User talk:MarioGom/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, MarioGom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wikimedia Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardware ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Wikimedia_Foundation check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Wikimedia_Foundation?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Take a look.
You should take a look at the lede on State Security Department.ZiaLater ( talk ) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And maybe you could look at National Security Service (Uzbekistan) as well.ZiaLater ( talk ) 18:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * as you can see in National Security Service (Uzbekistan), the lead paragraph describes it as a national intelligence agency, then there is a brief summary of its origin (KGB successor in the region), which is not a controversial statement, and then some additional details about its functions and problems in the government, which I don't know if are relevant or not because they are unsourced. Only in the second paragraph, there is some statement about secret policing which is clearly attributed to Amnesty International and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, not presented with weasel words as a neutral, non-controversial and generalized assumption. --MarioGom (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How would you present the subject without weasel words when multiple sources call the SEBIN a "political police" or "secret police"? That is why I used the word "recognized", but maybe it should be "described"? Should it be presented in the lede at all? Are you saying that there should be more info in the lede before such phrasing is included for balancing POV? Just want to understand the best way to include the information because it is heavily sourced. Not trying to be a nuisance.ZiaLater ( talk ) 18:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be presented in the first lead paragraph at all unless it was a general agreement of reliable sources, which does not seem the case. Also keep in mind that many sources does not mean that they are the most reliable sources on the subject. Of course Miami Herald or Foreign Policy say so, but they are not authoritative sources on the subject, they have an editorial policy, which means that opinion is intermixed with factual information. You will find other media outlets that say the opposite or use a different characterization (see WP:NEWSORG). One approach would be looking for the most important organizations that publicly denounce SEBIN role as political police, and then say that they describe it as political police. An alternative or complementary approach would be researching the bibliography (books, peer-reviewed papers) for experts in the field of both Venezuela intelligence history or intelligence services in general, and check how do they characterize SEBIN. Then if some of them say it acts as a political police, you can cite them, clearly attributing the statements to them. Even more constructive would be doing this research in a more wide way and expand on the history of SEBIN in general, and write about its actions (some of them will be seen as political policing). --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What I am worried about is the way people read the article. I can list over a dozen media outlets and books and attribute them, but it would read like "Foreign Policy, BBC, The Wall Street Journal and political science authors Fermin Lares and Clifton Ross describe SEBIN as a political police force". In the peer review for Bolivarian diaspora, we recognized that attributing information to sources was making the article uninviting, with nearly every other sentence saying "according to" or something similar. This is what I am trying to avoid.ZiaLater ( talk ) 19:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:COI
Hi MarioGom! I noticed that you added a message on my talk page regarding conflict of interest editing and then reversed the edit. I do not receive any monetary gains for my contributions; however, I am wondering which one of my edits caused you to place the template? Since you placed the template, I am led to believe that I might have neglected to have a NPOV on the issue. If you let me know, I'd be happy to take a second look at the text I added or removed! Cheers, Daylen (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not see any NPOV problem, just an overlap in edits with a few articles that are subject of undisclosed paid editing (e.g. Framebridge) and are not so popular. I did not keep the whole list, sorry. Anyway, once I saw you are editing on a lot of companies and, in some cases, you were actually removing promotional content, I realized that the kind of COI I initially suspected was very unlikely. --MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason behind helping with the creation of the Framebridge article is that it was the only company hosted on NPR's How I Built This podcast that didn't have a Wikipedia article. After looking for reliable secondary sources, I quickly realized that the company was significantly less notable than other companies created by founders interviewed by Guy Raz on the podcast. As for other articles, I publicly list my email and respond to Wikipedia related questions on Quora, so some COI editors have asked for assistance regarding article creation and Wikipedia policy in the past. Thanks for the info and happy editing! Daylen (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Note that if these COI editors are blocked, you should not be editing on their behalf (see WP:PROXYING) whether paid or not. The articles of some of these companies were created or signficantly edited by PR firms that do undisclosed paid editing and are now blocked (WP:PAIDLIST). For example: TaskRabbit, Marriott International, GoGo Squeez or Square, Inc.. Best. --MarioGom (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

COI (II)
Hi MarioGom, thanks for pointing to my presence on the COI board. Can you help me disclose my conflict of interest in the meaningful method required? I'm not sure what my next step is. Appreciate your help in advance. Sghartman (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted an answer in the other talk page you used: User talk:Sarawhosthere. --MarioGom (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

COI (III)
Hi MarioGom! I noticed your note, and I would like to know what specific language on the page you characterize as non-neutral? Your response is appreciated, thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, read the message in your talk page about conflicts of interest. My message is not about neutrality, it is about conflicts of interest. Are you associated in any way with Global Wireless Solutions? Thank you. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a paid contributor for Global Wireless Solutions, as is now stated in my talk page. Does this resolve the COI tag on the Global Wireless Solutions page? Thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Disclosure is addressed. Now you should propose changes to the article on its talk page, using Template:Request edit. A non-involved contributor will review your proposals and apply them to the article if they comply with the policies. You have full information in the links of the message I left on your talk page. --MarioGom (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance. Who is now responsible for removing the COI tag? Shall I request it to be removed or do you remove it directly? Thanks again. Scwiki3 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it still needs to be cleaned up and structured according to the Manual of Style. Currently it just reads like a press release, with peacock terms such as "9 million miles worth of data" (what is that?), references to self-published press releases, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have suggested edits on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page that have addressed your concerns. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Scwiki3 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed the language of the page so as it doesn't read like a press release, as you noted and removed all of the "example benchmarking test" content from the proposed edits. Hopefully you can look over these proposed edits and let me know if they are sufficient. If this is the case, would you then manually resolve the COI and press release tags from the page? Thank you. Scwiki3 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

COI (IV)
Hi MarioGom. I am not affiliated with FitDay or any direct competitor to them. I just happened across the page, agreed with the Advert template concerns, and figured I'd help out. Hope this clears things up? Drskyrider (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Your nick is similar to a SEO/PR company. If that was not the case, I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article
I edited the Brian Monaco article you had made a note of the neutrality of the article on. I am a music business college student and reviewed and fact checked the page to make sure it was factually accurate. I have removed the tags and I believe it is now sufficient. Just wanted to drop you a quick note on the update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Reppot (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

COI (V)
Hi MarioGom, Sorry about the COI. I am a paid employee but I worked on the article in my own time and without pay. I started editing the page two years ago as I was upset at the lack of information on the page and I wanted to move the quality up to par with pages for other zoos. I had no intention to use the platform for advertising or promoting the zoo and if you read the article and compare it to other zoo pages, you will see that the language used is very tame when it comes to describing the history and the exhibits. I was also using this page as practice so that I may start editing other zoo pages because I know a lot about the zoo. I will agree to no longer edit this page but I want to talk about the maintenance tag that has been up on the page for two years without being taken down.

I removed the maintenance tag because I believe I addressed the issues. I removed all information that sounded like an advertisement (even though there wasn't any specific sections given as examples and other zoo pages have much more flowery wording that could be considered an advertisement), I added multiple third party sources to multiple sections, and there are no longer any misinterpreted citations and all text is verified through one or multiple sources. Because of that, I believe the tag should be taken down. If you can find examples of any more of these issues, I will put it on the talk page and hopefully someone else will fix them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeastly (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. The article relies extensively on the official page as a source, so the tag about primary source still applies. Please, take some time to read the relevant policies I posted on your talk page. You can use Template:Request edit to propose changes on the article talk page, a non-involved editor will help applying them. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

COI (VI)
Hello, To clarify, I have no conflict of interest with any associated party from the article. I am knowledgeable about the matter at hand though and knew that the articles cited do not in fact state what the previous author/s of the edited line had written. Thanks. Yettick (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

COI (VII)
Hello,

I didn't fully understand the rules and limits of editing the wikipedia page for my company Three Six Zero. I would like to rectify the issue, but would like help/instructions on how to do so. If any edits I made need to be removed, I am happy for you to do so. What are the best next steps to get the maintenance flag removed from our page?

In addition, I keep seeing issues with someone at Go Fish Digital editing our pages. I am unaware of any one from our company purposefully enlisting the help of this agency. I am trying to contact someone at the company to find out why they are making changes to our pages.

Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)shaniathreesixzero


 * I reverted your edit to Three Six Zero, so that part is solved.
 * You can still request changes in the talk page of the article. Use Template:Request edit when doing that, and someone will review your request and act on it.
 * I assume that you are editing as part of your job. If that is the case, you should also add a disclosure to your user page ([User:Shaniathreesixzero). The easiest way to do that, if you are directly employed by Three Six Zero, would be adding the following template to your user page: . If you were employed by an agency, you would use  (more info here: Template:Paid).
 * The maintenance tags will be eventually removed from the article once a non-connected editor reviews it, but you may request it anyway in the user page (using Template:Request edit).
 * About Go Fish Digital: they have edited a lot of articles related to Three Six Zero, and created some, including the one about Mark Gillespie. Why would they do it if Three Six Zero hired no PR agency at all to do it is intriguing... --MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * About Go Fish Digital: they have edited a lot of articles related to Three Six Zero, and created some, including the one about Mark Gillespie. Why would they do it if Three Six Zero hired no PR agency at all to do it is intriguing... --MarioGom (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)



Thank you for your help here. If Go Fish was enlisted, then it had to have been before I worked for Three Six Zero. What are my options for getting this part cleared up? I am still attempting to contact the company to figure out what our relationship with them may have been, but I am having trouble reaching them since I have never actually worked with them. Is the only way to clear the tags to get them to disclose their possible affiliation on the talk page? Or is there another way I can resolve this, like requesting a new page be created?

Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Shaniathreesixzero


 * Whether they disclose it or not, at this point, is not relevant. They have a lot of accounts blocked after abusing multiple Wikipedia policies and they are well past the point where they can make their users appear as good faith editors. As other editor pointed out in the article, tags will be removed once a non-involved editor reviews the page and considers that the article complies with Wikipedia policies. There is no shortcut here. --MarioGom (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, if they disclose that Breeze897 was their account and that they receive payments, we could replace the undisclosed payments tag by a more benign conflict of interest tag. --MarioGom (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if they disclose such thing, I will propose to speedy delete the Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager) article, because it would prove that it was created in violation of a previous block (see WP:G5). --MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)



edit: Thanks for this information: I of course want to adhere by the wikipedia rules and rectify the situation. I was planning to go in and request edits today that would add more information and citations. Hopefully this will help, as I see there has now been a new maintenance tag added. Shaniathreesixzero (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)shaniathreesixzero

Comment on Articles for deletion/Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)
Apologies MarioGom, That was a bit harsh. As usual, I let my belly rumble without thinking about it. I will score it out. Sorry. scope_creep (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No problem! --MarioGom (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Centrify
Looks like you were involved in the original article being deleted. I see your analysis of the SPAs and SOCKs at the most recent deletion discussion. Thought you would like to see this as another one has popped up. There is no way this makes it out of AfC, but thought you'd like to know in case you want to report user for likely being a SOCK or MEAT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks CNMall41! I have been out for a while, too late now for a sockpuppet investigation... --MarioGom (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I can say "welcome back." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Mozart the music processor
Hello Mario First let me say that I understand your concern about my recent changes to the Mozart the music processor page. And I hope this is the right place to contact you as I am completely new to Wikipedia's talk facility. My situation is this: I discovered that the page on Mozart the music processor - don't know who wrote it originally - was out of date by several years, and wrong in some respects. I was keen to correct that, and also keen NOT to have it sound like an advert. Yes, I am the author of the Mozart program: I can't help that, but it does mean I'm uniquely placed to correct out-of-date (now false) information. In order NOT to have it sound like an advert: I am keen to comply with Wikipedia's policies, but am new at this and would be very grateful if you could give me specific advice on how to do this in this case. Dave Webber (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I first studied other pages for similar computer programs ( Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and others ) and was careful not to anything that these pages didn't
 * I preserved the topic structure of the previous Mozart the music processor page (but divided some sections into logical subsections)
 * I retained the Limitations section - as this surely would not be included in an advertisement.

Albright Stonebridge Group
Hi User:MarioGom I understand the COI issues that you flagged on the ASG page. I can assure you that all edits were made in good faith and with the intention of keeping basic ASG information up-to-date. To this end, I have disclosed my professional connection to ASG on my talk page and read through  Best practices for editors with close associations. I will be sure to request edits in the future. Homer601 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit of Murder of Miquel Grau
Hi MarioGom: just to let you know, the Murder of Miquel Grau article is finalised, with the exception of "citation needed" templates for references explaining the differences between "reclusión menor" and "reclusión mayor", which probably need to be found in Spanish because there seems to be little information in English. The article was renamed and the page moved because "assassination" in English is used for the deliberate killing of important or famous people; Grau was unknown at the time of his death. Otherwise, the copy edit is completed

Cadar (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2014 CELAC summit
Hello, MarioGom,

Thanks for creating 2014 CELAC summit! I edit here too, under the username Discospinster and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

... disco spinster   talk  13:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

IP edits
Hey, I'm sorry that I was wrong about the identity of the IP edits. But the real sockmaster has been found out to be Davide King: User talk:Davide King. So they were block evasion anyway. --Pudeo (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. --MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, MarioGom, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already added a few short biographies of Nepalese politicians but now you seem interested in creating more articles about women. In this connection, you may find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Background of Xinjiang conflict
I suspect, "Xinjiang has been a territorial hot spot for a variety of local nations including the Han, the Mongols, and various Turkic people for the last 2000 years," probably won't cut it, eh? Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so ;-) I was thinking more about an overview of the conflict, including the rise of the separatist movement in early 20th century, Soviet involvement, the armed conflict and so on. --MarioGom (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol yeah, figured. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15
Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul Atherton
Dear Mario,

You've just reversed a removal of the COI I did on the suggestion of a very expereinced editor Girth Summit and who reversed my removal of the COI in the first place, we've been having discussions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Girth_Summit/Archive_3#Paul_Atherton_COI_&_Notability, I don't want to invest time in editing the page, if there is any chance of a challenge of notability, so reversed it in order to get a concensus, if one be needed. Could you please explain your challenge if you have one on the subjects talk page or alternatively allow the removal of the COI so I can contune editing the page with Girth's assistance?

Many thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see the archived discussion. I'll leave it here. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Mario, Thanks. I had amended the opening paragraph to incorporate all the factual discoveries I'd made. But how should I progress from here? Do I undo your reinstatement of the COI or what should I do? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article relies mostly on non-independent sources. It needs a general clean up and removing those part that are not supported by reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mario: Obviously, as you will have read in the discussion with Girth, at this stage, we need to confirm that the subject is notable. Once that's done, I can then get into the laborious issue of editing the rest of the article, which seems to have been a mishmash of addons by Wikipedians over the past ten years. The fact is though, at this stage, there is a challenge to notability and hence the COI.  I argued, and now Girth seems to agree, that notability has been proven on the basis that Atherton's work has been included in two significant institutions and reviewed in respected publications. If you disagree, please let me know on what grounds and I'll see if I can address? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have opened a new discussion. I hope the editors that were previously involved can comment on the topic: Talk:Paul Atherton. --MarioGom (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mario Thanks. Once notability is established, does that mean everything within the article has to muster to the same levels of notability? If so, it seems strange to give a biographical article a personal section for instance, as nearly everything within that would have to come from the subject in one form or another? Sorry to query, but obviously learning as I go? Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are sometimes useful as a supplement, but they do not replace secondary sources. These might be particularly useful in some cases such as verifying an exact quote from the subject, comparing the year of some event, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So in the case of the articles that Atherton wrote himself, I suppose both could be argued as Op Ed's, but clearly paid for journalistic pieces one in the Guardian one for the Londonist and under the editorial processes of those publications, should these be cited as Atherton's work as a Freelance Journalist? Equally, where does Youtube fit in when it is a recording of an actually event, as in the case of Atherton delivering his speech to the members of the House of Commons? Which was clearly recorded by someone in attendance and then posted online. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues related to the article Diwan Manna
@MarioGom In relation to the article Diwan Manna, which I researched and edited yesterday and corrected the multiple issues in relation to copyright violation by editing the exhibitions section and paraphrasing the same. I would like to ask you and clear my doubts that how can an artist's biography has a copyright issue as the Title and year of the exhibition, name, and place of the institution and the name of the curator will remain the same. Kindly advise and in which format and style it could be incorporated, if you think what I have done is incorrect. In relation to the Primary Sources, I have removed all the primary sources, which in my opinion were from his personal website. All the other links and references are reputably published. I would also like to know which are the primary sources in this article apart from the personal website so that they can be removed. I have gone through the history of editing of this article and the latest history seems to be edited by multiple editors, in sections like - Early Life, Career, Awards and Artworks and I have mainly edited Exhibitions section. It would be helpful to know which section betrays a bias by somebody who has a close connection, as all the details mentioned in the article are supported by adequate links and references to external and reliable sources. I wonder, why these multiple issues have been restored again? Thank you, ManjudkrishnaManjudkrishna (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is better to look for advice at the article talk page: Talk:Diwan Manna. Removing maintenance tags added by other editors without a good justification is discouraged. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Thanks for creating Latin American and Caribbean Unity Summit.

User:Doomsdayer520 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. I added the notice about expanding from Spanish. I have no immediate plans to do so, but might come back to it in the future. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Shamelessannabellelee
Just a quick thank-you for filing that - as you might have seen, I filed an SPI as well a moment ago without noticing that you had. Whoops! Anyway, thanks again. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping an eye on these COI socks ;-) --MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for helping expand my article
Hey, buddy. Thank you for expanding the American Addiction Centers article I recently created! I was actually planning to add the Controversy section soon, so your input is much appreciated! — ⚜ L i t h O l d o r ⚜  (T) 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating the article. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hatting
Thanks for hatting the discussion at TERF. I was considering doing it myself, but it is much better coming from an outside editor. AIRcorn (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me second that. Conversations on that page tend to get sidetracked but I hate to scold people I'm trying to work with so an uninvolved editor doing some moderation is most welcome. Haukur (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Stalking?
I am thrilled to learn that you consider me of such importance that you actually checked out my talk page. Thanks for correcting my syntak, the use of proper brackets is a common problem with me, old age, eye sight. However is it proper to edit another editor's talk page?In responding to you here. I can't help but notice what appears to be an alliance of like minded peopleOldperson (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have hundreds of user pages in my watchlist, usually added after my first interaction with them. Given that you are not comfortable with this kind of edit, I removed your user page from my watchlist and will refrain from doing similar edits there. Regarding your closing sentence, maybe you just exposed my WP:CABAL. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless (or shall I say "irregardless" :). I do appreciate your change. In making it you might notice that I ran a foul of another editor on  another page, who although apparently one of the "old crowd"is so accustomed to throwing warning tags on other editors page, that he did not stop to think when he was incensed by my temerity, perhaps what he perceived as disrespect. You see I did not violate the 3rrr rule.Yes I made three reverts but over a period of three days,not 24 hours. So evidently he believes that the 3rrrr rule means three reverts period. On top of which I clearly explained my reason for a revert in the summary  and on the talk page, it had to do with using one word, which was in fact editorializing, instead of addressing that issue (which I mentioned three times) he went straight to my user page, or even the talk page where I mentioned it.. Which is tantamount to someone screaming in an argument. As regards WP:CABAL, well there isWP:DUCK I take notice that you handled this matter with humor. Congrats. PS I have learned, some time ago, to first clearly explain my reverts in my edits,and second after the first revert to take it to the talk pageOldperson (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't follow the 3R issue, so I have no idea. I fixed the formatting issue as a drive-by edit while reviewing changes. About WP:DUCK, note that this is informal advice for sockpuppet investigations, not a free pass to write groundless accusations (even if veiled). --MarioGom (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that. But when one sees what to all appearances is a gathering like feathered birds, is the protocol to play the third monkey? If I see a gaggle of geese or a murder of crows then I am to ignore it. I know better than to make such an accusation on an article talk page.But on my own user page> I can't express my observations or feelings without risking a sanction. I do understand about AGF, but it gets hard sometime, especially when a user or group of user,by their insistence, exhibit bias. While WP stresses NPOV amongst it's edits, it acknowledges editors have very strong POV's. An editor with a POV they wish to push or defend that has a lot of experience, and is of above average intelligence, can easily use WP's own rules to game the system.

You've seen it. I've seen it. My problem might be a misguided belief that I can be the little boy in the crowd lining the emperor's procession. I see I am mistaken. I am learning.Oldperson (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, stop it. I assume you are referring to the above messages from two users who thanked me for posting some WP:NOTFORUM notices to Talk:TERF. If you really think there is something wrong with that, feel free to seek the advice of an experienced editor or admin, or report it. --MarioGom (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Membership at Wikiproject Socialism
Hi - was quite impressed by the use of the Wikiproject X and decided to try and get it working for Organized Labour (what originally brought me to Wikipedia 13 odd years ago). A little while ago there seemed to be a problem with the use of the "join button" for the membership system of the Socialism project... was that resolved? I'm trialing Organized Labour in the Wikiproject X format and this seems to be the only thing I cannot get working. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just realised you're a member of Organized Labour, too... FYI here's my draft WikiProject_Organized_Labour/sandbox2019.--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignore my earlier question, I discovered I had not made a request for page creation that is required.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

RhythmOne
You have added a COI tag to RhythmOne but your basis for this is unclear. Template:COI says if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. Please add a section to Talk:RhythmOne to discuss this (observing the WP:OUTING policy). Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Verbcatcher: I have removed the tag. On closer inspection, it looks like likely COI edits are old and completely gone in practice after extensive editing by you and other editors. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Verbcatcher (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Protofuse. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

SCP-2000 sockpuppet case open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SCP-2000

Hello, a sockpuppet investigation for SCP-2000 has opened and you are invited to participate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Loycarmo

Based on your past experience, it seems SCP-2000 is indeed a sock. Please help provide evidence on the spi page. Thanks so much for your help MarioGom! Hefty hyde (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bollixed archiving operation
of Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, with edit summary "Removed 15 threads to "Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 6", bollixed some things. The line

became

and

became

and

became

which probably left a missing end tag lint error for and

became

On the other side of the archive at Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 6, there is a stripped tag (missing opening tag) for  in

In Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data just before the edit, this line was

Please review this archive operation on both sides and make sure that both sides are corrected.

Then, it might be a good idea to determine if whatever caused this bollixed archiving could have affected any other archiving operations. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Quote should not be indented
In Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Archive 5, I removed the colon at the start of the following paragraph, which was displaying badly, because should not be preceded by colon, asterisk or number sign: It's handled. Just wanted you to know that I edited your comment to preserve intent, fix appearance, and remove lint errors. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's actually a bit more subtle than I explained before.  and templates that call it, including, can be indented, but cause errors and bad display if they are indented (or bulleted with * or numbered with #) and wrap a newline character, as your example contains after "Wednesday." (The newline can be seen in the markup of this page, even though it is elided in the display above.) The choice is either to remove the newline character or the indenting colon. I opted to remove the colon. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! These messages are really helpful. --MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Damage to Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
Please repair. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've for you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I'm not sure how I managed to break this with OneClickArchiver. Thank you for the heads up! I'm trying to fix it now. --MarioGom (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see what happened there. It must be a bug in OCA's diffing. --MarioGom (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is fixed now, but I'm not 100% sure. It was a huge mess... --MarioGom (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your discovery here may be applicable to the Bollixed archiving operation noted above. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, different edit but similar detrimental effect. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I will refrain from using this script for archiving these heavy pages. --MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force
Thank you! Since I'm very frequently updating Spanish stats, I guess I fall into the "willing to update counts for a territory at least once a day"-category so I guess I'll adopt Spain. xD  Impru 20 talk 11:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! When you find an update, it would be great if you could update the counters for Spain at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data too. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?
Hi MarioGom, Tenryuu from WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator,, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! -- Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝)  17:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. I answered now. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for answering my questions for the WikiProject Report! I really appreciate it, and I hope you also had a good time answering. Happy editing! Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 23:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Case Count Task Force - Qatar
Hello, any particular reason to why you have removed Qatar from the list? The source was from the Ministry of Public Health of the country. Shawnqual (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I probably did it accidentally when adding a new country. It is restored now. --MarioGom (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, for the United States, I think it is important to mention CDC as a reliable source on the page. The editors on the main article, including me, have long been relying on it for updates even before John Hopkins. No one has felt the need to use 1point3acres so far as it is just another aggregate source like WoM. What do you think? --Shawnqual (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Feel free to add it yourself. --MarioGom (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Furthermore, a suggestion; it would be better to separate sources by official agencies and media. Media sources can be inconsistent and mostly rely on government sources either way. Countries like Malta, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Canada, Fiji, Iran and Kyrgyzstan could be added under the media category. This could help with finding and searching for official sources if/when they are made available. --Shawnqual (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New RfC on countries/dependencies
Hi, on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data, you should not have been closing the New RfC on countries/dependencies, as you also voted in it. That is a COI. Instead you should have asked a non-participant to assess consensus and close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I proposed a closure conclusion that got no objections so far. If you think the closure conclusion is not appropriate, feel free to revert the closure and propose an amendment or a whole different conclusion. --MarioGom (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the conclusion is OK, it just should not be you that closed it. I have amended the edit notice to match. But the table still needs more splitting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you and sorry for rushing the process. I will continue splitting territories, but it's going to take some time. Hopefully it can be finished today. --MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we will have to increase the territory count in the total too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom recovery figures
Arcgis

Click on United Kingdom, under recovered 179. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. I check these figures a few times per day. Please, check the discussion I posted to your talk page. JHU is not necessarily publishing the most up-to-date or reliable figures for every country. --MarioGom (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But it should be usable per reliable sources correct? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Replied on the talk page of the article. --MarioGom (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edits
I was just doing a quick thanking for doing a revert to my edits. I didn't realize I had done that with Aruba. Disregard what I said about Norway.

--Skim

US intelligence agencies, and news reports about their revelations, are reliable sources
Provide evidence that Wikipedia policy states anywhere that these are "not reliable sources". You have a biased perspective based on your activity and ideological leanings or sympathies. 142.116.178.22 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear 142.116.178.22: you are welcome to stay off my talk page if you are coming here just to attack me. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
—Formulaonewiki 18:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Belgium in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data
Hi. It remains unclear, definitely a typo from the official source. You're right, the official source website reports 5,146, but if on those websites you open the powerpoint presentation (which is broadcast daily in Belgium), it says 5,164. Anyway I'll leave it like that for now but it's uncertain to say the least. <b style="color:#4863A0;">Pelotas</b><b style="color:#F88017;">talk</b>&#124; contribs 12:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry must be 5,164 as they also reported +483 since yesterday and then it was 4,681. <b style="color:#4863A0;">Pelotas</b><b style="color:#F88017;">talk</b>&#124; contribs 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for clarifying this! --MarioGom (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Help spreading COVID-19 project consensus
Hey MarioGom,

great work handling discussions and consensus in the COVID-19 project. I think you could really help push this forward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Proposal_for_handling_general_consensus

Having centralised discussions and spreading the consensus will really help avoiding unnecessary discussions in the individual pages and improve uniformity and consistency across pages.

-- Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you! I was aware of the discussion, and I thought I had commented already... I left a message now. --MarioGom (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Used your feedback to make a new proposal. See you there! -- Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
MrClog (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's clean up the COVID-19 Current Consensus Items!
Hey MarioGom, the new template is now live. Let's ensure the items in the template are in great shape so we don't spread confusion in all pages.

There are a couple of discussions on items of the list that need more editors to reach consensus quickly (they shouldn't be too contentious but we need more votes):


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19

Hope you can express your opinion for those changes!

-- Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , note there's no deadline, no need to rush consensus building. I watch WT:COVID-19, so I eventually get to the discussions. Thank you for the pointer anyway! MarioGom (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, no rush. Just wanted to make sure you would know the template was live and that the discussions were ongoing. Thanks! -- &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Please stop purposefully trying to push a narrative on covid-19 related pages.

In accordance with Wikipedia’s ASG guidelines, I must make the assumption that you are not, in fact, reading the citations you are deleting.

Please familiarize yourself with the research and citations provided to you before attempting to remove large chunks of text like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.8.158 (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the opposite of the guideline you are citing: Please stop purposefully trying to push a narrative on covid-19 related pages. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Thanks for your help with my recent 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Tajikistan and Emmental cheese questions. I have recently made two pretty tough edits on the Cultural genocide of Uyghurs page, one based on the Agence France-Presse, one from the Associated Press. I see from your user page that you have more of a socialist-type perspective, so I would like to invite you to review my Uyghur related edits (in case I'm being too anti-communist or what have you.) There's apparently a somewhat disturbing situation in Xinjiang, so I understand if you don't want to get into it. My hope is that we can make Wikipedia a really reliable and strong resource on this tough topic. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for considering my input. I'll take a look at Cultural genocide of Uyghurs, but it might take some time. Verification on Xinjiang conflict articles is quite fatiguing. In the mean time, I would invite you to consider whether the article could be a WP:POVFORK of Xinjiang conflict or whether it really merits a standalone article. Best, MarioGom (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)