User talk:Galatz/Archive 2018-2

Crystal as a reason to modify headers?
I am confused about some of your recent edits, not why they were made but the guideline you invoked in your edit summary. What is "Crystal ball" about a section header statin Cruiserweight Classic and NXT (2016–present)?? Nothing "future" about it, just stating facts. I agree it could be eliminated, but if there isn't a good policy based reason you open it up to reversals etc, and we want to reduce problems. I just want to understand your point of view on this. MPJ  -DK 16:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The purpose of having the subheaders in their career section, is to break a career up into logical places. Unless they get to that point there is no use for them and assuming there eventually will be is why it's Crystal. On the wikiproject for example if you look back a month or so ago it came up and someone kept arguing it needs to be there because when they make the main roster that will be under a new subheading. So that's what I based my description on, if that makes sense. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's work on a compromise
I know you want to have links for Pete Dunne, Trent Seven and Tyler Bate to match their location on List of WWE personnel. Their profiles are linked to NXT but it shouldn't have to be removed just because they don't mention their involvement in the NXT UK Division, even though the full roster hasn't been announced yet. They were members of the NXT roster before the announcement of the UK division. I say, let's compromise and work out something that will restore their online profiles while also put a note in stating that the full NXT UK roster hasn't been formally announced yet. --Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds like what you want is link to everyones profile. I am not sure what purpose that serves though. This is an encyclopedia, not a Link Farm, which states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. This sounds to me like what you want is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I want. Before the announcement of the NXT UK Division, Pete Dunne, Trent Seven and Tyler Bate were listed on WWE.com as members of the NXT roster. Since then, there's been confusion on the page of where these guys should be, even though their online profiles still links them to NXT. I just saw the link you posted on the talk page, and I admit to not knowing the full roster for NXT UK was announced. Also I though WWE.com was a reliable source. Mark Andrews and Jack Gallagher are still listed as members of the Cruiserweight division and still have their WWE.com profiles. What I'm trying to get here is to temporarily move Dunne, Seven and Bate back to the NXT roster section until their official NXT UK profiles go online. If not, then I'm ok of them staying.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You are an absolute fool
Next time, click the links on the match and if it says it is happening on the kickoff, that means the match is on the pre-show, and therefore is happening first. WrestlerHelper1 שיחה Talk  11:23, 12 July 2018 (ETC)
 * That doesnt matter, the style guide says until the event its organized based on when its announced. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your revert at ECW (WWE)
Hey Galatz,

Regarding your revert at ECW (WWE) where you wrote "no reason given for adding such a category". While the category and its description are self-explanatory, I don't mind elaborating. Article disambiguation falls under certain naming conventions. For this article, it falls under WP:NCTV which says that if a disambiguation is needed, it should use one of the following options (TV series) for television series or (TV program) for non-series shows. If further disambiguation is needed, then a year or country prefix should be added. For this show, it seems that ECW (TV program) would be the correct name. The reason I have not moved the page or created a move request was that this process wasn't a specific action at ECW (WWE), but a larger process to find articles using wrong article disambiguations. Hope this clears this up. --Gonnym (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I do not believe its quiet as self explanatory as you might believe, because I do not believe it applies here, which is why your issue should really be stated when adding it. This name was chosen based on a consensus several years ago. Although your comments make sense in general, it would require a lot more disambiguation and discussion than that. I personally actually think that page should be WWE ECW, which would be more consistent with WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown, but that is a different story. This disambiguation was chosen, because the same ECW also had ECW Hardcore TV and ECW on TNN, and "ECW (TV program)" could relate that that as well. This particular show was also refereed to as as ECW on Sci-Fi or ECW on SyFy during its run, but its common name is just ECW or WWE ECW. The WWE Network refers to this page as WWE ECW for their archives . The other two shows, are grouped together on the WWE Network as just ECW. If the page name is going to be ECW, WWE would be the most WP:PRECISE, otherwise I believe it would need to be ECW (TV program, WWE). It could definitely be confusing to someone who didn't want professional wrestling, so I am not sure if this helped or not. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear up! Part of the reason I just tagged those articles was that when someone went over it, they'll research why the current name is this and to which name to change is (as IJBall has done recently), but if there is some dispute over the title, I'll tag it with Category:Television articles with disputed naming style instead. Is this ok? --Gonnym (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to open up a discussion to move it to WWE ECW. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD
Hi. I see you opened a discussion about Special K. I'm looking for other similar articles. Since the project changed a bit, looks like there is a new guide for notability. Can you give me your opinion about these articles? Justice Pain, The Messiah (wrestler) Wifebeater (wrestler) Nate Hatred The H8 Club Adam Flash Franky The Mobster Ric Blade Kit Osbourne Thumbtack Jack. I took these named from the CZW lists of champions, I heared about them so I don't know if they are notable or not, to open more AfD. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will take a look, but it might not be until Monday -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I found
 * Justice Pain - The article itself uses OWOW which is not a RS, and the others are all WP:PRIMARY. I am not finding anything else online either
 * The Messiah (wrestler) - This article also is relying a lot on OWOW. Its also using Cagematch and wrestling-titles, which although notable aren't establishing notability. Its got river city wrestling which is a dead link. No diea what Solie is we are then left with a wrestleview.com and a college website. None of this demonstrates notability to me, but searching for Messiah is nearly impossible so I have no idea if there is info out there or not, but I cannot easily find it.
 * Wifebeater (wrestler) - I see two links to wrestle-titles and one to a russian website which appears to be dead. This does not support notability but searching for wifebeater is nearly impossible so I hve no idea here.
 * Nate Hatred - Again lots of OWOW and cagematch and primary here for sourcing. Everything else I am finding online it just primary
 * The H8 Club - This article has 1 source, which is OWOW. I am finding a lot of info on promoting events that mention them or them in results, but nothing that isnt routine
 * Adam Flash - Sourcing here again is basically all OWOW, cagematch or other similar. I am not finding anything that isn't routine out there
 * Franky The Mobster - Again lots of OWOW, Cagematch and primary sourcing. There is a link to PWI 500 which I believe helps with the notability claim. The ncw.qc.ca links appear to be dead but i am guessing they are primary too. I also found something which was a Kevin Owens interview on him and an article on slam . There are plenty of french sources out there like  that I am not familiar enough with to know. I am guessing he meets GNG.
 * Ric Blade - Commented in AfD
 * Kit Osbourne - Commented in AfD
 * Thumbtack Jack - Commented in AfD

Sorry for the delay -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm looking for other articles. I see a common patron in the independent wrestlers of the 2000's, specially from CZW. A lot of articles but too much routine. I don't know if they're notable since I heared about them (i'm a wrestling nerd) but I mostly know them because I saw their wikipedia articles. I think the main problem is these articles were created in the early days of Wikipedia and the project, so people include every match they had so looks notable, but in the end, looks like routine. I'm gonna create more AfD discussions to clean a little bit this mess. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 1988
Refering to your revert on the article List of WWE pay-per-view events. It wasn't pay per view that time, a special TV show. But WWE lists it as an official pay per view by modern standards (which seems to be the standards for most wikipedia articles these days, what we think of it in modern times), and in 2014 it has been listed as a pay per view on WWE Network, even WWE's official web site (wwe.com) lists its as a pay per view along side the other Royal Rumble events. So it might not have been a pay per view then but is considered a pay per view now, but I will leave the decision to keep it or remove it to you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed multiple times in the past, and it is how things actually were. WWE rewrites history often, but Wikipedia goes by what actually happened. This is why wikipedia prefers to not go based on WP:PRIMARY which WWE is. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK thanks for replying to my query. Marked Man 808 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Personnel removal
Can I suggest when you make edits like this, that you make a list on the talk page of the names and diff of your removal so editors can try and reference them? It's way too hard to dig through page history of rapidly changing articles. — Moe   Epsilon  20:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Money in the Bank
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but Forbes magazine isn't a reliable source? Find that hard to believe. Jgera5 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can check out WP:PW/RS to see a list of all professional wrestling sources and whether or not its reliable. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, Forbes Magazine is not a wrestling specific source, it would not be listed there as such. Do you actually know what that magazine is? Not being listed under WP:PW/RS doesn't mean anything, if it's not listed there go by WP:RS.  MPJ  -DK 16:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure exactly what you are saying. Forbes the website covers a lot more than the hard copy magazine. The magazine would be reliable, but professional wrestling, which is covered on the website, is listed on WP:PW/RS and is not reliable. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well damn, that'll teach me to double check. I owe you an apology for jumping the gun there.  MPJ  -DK 17:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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.
 * June backlog drive


 * 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.

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

205 Live
You gotta stop with this obsession you have...the CWs haven't been on Raw in forever.

Frankly, this whole thing is getting tiresome...numerous editors have pointed out that 205 Live is doing their own thing.

Let it go.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't listen to him as we already argued, See my talk page, Yes I read your report threat and you did the right thing at WP:ANI and also posted my own opinions there too, There are 2 users involved in same thing second user is IP:32.213.92.177 I'm gonna do the same thing as you did at WP:ANI. I reported second user there for same thing. CK (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did a mistake that IP got involved in arguements, I did another mistake that I left him ANI notification on their talk page, First of all I'm sorry for this as It was not my intention(that might ruin/hurt you), I was also going report against that argument that I got no response there, for the reason I reached WP:ANI was the same as you've already posted which I saw your signature and the discussion topic and read all your messages, then I came to do the same thing against that IP whom was trying to re-initiate same arguments and same trivias and lies, There are some talk page policy guidelines even of non-admin closure I even tried to do with my ways but I paid for what I did with discussions. Vjmlhds stepped back finally but we need to do something that the IP editor do same. Even we need to do stronger thing. I'm still with you. CK (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Finisher list
Hi. I found this list of pro wrestling finishers. It's from a reliable source, so maybe you can include them in some articles (i'm in the beach, so my activity is very low) https://www.foxsports.com/wwe/gallery/wwe-best-finishers-stone-cold-stunner-tombstone-piledriver-sweet-chin-music-ranking-080116 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your Comment on the Village Pump
User:Galatz, shalom. Can I ask of you to revise your statement on the Village Pump, since your thoughts were not exactly clear to readers. It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, because of syntax problems. It would help also if you could cite sources to back-up your statements. Shabbat shalom. Davidbena (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am happy to clarify, but I am not exactly sure which part needs clarity. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can, restructure the entire paragraph.Davidbena (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

WAR name
Hey Galatz, asking you as it seems that you have knowledge with pro wrestling articles. The WCW article uses its full name World Championship Wrestling, while the WAR article does not and uses a disambiguation. Is there any reason for this? If there isn't then we can change it to Wrestle Association R per WP:NATURALDIS which prefers using the full name instead of a parentheses disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It would really go by whatever the WP:COMMONNAME is used by independent reliable sources. So if sources calls it WAR most often, then that is what the page name should be. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about WWE Network events Templates
Do you think we should combine the WWE and NXT sections on these templates? Maybe each brand and the dual-branded shows should get their own sections? Just want your thoughts. Thanks! - User:Mt.FijiBoiz
 * I get both sides, so I'm indifferent -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WWE PPV themes
There may not be sources available by WWE themselves online yet, but for both SummerSlam and NXT TakeOver's themes they have been promoted this week. A graphic was shown on screen for at least 10 seconds with commentators thanking the artists for the theme songs being official. I feel like that's reliable enough for it to be on the articles until WWE provide a reference on WWE.com. Because it's not a custom theme. It has been shown already.

--TheVaughano (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That would fall into the WP:PRIMARY criteria which still requires an inline citation, which there was not one of. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2018 theme songs
Hi, Galatz.

I've added the official theme songs to the Wikipedia article for SummerSlam (2018). The article is properly sourced with a reference from WWE's official website, and notes on how to find the articles as references.

I hope this proof is valid enough and the information can stay up.

--Pokkeballs17 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown 1000
Hello Recently you reverted the page WWE SmackDown 1000, I want to inform you my friend the event is notable by WWE, you can check the WWE Official Instagram Page (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC))
 * that does not make something notable. WP:N is established through coverage on WP:RS, not be the companies Instagram account. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  03:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian Dean
On his very own article, his date of death is August 13, and in the article Deaths in 2018, he is listed in the August 13 section. So we'll either have change it back to August 13 in 2018 in professional wrestling or change both his article and Deaths in 2018 back to August 14 depending on which is correct. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is correct or wrong but I went based on the source in the article. If you think the source is wrong, support it with another source, not with a Wikipedia page -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  03:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Starrcast
Hi there, Galatz. It seems I can't get away from wrestling articles! Could you do me a favour and take a look at Starrcast, which has just popped up at New Page Patrol. It seems just promotion to me, and not enough in-depth independent coverage, tons of name-dropping and being rather WP:TOOSOON. All the refs - at least those I've managed to wade through just seem to confirm there's an event coming, but nothing hugely significant yet. It may not quite be AFD material (?), but it's overtly advertising at present. Any thoughts? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: has just beaten us to it with a PROD. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, that article is basically just a summary of the official twitter account. It definitely needs a lot of work, but the event itself is definitely notable. Every reliable source basically from WP:PW/RS has covered it. I will add a few sources to help improve it and tag it as heavy on primary. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I mulled over an AFD, but felt there might just be enough there for me not to make an arse of myself by suggesting it be deleted. (Had wondered for a moment if our Defiant friend had resurfaced!).  Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The professional wrestling wikiproject unfortunately have many trolls just like that guy. It seems to be a never ending battle. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I also, again, recommend that you review WP:LISTBIO, particularly the part where it says "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article." Moreover, you insist that entries in this list be notable but WP:N explicitly states that "the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles."

I recommend you self-revert and open discussion in Talk instead of edit-warring. ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no need for a self-revert and 1RR is certainly not edit-warring. It is very clear in WP:LISTBIO that articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability. WP:N gives us the guidelines to establish notability, without it there is not verified notability. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverting another editor's revert is the very definition of a edit war. WP:BRD, please.
 * And where in all of the guidelines you've cited does it say "must have an article?" You use the phrase "verified notability" but the phrase that is actually used - that you quoted! - is "verifiable notability."  The material is supported by a source and is eminently verifiable.  ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One source does not establish notability. Additionally did you even look at the one source? He is a passing mention, which definitely does not establish notability. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you have provided no other means of determining notability for inclusion. A passing mention certainly does not accomplish this. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of WWE personnel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Please stop with this article carpet bombing. It is apparent that you are showing a lot of "My way or the highway" tendencies (WP:Own), and you are already being called out on edit warring on non-wrestling articles (see above), so please pick your battles more judiciously...take it from someone who knows, being a crusader doesn't work.'' Vjmlhds 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Truce
Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and on 205 Live, I was wrong.

I've become a convert to your way of thinking (regarding that issue anyway), so let's bury the hatchet and start fresh.

I'm willing if you are.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * sounds good, I never had anything against you personally :-) -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Nate Fish
By-gender categories have generally been treated as non-diffusing in the past: see and  for another instance. I've not seen any particular reason bloggers should be treated differently. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha....perhaps an edit summary would have been beneficial. Thanks -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I keep having to remind myself that it is an available option from Cat-a-Lot. Didn't used to be, but it's been recently added...which is why I forget it's available sometimes. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

205 Live
I don't want to get into a revert war. But, it still needs to be redirected to 205 Live. Lio Rush only showed up once on RAW and Drake Maverick is a manager. That doesn't mean anything. Unless he is doing general manager work on RAW and Rush is actually wrestling on RAW, 205 Live (brand) will be redirected to 205 Live. If I am correct, the Cruiserweight Championship hasn't been featured on RAW since 205 Live started. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that 205 live is not a brand, its a division of the Raw brand. Pointing it to a TV show is wrong. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is brand. If they were strictly on RAW, than yes, it is a sub-brand or division on RAW.  But since they have their own show, it is a brand.  RAW is a TV show and you want it pointed to a TV show.  By your logic that is wrong.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, its not a brand. Look at the WWE annual report they clearly say they have 3 brands. WWE says the cruiserweight championship is for the cruiserweight division on the Raw brand . They have dual brand pay-per-views, not tri-brand. They are at the Raw branded house shows, not 205 Live branded. Also the page points to Raw (WWE brand) not WWE Raw, so no, its not going to a show as you claimed. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  17:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I scrolled through and couldn't find exactly where it said that.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling match order
If a match is on the kick off show, it will be the (or one of the) FIRST match(s) of the night, because it takes place prior to the main show. BITW1611 (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your point? You are talking about a list that is in the order matches were ANNOUNCED. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

My point is that if a match is on the kickoff it should be put at the top regardless of when it was announced because it will occur before the other matches in the night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? Your point is ridiculous. If its a list of matches in order they are announced, the order they will happen is meaningless. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Except that only works if the matches are not changed once they occur if the matches change when they occur it takes less work out if you put pre show matches in match number 1 because if you do it in order of announced then everything has to be changed when the pre show starts anyway where by putting pre show first it eliminates the change straight away because it's already at the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet thats not the point of the list, and goes against the census and the established style guide. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Except the list is changed when the matches occur so to put something that will happen first eliminates all need to re do the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is to ignore the consensus and style guide, keep everything except for one thing in the order they were announced, and to do the exact same amount of work at a different time just because you like it better. Do you realize how ridiculous that all sounds? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

2 things. 1. I haven't seen this guide thing that your talking about and 2. It's not doing things at different times because you have to redo the entire list to change where things sit so it's saving time instead of adding it to the bottom then having to take it out and re do the list just to add it at the top it is easier to just add it straight to the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PW/SG there is lots of info there. And yes it is the same amount of work, they change as the matches occur, so you are moving just the one match at the start of the match or before the match, exact same work. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

But it's more work because you need to add it to the bottom then to the top because im saying to completely get rid of putting it at the bottom and put it straight to the top — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it already had been there for a while before it was announced on the preshow so your point makes absolutely no sense. We are supposed to magically know when the match is announced a month in advance that it will be on the preshow? There was an entire tournament to get to participate in the match that built up for weeks, yet it was announced to be on the preshow a couple days before. You are really grasping at straws here huh? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

No I'm saying that when a match is announced for the pre show whether it's a day before or a month before the show it should be moved up since it makes it easier to read since pre shows are at the top and not in the middle of the card and now in the case of them Changing a main card show to a pre show I agree in the fact that it is just the same amount of work at a different time but it does make it easier to follow because it is then saying that these matches are going to occur first — Preceding unsigned comment added by BITW1611 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Results section without actual results
What's next, a "list of cars" that doesn't actually list cars? MPJ-DK (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? No idea what that is supposed to mean -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Using the title "results" for shows that have not happened yet instead of the word "Card" - if it hasn't happened there aren't any "results" to list in the section. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And where on here, the change I assume you are referring to, do you see the word results? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  00:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what the confusion is. When you referred to the style guide I read the section called "results", there is no reference to it being called "matches" in there, so your reason for reverting is not actually based on any style guide but a personal preference - which as a revert argument is fairly weak. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to check that again. Matches are compiled in a table format using . If the article is about a future event, this section is renamed Matches and includes planned matches and their stipulations in order of which they were announced. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Storylines
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling which you may be interested in participating in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Championship tables/templates
Dear Galatz, could you indicate whether and where it was decided to replace tables with templates. My main objection to that new format is the inflation of columns that hardly give any extra information. Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a multi-month discussion on WT:PW about it, where drafts were shown and tweaks made, etc. Thats the advantage of this new template, feel free to suggest any changes, and if they are made, it will automatically update any pages that have it, rather than it being a manual process. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Superstore characters
Attempting to explain this, WP:FANCRUFT is described as: selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. It might be an important part to point out that she wears a different name tag in every episode but no one (except a "portion of enthusiastic fans") is going to care what or want to know "what name tag she wore in the second episode of the third season". The Doctor Who (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what it is. I have removed stuff from tons of articles that is fancruft (professional wrestling articles unfortunately get filled with it constantly). I just don't believe this falls into it. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Mae Young Classic
Why did you revert my edit to Mae Young Classic?

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * because linking a date to an event like you did is not proper formatting on wikipedia. Read WP:EASTEREGG. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

episodes of impact
Well [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421463/ TNA Impact! Wrestling on iMDB] disagrees with you (746) is the number of episodes Eerie Holiday (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a WP:RS -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel: NXT UK
Can you please explain to me why you're undoing my edits? All I'm doing is taking the link next to the wrestlers' ring name and replacing it with their profile from WWE.com as their source. This is the case for most of the other wrestlers on the page. The original link that I'm replacing is still being linked to other wrestlers that do not have profiles yet, so it's still there. I would just like a clear explanation as to why you think this is a problem. Thank you.
 * See the tag at the top of the page that says the page relies too heavy on primary sources? Yeah thats the issue, pages shouldn't not be built on primary sources. Read WP:PRIMARY, its better to have a third party source than a primary. So you are hurting the page by changing it, not helping. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Relocation of WWE Crown Jewel USA!
There some new source saying WWE Crown Jewel is being relocated to USA, but waiting for them confirm it since this is day when Turkish complete the investigation of the Saudi Arabia killing of Jamal Khashoggi. is that good? Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont care about what the rumors are, they are meaningless. If/when something is officially announced it can be dealt with. Until that happens, there is nothing to do. - 21:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The match has been officially announced. I don't know why you keep changing this, Galatz.
What is your problem? I simply updated the page because the match has been officially announced, yet you keep changing it back to it's old ways. And you have the nerve to threaten me with bans. Who do you think you are!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA617 (talk • contribs)
 * I already explained to you multiple times why your edit is incorrect. If you don't like it, read WP:BRD and WP:PRIMARY and learn to follow the policies. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't take orders from you. You wanna know why I ignore people's messages on my talk page? Because I've got better things to do than argue with a bunch of people who think they know everything. You, being a perfect example. A complete hypocrite you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA617 (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't realize pointing out policies to you makes me a hypocrite. You may also want to read WP:CIVIL since that one appears to have escaped you as well. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I stopped listening to you 10 minutes ago. You want to keep arguing? Do it with somebody else, I'm done with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA617 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh good one. I appreciate your attempts to deflect and ignore the actual issues. Keep up the good work. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not deflecting or ignoring anything. I sick of bickering with you about this, it's not a big deal. Your accusations are amusing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA617 (talk • contribs)

SmackDown 1000
Hello, I created this article In a last few months, SmackDown 1000 is a 2nd most Weekly Television show in History in WWE,this Article needs improvement, so i kindly requests to you this article not be deleted Brother (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Based on what wikipedia policy? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

But Sir Raw 1000 is Also article in Wikipedia,Both Raw & SmackDown competed 1000th episodes,so I kindly requests to I want to improve SmackDown 1000,thanks (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GNG -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent deletions and threat of block.
Hello.

I noticed you've put me forward for an IP block and said I have created pages for WWE NXT stars Montez Ford and Angelo Dawkins, collectively known as Street Profits, repeatedly. Fair enough on the Street Profits article but I did not create Montez Ford or Angelo Dawkins pages previously ever, that's absolutely not true. They were there before I even joined Wikipedia. Why were they deleted yet every other roster member is allowed to have a page? I don't get it. They have all the credentials that everyone else has. fwaigFwaig (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an article. They have failed WP:GNG -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning for your undo at Talk:Pixel 3?
84.78.21.1 (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Warning
I am asking a question related to the RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neville_(wrestler)&oldid=prev&diff=868801724 the last thing any editor should do when being warned for deleting Talk is then delete the comment reinstating Talk. If you don't understand the relevance of a comment, then please ask. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked how to pronounce something. How something is pronounces has NOTHING to do with a page move. Your comments are unhelpful to the discussion and absolutely should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You deleted without any explanation, courtesy or communication, twice. Do you habitually delete other editors' Talk comments? Deleting Talk page comments like this, let alone twice can get you blocked. Right now I'm seeing a combative editor. Do not delete editors Talk page comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. Both times and  I provided the explanation that its not a message board. Apparently you can't follow simple things or read simple explanations if you think I did not explain why. I certainly will not get blocked for removing something that does not belong there, as the policy says to do. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  20:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your 3RR report
About this complaint at WP:AN3. Your report risks being closed with no action, since it is malformed. The 'Pagelinks' in the header should name at least one of the articles in dispute, and it does not do so. The report contains no diffs. Also, looking at the substance of the dispute, both parties have reverted a lot and there is no obvious justification for these reverts. Your best bet is to post at the bottom of the report and say you are withdrawing it, and will follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Otherwise the most logical choice for an admin would be to block both of you for edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling Title Histories
Hi, I saw that you redirect the page earlier. I think the book has more than enough reviews and independent coverage to be notable on its own. I will be expanding it in the future soon when I have the time and energy.★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert if you disagree, it just seemed like a likely redirect instead of needing their own. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't redirect now, I'll just wait until I get to making it expanded.★Trekker (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Article needs more vigilance
The article History of WWE is frequently edited with unsourced and exaggerated contents. Only sourced and notable events should be added. There have been recent additions of short lived injuries and and exaggerated contents based on personal views and original research which I reverted. I request you and other members of wikipedia's wrestling project to please monitor this, thank you. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

WP:OWN and WP:Common Sense
In case you were not aware, you do not WP:OWN or control the pages. Please stop reverting every single edit you disagree with. And please for the love of God have some WP:Common Sense. If the WWE mentioned 20 seconds only one instance, on one single article and every other time mentioned the factually correct time of 0:02 then it was clearly a typo. The fact that you are so stubborn and refuse to acknowledge this is laughable honestly. Why does this bother you so much? It's not WP:OR, it's WP:Common Sense so you can't keep using that as an excuse to control the page to your liking. Many people have tried to correct this.  Goku 4 Star  Talk 19:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, you might also want to read up on No personal attacks before you go around calling people "Morons."  Goku 4 Star  Talk 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No to say it for sure was a mistake is 100% WP:OR. You have no way of knowing it was a mistake. It could be for a variety of reasons. To state it was a mistake without a source supporting it is the very definition of OR -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are just going to delete my messages and pretend they never happened then keep living in your fantasy world. And you know what, I don't care anymore you jackass. It's people like you that try to control everything that make editing on Wikipedia a literal nightmare.  Goku 4 Star  Talk 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What did you just call him? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PS, you might also want to read up on No personal attacks before you go around calling people "jackass." -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Think about it
I get that he won it last night, but WWE still recognizes Nakamura as champion, which is why I’m changing the “recognized by wwe” column for both men. Go to the wwe.com website and you’ll see that they still recognize Nakamura as champion. That’s why it’s still counting up. And since Rusev isn’t recognized as champion yet, that’s why the number should still be at 272 until next Tuesday. Explain to me how he just randomly gained 7 days? Sdharty4 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Carnival Cruise Line: Revision history
Suggest you check before making claims. It is the second time I have reverted this not the fourth. Conversely you have reverted three times so if anyone is edit warring it is YOU. I have invited you to start a discussion on the talk page to explain why you feel this table should be included and to obtain consensus for it as is explained in WP:ONUS. Frankly I am surprised that I have to remind such an experienced editor of how to behave and applicable policy. I look forward to your apology for falsely accusing me of edit warring Lyndaship (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully before making accusations. I said hat was your 4th time removing this and based on 1, 2, 3 and 4; it appears I am correct. In addition, not only did I revert you so did someone else . Not to mention a third editor reverted the same removal on another page here . So clearly you are in the minority here, and per WP:BRD it is absolutely your responsiblity to get a consensus on this before removing something. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  14:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response but I again suggest you need to look at the history and the diffs you provided. The first diff is me editing the article to remove this guff not a revert, the third is another editor performing your revert so I have only reverted twice (or if you consider the initial edit a revert three times) compared to your three unequivocal reverts. I again ask for your apology. Although ultimately it does not matter who starts the discussion on the talk page you have chosen to ignore my point about WP:ONUS by simply engaging in reverts without comment, that is less than ideal. Lyndaship (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are using the term revert, I did not. A WP:EW does not mean only the 3RR rule. Removing the same content multiple times is still an edit war. Being as there has been no consensus or discussion WP:ONUS is early to be saying that is the reason to exclude. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then I have removed three times but not four as you claimed. Therefore an apology for your error is again requested. WP:ONUS explains that the burden for obtaining consensus is on the editor wishing to include any information, as you wish to include you should have initiated discussion. Adding the same content multiple times is still an edit war and you have reverted three times compared to my two reverts and one removal, I think if we went to ANI we would both have our knuckles rapped don't you? Lyndaship (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont understand why you are still saying 3. Count them, I linked them all above -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this one - 3, it was not me who performed that revert! I've opened a thread on the talk page now for comment Lyndaship (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, I missed that. My apologies, you only removed it 3 times, I missed that one of them was someone else. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I realize that people don't like the edit warring notice templates, and they're usually quickly removed, though often at the expense of missing any attached comments. But a warning is is required part of the process, especially when an editor reaches 3RR. However you are correct, there is an current discussion taking place here and this is my contribution to the discussion. "Please ensure you carefully check page histories before making accusations. I had only removed that content the single time, yet when you reverted me, you claimed I "been reverted twice by two different people". I believe an apology is in order. You've already miscounted in your accusations against another editor today and on the same article. I see you have reverted that same content now 3 times in 24 hours, meaning you alone are now at the bright line of edit warring. And then of course, there is a convenient supporting revert from "Danielsviper", the only edit so far from this newly created SPA. You have been advised, multiple the ONUS is on you to provide reasoning for inclusion. Another editor has started a talk page discussion that you have so far refused to participate in. Yet you are posting threats about making reports to noticeboards already. Please slow down, calm down, stop with the threats and wildly inaccurate accusations, stop edit warring and start discussing." Thank you - wolf  18:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read above, you will see I already apologized to that user that I missed it was someone else, I extend the same apology to you. Also please read the guidelines, you do not need to, WP:DTR is a good read on that. A person needs to be aware of them, not to be templated. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I am familiar with the essay DTR and though I often don't, it doesn't mean that I can't. One exception to DTR, and I believe this one to be widespread, is the EW template, especially if someone has already raced toward 3RR and a 4th revert in the 24hr window seems likely, if not imminent. An EW warning is required for AN/EW reports and the template seems to be the most common choice for that. But hopefully no more of that will be necessary. I see the reverts have stopped, the discussion has started and we're all being very collegial now. Have a nice day - wolf  20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
What is the critera you cited for removing entries with articles on the 2018 list? MPJ-DK (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PW/YEAR -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no consensu on formatting or inclusion criteria before it was added one guy saying "looks good" is not consensus. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt.FijiBoiz (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Pathetic...very pathetic. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)