you not accept? Wgmetzger (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger Different language wikipedias have different standards. If there are no other external references then it probably isn't notable as we need significant coverage in multiple independent sources for organizations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

ok, that means that you have higher standards than the German Wikipedia. Maybe the German article on the institute should also be deleted? Wgmetzger (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger I don't know what the standards are on the german wikipedia; it is quite possible that institute would be deleted on the german wikipedia if brought to the german equivalent WP:AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

please check the Wikipedia article on the Bernhard-Nocht-Institute in Hamburg. There is an English and a German article on this. Should both be deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Nocht_Institute_for_Tropical_Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgmetzger (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC) please check the article on the Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Tropical_and_Public_Health_Institute. Should this also be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgmetzger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger, probably not, there's indepth coverage in this reference, which while written by someone there, is published in a journal and still provides history etc and so an article can be written. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

yes, that is one of the former directors of the BNI who wrote this. What is about the Suisse Institute for Tropical Medicine? Did you check? And what is if there is no external reference on the history of an institute? Then it does not exist for Wikipedia? The societal relevance of the institute is obvious. The Institute in Tuebingen is one of the five institutes for Tropical Medicine in Germany. It is leading in malaria research and actual publications on scientific issues can be cited in thousands, if you want it. Are there other supervisors of the article, who could give an opinion? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC) The Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine is referring to homepage and university page, nothing else. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Please check the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Manila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Institute_for_Tropical_Medicine. There are no other references than the own websites. I am sure that lots of "high standard" english Wikipedia articles can be found for scientific institutes which do refer to their own websites and their publications without an external reference written about their history. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger Well there are perhaps institutes there which are not notable and should be deleted. If you wish you can move the article yourself to article space (Help:MOVE), but it is likely to get deleted. Or you can look for sources like german newspapers and see if you can add them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Galobtter, this is not a matter of being notable or not. The institue of Tropical Medicine in Tuebingen is highly noteworthy, it is leading in malaria research and clinical studies in Germany and on the African continent, and there are lots of scientific articles in pubmed (I dont know if you know what this is) and there are lots of newspaper articles (national and international) about the institute. Just the HISTORY of the institute was not yet investigated. There is one investigation underway (especially the Nazitime), but not (yet) published. In general, I do not think that institutes which do not have newspaper references should be deleted from Wikipedia (like the Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine (highly noteworthy) or the Manila institute or, vice versa, every fart with a newspaper reference should be published in Wikipedia. Question: who decides about the publication? Is it you? Or somebody else? Who can I talk to, if it is not you? Who is responsible for the decision? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger lots of newspaper articles (national and international) about the institute If you provide those, I'd be happy to accept. What you can do is move the draft to article space (same as accepting it and publishing it), and then if someone thinks it should be deleted they can go to WP:AfD, which is where whether articles are kept or not is decided. If you want someone else to review and see if it should be accepted. you can re-submit the draft. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I exaggerated about the international articles ABOUT the institute (I will ask the directors if they have some), but certainly there are lots of national ones in German. If you check pubmed with the name "Kremsner" you will find lots of scientific international articles. I could cite the most prominent of them (from Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or other journals with high reputation). However, as I already said, this has not be done in the other institutes webpages (London School, Liverpool, Basel, Hamburg) and could be seen as we want to show off. I will add something but it will take time, as I have to do other work, too. Then I will move it to article space. Maybe I can come back to you then for help. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

National ones are fine; sure, add them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I found an English publication about the institute which is even listed in pubmed (Supplement Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift). Additionally, I inserted a reference of the local German press about the 100 year-anniversary (2017) which includes the programme of this event. I hope this will do? I do not know how to insert links to German Wikipedia articles about the professors mentioned. Is it possible? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger Seems just about enough - will accept. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ! Can I link German Wikipedia articles into the English article? Or is it not possible? If yes, how? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC

Wgmetzger I linked it; there should be an "add link" or "edit links" button at the bottom of the left side bar. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Aha... thanks a lot... I saw it. However, I meant something else: can I set links to German Wikipedia articles, for example, the first director of the institute (Gottlieb Olpp) has a German Wikipedia article. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wgmetzger see Template:Interlanguage link#Link to one foreign language. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

You were quicker than I. Got an edit conflict to see you had already inserted the links. Thanks. :) Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Galobtter, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

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.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Windy Corner, Isle of Man, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atsme📞📧 19:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme Was this by accident? Because if it is at AfD then it can be marked as reviewed. (and aunva6 did so)Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Ah I've seen your question at TonyBallioni's talk. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Maddona (album) redirect

Could you please consider reopening your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 28#Madonna (album)? WP:NACD that Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins, and your position that there's a conflict between PTOPIC and INCDAB is itself controversial, when one of the arguments in the discussion is that PTOPIC doesn't apply at all - moreso when the "no consensus" feels like a "move". Diego (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Diego Moya I'm a little busy right now, will give a full response later, but (and I'll reword the closure to reflect) what I was meaning is that some people think PTOPIC is the correct guideline, and some think INCDAB is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC) May have to consider the failure of the RM though, on whether it means should redirect to the dab page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC) yeah, just give me a few hours to consider changing/reversing my close Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. When you get to it, can you also explain where the "use the longest standing version" comes from? I remember something similar for page titles, but I don't recall seeing anything like that in policy for the target of the redirect. Diego (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Diego Moya undone the close as I've gained/realized too strong opinions in general about PDABs. Hopefully everything should be fixed up; I won't be around for 12-24 hrs as my internet is crapping out though It's back up; praise the gods Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bachelor of homeopathic medicine cont.

Hi Galobtter, I have created the article Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. There are enough sources i found to create the article. Though added 6 refs. only. If you think article is not notable, you can nominate it for AFD. I think, AFD would be best way to reach any consensus. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 11:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)

Elton-Rodrigues I'll take a look, will take it to AfD or somewhere if needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on a new page that was reviewed by you

Hi Galobtter,

I created a page on Kalaari Capital which was reviewed and not accepted by you. I was seeking some help around it on how to improve and make it better. Also, which specific articles are not worthy of entry on Wikipedia out of the ones cited.

To provide a background, I work in venture capital in India (not at the firm in question and not related to it in any way) and VC firms generally do not get a lot of coverage apart from the investments that they make. The following points suggest that the topic is notable: 1. Kalaari is the largest homegrown fund in India with a total of $650 Million in Assets Under Management and that makes it notable independently. 2. It has backed 2 Indian unicorns which have their own Wiki pages. 3. One of the founders Vani Kola has her own Wiki page. It is surprising to me that a founder has a page, but the actual company does not. 4. Much smaller and less prominent Venture Capital funds in India and across the world have their own Wiki pages with similar news mentions.

As I mentioned earlier, I am in no way connected with the organisation but I am part of the venture ecosystem in India and my aim is to improve the coverage and understanding of the sector in India on Wikipedia.

I am hoping to start with this page and your specific advice on how to improve this article would greatly help me in beginning the endeavour.

Thanks a lot for taking time and interest in the submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseStark (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ParadiseStark Unfortunately, what we really need is sources with coverage. The other VC funds you mentioned may also not be notable. Backing two notable companies does not give it notability. What you can seek to do is add better sources that analyze the company. See google books too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

need help @ Yehoram Ulman

Hi Galobtter, Could you give me a hand at this article? Yehoram Ulman We seem to have a blanker/ remover of sections of text pus lots of citations. It is an ip editor doing it. I fixed it two times and warned two times. Not sure if blp violations allow more reverts or not. If you have time, could you take a look and what you feel is most appropriate? Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Lacypaperclip BLP violations do allow more reverts; however I don't see too much problem with his latest edits; but I don't know much about this topic so I could be missing something. 07:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Well this guy is a very controversial Rabbi, the edits at first were bad. This last set looks a bit better. This ip looks to be dumping the text plus citations, then adding back stuff on the opposite view point. I am concerned, but I will keep an eye on, I hope maybe you can too. I wanted to thank you for the night for helping with that non-neutral RFC. Thanks again for taking a look tonight. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Lacypaperclip I did see that he was controversial and yeah the edits were bad; I've watchlisted the page and am looking over the IP's edits for BLP issues. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem

I have no problem with this edit [3]. Discussing this first is fine with me. It seems like a tough call anyway. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment expunging

I draw your attention in good faith to something (which I thought) you didn't actually mean to write due to the obvious connotation of the word used. However, since you really meant it that's fine, but your subsequent expunging of my comment is explicitly prohibited and curious seeing that you already calmly replied. So am sorry if my comment angered you from the beginning. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ammarpad not really angered, just felt it was offtopic so I removed...don't really care aboot it Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fake News Awards

Regarding this edit - the original text said something completely different until an IP changed it to be the opposite of what sources say [4]. Would you care if I restored original text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek No, original text matches the sourcen Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fake News Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On being whacked with a copy of the manual of style

I guess it's just one of the oddities of that corner of the wikispace, but if certain people start being adamant about a literal application of some aspect of MOS:DAB even in situations where this goes against basic common sense, it's usually completely futile to try and talk sense into them (no matter how sensible the people can otherwise be, and no matter how obvious the absence of common sense in the particular case). – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say a literal application would exclude this case; either way it is indeed futile. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)

See the continued discussion of the proposed move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Galobtter. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Bandai-Atami Sports Park Koriyama Skating Rink

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for moving Tamil Nadu Premier League pages. Xzinger (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a note

But on a high visibility article that is getting off wiki public attention, especially aimed at allegations of insular editorial bias... it's probably a good idea to leave edit summaries that are more... explanatory than "nuh uh". GMGtalk 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Haha. I don't see dialog much helping though - probably is a better idea, though Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well... the last thing we would want is for actual reputable publications to get wind of it, see it maybe confirmed in the way we dealt with things, and keep the ball rolling so-to-speak. GMGtalk 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Eh, yeah, I guess, I don't edit there much at all though; will keep in mind if editing Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: canvassing

First apologies for essentially removing your own comment, but it also didn't make sense to keep it given the restoration at my Wikiproject Chemistry post. If something was ambiguous that somehow lead you to think it was intended as canvassing, feel free to let me know though. Trying to influence voting one way or another should not be a take home from my message at all though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 I feel like There has been some discussion trying to justify the move saying TNT is now a precedent after it was also moved from its chemical name to acronym even though there was very little participation in that TNT move discussion. is not really neutral - speaking against those using TNT as a precedent, though I probably should've asked you to remove it; apologies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Essentially it's unnecessary..I don't think you need to explain why you're notifying in that you want more participation unlike TNT discussion. (I don't think it is too important though) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I'm only commenting a somewhat negatively that there was little involvement in that TNT discussion. Basically, I do personally think that decision was a relatively new direction for chemistry articles, but with that aside, we just need more chemistry folks to participate in these discussions to verify if that's really the direction we want to go with chemistry articles or not. I'll post a similar follow-up so there isn't confusion at the project page though between my basic pay attention intent to the broader acronym topic (DMacks comment mentioned the wider community implications) and intending to influence votes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :-)

I really appreciate you for fixing the Jean Springer article and for cleaning up the issues I restored in error - thank you very much :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Closure

While RFCEND doesn't require a RFC to close at 30 days, it's the presumptive place to start. A RFC can close earlier if there is an overwhelming consensus, and of course can stay open longer if productive discussion is taking place. In the case of the NRA, nobody has responded in over 3 weeks. The discussion is dead. After 47 days (and 26 days of inactivity), there's no consensus to add the material. What possible reason is there to leave this open? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Melania

How is your revert "very minor?" Thanks. Activist (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Activist should've clarified better; meant that the material added was very minor (melania trump gets a lot of coverage about a lot of things..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Her slapping Trump's hand away when they exited a plane got more coverage than most politicians get in a year. Her taking a $64,000 flight to get her nails done, or whatever, clearly defines the family's sense of entitlement. This wasn't a story about what color dress she chose to wear that day. I suggest that you restore it and BRD, refer the subject to the article's Talk page. Thank you. Activist (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Thank You
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard M. Blatchford (attorney)

Perhaps you'd like to be the one to change all the wiki links that reference Blatchford? I changed them from Richard M. Blatchford (born 1798) to Richard Milford Blatchford at another editor's suggestion. Since you've also weighed in with a change from Richard Milford Blatchford to Richard M. Blatchford (attorney), I really don't want to go back and work on those links a third time.

If you haven't seen it yet, you may want to take a look at the discussion on my talk page.

Billmckern (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I will change the links, thanks.​Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesse Cox redirection

Thanks very much for fixing the Jesse Cox disambiguation/pages! cheers Kathodonnell (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Decisive

Just to let you know, Since the arguments generally lacked in arguing whether high quality sources call it or not call it decisive that discussion took place in 2016 and was 12:5 against decisive. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I did note that. However, that was disputed, with discussion lacking. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't a discussion, it was a vote. Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Clark College confusion

Exactly why are people apt to get these three institutions confused:

  • Clark Atlanta University, a university in Atlanta which consolidated Clark College with Atlanta University forty years ago
  • Clark College (Washington), a community college in the state of Washington which is the only institution to bear this name for the past forty years
  • Clark University, a university in Worcester, Massachusetts that has never been named "Clark College"

If you believe that readers may be confused solely because of the similar names, why are readers also likely to confuse these additional institutions?

  • Clark State Community College
  • Clarke University
  • Clarkson College
  • Clarkson University

And if you really believe that we should have disambiguation pages just on the off chance that readers may be confused because of the first word of the subjects' title, please let me know because I have a lot of suggestions for article moves and dab creations e.g., Claremont Graduate University, Claremont McKenna College, and Claremont School of Theology; City College of San Francisco, City College, City Colleges of Chicago, City Pointe Beauty Academy, City University of Seattle, and City Vision University. ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

ElKevbo Atleast Clark Atlanta University needs to be there - since it was formerly so. Not just the first word, but university and college can be confused. And City College is a dab page.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
It's been forty years so I think that the community college in Washington can be safely considered the primary topic which means that we don't need a dab page.
Would still need a hatnote, perhaps. Or a Clark College (disambiguation) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Move review for Vicksburg

An editor has asked for a Move review of Vicksburg. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested moves → Proposed moves

As a formal requested move, shouldn't this debate remain open for minimum seven days (regardless of present consensus)? and due to the fact that you gave an opinion, "Nope What shortcut will be used then? Seriously. Can't use WP:PM...then WP:RM will be confusing. Lot of other changes for WP:IFITAINTBROKE," doesn't this mean that you're "involved" and should not also be a closer of this debate?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:IAR - WP:SNOW - WP:NOTBURO Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's all very nice, and I shall continue to consider your heart's in the right place; however, it's not really a SNOW close since there was some support. In addition, IAR should be used only when there is very good reason to break the rules, and even though I oppose the rename, your reasons do not in my opinion meet that criteria. As for the NOTBURO, I don't buy that one either. In all fairness to the nominator, I must ask you to please reopen the debate and let it run its course.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Galobtter, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

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)

Talk:Donald Trump#Adding criticized as racist to lead

Hi Galobtter. Just a courtesy note to let you know that a discussion you initiated, at Talk:Donald Trump#Adding criticized as racist to lead, has been closed, as requested. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 13:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of protection status of Thailand

I request the removal of protection status of Thailand as I need to add some information in etymology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysfgvkscwkk (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Thanks for your quick response. I'd like to add the following information: According to Michel Ferlus, the ethnonyms Thai/Tai (or Thay/Tai) would have evolved from the etymon *k(ə)ri: 'human being' through the following chain: *kəri: > *kəli: > *kədi:/*kədaj > *di:/*daj > *dajA (Proto-Southwestern Tai) > tʰajA2 (in Siamese and Lao) or > tajA2 (in the other Southwestern and Central Tai languages classified by Li Fangkuei).(source [5]) Michel Ferlus' work is based on some simple rules of phonetic change observable in the Sinosphere and studied for the most part by William H. Baxter (1992).(source [6])
I've just made an edit in Thai people adding the same content. You could just copy and paste what I've just added in Thai people. Ysfgvkscwkk (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your contribution! Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Ysfgvkscwkk hope you continue contributing! (and in a few days you will be able to edit that article or other articles that are semi-protected yourself :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter Thanks for making the edit. How many days after creating an account will a new user be able to edit a semi-protected article ? Ysfgvkscwkk (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Ysfgvkscwkk 4 days Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter Thanks.Ysfgvkscwkk (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)

Galobtter, I was wondering whether you could return to your review of this DYK nomination now that the nominator has made edits to address the sourcing issues. There was a request to run it on February 17, but of course it cannot run until it is approved. If it still isn't ready after the recent edits, it will have to wait, but if it is, time is running out to get it approved and promoted. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Castle Rock (Stephen King), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castle Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Template editor

Well I changed your rights and you are a template editor now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather a little unexpected, but thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

engvar: IUPACs are Oxford too?

For example re this edit: how did you conclude it is Oxford spelling too? For all? - DePiep (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The template had "'realize" before, according to the doc of Template:Use_British_English_Oxford_spelling "This template encompasses Oxford spelling as well as (in chemistry-related articles) IUPAC spelling" all the articles use '-ize' ​Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So the template {{IUPAC spelling}} had that. And the article? IMO, could very well be a mistaken/unnoticed detail in the template. Just to be clear: I don't know about Oxford details, so I must ask. - DePiep (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
​well the main thing about Oxford is that ise -> ize; a previous version of the template specifically said oxford spelling Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes so the template is OK and clear. But are the articles *actually* using Oxford spelling (what the talkpage is saying)? Will have to check that. - DePiep (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for NAC revision

I have to take small but important exception to an aspect of your non-admin close at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park#Requested move 9 January 2018 (though the general direction of it was, of course, correct): It's not a good idea to even suggest that "comma Jr." is a matter of what was determined at the last RM at which someone vented about it. This matter was actually settled (against the comma) in a long-running and heavily "advertised" WP:CENT RfC at WP:VPPOL, our broadest-input and most centralized forum for settling WP:POLICY questions, and the result of that is a site-wide guideline at MOS:JR. The consensus was clear enough that the admin (and Arb) closer of the RfC, despite vehemently opposing the outcome, nevertheless closed it with consensus against the comma. That's as solid as it gets.

Even suggesting that random attempts at WP:FALSECONSENSUS for the comma could topple this WP guideline and RfC, on a temporary whim and the coincidence of who happened to show up for a particular obscure RM discussion, is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL policy and to how we close discussions (on the strength of the policy arguments, not on vote-counting, persistence, or emotion level).

I'd appreciate it if you'd adjust the close wording to reflect this. We've already suffered through 2 years of incredibly tendentious "give me my comma or give me death" behavior by a trio of editors unhappy with MOS:JR, and this anti-consensus activism has to stop. I've strongly considered ANI or RfArb for at least one the "comma Jr." battlegrounders (the one who applies a "screw consensus, I will fight forever for traditional American mid-century orthography" attitude to many other WP:AT/WP:MOS/WP:RM matters, and who is headed for a topic ban).

An RM close that suggests that if he just keeps at it and gets even one "victory" that he can then proceed to RM all the Jr. articles to have commas, is a recipe for serious WP:DRAMA and years more drain on editorial productivity over tedious punctuation trivia no one else cares about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Busy today - will definitely reply and/or amend close tomorrow Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

INR Convert

The template is creating a bug. Pushing the succeeding text to the next line (when there is space). For eg: ₹200 crore (US$25 million) template is bugged. --Let There Be Sunshine 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Aah, removed new line, whoops Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing discussions from {{Centralized discussion}}

Please note for future reference that (as noted in the page notice you should have seen when making the edit) when you remove an entry it should not just disappear but rather should be moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive and have the dates it was listed at the end. I’ve done it for you this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Undoing closure of 7-1

I wonder if you might consider undoing the NAC of the 7-1 RfD? It's silly, perhaps, but I was the only participant besides the nominator, and given there was a previous RfD, I'd feel more comfortable having some more input. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there was a previous RfD slipped my mind, I've undone it Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Raween Kanishka

Please do not remove MFD tags from drafts. Maybe you did it by accident. If so, okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon apologies, absolutely did not even know I even did the edit. You seemed to have created two nominations - Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Raween_Kanishka and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Raween_Kanishka_(2nd_nomination) - probably withdraw the first, and easier would be to have just reverted me :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I created the second one because you had accidentally removed the MFD tag for the first, and that is how Twinkle works. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon you can just revert my edit that removed the MFD tag.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Roger Bannister

Hi there! A lot of the referencing has been updated on Roger Bannister, so would you be able to take a look at it and let me know if you are happy for the article now to go to RD? Thank you! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

curl

Hi. The straight one is causing the redlink. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Usernamekiran then the page should be moved Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
lol. I was about to that, but you did it before me. Thanks :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

KOODA & KEKE

Why did you delete Kooda and Keke ? KidMotion (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

KidMotion I did not delete those articles, I merged them into the article for the album - to create a much better article there, instead of having a stub on the single. Almost all the material is preserved in the article for the album Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This is in accordance on our guidelines on when a song should have a separate article, which states that standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion tag log

Stupid question here - how long has the deletion tag log been around? I'd never heard of it until just now, and when I run it on myself I get no results. I have a pywikibot script on another computer that I use to assess speedy deletion tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 it's a log of those speedy deletions that are done using the page curation tool, and doesn't catch those done using twinkle Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fictional rogue planets

When you closed the RfD, you didn't restore it and send it to CfD. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I figured it was better if you'd a do it, but I realize that I should've; I've done that Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Galobtter, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

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

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)

Module:Hatnote list

This module is getting errors all over Wikipedia. Please check your recent changes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth Should be already fixed per [7], purging pages where the errors show up will fix it, sorry about that Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Module talk:Hatnote list still displays the error presumably along with every other page in Wikipedia. I did purge it with [8]. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, that is using the sandbox, not the module. It seems to be working elsewhere. thanks for the fix. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Ethnic Slurs- Surd deletion

Greetings,

Surd is an irrational number in mathematics. And increasingly Sikh community people are being targeted with usage of this word. Sikhs who don't keep beard and hair on their head are being called cut-surd and Sikhs who keep beard and head hair are called Surds.

There are 3 more references I have found, if the previous one in your opinion is unreliable

- http://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-patna-live/20170413/281638190071299 - https://slangdefine.org/s/surd-194d2.html -https://www.quora.com/Northeast-India-Is-Chinki-word-vulgar-for-north-eastern-people-of-India-1

please undo the deletion and help increase awareness.

Regards, Ashirwadtrades — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashirwadtrades (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, wikipedia is not for advocating a cause; but, the hindustan times (pressreader) looks marginally ok for adding cut-surd, which you could add based on that source, perhaps Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Toys R Us are closing worldwide as well!

Can't you read the source?

https://hypebae.com/2018/3/toys-r-us-bankruptcy-filing-closing-stores-us-uk-worldwide?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share+buttons
https://www.mtlblog.com/news/its-official-toys-r-us-wants-to-sell-all-of-their-canadian-stores
https://www.straight.com/life/1051491/homeless-vancouver-bowmac-sign-faces-demolition-when-west-broadway-toys-r-us-shuts-down

They stated that they are closing all 1,758 stores worldwide ~BuddyBoy600 (Talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BuddyBoy600; Okay. So what's that got to do with restoring all that text to the lead? you can correct it if you wish, but that's not what you're doing; you're just adding a ref and restoring text to the lead Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
link only says "Toys "R" Us May Be Shutting Down Stores Worldwide Following Bankruptcy Filing" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
BuddyBoy600 both my version and the version you're reverting to say the same thing about the store closing. Could you explain yourself clearly.
I have:

In March 2018 it was announced that all Toys "R" Us stores in the United Kingdom and United States would close.

previous version:

It had stated that its stores will continue to operate, but nevertheless announced the liquidation and closure of 382 locations, at least half of these Babies "R" Us locations. Liquidation sale events are likely expected to occur in additional Toys "R" Us stores. It was announced on March 14, 2018, that all Toys "R" Us stores in the United Kingdom would close. discussion then turned to the fate of Canadian branches.

both say that uk and us stores close, nothing about worldwide. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the table fixes at WT:FAC -- I'll try to remember to incorporate those next time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your efforts in football kit template. Take this as my gratitude. Flix11 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox

Thank you for your work on my test on Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox (and your hard work elsewhere). If we can get this to work, and we can get consensus at the talk page, then we could add almost 1/2 million good descriptions at once!

A few things: is it possible to add an override (i.e. if someone manually adds a "short description" template or magic word, it overrides the automatic one from the infobox?). And is it possible to start the description with a capital ("Village" instead of "village")? For the second I think there is an easy magic word, for the first some real magic may be needed :-) Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The second one, I have been thinking about that - not sure - the last instance seems to override, so the short description would need to be below the infobox settlement. For the second one there is indeed a magic word - though I think it should be added to {{short description}} instead Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    I rather like this concept. I tested the use of several short descriptions in an article some time ago, and in every case the last one was the one that displayed. They were all in the body text, so I don't know if this also applies to a template in another template like an infobox. My tests did not use the API call, just css, so no guarantee that they would apply to an external call. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure it works that way. I mean, that is the only sensible way to handle duplicate magic words..IIRC with {{DISPLAYTITLE}} the last one takes effect Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galobtter/Archive_1&oldid=1143015588"