This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hello, Galobtter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Edible plant stem. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me))
before the question. Again, welcome! Ϫ 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! You are encouraging me to work more on helping wikipedia. I'm hoping to get time to add references to plain. Galobtter (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
-- 16:11, Monday, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello, most probably you have noticed that Environment of India has been selected as the article of the month. In March we'll collaboratively attempt to improve article. Please spend some time and help to improve this article. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't celebrate easter, but happy easter to you too! Galobtter (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to Galobtter for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC) |
Regarding this edit, what unit is "t"? DMacks (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Please think before just pressing revert; you spend a lot of time doing only that. 217.28.6.255 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Properties of water, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pearson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Galobtter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Potassium permanganate (medical use) I added a wrong R sentence (and a wrong person too) and thought I could fix the R sentence before anyone replied. But you did, and I "reverted" my fix, and you have removed your comment at the same time. Sorry for the confusion. You are welcome to revert youself, because you didnt make any mistake. Christian75 (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: your revert of the link. I'm aware that "links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead", but here's the thing, Properties of water is an article that inherently refers to the Water page, and yet there's not a link to that page anywhere, until the very last of the "See also" items at the bottom. Can you see how that's a problem? At the very least a "Main article: Water" should be placed at the top the introduction, don't you think? Kumagoro-42 20:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MorbidEntree. I noticed that you recently removed content from Donald Trump without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using ((ping))) 11:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit. It isn't "off topic". Sremoc raised the concern of it "being for sale", which is a licensing problem. The others (myself included) are clearly stating that it isn't. His name calling (which I clearly used as well (for another) may not have been needed, but overall the it was about licensing. I'd highly recommend you self-revert or I will revert your edit myself. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest 17:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Galobtter, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) |
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
I don't think you broke anything; it looks like you spent a long time commenting and in the meantime I edited the page. AFCH doesn't do very well with edit conflicts... Primefac (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for working on cleaning up Draft: Alec Oxenford. Since you paused, another editor came in and declined the submission the grounds that it was too promotional, mentioning the art patron section. He said it passed notability, though. Since it seems like you spent about 45 minutes on this, I thought you might want to weigh in before I start changing language or deleting sections. It's hard for me to know what this other editor has in mind, other than the art section.
It seems like you and the other editor wouldn't have spent that much time on it today unless you were thinking it was about ready to be published, but I'm guessing.
Thanks,
BC1278 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
Hi, I'm the editor in question. Primefac left a message on my talk page saying that if it wouldn't be G11'd then i should go ahead and accept. I will take that advice in future. Regardless, good job on the work on the article. ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I have removed promotional words.Jaksmes (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I based the National Earth Science Teachers Association page on what I saw for the National Science Teachers Association page. That page even contains the following message when viewed on Wikipedia - This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.
The NESTA page contains very similar information since the organizations are very similar. Very frustrating that the NSTA page was excepted when it looks like what was submitted for NESTA.
Jwhentz2 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pardon of Joe Arpaio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardon of Joe Arpaio (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Atsme📞📧 18:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:Galobtter,
Thank you for reviewing my submission for a new article, Draft:Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act. You wrote that "If it is notable you should be able to find news stories on it that you can cite." I do not understand why you wrote this, as Democracy Now! and NPR stories were already cited, and I believe these are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent on the subject. However, I went ahead and cited additional news stories per your comment, and hope that you (or another editor) may reconsider approval of the article on a second review.
I believe it is imperative to include this article on Wikipedia as it is significant in the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. That is why I created it in the first place.
Thanks for your time on improving Wikipedia!
Sincerely,
User:Mattomynameo (User talk:Mattomynameo 21:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Since you messeged me about reverting my change on the Ethanol page, I seize the opportunity to tell that I actually think it was a mistake. The section in question (soaps and detergents) that I deleted is not even about ethanol, and it is also incorrect. That's why I deleted it, and I still think it has no place in the article. Thanks for listening. 84.0.44.172 (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Galobtter, As per your reply i have made changes in the reference provided on the article 'Guru charandas mehta'. I have removed blogs and random websites and have added few more links to it. The websites now added are the one which follows the tradition to which Mehta ji was associated to, so it gives and authentic information. Morever these websites are not random as they are officially owned by the enterprise and are considered to be reliable source of information. However I have given references from other sources too, added PDF's of books and news.There are only 4-5 lines in this article,and i have tried to add best of the sources possible. Hope you find this adequate and approve the article. 47.8.9.13 (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I submitted an article for review, which you recently turned down based on source quality. Can you give me some more specifics? We had multiple cirations by academics and others notable in the field of ethnomusicology, which were published in online sources, rather than print form, which quite frankly does not make them less valid. With regard to the issue of notability, the content of the article should have made clear that the fact that the contributions of this artist have been erased by rock historians represents both a racist narrative about music history and an extremely limited view of what "counts" as contribution to a particular style or field. These are issues that have been discussed extensively both by academics and by members of activist collectives of musicians, both of which were also cited in the article.
In short, I'm happy to reorganize or make anything clearer about the article, but I suppose I find it somewhat hard to believe that these were the criteria used for its rejection. Can you give me some clarification on what you were looking for? Graperjl (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for reviewing my draft. You left a comment saying my sources are not independent enough. Nevertheless, most of the references are from news medias or government agencies. And the awards I mentioned should show the notability of this company. Can I have more suggestions on how to improve? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ho0904 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.and routine stuff (mergers, announcements of partnerships) mostly based on press releases. Awards don't really establish notability. Also the whole thing reads promotional. Talk about the company, not how many awards it has. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 08:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I got the article REFUNDed. I've got a few secondary source newspaper references for it. I think we agree that there is quite a bit that needs to be deleted as well. I may not manage to do the work until after the Thanksgiving holiday, though. (Note, the reason that I saw they deletion is that while I didn't have the article on my watchlist, I did have the ΑΠΦ redirect)Naraht (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Zanhe (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Hello, Galobtter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for dropping by. I sandboxed a page on Colin Carlson if you would like to look it over. Subuey (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Your edit here appears to be vandalism and I have removed it. Please don’t do it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Re this, I don't recall seeing that in MOS. Do you know where it is? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.and IMHO it looks better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I will give you an opportunity to self-revert what you removed at Matt Lauer, and advise you to read Wikipedia:Delete_or_merge because you just violated consensus. I explained the process at the TP. Atsme📞📧 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Galobtter. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I was interested to discover this statement on your User Page regarding 31 hour blocks.
Perhaps another way to look at it is that (1) wikipedia is creating its own traditions and/or (2) having conventions such as this keeps us from having to reinvent the wheel over and over and over again. I am not a conservative by nature, but I do appreciate a sense of history. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the posts by 'SNUGGUMS'. He ought to be banned, but I don't know how to make a report. I have the relevant Times Guides to the House of Commons, and will add sourced details for John Astor in due course. 88.104.149.26 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
For your recently contributions. Nice. HindWikiConnect 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
((subst:NPR invite))
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter, Why can't we have a separate article on Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery just like MBBS or any other degree courses? Why did you redirect the BHMS article to Central Council of Homoeopathy, which seems to be a govt. organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter; Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) is an Indian govt. recognized undergraduate degree course just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. No matter if the course is only in India. University Grants Commission (India), AYUSH has recognized it, what more recognition does it require? About coverage, there are plenty of sources available on the Internet. After my initial research over Google, I am sharing some of few news refs, i found TheWire, DNA, Livemint, and Times of India, Deccan Herald. There are great refs available on HighBeam and Google Books as well. I think we can create a separate article just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. What do you say?--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter.
I'm trying to sort out what happened on the little bit in the lede where you reinserted the "pressured NK" language after I had reverted it and it was under discussion. I can see that you briefly accepted Anythingyouwant's view that this was OK, but then the discussion continued -- I don't think that I was aware of your reinstatement at the time -- and I continue to find the argument for "pressured" without any specifics to be a POV insinuation that the Administration is actually pressuring or doing anything at all about the issue, when in fact we have no reports about what if anything they're doing to counter NK. Do you feel that the single word "pressured" is better than "mocked and threatened...", or "mocked and threatened NK to pressurr it..." ? I couldn't tell whether this got lost in the wash or whether you now prefer simply, "pressured". As I've said, this sort of thing, which comes up in many of these active Trump articles, adopts the statements of the Administration as true descriptions of their policies, even when RS consistently tell us that their self-descriptions are false. To take an example from recent news, WP should not report the current tax legislation as a "middle class tax cut" or "jobs bill" -- both repeated assertions of the Administration -- when RS cite expert analysis to the contrary. Tweeting insults and threats vs. North Korea do not constitute "pressure" because they have no demonstrated effect on NK nor any basis in theory or policy for expecting such effect. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the talk page before making this edit? I only ask, because I literally just posted there about 2 minutes ago an explanation that we don't change content based on WP:OR, which is what he provided. I was trying to encourage him to learn about OR a WP:RS and adding proper sources. Then you just go and make the change anyway. I thought perhaps the timing was so close you missed my reply. - theWOLFchild 09:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This track is more significant than interweb which is an independent wikipedia page. The music video had a lot to talk about but I hadn't exactly finished it yet but I saw it as acceptable to be published at that certain stage. smartalek22 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Smartalek33 and Randy Kryn That interweb song looks quite possibly like it needs to be merged in too. Also it's preferable that instead of having lots of short articles on songs, we instead have one good and long article on the album - Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
So you can add the content (viewable here), to the album article instead, and only if there's too much, then you can split it off. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The music video was only released yesterday for Bleach Blonde Baby it has already trended on youtube. As for interweb. It has been performed on national television in the US and that is why they deserve independent articles. smartalek22 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I will add more to the article and include references. There are quite a few details I haven't added. smartalek22 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tether (cryptocurrency), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Banks and First Commercial Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
About BambooHR, The issue of wrong writing style is solved about award list. The Software page cited references from PCMag, Deseret News, Inc. (magazine), Entrepreneur (magazine), Bloomberg, Daily Herald, The Financial Express, Forbes, and The Salt Lake Tribune so there is no need to raise question on notability of the topic.
Please consider deleting the Tag you added in page. EShami (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I authored a page on Hitachi Vantara. You declined the page so I reworked it and resubmitted it. Not sure if I resubmitted it correctly. Can you check to see if you see the revised page and let me know? Or point me in the right direction? Thank you!
Momoflisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoflisa (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please undo your last reversion, as it is within 24 hours of your last reversion on the article. The current page restriction reads: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. Thank you in advance! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
2019 in film is not an empty article. But whatever. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Galobtter, I will take the actions you request for improving the page MetaShare during the day. I will come back to you later to ask for a new evaluation. All the best Epicurus One (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.Sharepoint isn't a good model - I don't like the feature section there. Blogs are not reliable (see here for a simple explanation of sources). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
As someone interested in new page patrolling, I wondered how best to deal with articles such as companies of dubious notability. There are three main options that I see; tag the article for notability, take it to AfD, or do nothing (mark as reviewed). There is presumably a category of articles tagged for possible notability issues, and if so, can you identify it for me? If it contains thousands of items that seldom get actioned, that would put me off adding more and I would be more likely to nominate it at AfD. Alternatively it might contain relatively few entries, being a source of articles for people who want to list things at AfD. Do you know? I just went the AfD route for Red Canary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Corporate notability is one of the most difficult things to deal with and it is made more difficult because basically any company can meet the wording of the GNG within a month or two of incorporation if they try: they don't even have to be selling anything yet to do so. NCORP tries to explain what the GNG means and what sourcing is acceptable and isn't but it still requires a lot of judgement. The important thing to remember from a notability front is that for companies, we require intellectual independence from the subject. That means a WSJ article that is 90% an interview with the CEO doesn't count, but a NYT piece covering the products they sell would. I've started arguing more from WP:NOTSPAM at AfDs: the text of WP:N makes it clear that passage of the GNG alone is not enough for inclusion if an article fails WP:NOT. When you're dealing with subjects of borderline notability with a lot of PR based references, its difficult to sort through the mess. If an article fails both NOTSPAM and is questionable on the GNG, that should be taken into account in an AfD, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I revised it significantly. Thanks for that tip on adding it to the Hitachi page. I’ll add to the Hitachi page as you suggest. I see that page has a list of Hitachi subsidiaries and divisions, some of which link to standalone pages for the sub or division. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Data_Systems , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Consulting . I want to post a similar kind of standalone page for Hitachi Vantara. How can I get that to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoflisa (talk • contribs)
He lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, a greater absolute margin than any prior U.S. president. Is your objection that he did not lose by a greater percentage margin than any prior U.S. president? I didn't say he did, and I took a direct quote from the article. So how did I misinterpret anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.68.52 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm was still editing that site a bunch of people have group pages on wiki like phantom Jordan9766 (talk)user/talkJordan9766 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Household name, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hype (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I decided to send the draft Draft:Riot Of The King to MfD. But then you removed the MfD tag from that draft, only then to realize that you have made a mistake and restore the MfD tag back in. Why did you do this? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, this is a translation of the German article on this institute. There are no other external references than the webpage of the institute. In the German Wikipedia this was accepted. Why do you not accept? Wgmetzger (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
ok, that means that you have higher standards than the German Wikipedia. Maybe the German article on the institute should also be deleted? Wgmetzger (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
please check the Wikipedia article on the Bernhard-Nocht-Institute in Hamburg. There is an English and a German article on this. Should both be deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Nocht_Institute_for_Tropical_Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgmetzger (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC) please check the article on the Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Tropical_and_Public_Health_Institute. Should this also be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgmetzger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
yes, that is one of the former directors of the BNI who wrote this. What is about the Suisse Institute for Tropical Medicine? Did you check? And what is if there is no external reference on the history of an institute? Then it does not exist for Wikipedia? The societal relevance of the institute is obvious. The Institute in Tuebingen is one of the five institutes for Tropical Medicine in Germany. It is leading in malaria research and actual publications on scientific issues can be cited in thousands, if you want it. Are there other supervisors of the article, who could give an opinion? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC) The Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine is referring to homepage and university page, nothing else. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Please check the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Manila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Institute_for_Tropical_Medicine. There are no other references than the own websites. I am sure that lots of "high standard" english Wikipedia articles can be found for scientific institutes which do refer to their own websites and their publications without an external reference written about their history. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear Galobtter, this is not a matter of being notable or not. The institue of Tropical Medicine in Tuebingen is highly noteworthy, it is leading in malaria research and clinical studies in Germany and on the African continent, and there are lots of scientific articles in pubmed (I dont know if you know what this is) and there are lots of newspaper articles (national and international) about the institute. Just the HISTORY of the institute was not yet investigated. There is one investigation underway (especially the Nazitime), but not (yet) published. In general, I do not think that institutes which do not have newspaper references should be deleted from Wikipedia (like the Swiss Institute for Tropical Medicine (highly noteworthy) or the Manila institute or, vice versa, every fart with a newspaper reference should be published in Wikipedia. Question: who decides about the publication? Is it you? Or somebody else? Who can I talk to, if it is not you? Who is responsible for the decision? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
lots of newspaper articles (national and international) about the instituteIf you provide those, I'd be happy to accept. What you can do is move the draft to article space (same as accepting it and publishing it), and then if someone thinks it should be deleted they can go to WP:AfD, which is where whether articles are kept or not is decided. If you want someone else to review and see if it should be accepted. you can re-submit the draft. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe I exaggerated about the international articles ABOUT the institute (I will ask the directors if they have some), but certainly there are lots of national ones in German. If you check pubmed with the name "Kremsner" you will find lots of scientific international articles. I could cite the most prominent of them (from Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or other journals with high reputation). However, as I already said, this has not be done in the other institutes webpages (London School, Liverpool, Basel, Hamburg) and could be seen as we want to show off. I will add something but it will take time, as I have to do other work, too. Then I will move it to article space. Maybe I can come back to you then for help. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I found an English publication about the institute which is even listed in pubmed (Supplement Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift). Additionally, I inserted a reference of the local German press about the 100 year-anniversary (2017) which includes the programme of this event. I hope this will do? I do not know how to insert links to German Wikipedia articles about the professors mentioned. Is it possible? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ! Can I link German Wikipedia articles into the English article? Or is it not possible? If yes, how? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC
Aha... thanks a lot... I saw it. However, I meant something else: can I set links to German Wikipedia articles, for example, the first director of the institute (Gottlieb Olpp) has a German Wikipedia article. Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
You were quicker than I. Got an edit conflict to see you had already inserted the links. Thanks. :) Killiondude (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Windy Corner, Isle of Man, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Atsme📞📧 19:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Could you please consider reopening your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 28#Madonna (album)? WP:NACD that Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins, and your position that there's a conflict between PTOPIC and INCDAB is itself controversial, when one of the arguments in the discussion is that PTOPIC doesn't apply at all - moreso when the "no consensus" feels like a "move". Diego (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter, I have created the article Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. There are enough sources i found to create the article. Though added 6 refs. only. If you think article is not notable, you can nominate it for AFD. I think, AFD would be best way to reach any consensus. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 11:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)
Hi Galobtter,
I created a page on Kalaari Capital which was reviewed and not accepted by you. I was seeking some help around it on how to improve and make it better. Also, which specific articles are not worthy of entry on Wikipedia out of the ones cited.
To provide a background, I work in venture capital in India (not at the firm in question and not related to it in any way) and VC firms generally do not get a lot of coverage apart from the investments that they make. The following points suggest that the topic is notable: 1. Kalaari is the largest homegrown fund in India with a total of $650 Million in Assets Under Management and that makes it notable independently. 2. It has backed 2 Indian unicorns which have their own Wiki pages. 3. One of the founders Vani Kola has her own Wiki page. It is surprising to me that a founder has a page, but the actual company does not. 4. Much smaller and less prominent Venture Capital funds in India and across the world have their own Wiki pages with similar news mentions.
As I mentioned earlier, I am in no way connected with the organisation but I am part of the venture ecosystem in India and my aim is to improve the coverage and understanding of the sector in India on Wikipedia.
I am hoping to start with this page and your specific advice on how to improve this article would greatly help me in beginning the endeavour.
Thanks a lot for taking time and interest in the submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadiseStark (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter, Could you give me a hand at this article? Yehoram Ulman We seem to have a blanker/ remover of sections of text pus lots of citations. It is an ip editor doing it. I fixed it two times and warned two times. Not sure if blp violations allow more reverts or not. If you have time, could you take a look and what you feel is most appropriate? Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with this edit [3]. Discussing this first is fine with me. It seems like a tough call anyway. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I draw your attention in good faith to something (which I thought) you didn't actually mean to write due to the obvious connotation of the word used. However, since you really meant it that's fine, but your subsequent expunging of my comment is explicitly prohibited and curious seeing that you already calmly replied. So am sorry if my comment angered you from the beginning. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit - the original text said something completely different until an IP changed it to be the opposite of what sources say [4]. Would you care if I restored original text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's just one of the oddities of that corner of the wikispace, but if certain people start being adamant about a literal application of some aspect of MOS:DAB even in situations where this goes against basic common sense, it's usually completely futile to try and talk sense into them (no matter how sensible the people can otherwise be, and no matter how obvious the absence of common sense in the particular case). – Uanfala (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See the continued discussion of the proposed move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Galobtter. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks for moving Tamil Nadu Premier League pages. Xzinger (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC) |
But on a high visibility article that is getting off wiki public attention, especially aimed at allegations of insular editorial bias... it's probably a good idea to leave edit summaries that are more... explanatory than "nuh uh". GMGtalk 14:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
First apologies for essentially removing your own comment, but it also didn't make sense to keep it given the restoration at my Wikiproject Chemistry post. If something was ambiguous that somehow lead you to think it was intended as canvassing, feel free to let me know though. Trying to influence voting one way or another should not be a take home from my message at all though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been some discussion trying to justify the move saying TNT is now a precedent after it was also moved from its chemical name to acronym even though there was very little participation in that TNT move discussion.is not really neutral - speaking against those using TNT as a precedent, though I probably should've asked you to remove it; apologies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I really appreciate you for fixing the Jean Springer article and for cleaning up the issues I restored in error - thank you very much :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
While RFCEND doesn't require a RFC to close at 30 days, it's the presumptive place to start. A RFC can close earlier if there is an overwhelming consensus, and of course can stay open longer if productive discussion is taking place. In the case of the NRA, nobody has responded in over 3 weeks. The discussion is dead. After 47 days (and 26 days of inactivity), there's no consensus to add the material. What possible reason is there to leave this open? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
How is your revert "very minor?" Thanks. Activist (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank You | ||
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
Perhaps you'd like to be the one to change all the wiki links that reference Blatchford? I changed them from Richard M. Blatchford (born 1798) to Richard Milford Blatchford at another editor's suggestion. Since you've also weighed in with a change from Richard Milford Blatchford to Richard M. Blatchford (attorney), I really don't want to go back and work on those links a third time.
If you haven't seen it yet, you may want to take a look at the discussion on my talk page.
Billmckern (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for fixing the Jesse Cox disambiguation/pages! cheers Kathodonnell (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Since the arguments generally lacked in arguing whether high quality sources call it or not call it decisive that discussion took place in 2016 and was 12:5 against decisive. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Exactly why are people apt to get these three institutions confused:
If you believe that readers may be confused solely because of the similar names, why are readers also likely to confuse these additional institutions?
And if you really believe that we should have disambiguation pages just on the off chance that readers may be confused because of the first word of the subjects' title, please let me know because I have a lot of suggestions for article moves and dab creations e.g., Claremont Graduate University, Claremont McKenna College, and Claremont School of Theology; City College of San Francisco, City College, City Colleges of Chicago, City Pointe Beauty Academy, City University of Seattle, and City Vision University. ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Vicksburg. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
As a formal requested move, shouldn't this debate remain open for minimum seven days (regardless of present consensus)? and due to the fact that you gave an opinion, "Nope What shortcut will be used then? Seriously. Can't use WP:PM...then WP:RM will be confusing. Lot of other changes for WP:IFITAINTBROKE," doesn't this mean that you're "involved" and should not also be a closer of this debate? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 08:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Galobtter. Just a courtesy note to let you know that a discussion you initiated, at Talk:Donald Trump#Adding criticized as racist to lead, has been closed, as requested. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 13:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I request the removal of protection status of Thailand as I need to add some information in etymology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysfgvkscwkk (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, I was wondering whether you could return to your review of this DYK nomination now that the nominator has made edits to address the sourcing issues. There was a request to run it on February 17, but of course it cannot run until it is approved. If it still isn't ready after the recent edits, it will have to wait, but if it is, time is running out to get it approved and promoted. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Castle Rock (Stephen King), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castle Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I changed your rights and you are a template editor now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For example re this edit: how did you conclude it is Oxford spelling too? For all? - DePiep (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to take small but important exception to an aspect of your non-admin close at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. National Historical Park#Requested move 9 January 2018 (though the general direction of it was, of course, correct): It's not a good idea to even suggest that "comma Jr." is a matter of what was determined at the last RM at which someone vented about it. This matter was actually settled (against the comma) in a long-running and heavily "advertised" WP:CENT RfC at WP:VPPOL, our broadest-input and most centralized forum for settling WP:POLICY questions, and the result of that is a site-wide guideline at MOS:JR. The consensus was clear enough that the admin (and Arb) closer of the RfC, despite vehemently opposing the outcome, nevertheless closed it with consensus against the comma. That's as solid as it gets.
Even suggesting that random attempts at WP:FALSECONSENSUS for the comma could topple this WP guideline and RfC, on a temporary whim and the coincidence of who happened to show up for a particular obscure RM discussion, is contrary to WP:CONLEVEL policy and to how we close discussions (on the strength of the policy arguments, not on vote-counting, persistence, or emotion level).
I'd appreciate it if you'd adjust the close wording to reflect this. We've already suffered through 2 years of incredibly tendentious "give me my comma or give me death" behavior by a trio of editors unhappy with MOS:JR, and this anti-consensus activism has to stop. I've strongly considered ANI or RfArb for at least one the "comma Jr." battlegrounders (the one who applies a "screw consensus, I will fight forever for traditional American mid-century orthography" attitude to many other WP:AT/WP:MOS/WP:RM matters, and who is headed for a topic ban).
An RM close that suggests that if he just keeps at it and gets even one "victory" that he can then proceed to RM all the Jr. articles to have commas, is a recipe for serious WP:DRAMA and years more drain on editorial productivity over tedious punctuation trivia no one else cares about. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The template is creating a bug. Pushing the succeeding text to the next line (when there is space). For eg: ₹200 crore (US$25 million) template is bugged. --Let There Be Sunshine 18:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Please note for future reference that (as noted in the page notice you should have seen when making the edit) when you remove an entry it should not just disappear but rather should be moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive and have the dates it was listed at the end. I’ve done it for you this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if you might consider undoing the NAC of the 7-1 RfD? It's silly, perhaps, but I was the only participant besides the nominator, and given there was a previous RfD, I'd feel more comfortable having some more input. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove MFD tags from drafts. Maybe you did it by accident. If so, okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there! A lot of the referencing has been updated on Roger Bannister, so would you be able to take a look at it and let me know if you are happy for the article now to go to RD? Thank you! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. The straight one is causing the redlink. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Why did you delete Kooda and Keke ? KidMotion (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Stupid question here - how long has the deletion tag log been around? I'd never heard of it until just now, and when I run it on myself I get no results. I have a pywikibot script on another computer that I use to assess speedy deletion tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
When you closed the RfD, you didn't restore it and send it to CfD. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
This module is getting errors all over Wikipedia. Please check your recent changes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Greetings,
Surd is an irrational number in mathematics. And increasingly Sikh community people are being targeted with usage of this word. Sikhs who don't keep beard and hair on their head are being called cut-surd and Sikhs who keep beard and head hair are called Surds.
There are 3 more references I have found, if the previous one in your opinion is unreliable
- http://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-patna-live/20170413/281638190071299 - https://slangdefine.org/s/surd-194d2.html -https://www.quora.com/Northeast-India-Is-Chinki-word-vulgar-for-north-eastern-people-of-India-1
please undo the deletion and help increase awareness.
Regards, Ashirwadtrades — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashirwadtrades (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't you read the source?
They stated that they are closing all 1,758 stores worldwide ~BuddyBoy600 (Talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
In March 2018 it was announced that all Toys "R" Us stores in the United Kingdom and United States would close.
It had stated that its stores will continue to operate, but nevertheless announced the liquidation and closure of 382 locations, at least half of these Babies "R" Us locations. Liquidation sale events are likely expected to occur in additional Toys "R" Us stores. It was announced on March 14, 2018, that all Toys "R" Us stores in the United Kingdom would close. discussion then turned to the fate of Canadian branches.
Thanks for the table fixes at WT:FAC -- I'll try to remember to incorporate those next time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your efforts in football kit template. Take this as my gratitude. Flix11 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you for your work on my test on Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox (and your hard work elsewhere). If we can get this to work, and we can get consensus at the talk page, then we could add almost 1/2 million good descriptions at once!
A few things: is it possible to add an override (i.e. if someone manually adds a "short description" template or magic word, it overrides the automatic one from the infobox?). And is it possible to start the description with a capital ("Village" instead of "village")? For the second I think there is an easy magic word, for the first some real magic may be needed :-) Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)