Hello, Galoubet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!  Marlith (Talk)  16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please don't routinely add whitespace to articles you touch in the manner of changing ==Heading== to == Heading ==. There's nothing in the manual of style recommending a change like that and it makes it harder to see what else you're changing. You also shouldn't add links to dates as a matter of routine. Also, please don't take bullet points out of comments and add them to the article elsewhere.[1] Also, please don't remove redlinks as a matter of course. Haukur (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to second this sentiment -- my guess is that you're using some kind of tool to make changes, and it adjusts things automatically. Unfortunately, it made quite a mess of the Stenotype article (see this edit) by moving images around without making appropriate adjustments to the surrounding text. A quick glance through your recent history also shows up a ton of edits that include gratuitous whitespace changes, making it difficult to see what actually changed. Please fix your tool or stop using it. -- AdamRoach (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((subst:smile))

Galoubet ^T·C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding ((subst:smile)) or ((subst:smile2)) to their talk pages. Happy editing!

another issue You're marking all your changes as minor and not stating what changes you have made. This is not polite to other editors, as people watch the pages to make sure they don't get vandalised. Every time you make an edit without leaving a description of what you did, someone has to check, to see if it has been vandalised. It's a waste of time. Amandajm (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not meant to do anything wrong, just followed Minor edits guidelines. Galoubet (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. It is considerate to those who are following the articles you edit, as well as to other editors who are trying to gain a sense of what you are doing with your (prolific) edits. JohnInDC (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I tend to forget. I'll do my very very best, promise! Galoubet (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Just those simple sorts of things - "alpha and chron order" - mean people don't have to be figuring it out for themselves. Summaries are *very* helpful in that way! JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thnks! I was just trying to a search for a correct way of phrasing it buy you gave me the answer in the meantime. From now on I'll add: alpha and chron order. Galoubet (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, when you have some time please have a look at WP:MOSDAB (disambiguation pages) and WP:MINOR (minor edits); some of your changes are not appropriate for the English WP, such as this one (it's not a minor edit, and it's not proper format or order). Also note that you can set your account preferences to be automatically notified if you forget to provide an edit summary. Have fun editing. 62.147.36.230 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks! Galoubet (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I'm interested in adopting you. Now, I don't speak Dutch, so if you don't want me because of this, I don't mind. I am pretty comprehensive on most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and am willing to teach yuo them if you want. If you want me to adopt you, leave a note on my talk page, or here. If you don't want me, just tell me, and I'll remove all traces of me on your user page. Hello again! - weebiloobil 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I should consider adopting you?

Wikiquette #1, don't foget to sign your comments!

Wikiquette #2, keep discussions together!

Wikiquette #3, (my personal one) do not hide any comments from other users, they might get confused and would not be able to follow the discussion anymore.

Galoubet (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you barely need adoption :P - weebiloobil (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and 3 things: The comment is signed, it just failed to link/colourise, and if the signature failed to parse completely, then SineBot would toddle along to do it; it is common practice to spread a discussion over two users talkpages, as it alerts the users to new comments clearly and easily; and yes, WP:MULTI encourages centralised discussion, but an adoption requires 2 people, and so anyone else following the discussion would expect to see comments on two corresponding pages. My offer still stands... weebiloobil (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wahey! - weebiloobil (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering, what's your understanding of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia? - weebiloobil (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the 5th pillar itself says that there are no firm rules, so be bold in editing. The level of concensus does not change depending on whether the editors involved are all admins or wether they are all unregistered users with no contributions. If you see something you think could be changed, then change it! The worse that could happen is it be reverted. That was a very good answer, well done - weebiloobil (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just gauging how much you knew of Wikipedia already. Is there anything you don't have any experience in to do with Wikipedia? - weebiloobil (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random question - why are you alphabetising External Links? - weebiloobil (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear - I have a bit of a request. Could you look over this edit, to see what I did to annoy User talk:Lycurgus? He seems to have a bit of a temper. Oh, and I won't be here tomorrow, so don't rush in :P. Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben jij een bot ? --82.171.95.220 (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I am not a BOT! Galoubet (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daar lijk je wel op met je standaardwijzigingen. Nooit iets afwijkends, alleen maar botwijzigingen. Is hetgene waar wikipedia naar streeft niet wat interessanter? Namelijk zoveel mogelijk informatie beschikbaar stellen. Ik weet niet of het zoveel mensen boeit of dit wel of niet op alfabetische volgorde is. Laat je los, voel je vrij en ga je gang. Ga schrijven! --82.171.95.220 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Met negeren lost men niets op, mijn vriend. --82.171.95.220 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gelukkig nieuwjaar! I just popped by to check how you're getting on. I've been a bit hands-free, but you appear to be getting on fine. Now, bots are defined as "programs or scripts that make automated edits without the necessity of human decision-making" (from WP:BOT), and that doesn't appear to apply to you. My advice is to ignore 82.171.95.220 - weebiloobil (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gelukkig Nieuwjaar to you too. Glad you're still around. If I do something wrong, please do not hesitate to tell me. I would very much appreciate it! Galoubet (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't alphabetize things just for the sake of it. E.g. on Source, the order of things seemes well thought out, with e.g. in the section "Print" links to the term put before unlinked items and so on. Alphabetical order is not superior to other orders and conveys no meaning. You also added a second bluelink to the link about the song by Built to Spill, even though the disambig guideline says to only have one bluelink per entry. Similarly, on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you changed the order of the see also section to alphabetical, even though it was quite clear that the RS noticeboard was deliberately and logically put in first position.

In your last edit, you e.g. changed "Occupational Therapy Department" to "Occupational therapy Department", with a different and incorrect capitalization. Furthermore, in the external links, you cahnaged from a descending importance / closeness order to the alphabetical order.

Such mechanical edits are rarely needed and often have unwanted results. Please stop or at least be a lot more careful before continuing. Only edit when you are really improving articles, not just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Welke bijdragen vind je moet ik ongedaan maken? Galoubet (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Please use English: while you and I understand Dutch, other people may visit your talk page as well.) I don't think there is anything so bad that it really needs undoing (although I would understand it if people who have these pages watchlisted would partially or completely revert it) (and I have only checked your last seven edits or so): I just think that many of your changes are useless, and some are negative (not vandal-like, just that the end result is not as good as the previous state of the page). I don't mind small edits, there are many, many small things that need to be done, but it is not productive to blindly apply rules: in listsof people, it is often good to alphabetize them (but other orders, e.g. chronological, are equally valid and should not be undone): but in categories, external links, ... there may well be a reason why it is not alphabetized, and that reason should be respected. Fram (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... there may well be a reason why it is not alphabetized, and that reason should be respected? Where can I find information about these reasons ? Galoubet (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, common sense? When in doubt, the talk page of the article? What I mean is: there is no need to assume that anything should be alphabetized, and that any other order is an error. Whenyou have a list of e.G. notable alumni which is completely alphabetized, but with two or three names taggedon at the end out of order, then the logical conclusion is that these should be alphabetized as well. When you have a list of "see also" or "external links", then it is often very logical that the official page(s) com first, and other resources afterwards, and this should not be changed to make it alphabetized. When it is not absolutely clear that your edits are an actual improvement, either donb't do them or discuss them. Fram (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks ! Galoubet (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galoubet ^T·C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding ((subst:smile)) or ((subst:smile2)) to their talk pages. Happy editing!

I have removed the European flag because it is not informative about Belgium. The map of Belgium as a part of the European Union informs the reader much better that Belgium is a EU member! I think a rule should be not more than one picture pro section but we can discuss about exceptions. Vb (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, that's fine to me! Galoubet (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was there any reason you removed all this information without an explanation? - Rockyobody (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected. You did not remove anything, you simply moved it down. Sorry for the accusations. - Rockyobody (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the article, but added links like gate, were not so important to the context of the article. Other added like Pandharpur, Tamil Nadu, Buddha are given in the lead so are not repeated in the article. See WP:OVERLINK for more. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate your comments. Galoubet (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Having GA-reviewed Play-Doh, I was browsing thorugh the page history to find that you then made an edit. Always nice to see users I know, I thought. Then, lo and behold, I was just finishing the review process for Survivors (2008 TV series) when I saw you had just made an edit there as well! Ooh, I'm easily amused. Anyway, this chance enpcunter brought a question: how much do you know about the review process in general? - weebiloobil (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, what do I know about review process in your opinion? Galoubet (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, your contributions show no edits of WP:Peer review, WP:Good article nominations or WP:Featured article candidates, so I can surmise that you have never nominated or reviewed an article. I cannot track your page views, however, so I have no way of knowing if you have visited and read the nomination pages. I would tend to guess that you haven't, but who knows? Well, you, obviously. Your edits don't show any consideration for future reviews, so I think that you don't know much concerning reviews. Would you like to know anything about them? - weebiloobil (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all yours! Galoubet (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Well, there are three main types of review: Good Article, Peer Review, and Featured Article. Good Article and Featured Article status are both ranks of articles, saying how good they are, with Featured Articles being Wikipedia's best work. The Peer Review is for any time in an article's development, and is used to suggest improvements. If you ever write an article, you want it to get to FA, but first it should reach GA. If you have time, why don't you try reviewing a Good Article nomination? The best way to learn is to practise - weebiloobil (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for being a WikiGnome on Geology and Oceanic Crust. I really appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Galoubet, Galoubet has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Galoubet (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You added a Template:GAReview tag to Boston College (United States) but I cannot find the discussion at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations nor can I ascertain that you followed the nomination guidelines that required you "Add ((subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed)) to the top of the nominated article's talk page." Have I missed something here? --Aepoutre (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah... whoops. I go away for a week, and now look what happens. Sorry about not noticing this earlier, but there was no Internet connection in the Brecon Beacons. I should have made myself clearer. If you want to nominate an article, then yes, put the GAReview template up on the Talk Page, but also list the article at WP:GAN. Full instructions for nominating an article are found here. You review a Good Article nomination by going to the Good Article nominations page, and choosing an article from there. You then click on the "follow this link" on the GA review template at the top, and review from there. WP:GAN#How to review an article explains how this is done. Sorry about this confusion, and feel free to ask me any further questions - weebiloobil (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, no hard feelings. Hope you had a great time in Brecon Beacons, I'll have a look at it in a minute. Also, I'll try to figure out how this Template:GAReview works out, I'll come back to you if need be!Galoubet (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Easter! - weebiloobil (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user would like to wish you a happy Easter.

Hello! I was browsing your contributions, when I saw your courageous edit to Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (Editing), and it draw my attention to how much of a mess the page has become. Thank you for drawing my attention to this fact, and i will now spend the next few days trying to clean it up. In the meantime, why don't you try warning 76.112.219.30 on their talk page. A list of templates that I use for this is here, with more here. I suggest you use this one, but feel free to choose your own: ((subst:uw-delete1|PageName)) - ~~~~. If you don't want to, you don't have to, but warning the user may earn you a reward. Good luck! - weebiloobil (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made it (till now I mean...) Thanks for the easter eggs, really enjoyed them! Galoubet (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted in that earlier comment above... I don't think I can agree with alphabetizing See alsos as a general rule for articles. Sure, it's fine if there truly is no sensible order and the links are just a pile of related articles. But many times, there is a method to the madness. In the See also for Revolt of the Comuneros, for example, the Italian War of 1521-26 is far less important than the others, while the first articles listed in the See also are a direct spin-off of the article, then followed by some loosely connected wars. SnowFire (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Re: this edit [2], and in particular your edit summary. The simplest approach is probably to activate popups in your Preferences, and then to use the revert option while viewing the article history and having chosen the correct version to revert to. BTW, I've requested semi-protection for the article at RFPP. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thnks and, good idea about the semi-protection! Galoubet (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm just letting you know that the edit where you converted the notable people section of the Cheadle Hulme article has been reverted. Wikipedia encourages lists in articles to be converted into prose for better flow and style. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but do I get it right thinking the * at the beginning of the lists is no longer encouraged? Galoubet (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, putting * at the beginning of lists is no longer encouraged, although many people wouldn't realise it from looking at wikipedia. Lists are pretty common in the lower quality articles but are generally absent from Good and Featured articles. There is a time and a place for lists, such as list of castles in Cheshire which is dedicated to a list, but they're discouraged from articles. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take it alphabetizing is no longer encouraged then? Galoubet (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except it doesn't make better flow and style. Instead of an easy-to-scan list, there is just an unreadable morass of blue links. I'm not aware of any consensus or MOS guideline for the above. If this has changed recently, please point to it. Ty 12:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per this edit,[3] there is no need to remove a blank space under a heading. It is optional and makes no difference to the screen appearance. A space makes it easier to find the heading in the edit box. Also per WP:MOSIMAGES a left-aligned image should not appear under a level 3 === heading or lower. Ty 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Galoubet (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Galoubet,

thanks for your input. Basically it´s a good idea to start the article with an image of a Frescography. I will look around if I find some. Since it seems now after your edit that the article starting with the image "the wild of the southern sea" (which is actually a wood block print) would be an article about that print method rather than the frescography I just undo your edit. Thanks --Misterneu (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, could you give a reason as to why you're supporting the proposal? As it is a request for comment, some clarification would be nice (even if the reason is obvious). Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Molecule Man (art). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecule Man (art). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]