User talk:Galobtter/Archive 2

Quick suggestion, dunno how feasible -- a character counter kinda like Mediawiki now has for summaries/subject lines, either inside the inputbox or besides it. I know there's no hard policy yet but 40chars remains a general target and a character counter would make it a lot easier! Just my 2¢ :)

@Salvidrim!: well the width of the input box is 40 chars which gives you a rough measure. It should be feasible. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the width of the box in number of characters be subjective to zoom level and font?

✉

12:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The input box is sized based on the font, and thus it should allow 40 characters to be shown regardless of font/zoom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely should have been able to figure this out on my own. :p If you have any idea how we could track missing or WD shortdescs on a per WikiProject basis, feel free to chime at

✉

18:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd move a fairly valid discussion to a venue that isn't a PERM page. For reference, the rest of the thread (permalink):

I'd be more than happy to be pinged with an occasional request of this sort, and I'm sure several other TEs would as well. Perhaps we need a list/category of TEs willing to do these sort of jobs, rather than relying solely on the edit-request system? --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean I'd do it too; but I don't see a need for a seperate system; most edit requests are simple like this; I/one can just watchlist User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and respond to the requests as they popup there; there aren't that many requests honestly Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you would, as would some others. I'm aware of the ability to watchlist, but I was thinking more that editors might be happier knowing that they can ping an actual person as well, rather than having to rely solely on making an edit request – which may appear to them a bit like a castaway throwing a message in a bottle out to sea. You know what human nature is like. --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

​I suppose that we have Category:Wikipedia template editors, but do you think we should make an additional/sub category akin to admins willing to do copyright or revdel requests? Primefac (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, there is that comparison to {{copyvio-revdel}}/WP:Copyright_problems, where you can do that as the formal method, or you can ask an admin willing to investigate copyright matters which can be nicer/easier. No harm I suppose in creating a category.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, having an alternative route may be more comfortable for editors like Alucard 16 who seems to have been happy when a known editor did those occasional jobs for them. It wouldn't cost much to set up, and wouldn't detract from the regular process. Sign me up if you do it. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I added myself too Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your approval work on draft pages! <3

SunnyBoi (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That is all. SiliconRed (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• What'd you like about it? I don't think it is very unique or anything Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope it was a mistake. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Doug Weller sorry, didn't even realize that happened Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I presumed as much. Happens to me at times. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tanya ZQ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zeroqode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Galobtter!

To be honest, I am not sure if I understand the sense of the message you sent me "Assuming the ZQ in your username stands for Zeroqode, declare your connection with the company" What exactly I need to do and for what this actions? I've read Wiki help, but there are a lot of confusing phrases.

I am working at Zeroqode and of course, our company wants to be presented in Wikipedia. Is this a problem? Do I need to pay something after that? What I need to expect after disclosure? As I understand in my case employer and client are the same entity. How to indicate this on my main page?

Regarding our wiki post about Zeroqode is there any problems with references or the only one problem is in disclosure policy?

Waiting for your reply. Thanks in advance.

Tanya ZQ (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hello
  our guidelines for notability for companies and thus it will not be accepted — unless you find suitable sources and a neutral non-promotional draft is written based on those sources. Galobtter (pingó mió
  ) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you know they aren't an experience unregistered Wikipedier? Part of the immense downside of IP editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting then that they normally edit as an IP but for this proposal for some reason decide to create an account :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• MrBernardKendall (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mitek Systems, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

MrBernardKendall (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• With only only that one source, that isn't the multiple sources for notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

world progress....walkind dead...T...sSh Eymrise France (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

what? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to have a page mover step in and do this so quickly.

• Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for Quick Work

  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Turns out the issue was a duplicated parameter on the acupuncture article. Not in the ICD10PCS template. (Must increase sample size in future!) Thanks, Little pob (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tanya ZQ (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zeroqode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Galobtter!

I've disclosed the COI. Could you please check Zeroqode's talk page and say if everything is ok?

And also, I need help with references.

Do we have appropriate references? :)

As I understand TechCrunch is a reliable source, so we can use reference on this source?

Can we use in references our own links, such as, "Learning Courses". Zeroqode? We use this because this is an explanation for this sentence "Zeroqode has brought together various providers of courses[14] that teach how to create web and mobile applications without code."

Tanya ZQ (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

COI disclosure looks ok; you can reference it, but articles published in techcrunch are often not considered independent for considering

notability; the same with referencing your own links, which you can do but doesn't help with notability, and can lead to promotional tone if you're text is just repeating what you're company is saying. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 15:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I needed a bit of help. A certain user is persistently disruptively reverting my edits to an incorrect version even after repeated explanation in edit details in the page 2018 Indian Premier League. It is creating real troubles as he is just continuing it again and again. What should I do?? Cricket246 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• @
  WP:AN3RR for edit warring; keep in mind the 3rr rule applies to you as well, even if the edits you're reinstating are correct. Galobtter (pingó mió
  ) 17:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not using the reverting/undoing edit option. I'm just manually deleting it. Is that fine? Cricket246 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@

edit warring) Galobtter (pingó mió

) 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In that case, the next time he does it I'll be reporting him instead of reinstating the correct version. Cricket246 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The user is back with his disruptive edits. Please help. Cricket246 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to go sleep now, so I can't help too much, but like I said, you can report on

WP:ANI explaining how he is constantly reinserting the change and refusing to communicate (see the instructions on those pages), and you can get admin action there Galobtter (pingó mió

) 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks doing it right now. Cricket246 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I get what you're trying to do, but these two really aren't the same thing. While both of the current titles are definitely POV (the articles even state the names are a variety of "political framing"), there is no consensus on where each of them ought to end up. I attempted to close the first one, but lacked the necessary permissions to implement the close, so I reverted. The second one still needs more discussion to determine the correct title, and the place for that discussion is at the "pro-choice" talk page, not at "pro-life". Bradv 16:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @
  WP:RMTR. However, I think it is very important to get these moves done right and simultaneously; judging by people's !votes and both pro-choice and pro-life being political framing, they should similarly end up at pro-choice/pro-life or anti-abortion/abortion-rights, not split up. Doing one move but not the other is highly likely to cause unecessary shitshow/drama. The arguments appear the same, apart from, as I noted, Beyond My Ken's, so it makes sense to discuss them together. The RM bot sends a notice so that people watching at the pro-choice talk page also are notified of the talk page, so I don't think it is necessary to have that discussion there.Galobtter (pingó mió
  ) 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's still no reason to close one of the discussions. There is still an ongoing discussion about what to call the "pro-choice" article (it doesn't necessarily have to go as proposed), so that conversation should be allowed to continue. By closing that one and moving discussion to the other page it will be nearly impossible to properly gauge consensus as the question has changed halfway through. Bradv 16:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

again, I only see Beyond My Ken suggesting other title; Considering the main article is at Abortion-rights_movements, it seems highly likely that it will go the same way if moved, not to some other title. Reason to close one of the discussions is to not have a split discussion/different results for the discussions when it seems that 95% of people agree on moving bother/moving neither. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I caught it and was correcting it at the same time that you were, apparently. Strikerforce^Talk 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You 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/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You 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/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In the above RfD, my biased mind sees consensus in favor of deletion. It's probably not a good idea to close a contentious discussion like that one as "no consensus" without an explanation for why you feel there isn't one. Regardless, it's probably best to back out of it and let an admin close it, keeping

@Tavix: I nearly backed out, but I feel the result is actually quite clear (which is why I didn't put an explanation initially); however I added an explanation for why I felt that it so. I would like a second opinion, though, so let me ping Amorymeltzer, and they can feel free to revert the closure if they feel it was incorrect/that they would've closed as delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Then just back out and just let a admin like Amorymeltzer close it if you need someone else to look at it. The reason I would like an admin to close this discussion is due to the fact that you cannot close the discussion as delete, which gives a natural bias in favor of "no consensus" when a discussion can reasonably go either way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

​Man, y'all have perfect timing. I just spent the last 20-30 minutes reading over those two XY pages, doing some background reading, and had just resolved to step away for a while and have some more tea, then return to the conversations. Having not done that yet, I'll offer that my read was indeed to close this one as delete. If I still disagree in a bit, I'll let you know. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Curious for the explanation (and will, as I said, defer to your close, be it delete) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Meh, I evaluate discussions fully (i.e whether they would be delete) and keep in mind that bias. Also I wanted to ping them for a second evaluation just to see if they have any extra feedback to give. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone and closed it. I did't mean to bully you out of the close, so if you're unconvinced by my explanation there, let's chat. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No bullying, tis ok :) I didn't feel the keep arguments could be downweighted that much, i.e I don't think they went against guidelines/policy in a way they would be more discounted, but anyhow, I don't think it worth arguing over. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say downweighted, per se, more that I didn't really think the keep arguments or evidence were as consistent or strong as one would like. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AQA Holding. Since you had some involvement with the AQA Holding redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I just stole a copy of your dark theme - my eyes are already feeling grateful for the relief. Cabayi (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied it from somewhere I don't remember (I think it was on meta); probably should put that somewhere.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• ParadiseStark (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kalaari Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Galobtter,

I submitted a new wiki page earlier in Jan 2018 on Kalaari Capital but it was rejected by you based on notability guidelines. I have taken another attempt at creating a wiki page and chose a topic which is more notable than the previously chosen topic. You can check the submission here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The/Nudge_Foundation

I was here seeking your advice on whether this seems acceptable considering Wikipedia's strict notability guidelines and policy on new articles. Let me know if you feel something is amiss and if I can improve anything here. As discussed earlier, I am looking to contribute more on Wikipedia and guidance from senior members would be helpful.

ParadiseStark (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why you created this module instead of relying on Module:Labelled list hatnote like the template did before/ {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Pppery For some reason I was thinking then that doing a direct call in Template:Further to Module:Labelled list hatnote would require modifying and complicating Labelled list hatnote in a way I did not want to do. I have now fixed Template:Further so that it no longer depends on Module:Further and have nominated the latter for deletion. Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The contributions by this author > Roxy, the dog. shows his writing is NOT based on neutral view standards and the various topics he contributes shows that although he deploys and cites sources and information to substantiate his arguments -- that the basis of his contributions is slanted opinion. Please see the version history for yourself of his contributions where he starts off not by educating people on what exactly is Crystal Healing from a neutral view tone but starts with trying to compare the topic of Crystal Healing to pseudo-science or science which means absolutely nothing. The comparison has no basis because one is not inherently even part of the same discipline, the analogy here is it's like comparing a car to an apple. I came in to help edit the actual article and then he tried to claim edit wars when wikipedia is supposed to be editable by ANYONE. This is nothing but intimidation techniques that clearly shows lack of respect and neutral view which is the basis of wikipedia's guidelines. And attempted to revert back to his biased changes. CristieJ (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now making a fool of yourself. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter Please note the following:

Roxy, the dog. In compliance with reporting this author for reverting my request for review -- Please reference the Talk section of the reverted article that shows clear bias, which has been reported for the following:

Crystal Healing: [[7]]

1. Lack of Neutral point of view in content and language to show bias for science and scientific study in an article clearly about: Crystals and Crystal healing. This is an opinion piece thinly disguised as educating people on Crystal healing. 2. Requests an editorial and admin POV check on the the entire article for using very strong biases in wording to substantiate it's claims that Crystal healing is not a science even though it doesn't claim it is a science... 3. Claiming editorial wars when wikipedia guidelines show that ANYONE can edit the articles and author in attempting to maintain opinion and bias by reverting edited content that was addressing the topic from a neutral perspective.

See referenced, the violations noted 1, 2 in dispute : [[8]]

CristieJ (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

edit warring Galobtter (pingó mió

) 11:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter (pingó mió) the article is about Crystal Healing not the comparison of Crystal Healing to Science then the title should be changed... sorry but I am requesting a formal NPOV and POV check. Thanks. CristieJ (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty much the response you'll get from anyone; you should probably read

WP:PSCI before requesting a check against it. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 11:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

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

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of
  the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here
  .

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, you recently edited Module:Redirect hatnote and Module:Hatnote list, indicating your familiarity with these modules, which are both used by {{Redirect}}. I recently observed a strange problem where using {{Redirect}} and {{R from ambiguous term}} created unreasonable transclusion links showing up in article edit preview (below the edit window) and in "What links here?". We are discussing the issue at User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Interesting transclusion effect - any idea? and given your familiarity with those modules I thought perhaps you could shed some light on it as well in an attempt to further narrow down and fix the behaviour. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You should really stop vandalizing my edits.

Please restore the status quo that obtained before you made the changes. Petergans (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The status quo is having the article at

silicic acids, as DMacks says here Galobtter (pingó mió

) 05:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see the problem with the title "Silicic acids" - WP treats a plural in a title as it were singular. The article currently entitled "Silicic acid" must be renamed to something unique, like "The silicic acids" or "Silicic acid monomer and polymers" or "Silicic acids (true)". Note that there is currently a redirect in silicon dioxide to what I had named as "Silicic acids", which will need to point to the renamed article on the acids (plural). "Silicic acid" (singular) should re-direct to "Silicon dioxide", because it is an extensively used synonym for that substance.

There is an analogous situation with there being three articles relating to "phosphoric acid", "phosphates" and "phosphoric acids and phosphates". Petergans (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a disambiguation page for "silicic acid"? Current usage of the term "silicic acid" for the substance silicon dioxide is extensive but, strictly speaking, wrong as a correct term for this substance is "silicic acid

anhydride". Petergans (talk

) 08:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Todays edit is an improvement. However, the title is not correct because the article deals with more than one silicic acid. The pictures show 2 examples. The chemical compound "Silicic acid" is perhaps better named as monosilicic acid. This will make it clearer that "silicic acid" is a generic term, not the name of an individual chemical compound. Moreover the term "silicic acid" is in common usage with the meaning silicon dioxide. This is why I originally used the title "Silicic acids". The distinction must be made clear. Petergans (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding: If "silicic acid" would more commonly refer to the actual acids, then it doesn't have to target silicon dioxide, it should be about the actual acids. If it doesn't, then it should target

WP:RM with evidence of usage being like that if one wants the latter to occur. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 05:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you have not understood the chemistry. I made a mistake originally in giving the article, which I created, the title silicic acids (plural) which is scientifically correct, but won't work in WP because singular and plural are treated the same way in links. The current title silicic acid which you have created is not acceptable because it implies a single chemical compound, whereas the article deals with a set of at least 4 compounds. The article title and links to the article need to be unambiguous. The term silicic acid has become ambiguous. Here's a suggestion for a title which is scientifically correct and WP unambiguous: Monomeric and polymeric silicic acids. Please undo your edits and use this new suggestion, or something that carries the same chemical meaning. Petergans (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Note also that all the "what links here" are incorrect. They belong with silicon dioxide. Petergans (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I've said above twice, the simplest thing for you to do would be to start an

requested move discussion where you can make the case for silicic acid redirecting to silicon dioxide and for moving it to silicic acids. This will draw broader participation and resolve the issue. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 09:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a comment apparently about the time you collapsed a section. Probably a good collapse. If you'd like to move my comment inside the bottom of the collapse or to be more precise, move the bottom of the collapse below my comment fee please feel free.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed but he reverted my final warning. I brought him to WP:AN3, the guy doesn't listen. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You're final warning was on vandalism, of which their edits aren't - you didn't explain the three revert rule there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. I would not be opposed to sending them to ANEW because they've just been running roughshod though the page history and clearly ignoring all warnings. If you don't want to do the ANEW, I'd be fine with doing it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, since I only warned them now about edit warring, I'd personally wait until when/if they do another revert (thus showing a violation even after learning of 3RR), though you of course can open an ANEW report now if you want to. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh, imo this has been going on for a while and honestly rides the line between edit warring and vandalism if you check some of their diffs from the last day or so. We'll see what happens with the AIV, but I don't foresee an improvement in their behavior, barring a miracle. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a general disruption block could be reasonable Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sealioning#RfC about the inclusion of suggested ways to deal with sealioning

(Notifying everyone who participated in the previous RfC.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no conflicts of interest. Use AFD if you want to get rid of the article. It has tons of reliable sources and you are out of line. 98.113.141.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Of interest may be this thread, in case your recent edit gets reverted. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, thanks for the link. I wouldn't be surprised if it does get reverted, do know that everything in the lead sentence in such a controversial article would have been debated before :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your help with b } 23:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been a recent response to you on the Tranny Talk page. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You accidentally added

{{#invoke:ISO 3166|code|{{{1}}}|codetype=alpha3}}

to the template. It causes the output CANCanada when It should be Canada (for example) - BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks JJMC89 for taking care of that Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey there Galobtter. I came across a couple pages you edited today SOHO 3Q and 2015 Bonnaroo Music Festival through Special:NewPagesFeed. I wasn't sure if you'd intentionally left these unpatrolled hoping for another pair of eyes on them or if it was oversight after you or another editor undid the redirect. In case it was the latter I thought I'd drop this note so that I (or another NPP) didn't duplicate efforts you'd already done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks for the note, yeah it was an oversight, because the curation toolbar didn't popup for me I forgot that redirecting and un-redirecting something unpatrolls it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a very regular user compared to others, nor am I very comfortable in using talk pages to argue contentious points so it might be worth getting a pool of editors aware of these pages so a consensus can be found on how it's going to phrased if at all. Sometimes I see things in a different way to others so I want to make sure that A) there is no reliable basis for these accusations, B) There's no point mentioning such a trivial thing. Could this be compared to,for example, Illuminati symbol theories [9] that shouldn't even be given any serious consideration at all? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources (not the Daily Star..) have paid attention to such theories vs in this case where there is reasonable coverage in reliable sources Galobtter (pingó mió

) 18:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing reverting my edits? I have experience editing Big Brother articles and am knowledgeable in the subject and you aren't by the looks of it. Did you take time to view the video in the source and see if he was making a joke? He is not making a joke in the source, he is unaware and uneducated of the movement. This has nothing to do with personal opinions, which you have accused me of. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please take your discussions to article talk pages. O3000 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

original research based on your own view of the situation in the video (seriously, (re)read that policy). And, yes, do as Objective3000 says, discuss on the talk page of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 04:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

hi GB, just wanted to say thanks for creating the redirect. I admit, I should have created a redirect and then gone for RfD and let the community decide. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday editions were made to my Wikipedia page. (removed per

I recently run for US Congress and lost by 83 votes in a Run Off. I will do it again in 2 years, as I have already been contacted by the Party for that.

All formers Miss Venezuelas have Wikipedia.

I would like to request, to lock my account so what happened yesterday doesn’t happen again. Probably you can assign me as Webmaster. I would like to have the "Marriage Location" erased since I am no longer married. I would like to have my Children's name links removed from Wikipedia. They are not Public Figures and I respect and protect their privacy.

I would like to request to be allow to submit an up to date CV to you and for you to make the up dated information to Wikipedia. I will put my Children's name there with no links, please.

Thanking you for your kind attention,

Carmen Maria Montiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by DilmaEmperatriz (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To answer your concern, on my talk page you wrote "In response to your query about new "issues of wikipedia policy"; no, your main reason for requesting the move, that dictionaries order the definitions differently, directly contradicts policy - wikipedia is not a dictionary, and doesn't care about dictionaries in determining what the title is." This is ordinarily true- However, it is quite remiss of an encyclopedia to make a main entry that doesn't adhere to the most accepted dictionary definitions of terminology. The mere fact that one is using what the dictionary makes clear is a secondary and slang sense of terminology (as such is the case with "Tranny"), it becomes quite intellectually dishonest and is direct evidence of political motives in editing in order to make one's political movement more visible, which is NOT what Wikipedia is about. In my opinion the suggestion that the move was proper is outright frivolous, regardless of how one wishes to frame policy. It would be much appreciated if you and everyone else would stop using policy to further your political agendas.71.91.178.54 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for working your magic on Sodhi Bala. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Thanks! If one thanks from you is 9 barnstars, how many barnstars is an actual barnstar? :O (Setting the bar low for magic there, btw - copying from an old revision was hardly the monumental task :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sudden switch to and interest in Meghan Trainor articles, Galobtter? Or just

Was wondering how long it'll take for you to come to my TP and accuse me of

WP:HOUNDING

for that revert, of which there is none - I supported MaranoFan's unblock request, and in doing so watchlisted her user talk page. I saw your post to her talk page, and looked into what it was about. That's basically it.

Now, I don't see how

WP:OWN

: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack."

Rather, your revert seems an example of

WP:STONEWALLing - "Removing a large addition for a minor error. If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up). Perfection is not required, and Wikipedia is built through incremental improvement." In the edit, the main changes appear to be adding a well sourced critical reception section and expanding the lead. It should hopefully be self evident how those edits are improvements. Certainly, if there are any issues with the edit - revert - but remember that "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." So far, I have not seen you give any actual reason for reverting; reverting good faith improvements is what is not collaborative, not making those improvements. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 16:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, since you were one of the ringleaders of the group of editors meatpuppeting and wiki-lawyering against MaranoFan's every edit, this is not a good look for you. It appears that you are repeating the same behavior. Softlavender (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're accusing me of meatpuppetry and being a "ringleader" -- are you kidding me? Unless you've got some real good solid evidence the back up your accusations, I think you should seriously consider backing off and away from those accusations. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you were accused of hounding and responded by saying "it's on my watchlist". Surely you'll accept the same reasoning from Galobtter as well. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Just got the curation tools a couple weeks ago and foolishly assumed that TW and it functioned the same. I'm going to assume it is a non-starter, but has anyone looking into creating a shared library of functions that could be used for various tools so that things were done in a consistent way tool to tool? {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Zchrykng, no idea if anyone has looked into it, seems like it would be a good idea Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I may try to raise the question somewhere when I have time to actually write up a good proposal. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your revert: if you notice 2017 does not have a value... same ref as before and listed at

Waddie96, yes, was just about to self-revert Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

[10] - open season for RfCs on sourcing, it seems! Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on my suggestion at the Kavanaugh hearings talk page :) ! Sean Heron (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please explain your statement that "I can't see that quote" in the Washington Times article that was the basis for reverting me [11]. To aid you, here is the article in question with the quote highlighted: (copyright violation removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs) 04:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

copyright violation and not allowed; sorry, I didn't see the "read more" button; anyways, I have removed the sentence in question Galobtter (pingó mió

) 04:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Can you please explain your statement then? -Obsidi (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, I just saw that you removed the "special visitor note" ([12]) at the redirect "Genie (feral child" [sic]. In the edit summary you mention two links which according to you are pointing to this redirect. Perhaps I am blind (or it is hidden in some JavaScript stuff not showing in my browser) but I can only find links to the actual article page "Genie (feral child)" there, not links to the redirect (which was the whole point of the RfD). Am I missing something? Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, links to the redirect are in the opening post, e.g in the sentence "I was reading an article about Genie, the feral child." on [13] Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but, well, that's what I thought as well reading your summary, but the link under the text "Genie, the feral child" goes straight to the article Genie (feral child) (with closing bracket) for me, not to the redirect Genie (feral child (without closing bracket). Doesn't it do this for you as well (in the status bar and when clicking on the link)?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, ok, for some reason when going to old reddit skin (the standard view until a year or so, and what I have set as the default) makes the link broken, but not with new reddit.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for this observation. I don't know if you followed the recent RfD for the redirect, but in there we were searching for the cause, why this redirect got so many hits. Some people assumed it must be coming from Reddit, but all the links we found over there were fine. Miracle solved. :-)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I only knew the redirect existed due to the RfD Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The BBC source incorrectly cited him, they mention he said: "Curie etc. only welcomed after showing what they can do, got Nobels..."

and cited him in quotation marks. But the presentation doesn't include only.

No, they have now changed the title of the BBC article. It's not cherrypicking, is actually completing the sentence written in the slides.

Also, I think we should include this, from the BBC article: Prof Strumia has since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts.

DanyelCavazos (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)DanyelCavazos — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanyelCavazos (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit confused here this report was released on October 1 [14] it is the official report from a legal standpoint. There in the report it mentions that her lifelong friend denies ever knowing Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh denies ever meeting Ford. This information is must be added for NPOV. Charges were declined to be pressed due to lack of evidence why would we continue portray him as under allegations? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE where you will almost certainly be blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 12:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted it, but I'll be making some other corrections as soon as possible with related articles. I going to reword a bit on the Ford page, I think if a man is found not guilty by official committee it is a BLP violation to continuing wording as an open allegation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

we depend upon sources, who still treat it as an allegation; neither is the Senate Republic prosecutor memo the official report of the official committee. Please reliable sources that state the report has cleared his name or is any way official committee report.

To reiterate, she is just a prosecutor the Senate Republicans hired to question Christine Blasey Ford. Her conclusions do not significantly impact anything, as she is not acting as a prosecutor in this case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no future case her conclusions certainly warrant more attention than media sources. It does not appear this will go to investigation so continuing to portray him as a rapist is BLP violation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - can you cite a policy backing your claim? Galobtter (pingó mió

) 13:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the report? "Ford listed multiple people who were present during the party including "Mark Judge, Patrick "PJ" Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser". The three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee "denying any memory of the party whatsoever". Keyser stated through counsel that, "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford". Mitchell concluded that Ford's case "even weaker than" the standard "he said, she said" case and declined to press criminal charges against Kavanaugh". The section show if Ford was rape it was not by Kavanaugh as her friend stated she did not know him. Kavanaugh is a victim of misidentification at worst. This quote certainly holds weight. Media sources do not take precedence over an official government report. Not to mention everything I added has been published by Fox News. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, This is not an official government report. Find a source that states it is. And as I asked - policy? This isn't even the conclusion of the Senate Republicans. This is purely a memo of Rachel Mitchell. Quoting Fox News: "Mitchell, who was hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist Republicans, addressed the letter to “All Republican Senators,” and said no senator approved the memo. She noted in the assessment that she is a Republican, but said she is not a political person." Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a legal finding from a public committee hearing. Are you saying the outcome of this hearing is not important to the article? If Mitchell had found enough evidence to postpone his nomination it would be immediately to the article would it not? You see what is going on here? I've added multiple media sources which you also removed source this and a source showing what Graham felt about the committee. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, This is a legal finding from a public committee hearing. no it is not. Find a source that says that. It is, as I just quoted to you above, a letter to the senate republicans from Rachel Mitchell. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

talk

) PingMe 14:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer I would never included the misidentification in the article, but to quote the report directly or through a secondary source such as Fox News is warranted. Unless Mitchell has falsified facts Ford specifically stated that Kavanaugh occasionally interacted with there social group and cited Leland Keyser Ford's longtime friend as witness that the party occurred. Leland however said "Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford". Not only has Keyser said she doesnt recall such party, but the clearly stated she has never met Kavanaugh "with, or without, Dr. Ford". We do not make interpretations here, but this information is relevant to included without details. Each of her called witness denied memories of this party with some directly contradicting Ford's testimony. Valoem ^{talk contrib}

09:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain to me where I need to add that {{#invoke:string|match|s = {{:13 (number)}}|pattern = {{lessthan}}div class="shortdescription.->(.-)<}}? --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see now. So if I change the "s" value with the name of the article I want, it should work? --Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym yes; I made this into a template, which should be more convenient: {{Extract short description}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Amazing! I was starting to read up on how Wikipedia's coding language works but you saved me time :) I was reading on parser functions, but couldn't find the one I need. I want to see if the article name entered is disambiguated with parenthesis ("()") and if so, pipe the name and style it according to the Manual of Style. So for The End (Lost) it would make the name "The End" (Lost). Is there any function available I can use? --Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym I'm not sure if that is possible unless there's a way to know if something needs to be in quotes or italics - sometimes the disambiguator needs to be italics, sometimes the title except for what is brackets needs to be in italics, depending on the type of the work. So this is doable if the type of work (film, tv episode, song, book etc) and the formatting for each is specified. Or one can get how the title is displayed, which I'm trying to figure out how. (addendum: but that won't include quotemarks) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to create a Template:Television episode disambiguation description template, which calls your {{Extract short description}} and passes it the article title. In this scenario, it will always know that the name is in quotes and the disambiguation in italics (sometimes the word "episode" is also included so it will need to ignore that). Does this make sense? --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

yup, okay. I'll see about coding it, there isn't a function but it should be pretty easy to do as a module Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I guess I'll read the completed module and learn how this language works. Thanks for all your help so far :) --Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

3 examples of how this can be: "TV episode", "TV episode" (TV Series) and "TV episode" (TV Series episode). I've also seen exceptions like World Wharf II: The Wharfening (or How Bob Saves/Destroys the Town – Part II) so there probably should be another field added to the template of "ignore parenthesis" (true/false) which in this situation will treat that as part of the title; and A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) which is not actually discussed in WP:NCTV so no idea what the proper way is, but from the few episodes of the Twilight Zone that use this, the style is consistent of <TV series>, <4 digit year> - but I guess for scenarios as The Twilight Zone this can be manually overwritten until/if a clear style is written into the guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix, but why does replace not exist when I see it at Module:String (function str.replace( frame ))? Also, do you have any idea why line 9 (if (disambiguation == "false") then does not work? Articles without disambiguation apparently move through). --Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Module:String (which is for use in wikitext) calls it replace, but the lua function is gsub. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's confusing! I'm glad (or am I?) that at least the others were the same and sort-of worked. But, that may explain why the doc said the results appear as the number 0, where in reality they were nil. Would you mind giving me a review the module I created? It's my first one and I pretty much learned the syntax with trail-and-error. The template is User:Gonnym/sandbox/Test and the module is Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/Episode disambiguation description. If you think code from the template should move to the module, or the other way, let me know. Thank you for your help so far :) --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I took a look and only comment is that the lua pattern for finding the disambiguation and for getting articleTitle do almost the same thing so you'd may want to make them essentially the same, though that is a minor thing and I can't claim to be any sort of expert on lua having only learned it a six months ago (also, you're way better at documenting than me :)). Regarding moving code, I'd suggest moving all the code into the module; there's only a little to be moved from the template and it is nicer to have it all in one place. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I know I appreciate a good documented codebase so I try and do the same :) Could you help me out with the pattern issue? I pretty much copied that from templates and don't really understand that well how that pattern works so don't know how to merge those two together. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

this and this are useful reading for understanding lua patterns, and - also, do you know regex? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I know of it, but I just hate those patterns, I try and stay clear :) Merged the switch into the module, so now the only thing there is calling your short description template. Think the code can go mainspace, right? --Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Another question, can you change Template:Extract short description to fail gracefully when it cannot find a description? Either leaving blank or some sort of "No short description found" would be better than the big red error. --Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It now leaves a blank. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, there is an issue with the template that is explained here User talk:Trappist the monk#Need your assistance, do you know how to fix it so it won't transclude the article? --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, i've been looking at this for a bit and I'm unable to find a way to fix this unfortunately (the page needs to be transcluded so it can be parsed to find the short description) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That's sad to hear. I've reached out in the Lua help page, maybe someone there has an idea. --Gonnym (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This was finally managed! Module:Extract short description is now available to extract short descriptions from templates such as infoboxes. --Gonnym (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Updates

The Infobox television episode and the templates that extend now auto generate a short description. Thanks for your help in starting me with this.

• Template:Infobox television episode - 9868

• Template:Infobox Futurama episode - 127

• Template:Infobox Rome episode - 25

• Template:Infobox The Goodies episode
  - 77

I have a question which you might have an answer, should episode redirects (such as

That's great! Regarding your question, I mean, adding a short description directly as {{short description}} may be easier, but generating it with the infobox would also be fine I reckon; short descriptions are pretty new so it is a bit of a wild west regarding what should or should not be done :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.. I might then add it with {{short description|Television episode short description}}}}. Do you know if anyone has been adding those to redirects? I don't really want to start then wake up to 100 red notifications on this. --Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood has been Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Though let me hasten to add, there is some commentary on this at User talk:Pbsouthwood#Aquarium diving; as long as it is useful for the television dab etc I don't think there'd be objections though Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• LennyBunko (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RETAL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Galobtter,

I am new to Wikipedia, so must admit I am learning at the moment. I can confirm I am not affiliated with the people in question, and I am editing the article as requested.

All the best, LennyBunko

LennyBunko (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

bsd. Hi! I saw you reverted an edit of promotional nature on Canad Inns by user Winnie Pegger. I had reverted only the logo, because I don't have the expertise to assess promotion. Said user is back, reverting part of the reverts, including the logo, which by all appearances is the exact same as on their website. (By the way, these two edits are his only ones). I think the page should be reverted to before his fist edit, as nothing of significance has been added, besides for his edits. Do you have experience dealing with this kind of improper editing? Thank you. --Ben Stone 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLD in reverting nonconstructive or promotional edits! Galobtter (pingó mió

) 13:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ben Stone 14:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ben Stone & Galobtter! I'm not promoting Canad Inns, simply updating the information that's wrong. For example, if you go to their website - the company's logo is trademarked & is different from the one posted on Wikipedia, which is why I deleted it in the first place. I would think making constructive edits to a page so the information is factual for the public would be welcome here. - Winnie Pegger (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Winnie Pegger, then why have you removed all the litigation while inserting puff as in here? The logo doesn't look different and one can update the logo instead of removing it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome and for your help in the mess around the mistake done a couple of weeks ago with the voice "Italian colonists in Albania". I am going to try to create asap the voice "Italians in Albania". Thanks again.--Esauster (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Esauster Good luck with that! Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

I award to Galobtter the "Mediator Barnstar" because he served very well as a mediator between heated debates on the talk pages of articles and users, related to the voices "

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you very much. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter,

you recently declined the Wikipedia draft on the Taiwanese company C.C.P. Contact Probes saying, it doesn't have enough independent sources. I am a bit puzzled: The article cites several independent sources for every statement made. Sources are recognized Data networks such as Bloomberg or Reuters. The company is stock listed, therefore its annual report is also done by an independent auditor: PWC. It also cites buyers (Siemens) and Distributers. Could you be more concrete which kind of sources would qualify and which aspects of the article are not sufficiently documented

Thank you in advance!Jole222 (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see

notable it must have substantial coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 04:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, thank you for your prompt response. I have added some other sources. Would you mind, taking a look? I am also wondering why a stock listed company with a revenue of over 60mio USD wouldn't be automatically notable. A public company should fulfill this "notability criterion" automatically.Jole222 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See

WP:WHYN for why an article requires such coverage. A public company needs to rise above the average as Wikipedia is not a directory of all public companies but an encyclopaedia. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 07:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Galobtter, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have recently created Katharine Cramer Angell. I hope there will be many more. You might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need any help. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please add Shortdesc helper on

BukhariSaeed My understanding is that Wikis other than the English Wikipedia don't have local short descriptions enabled. So there would be no point to the script on other Wikis. For enabling local short description on Urdu Wikipedia you'd have get a consensus there and file a task at phabricator. If the Urdu Wikipedia does have local short descriptions then I'd see about making it work there. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 05:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)