User talk:Galobtter/Archive 2

You are a locomotive!
I've been looking over your contributions.

I'm impressed.

I wasn't too happy at first with your nomination of the portals for deletion. But, they are in a serious state of neglect, and fixing them will be quite a project. I can see why you thought it best to get rid of them. On the bright side, the discussion has brought supporters and others of talent out of the woodwork, and that has been amazing, and completely makes up for any initial dissatisfaction I may have had. I'll be mining that discussion for contacts from both sides of the debate for months. Plenty of interesting people I want to meet. Including you.

Hi. I'm The Transhumanist.

My interest in portals is peripheral. I worked on them years ago, but saw that developing and maintaining them as Main page correlates for subjects manually was a major time sink, and abandoned all the ones I created, leaving them as static resource pages. So, why am I concerned about Portals? Because they are one of Wikipedia's navigation systems, each a sister project to each other. When one gets attacked, it puts the others in potential danger (see domino effect). Look at Joe's comments in your RfC.

If outlines ever disappeared from Wikipedia, so would I.

Who knows who has major future plans for the portals, or who are struggling to keep them alive because they see potential that others do not? But, the RfC is reminiscent of the disregard or lack of respect RfC'ers and deletion nominators showed me when I was trying to establish the outline system. See:
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 64
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193
 * Wikipedia talk:Outlines
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78

Oh, that was stressful, which I'm sure many of the portal supporters are feeling now. For me, it's deja vu. Outlines have come a long way since then, but they still have a long ways to go. My goal is 10,000 of them, but at 100 per year, that would take 100 years. So, I've switched over to programming in order to build tools to automate their construction and maintenance. Though, this won't happen overnight.

But, more importantly than being a sister system, the portals have topic lists that I would like to harvest for the outline system. Computer programs can't make those very well (yet), but I am in the process of building scripts to convert the data formats. Those won't do me much good if the pages I wish to convert disappear. Even those portal topic pages that simply transclude navigation templates, serve to identify those templates as topic lists, saving me from having to differentiate them from all the other templates in template space. Yes, I'm building scripts to convert template topic formats too.

Many of the support areas of Wikipedia are suffering from lack of volunteer labor, and it doesn't look like the needed volunteers will become available, ever. That means, we either trim away what we can't develop and maintain, or we automate. I prefer the latter. Due to technology, all the support systems of Wikipedia have an incredible amount of potential. It is impossible to know which ones will inspire future talent and leapfrog the others. And so, I get concerned when people want to make them disappear. In the meantime, each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, the portals are in need of work. But it doesn't have to be human work.

But, enough about portals. Let's move on to other more interesting things: Tech.

I noticed you are technically oriented, and that your common.js is packed. You're a technophile! And perhaps a Wikipediholic. Pleased to meet you.

Many of the cool tricks and techniques for using Wikipedia have been collected by the TOTD department. My favorite is the one that hangs a totd template at the bottom of the page, like this:

I saw that you modified a script. How well do you know JavaScript?

I recently created a user script I'm hoping you will take a look at. It's one of the conversion programs I mentioned above, designed to help build outlines and other lists. But, I've turned it into a generally useful search results enhancer as well. It's called SearchSuite. Let me know what you think of it. Any and all feedback is welcome.

I noticed you are not registered to use AWB. AWB is a Windows program. Are you on a Mac or Linux? If so, JWB is a pretty good alternative. AWB is one of the most powerful tools available to Wikipedia editors. It's a list-maker, auto-page-loader, and semi-automated stream editor with extensive search/replace support, including regex. It also has a list comparer and WP database scanner. And more. You will probably love it. I used its prepend feature to post the 1500 deletion discussion notices.

While over at Fram's talk page, I spotted your post about Short descriptions, and sent PBSouthwood a heads up. He and I are hoping those will be able to be utilized via scripts for developing outlines. Create half a million of them? I'd like to know how you foresee doing that. Very cool.

I look forward to your replies. And if you have any questions related to Wikipedia, please feel free to ask. &mdash; The Transhumanist  13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Update on outline automation
Here's an update I wrote for someone, which explains things in a bit more detail...

I'm learning JavaScript, so I can automate outline construction and maintenance.

The goal: full automation. That's hard. Within easier reach are interactive tools that can assist editors and increase their productivity: semi-automation.

One approach I've been working on is magical vision for editors who work on outlines. No, not special glasses, but changing how Wikipedia is presented on the screen so that anything that has built-in outline structure, they see as outline material. Shown in wikiformat, without going into an editor first, right there on the screen. From where they can copy and paste it into a wiki editor.

Outline material abounds on Wikipedia all over the place. It's just not noticed as such by most, because it is formatted differently. As you know, outlines are trees, and trees have branches. Those branches can themselves be outlines (i.e., have more branches), or they can be straight lists.

Straight lists are outline material?

A single outline can include many straight lists.

One of the places to find straight lists on Wikipedia are search results. No branches. Just a list of destinations. But cluttered with lots of extraneous data.

So, I started experimenting with reformatting search results, to convert them to a form that is easy to copy/paste.

By the time I was done, it wasn't just useful for outline developers. It was generally useful.

It's a user script called SearchSuite.

It's got several features that modify search results, and each is given a menu item that serves as its on/off switch. Each can work on the output of the others (that was a pain), and the script remembers the setting of each switch between searches. Once you turn a feature on, it stays on. Until you turn it off.

One of the features is sort. Another strips out details, giving you a single-spaced list (showing a lot more results on the screen, which is much faster to browse). Another toggles the sister project results. And another toggles those sometimes annoying redirect/category-based results. The outline developer's feature wikifies the entries, though sort is quite useful to them as well.

Further comments...
So, that's the conversion script for search results. What other areas are slated for conversion?

Well, I'm done writing the conversion scripts for Special:Allpages with prefix, Wikipedia Books, and Categories. I'm about half done with the ones on CatTree, and nav templates (navigation footers and sidebars). Those last two are proving much harder, and are only partially operational.

I've not yet started on All pages, indices, infoboxes, portal topic lists (so many formats), what links here, tables, embedded lists, or article prose content.

Where is this heading?

Somewhere along the way, I'll put them (except article prose) on a switch (the same switch). I think I can do that without combining them into the same script, but they'll all be bundled together in some way at some point (to allow for a single install).

Then, outline developers can click the menu item to instantly see whatever outline material is on whatever page they are on, in a form they can easily transfer. Some will do it the other way around: leave them on, and turn them off when they want to see wikipedia in the normal view. (Right now, they are not on a switch, so I see the outline view all the time).

And as I did with SearchSuite, I'll add other functionality as well, for general users.

Does any of this make sense?

I figure that as I learn more about programming, I'll progress to higher levels of automation.

I've looked for other programmers to get involved, to no avail. So I'm pretty much on my own on this project.

I hope you've found this interesting. Sincerely,    &mdash; The Transhumanist   13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Plain text
Module:Plain text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your "nomination for deletion" of portals
You need to notify every WikiProject linked from the talk page of every portal (via the project banners at the top of those talk pages) of this discussion since you're trying to get every portal deleted. Yes, that's a lot of projects, but you must make sure that every project is aware of them. I only found out what you were doing because someone else left a notice on the WT:JA page. Please make sure you notify every project affected by this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 07:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't any requirement to notify WikiProjects. I think a notice on every portal page is enough, though you or anyone else can notify all the wikiprojects. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't a requirement but it is an accepted practice that can be taken into account by the closing admin. If this were some small nomination then yeah it might be overlooked or forgiven, but this one in particular has large scale effects throughout Wikipedia. Projects use portal pages as a way to draw in possible new members, they are connected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say most projects really care about the portal - the ones I know of I wouldn't think so at-least. It is accepted practice when it clearly relates to one or a few projects; I wouldn't think the same for these sort of wider RfC's. There isn't a notice for far more important ACTRIAl on every wikiproject just because each wikiproject's pages will be subject to autoconfirmed..same with wikidata in infoboxes RfC et al. People who do care about portals probably have at-least one portal page watchlisted. I wouldn't consider it to have large scale effects on Wikipedia. This is a widely advertised RfC (apparently now it is on every article bot alerts, so it is receiving as much notice as the average deletion discussion to each wikiproject, which seems appropiate to me, for the level of importance to each project). Not that it matters anyhow, since the discussion is certainly a No consensus one, with only the closing statement to be written Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A question: Did you check archives from Voting and Survey (disambiguation) concerning P:WP and Portals in general? I did this for de:WP. The resuls can be seen in de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Entwicklungsgeschichte von Redaktionen Portalen und Wikipediaprojekten. We shortly had a nomination to delete a portal and found that it is impossible. Greets --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean did I check past discussions, I did do a quick look through - one rfc was on deprecating featured portals, apart from that I don't think anything major was there in the past few years at-least. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No I mean the early times of the project. The old RFC's (or similar consensus) are still valid if I am not wrong. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. They would be; any consensuses that are there should be at Portal_guidelines. I see this interesting discussion from 7 years ago.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no expiration date for consensus. Disussions may have been a lot - we have the same in de:WP. Completed Polls are IHMO still valid. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is no expiration date; just saying I'd expect any consensuses to make it into the guideline. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK ==> no expiration date for consensus. You can see that Portal:Contents is a central point of wikipedia? All the other little Portals grew up later. Sorrowfully many were not supported very well. Nevertheless ... I hope you understood this historically grown project has it's surprising sites ;-) Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Infobox settlement short description
Module:Infobox settlement short description has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thanks! I figured it needed some trimming to counteract the ever expansion it undergoes Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

PERM
Hi. Can template editors edit fully protected pages? I see you edited WP:PERM. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but WP:PERM isn't fully protected, it's only template-protected. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oui. Thanks guys. See you around :) — usernamekiran (talk)  04:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America
Reads 'This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories.' Your addition of AFDs for Reliv and Scentsy to have page have been removed since those companies are obviously from Missouri and Utah/Idaho respectively....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yup I got it from the edit summary you gave. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

IPL match 22
Hi. Can you please link Ankit Rajpoot in the Man of the Match section for Match 22? Many thanks in advance. Cricket246 (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Short description
I reverted your edits to Template:Short descriptionto stop it trying to populate the non-existent and pointless Category:User pages with short description.

I see you wanted to expand the scope of pages categorised but please you make it exclude user pages? -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Fixed, well it now categorizes in Category:Pages with short description, not sure if it should just be entirely excluded Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Does seem to make sense to track that somewhere, in this case a short description in WP:RFPP caused the user page short descriptions, and I fixed that - cat will help fix those instances. I think I'll make the list shorter, namespaces tracked with their own category. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks. I was really beginning to despair about admin quality, great to see someone who is AGF for newbies, not jumping to conclusions and not seeing every problem as a nail in need of banhammering :)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 


 * PS. The main discussion is taking place at Education_noticeboard, you may want to copy your comment there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not an admin though, just to be clear. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you showed a better judgement than several admins. If you ever run for an admin, give me a ping. I can't promise I'll support, of course, but I'd be happy to review your candidature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to know :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

April 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --  Alex TW 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Like I explained in the move summary, there is a consensus. About 4-2 or 4-1 by !vote tally. Again, start an AfD if you have a problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, go to AfD if you have a problem. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would have thought an experience editor would know discussion is not based on votes. How are you here, Another Believer? Are you stalking my contributions? --  Alex TW 15:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that doesn't mean !vote margin can be arbitarily discounted. If anything, you're !votes would be discounted by any closer. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stalking? Please. I'm reviewing many pages related to discussion, please don't make accusations. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy or guideline that states so? --  Alex TW 15:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, "talking to a brick wall" is right. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are against WP:NPA. Another policy you are not aware of. --  Alex TW 15:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, I can't, I'm done here. Let's see how you get the last word in here, too... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, I hate being called a brick wall, such attack. Cheers for the discussion. --  Alex TW 15:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reunion (Westworld)
How were you able to move this? Can you move Journey into Night as well? Valoem talk contrib 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That will be considered edit-warring. --  Alex TW 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you would be the one edit warring. Multiple editors are contesting your move. I have consensus here what is your problem? Valoem talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You do not. No discussion has concluded, hence no consensus has been formed. Moving from it's position in the draftspace would be edit-warring. You seem to be unaware of the discussions that have unfolded about it before your involvement. Take on advice from the more active editors. --  Alex TW 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a discussion. You don't need a discussion to create a new article. Multiple editors intend to revert your actions therefore YOU are the only one acting against consensus. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not creating a new article. You're moving a draft. Submit it through Articles for Creation, if you require policy and guidelines so badly. --  Alex TW 15:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pedantry about the distinction between moving something to draft space and creating it directly isn't generally very convincing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, it makes a lot of difference. Was it ever submitted through Articles for Creation? --  Alex TW 15:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'd let the discussion play out before doing anything further Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I support move back to main space. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, how are you here, Another Believer? Are you stalking my contributions? --  Alex TW 15:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You were never pinged here. You are WP:HOUNDING. Careful, bud. --  Alex TW 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need help buddy, I noticed you jumped into Dr DisRespect, so it's like the pot calling the kettle black. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That was linked on Graeme Bartlett‎'s talk page, publicly accessible. I came here through the Twinkle template. Try again? --  Alex TW 15:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am allowed to view the user talk page pages of editors involved in discussions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you just happened to view it at the right time. Sure. --  Alex TW 15:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're implying, but you're making accusations and not assuming good faith, which I don't appreciate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, I moved the page just before and he could have visited my talk page then. Not like this is an unrelated discussion where he is hoppin in. I don't know the history between you to however I'd caution accusing others of stalking unless you feel there's some real evidence. (and even then what you do do is present that evidence at WP:AN, not launch those accusations) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No history, at least from my perspective. I actually very much appreciate AlexTheWhovian's contributions to Wikipedia. I just happen to disagree with his moving of content from main space to draft space. I have no problems with this particular editor. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also happen to disagree with the disruptive and deliberate creation of stubs against advice, guidelines and policies. And the above listed issue. I too have no problems with this particular editor. --  Alex TW 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are the articles really stubs? I'd hardly say so, and I don't believe creating stubs is overtly against any policy. I also personally don't have problems with stubs unless they are microstubs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take away the plot, and see how much real-world information there is. Yes, stubs. --  Alex TW 15:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Castles
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean, or or if it was supposed to lighten the mood, but if that was the intent, it didn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted, I realized that that wasn't helpful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I normally filter out that sort of stuff as not really being appropriate to the situation. This time I didn't, apologies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'm normally not really that sensitive to such things, but I was just perplexed as to what you were trying to say at all given the above comment. Anyway, thanks for reverting TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He was telling people below not to throw stones from glass houses, but you're very civil so you more live from a castle..yeah typing this out makes it seem stupid doesn't it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it was a compliment. Heh, anyway, thanks for reverting. Not happy that the RfA is turning into a mess (even if I'm part of the reason for it getting heated), but I do appreciate the revert, even if you were trying to be nice to me :P TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (watching:) Trying to lighten the mood, and educating: a castle is a cold dark defensive place (burg), the nice ones are called schloss or palace or château ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony, you're a total Schloss :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Means a lot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Making this a brighter place, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello friend
Hi. Thanks again for the help today. Lugnuts apologised and I replied to him to clear out the animosity. Can you please see his talkpage once in your free time to see if I was okay in my approach towards him? Cricket246 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're certainly more generous and kind than I am, in extending an olive branch to him. What he is saying sounds nice; do hope he does reform his ways. And do remember that if he or anyone else does/repeats this behaviour to report it and not let it be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes for sure I'll be reporting it the next anything similar happens now that I know what to do. I always believe every person deserves a second chance so I like to forgive. Of course the next it happens my door will be shut forever as I won't compromise my self respect. Forgive but never forget - That's my principle. If indeed he's struggling from frustration issues, I would be more than happy to extend some support to him. A little kindness would help to make the earth a better place I believe. Cricket246 (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

How
Hi dude. my native language isn't english, but i'm improving it. my level is nearly intermediate (despite my grammer is awful). does learning french and latin vocabulary help to improve en etymology or i shouldn't waste my time in this route ? --Dandamayev (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it depends on your native language; if it's already non-inflected / Indo-Europoean you're laughing. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 12:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-19
<section begin="technews-2018-W19"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * The Wikimedia Commons mobile app has a new version. It is now easier to find nearby places that need pictures. It helps you with direct uploads and title and category suggestions. The app only works on Android phones.

Problems
 * Octicons-tools.svg The abuse filters had a problem with blocks where you had changed how long they last. It used the default length everywhere. This was in late April. Abuse filter users should make sure the right block length is used and change them if needed. This is only for filters where how long blocks last had been changed.

Changes later this week
 * The advanced search function beta feature will be on all Wikimedia wikis. It makes it easier to use some of the special search functions that most editors don't know exist.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 May. It will be on all wikis from 10 May (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 8 May at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-sync.svg Octicons-tools.svg You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 9 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * Octicons-tools.svg All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 16 May. Other wikis will switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2018-W19"/> 16:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

TfD closing
Could you please reopen ? Because contain  but without relying Fb team templates, thanks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're saying. Is there some conflict with having Fb r2 header set for deletion but not the others or what? Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean that it is better to close as the same result, or reopen this TfD until  closes. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * closed, I actually was looking to close it next. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK! Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Shortdesc helper suggestion
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¢ :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  02:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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? Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  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 WP:VG, as it is a report I'd be quie happy to work on, and potentially for other projects (Canada, TV, Animanga, etc.) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  18:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Just moving this a bit
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 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 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)

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

SunnyBoi (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Your user page is great.
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)

Why the revert at FTN?
I hope it was a mistake. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

13:30:54, 18 May 2018 review of submission by Tanya ZQ
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, yes you have to disclose your connection with your company on your user page; see these instructions; there is no need to pay anything. Also, there are indeed problems with references. Based on what I searched and in the draft, I don't believe Zeroqode is meets 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)

Experience Wikipedier
How do you know they aren't an experience unregistered Wikipedier? Part of the immense downside of IP editing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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)

Request on 18:36:38, 18 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by MrBernardKendall
Hi, I deleted the references that you cited and added a new one to a New York Post article that had better coverage of the company. Can you please review.

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)

toxin dihdrogen monoxide😃
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)

20th Reconnaissance Squadron
Glad to have a page mover step in and do this so quickly.
 * --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
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)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

14:48:45, 25 May 2018 review of submission by Tanya ZQ
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)

Help needed
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)
 * I warned him about edit warring, if he continues to reinstate the edit, you should report at 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)
 * no, it doesn't matter if you're partially reverting, or manually doing it, you shouldn't revert an edit more than three times (as a strict rule, though you should avoid 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:AN3RR, or 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)

United States pro-life movement / United States pro-choice movement
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". Brad v  16:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't spot that you closed the pro-life move; if you don't have the permissions you can actually request at 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. Brad  v  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!
Thanks for fixing that. I caught it and was correcting it at the same time that you were, apparently. Striker force Talk 14:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened
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 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 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see 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)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3
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 WP:BADNAC in mind: Non-admin closure is not appropriate (when) the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. Thanks for your consideration, -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, 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 <small style="color:#555"> (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)
 * 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 <small style="color:#555"> (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 <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 09:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

AQA Holding listed at Redirects for discussion
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)

A cupcake for you!

 * 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)

Request on 20:51:56, 21 July 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by ParadiseStark
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)

Module:Further
May I ask why you created this module instead of relying on Module:Labelled list hatnote like the template did before/ &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Crystal Healing
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)

Crystal Healing has been reported for violating NPOV guidelines and POV Check
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: []

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 : []

CristieJ (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy on neutrality is following mainstream science. Thus "show bias for science and scientific study" is precisely what we want in an article. Anyone can edit wikipedia; however they must follow some rules on collegial editing, including not 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:NPOV, especially the section WP:PSCI before requesting a check against it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 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.

Interesting transclusion effect caused by redirect-related templates
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 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)

Sarah Jeong DR
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: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Gentle warning
You should really stop vandalizing my edits. Nergaal (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

silicic acids
Your renaming of article and redirects relation to silicic acid and silicic acids is just plain wrong. I have been at some pains to explain the difference, but clearly you have not understood. The issue arises because the chemical entity silica, formula SiO2, can, for historical reasons, be called "silcic acid", though it is better to call it "silicon dioxide". The "silicic acids" (plural} are completely different chemical compounds, like Si(OH)4 . That's why they had an article to themselves.

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 acid. I added a hatnote pointing people to silicon dioxide. If one wants to move the page one can start an WP:RM and obtain a consensus for the move - and even if the move is to silicic acids it is possible that silicic acid would be redirected to silicic acids, as 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 Silicon dioxide with a hatnote to the actual acids. You can start an 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)

Jeong
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)

Knson3
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)

User EW on 6ix9ine
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)

Another Sealioning RfC
Talk:Sealioning

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

conflict
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)

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

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

One of you edits broke Template:ISO 3166 name
You accidentally added 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 for taking care of that Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling
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)
 * , 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)

Zina Bash, Ok gesture
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 that shouldn't even be given any serious consideration at all? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , the main thing would be WP:BLP - we can't associate her with such serious accusations if it there is merely reporting on twitter users making such claims. It may not fullly comparable to the illuminati theories as I'm not sure how much 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)

BB20
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)
 * , thank you for explaining that your edit was indeed based on 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)

Great British Mobility listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great British Mobility. Since you had some involvement with the Great British Mobility redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  D Big X ray ᗙ  13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Carmen Maria Montiel
Yesterday editions were made to my Wikipedia page. (removed per WP:BLP) I am now reading the article is being considered for deletion. I hope you will permanently delete from Wikipedia that all edited version from September 12, 2018. As you know I was Miss Venezuela, Miss South America and 2nd Runner up in Miss Universe Pageant in 1984. I am a Journalist and Broadcaster. I worked for Television in Venezuela and here in the USA for Telemundo. I graduated Magna Cumlaude form ETSU. I had have a long Charitable career that expanded from Venezuela to Ecuador, Peru and USA, since I moved here. I am now a Speaker for Domestic Violence awareness.

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)

Response
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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

 * 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)

Switching interests?
Sudden switch to and interest in Meghan Trainor articles, Galobtter? Or just WP:HOUNDING? I doubt it's the former since you've not shown an interest in these types of article previously so I'm assuming it's the latter. I'm going to hope you don't know that when one edits boldly, they need to do it (1) without an WP:OWN mentality (which MF's edit summary admits to) and (2) then follow the WP:BRD cycle, which your reversion subverted. Further, "controversial" is not the point - when you have an article that's been stable with particular wording and style for an extended period of time, cutting and pasting one's preferred version is neither wise nor collaborative, it's disruptive. All the above is why MF's edit was reverted, and it should have stayed that way with MF starting a talk page discussion to support policy and commonsense reasoning why his/her edits were appropriate and beneficial to readers as well as the encyclopedia as a whole. So, unless you have something to add to the article talk page, and don't want to appear to be hounding me and reverting my edits for no reason other than to WP:POKE, I'd appreciate you butting out at an article you've never edited before and an article genre you have never shown an interest in previously. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 's edit summary admits to showing ownership behaviour. As far as I can see, her edits were reverted solely due to WP:EVADE, and since she has now been unblocked, she has redone the edits, which is what the edit summary states. Per 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 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)

AfD Correction
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? 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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.   20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

your revert
Hi, regarding your revert: if you notice 2017 does not have a value... same ref as before and listed at Template:Inflation-fn. Waddie96 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, was just about to self-revert Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Can you explain?
Please explain your statement that "I can't see that quote" in the Washington Times article that was the basis for reverting me. 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)
 * please don't copy entire articles; that is a 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)

Genie
Hi Galobtter, I just saw that you removed the "special visitor note" 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)
 * , 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 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)
 * , 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)

BBC source
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)

Brett Kavanaugh
Sorry I am a bit confused here this report was released on October 1 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? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 12:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , we can discuss inclusion later on at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh (though I don't see any indication that this is the official report from a legal standpoint - she's a hired prosecutor of the Senate Republicans from Arizona, not a prosecutor in Maryland or DC, and would not have a power to press charges if she wanted to). However, you have violated the restriction "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." on the article Brett Kavanaugh. If you fail to self-revert, I will file a report at 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. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , no it is not. Per 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. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , the article is not portraying him as an rapist. The FBI investigation is going on. "Media sources" are the best quality sources we have now for determining WP:NPOV, which states "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Representing the sources means treating the assaults as allegations, not as disproven or dubious. "her conclusions certainly warrant more attention than media sources" shows a stunning lack of understanding of 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. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * , you need to slow down. You wrote: "if Ford was rape". No, she was not raped. No one has said that. Also: "The three named eyewitnesses". Besides Ford, only Kavanaugh and Judge are alleged to be eyewitnesses. Also: "Kavanaugh is a victim of misidentification at worst." That horrible conspiracy theory has been withdrawn and the conservative activist author (Ed Whelan) apologized deeply for making it and took a leave of absence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 09:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Short description code
Could you explain to me where I need to add that ? --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)
 * 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)
 * 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:,   and  . 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   - 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 ( 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, do you know how to fix it so it won't transclude the article? --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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 Into the Ring) have an infobox added to them (with the basic info needed) so that those would get short descriptions? I've tested this out and it does work if it's allowed. --Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 }} . 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)
 * 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; 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)

Request on 17:29:58, 8 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by LennyBunko
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)

Promotion on Canad Inns
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)
 * , i've reverted the edit and warned the user about promotion. Feel free to be 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)
 * , 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 very very very much
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)
 * 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 "Italians in Albania" & "Italian colonists in Albania". --Esauster (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

C.C.P. Contact Probes
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 WP:CORPDEPTH, and the Notability_(organizations_and_companies); all the sources in the article are examples of trivial coverage, even if they may be technically independant; while for an article to be 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)

Women in Red
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)

User:Galobtter/Shortdesc helper
Hi, Can you please add Shortdesc helper on Urdu Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BukhariSaeed (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)