User talk:Galobtter/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Galobtter. 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.

... is whether there should be a redirect from the old user talk of a renamed user to the new. But it looks like a page "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", so perhaps the redirect should have been suppressed? Thanks for helping Stanglevine. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I kept the redirects to not break old links to the talk pages/archives. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter, following your request for interface admin access, I've added this flag to your account. You may want to watch Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard and User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable for updates. Happy interface editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I already have had both watched since they existed :D Xaosflux, could you add interface-admin and sysop on testwiki too? (so if/as necessary I can test things with gadgets without breaking things here). Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I was looking for a stronger consensus than is shown by 5+1⁄2–0 after only 30 hours (as I indicated in the opener). Perhaps we could wait until the thread is about to auto-archive due to lack of additional interest. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This really does seem uncontroversial, and the precise level of consensus would only matter if someone contests it, and if that happens the discussion can continue; but if no one does we can save some time... Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this again. Specifically, I'd like

• {{JCW-selected|FOOBAR}}

or

• {{JCW-selected|FOOBAR|source=}}

to give an output equivalent to

• {{JCW-selected|FOOBAR|source=Unknown}}

i.e. when |source= is not specified or empty, treat this as |source=Unknown. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Also, yes, I'm aware that WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP exceeds template expansions, but that'll get sorted soon-ish enough). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That was quick! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A further tweak. Could you make it so that if 10 or more targets are provided, the sub-list would collapses? E.g. instead of the current

• FOOBAR1
  • FOOBAR2
  • FOOBAR3
  • FOOBAR4
  • FOOBAR5
  • FOOBAR6
  • FOOBAR7
  • FOOBAR8
  • FOOBAR9
  • FOOBAR10

Something like

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, I dealt with it in a different way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

However, an improvement would be to have |source= in (), and |note= in []. E.g. have

• {{JCW-selected|FOOBAR|source=Source|note=This is a note}}

give

• Foobar (Source) [This is a note]

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your help. I don't know why my edits are constantly filtered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:13EB:8443:AA84:2738:3CF6 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Inwant you to create the page Angelo Veno because he is an actor and you are deleting it omg. I put references and you still deleting it. Let’s delete everything if you want it so omgggg Nsnsisisb (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Thank you very much for the welcome, which contains some very useful advice, and for your help with the 10th millennium BC edit. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Thanks for helping me with my contributions to wikipedia. You have been a really big help. Swaghousebuoy (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello G. Sorry about the edit summary. I got caught in a drop down menu snafu while dealing with that troll. Looks like they've hit that article before so I'll add it to my watchlist and file a RFPP if needed. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 08:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, this page Singapore Management University seems to be plagued by advertisment writing. Could you be the judge on this? Whether Im doing this correctly?Seriouzscholar (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, user: Bluestsky99 has been repeatedly reverting parts of Singapore Management University to his/her version without discussing. I suspect there is Conflict of Interest involved.Seriouzscholar (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Template:Wikify which had a 3-2 to delete and then to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 22#Template:Wikify which had a 5-3 to delete and I really can't see how this is a "no consensus" when in both discussions, the majority of people involved were in favor of deleting it. If you don't think that a 3-2 is enough, I understand, but then re-list it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I did not relist the discussion because no new arguments were being brought forward and nothing had changed since the previous very recent well-participated last discussion - there is no need to so soon have a rerun of the same discussion. If you want the template deleted, I'd suggest waiting at-least 6 months and then nominate it.

I'd actually interpret the September discussion as leaning towards keep (not delete), due to WP:!VOTE - the nom there argued the template should be deleted because nobody is going to use it, but one of the other delete !voters said it should be deleted because people are still using it; and that latter argument was pretty well rebutted by Uanfala arguing that the big error message is more visible and that the category allows easier tracking. And one of the people with a bolded deleted vote (BrandonXLF) suggested keeping the template to add a category. Mythdon's argument there for delete is pretty weak/not relevant to the question of deletion: as the template is already deprecated, more specific templates would be used irregardless. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with how you read the previous discussion: The nom did not say "nobody is going to use it", on the contrary, he said that people will use because they won't realize it is deprecated, which I agree with him (and the fact that it is still in use, suggests he was correct); Bsherr had a pretty straightforward rational, being that template namesapce should not contain pages that are not templates (which a message saying "not to use me" is not really being used as a template); BrandonXLF said "Per nomination and above." [meaning Bsherr] - he later commented (not changed his vote) that maybe it should be placed in a category to uses of it can be found, which was already happening as what pointed out; Ten Pound Hammer provided difs that the template is still being used; and Mythdon said to delete it as there are other cleanup templates that can be used instead. Even if you remove BrandonXLF's vote (which is borderline ok here, as him trying to find another solution, shouldn't be seen as him changing his mind about the outcome), you still have a majority of editors in favor of the deletion. Which again, was the same situation here. I feel that you close was used in this situation as a WP:SUPERVOTE, and if you felt it should be kept, you should have voted instead. Other discussions get re-listed over and over again when there is a clear sign of a consensus, while this wasn't even re-listed once, when again, in both discussion, the majority of editors where in favor of deletion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't care if the template is kept or deleted - I am just assessing the strength of the arguments. Majorities are not a consensus, which (even if we are going by pure vote counting) is generally taken to be ~2/3 support. I note that AGK was the one who closed the first discussion as no consensus, and while I don't know if he agrees with my assessment of the discussion leaning keep, it is not just me who thinks the first discussion had no consensus.

I won't be reopening and relisting the discussion for the reasons I've explained above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I know that head counts aren't the only criteria, but you closing this discussion, based on the previous discussion, and your misrepresenting people's actual words there, means that your closure of this one was done hastly at best. While you claim you don't care what happens to this template, your actions speak differently. A shame you are locked in your opinion and not letting the discussion run its course. --Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to emphasis how ridicules keeping this template is, just right now someone added it to an article. No idea how the first delete result got ignored without any trace of a discussion overturning that. --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The close of the "first delete result" also clearly indicates that the template should be "kept as a dab page". And while you can perfectly well make the point that deleting the template would discourage further usage, I note that people can also add deleted templates to articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Gonnym, TFDs do not result in deletion unless there is a general agreement among the participants that (1) the template needs to be deleted and (2) all arguments for keeping have been rebutted or are, on balance, not significant. The vote tally often correlates with the presence of a consensus, but is not used to measure it. If you think Galobtter or I wrongly evaluated the TFD, you can open a deletion review. You should perhaps avoid arguing so strongly that the template shouldn't just display no banner, but that it also must be completely redlinked. This is a fairly minor issue. AGK ■ 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Galobtter,

I got in contact recently about the Soundwalk Collective page, where you took down some edits I had made and re-uploaded the original. Some of my edits were restored, but not all. By reverting back to the original (is that what you did?) there is some information that is not currently valid, like who makes up the Soundwalk collective. In the edits I made, I outlined how the artist Kamran Sadeghi was not a core member and now he is no longer involved at all, yet it states on their page that he is. Is it possible to go back to my edit, or at least provide the real facts somehow?

Thanks as always.

Son Sonnenalle44 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sonnenalle44, Hi, the edit I see that outlines that Kamran Sadeghi is not a core member is by WinsonHouse. First, are you WinsonHouse? Second, the previous wording cannot be used, both because it is promotional and because it is copied from the band's biography and so a copyright violation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Galobtter I can't find a reply button so I'll reply here. Ok if the language is wrong for wiki I trust your judgement. The issue of band member Kamran Sadeghi still stands, what will it take to change this? Can I go into the page and edit it myself Sonnenalle44 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And yes Winsonhouse was me but I forgot my password so I had to make a new one. Also, there is a banner at the top of the page saying that says the page was edited for undisclosed payments, how do I clean this up?

Sonnenalle44 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sonnenalle44, You can be bold and edit the page yourself (as long as you don't have a conflict of interest); just make sure to not use same or similar wording as in the band's own biography to avoid a WP:COPYVIO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter Thanks a lot for helping, I do feel like the description that is there now is far from the depth of work the collective is producing, I have been following them for years and I really think the page should have more information. I will avoid the bands own biography. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SITH (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: this, as I'm basically a co-author of said essay, I can't pull the trigger, but you're free to TBAN them from anything involving race and intelligence or even an indef. They don't edit that frequently, so, imo, a longer sanction or block would be justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni don't want to/have the time to deal with the (probable) drama, complaints etc (but if a less lazy uninvolved admin wants to do it..). As a sidenote, thanks for WP:CRYRACIST. Would've been useful re this too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can't deny having a certain appreciation for the subtle irony of the WPO alt-right apologist types being angry that I wrote WP:BLOCKNAZIS and have probably been the most visible enforcer of NONAZI blocks of late, and the fact that I've also pissed off the ethnic-dispute-arbitration regulars by making WP:CRYRACIST blocks. I look forward to the off-site conspiracies trying to reconcile the two. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll figure something out. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ^{[Username Needed]} 13:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hey--31 hours? (I was reading your user page.) It always made sense to me, since many of us are on a sort of daily schedule. If you block someone NOW for 24 hours, they can be doing the same thing again tomorrow, five minutes later than usual. 31 hours, that's a totally different slot of the day. I have no idea if that's what they were thinking, but it seems reasonable to me. Some blocks--edit warring?--have a 24 hour default; I always thought that odd. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies That is actually right there in the rationale I linked: "Well, many vandals after blocked, just go away to do something else and come back next day at the exact same time for the block lifting to continue vandalizing. Using a 31 hours range interferes with this pattern." Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ha--so me and that other person are both brilliant. I KNEW it. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The ip you blocked is now evading their block with another ip and has returned to make personal attacks, which show zero attempts to understand why their edits are problematic. Valenciano (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Valenciano Thanks for letting me know; block evading IP also blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter!

Thank you for all your help with Special:AbuseFilter/964! Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Re filter, a couple of modifications are needed.

Firstly, please could Special:AbuseFilter/964 be forked into two (I'll explain why below), with one reading:

!"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups &

equals_to_any (page_namespace, 2, 118) &

added_lines irlike "{{subst:submit}}|{{AFC submission\|\|\|" &

new_wikitext irlike "{{mfd"

...and the other reading:

!"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups &

equals_to_any (page_namespace, 2, 118) &

added_lines irlike "{{subst:submit}}|{{AFC submission\|\|\|" &

(

!new_wikitext irlike "<\s*ref|{{official website|{{efn|{{listref|{{named ref|{{notefoot|{{notelist|{{notetag|{{ran|{{refn|{{rma|{{rp|{{sfn|{{source in source|{{cite|{{citation|{{calflora|{{der speigel|{{efloras|{{feis|{{jepson eflora|{{minnesota wildflowers|{{silvics|{{tropicos|https?://|www\.|issn|isbn" &

!"dmbox" in new_html

)

The reason this split is required is that, per the discussion above, we would like to trial using the warn feature of the abuse filter.

Secondly, please could you enable the warn function on the two filters and set the custom message for the first filter to User:StraussInTheHouse/afc-mfd and User:StraussInTheHouse/afc-ref for the second filter? I think they will have to be moved to the MediaWiki namespace (i.e. MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC-mfd and MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-AFC-ref respectively), but I don't have the ability to do that.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse,  Done. Warning seems to me a very good idea - hopefully that cuts down on the bad submissions a bit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand where you're coming from on your revert of my move to Aberdeen, Maryland, shooting. The state is essentially parenthetical there. It's an Aberdeen shooting. There's even a cited source that way. And essentially all English style and usage guides prescribe such matching commas. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for examples. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon Reverted. I suppose I'm more used to seeing the state abbreviation where apparently the comma is not needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your help here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi G, as requested I am getting in contact with you now that I have put my first official page up, it is currently a 'draft' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stephan_Crasneanscki please let me know what you think Sonnenalle44 (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The content on Soundwalk Collective should probably go to that article, not the one on him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, if I move across the information on soundwalk collective to soundwalk collective's page, what are the next steps for getting Stephan Crasneanscki's page online? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You can move the page to mainspace if you think he meets WP:GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok I have done so, thank you. Looking forward to seeing how it is received. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Dear Golobtter, it seems there is some re-direction issues with Stephan's page, Wikipedia automatically directs someone who seaches his name to Soundwalk Collective. This message popped up when I tried to put the article up for editors review " Warning: The page Stephan Crasneanscki redirects to Soundwalk Collective. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title. " - The page is not a copy, the page has more information on Crasneanscki like his work in film and photography. What do you suggest I do? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sonnenalle44 That warning is largely for the person reviewing the draft - no need to worry. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Galobbter, Ok thanks, will it be you reviewing the draft? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your filter: Special:AbuseLog/23424745

Filter 614: Special:AbuseLog/23424744

(I don't know if this is the right place to post about this, but...) This was a good catch! If anything, Filter 614 was the one that messed up here (I think). This is just kind of a cool process tbh. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

614 only catches ooof and above, while I'm testing on 953 whether oof has FPs and how much it catches. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for this, it was a misclick - the javascript on my watchlist hadn't completed when I positioned the mouse, the page scrolled down one line so I clicked the wrong link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64 - no worries. I actually did the same pretty regularly until I installed User:Mr._Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback and disabled the rollback link on watchlists. (same issue with javascript making the links jump around) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter, your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Galobot 3) has been approved. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

We're hitting template expansion limits in WP:JCW/EXCLUDE. Could you refactor {{JCW-exclude}} to call Module:JCW-exclude which would do this

{{JCW-exclude|Foobar|Barfoo}}

• Foobar ≠ Barfoo

if only two parameters are given, but

{{JCW-exclude|Foobar|Barfoo1|Barfoo2|...|Barfoo-n}}

• Foobar ≠ Barfoo1 ≠ Barfoo2 ≠ ... ≠ Barfoo-n

when multiple Barfoos are given? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you're doing something weird with the things, I'll let you do it without interfering for while. Revert whatever I did that is in the way of doing what you have in mind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb Yes, weird :)  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems the new module is extremely costly post-expansion when invoking deeper levels of the template. This rends up to the G section, whereas this, with a lot more lines, renders the A-Z sections (but not Temp). If it helps, I changed the module/template to follow the same format, regardless of how many barfoos are out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This small change helped a lot... I'll keep investigating. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The procedure has been noted. Red Director (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely too short and bland? He's a fringe Hidutva author, and he gets that neutral description. But if it must be, it must be. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I was just grabbing the description from Wikidata, which seems to match the lead sentence as currently written. Short descriptions are supposed to be, well, short, though of course you are free to edit the description to something better (though I would say the lead sentence would need to be changed first). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Which might happen, the article is being edited to clarify this Hindutva views. Of course his fans might object, but they're well sourced. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Short description|none}} exists. ∯WBG^converse 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To quote:- "Some Wikidata descriptions may be unsuitable, and if imported, must be checked for relevance, accuracy and fitness for purpose. Responsibility for such imports lies with the importer." ∯WBG^converse 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

None doesn't do anything yet, and I would say the descriptions are reasonably fit for purpose - you can't cram everything into a short description, only give some context - the article is where you can explain the fringeness etc. Personally I'd say you should improve the descriptions rather than removing them, and {{Short description|none}} should only be used on articles where there is no need for a short description (e.g lists with self-explanatory titles). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's new knowledge for me and I freaking hate this entire stuff of pushing WD into WP. At any case, the template ought to state that inefficiency, clearly.

The description is nowhere reasonably fit and I am pretty amazed that you deem them to be. He is a moderately successful academic in his own field but his entire fame centers upon propagating fringe Hindutva nonsense. An average reader thinks of Kak not as an EE/CS scholar but rather as a pro-Hindutva figure.

I don't have much inclination to indulge in all these trivial stuff and have roll-backed my last edit. Have your way and write or push whatever you seek. ∯WBG^converse 18:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No objection to changing the description to "self-styled Hindutva based historical revisionist" or something like that (though if he's primarily notable for that, I'd suggest swapping the lead sentence to have that description first.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What the hell do you think you are doing moving stuff out of my user space? SpinningSpark 12:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Spinningspark: According to the page's history, that page appears to have been at \Frederick Charles Webb in article space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: ^What Jonesey said - the page was in article space, not in your user space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Doh!, my apologies, I used the wrong sort of slash. A forward slash would have put it in my user space from where I created it, but I got it wrong. Sorry again for being rude. SpinningSpark 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some support here (concerning the publication of User:Headbomb/Crapwatch) if you think this is a good initiative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to The Wikipedia SourceWatch, an incredible initiative that helps editors address the use of questionable sources on Wikipedia. I really appreciate your work! — Newslinger talk 11:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reverting those moves. There certainly is a case for an RM, but until that happens, do you think the talk page of Mainland Southeast Asia could be moved back so it's in sync with the title of the article? – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Forgot that reverting moves doesn't by default include talk pages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your vandalism on removing my idol from the wikipedia page 1889. The following revision was removed, although accured and should be kept: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1889&diff=891540689&oldid=891528716 Next time you dare to remove this you will be reported to the owner of wikipedia. Hes my dad.

Menacingly, Sven R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.1.242.78 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, please report me. I didn't know kids actually did the "my dad is the owner" thing.

Laughing, Galo B. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a minor request for User:Galobot/report/Articles by Lint Errors. If you could make it so that the table, when it is updated, is sorted by Linter error count first, then by the page title (alphabetically), it would help the diffs to be a lot cleaner so that I could more easily see new articles appearing on the list. Right now, the page titles sort in semi-random order with each update, so titles jump around. If it takes you more than five minutes, please don't bother. Thanks for continuing to update this list daily; I've been chipping away at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95,  Done; good to see that the report is still continuing to being used! Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great (and still daunting!). – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I certainly agree with your assessment that the draft is not notable. I had placed it under review because I am using it as a teaching tool and was surprised to see you didn't ping me about it before deciding to go all the way to rejection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Sorry, for some reason I didn't notice that someone else had placed the draft under review; feel free to revert the review if you need it as a teaching tool etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter Thanks and no worries. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We're expanding WP:JCW to cover something new, so a tweak to the template would be nice.

Basically, it needs to do the same thing as {{JCW-selected}}/{{JCW-selected-source}} already do, but when it's on User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1 (or .../Publisher2, .../Publisher3, ...), it should behave as if |source= isn't a thing and simply suppress the output of that parameter if given or missing.

Can you help? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, Fixed Module:JCW for User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg; for Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1, can't you just make {{JCW-PUB-rank}} ignored |source=? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I could, but I'm just sure how the module would handle it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Case in point: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1 still ask about |source= even if I removed |source= from {{JCW-PUB-rank}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

See [8] Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A wild Rebestalic showed up again in your home jungle.

(imagine that, a bear meets a gorilla! interesting)

Anyway, I know this was quite a while ago, but why was the article on Turkey under full protection?

I'm aware it might be for a rather sensitive reason, in which case I'm happy to not know

That's that for me, have to catch some salmon you know

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Rebestalic, Full protection is usually used to stop edit warring. If you look at the logs, you can see the article was under full protection for "Edit warring/content dispute". The edit warring is in this part of the history. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

how did I not think of that thanks!

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 08:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The reversion you made was wrong. The article is wrong because AFSCME reported 94% retention. Also, those people who still had to pay agency fees still had to vote on whether there is a union or not and if there is under 50%, then the union cannot exist. So if they had 2-6% retention, then the union did not have 50% support and is legally not recognized. The Reason article also said "Given the choice of no longer paying to support unions they didn't want to join in the first place, lots of public sector workers took it." That means, they were in the union. Therefore, the article should not be cited as it does not properly state the law or the numbers correctly. Capriaf

Capriaf The Reason article says that "In 2017, AFSCME reported having 112,233 agency fee payers (compared to 1.3 million dues-paying members), but that figure dropped to just 2,215 in the union's 2018 report." So the number of agency-fee members dropped by 98%, which is what we write in the article. However, yes, 94% of total members stayed, because not many dues-paying members left, as also stated in the Reason article. There's no contradiction between the two articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, since Ymblanter says you consulted with him, I wanted to request your input on the issue of ARBPIA-protecting Airbnb. Here's what I said to Ymblanter:

Ijust wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom for a little clarification here. I don't think everything with tiny Israel-Palestine coverage should count (it seems a bit extreme to consider Sea level related, merely because File:Israel Sea Level BW 1.JPG appears near the top), so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment I said basically "Ymblanter and I interpret things differently, so would you please tell us which of us is holding the interpretation you intended". As I said there, This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope. Please let me know if I've said anything that can be interpreted as hostile, because I'm not unhappy and don't intend anything to sound as if I am.

Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please create a "Conspiracy Theories" subject further down the page rather than describe this on his initial brief introduction. I'm not reverting "my version of what the page should look like" (but you are). It's common sense, and gives more credibility to the content on what someone is about to read about the man, instead of reading someone's personal opinion right off the bat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLove79 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As promoting conspiracy theories appears to be an important part of why he is notable, per MOS:LEAD, that sentence should be included in the lead of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, so it should not.RLove79 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a consensus supported by reliable sources, so it should. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If you consider Left-leaning/fake news organizations as reliable sources, sure. But that's neither here nor there. Bottom line is that it is an opinion, and should be stated as such at the very least.RLove79 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If you consider the mainstream media to be "fake news" or unreliable, you're not going to have a good time here, as our neutral point of view policy is explicitly clear that Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you did in here, it seems to have broken some stuff.

|source= is not displayed in User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg, which is good. But that also seems to have suppressed its display in User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg, which is bad. |source= should be displayed in that case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed? Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, thank you for restoring one of my posts the other day on the Allopathy talk page. as I'm only gradually learning my way around & have an unusual issue I'm wondering if it's appropriate for me to ask if you can point me in the right direction? Allopathy is a word regularly used by practitioners of alternative therapies to describe (broadly speaking) western mainstream medicine. in normal everyday circumstances it is not used by 'mainstream' doctors to describe themselves or each other or the principles of their work. In other words it's just not a word they normally use (unless they happen to practice in more than one discipline). The Oxford English dictionary (for example) will be looking at all sources to determine the usual usage & meaning of this word and it's logical to assume they could not be discriminating against sources from alternative practitioners (or the clients or prospective clients or ex-clients of alternative or complementary practitioners). Wikipedia on the other hand will (it can be presumed) not be listing as a "reliable source" any source coming from the viewpoint of any alternative practitioners (because as I see it the followers of Jimmy Wales don't like any of them.) The outcome is that the current wikipedia article misrepresents most alternative practitioners (& their clients) in its opening line by stating unequivocally that allopathy is a pejorative term. This is not supported by the Oxford English Dictionary (who are looking at usual general usage). A possible reason for such a discrepancy it seems to me will be that the only mentions in Wikipedia "Reliable" sources are likely to be when an argument between mainstream/alternative has been documented by the mainstream side. So wikipedia's view does not represent the normal everyday situation in 2019. That's one point. A broader point would be my opinion that if this is unresolvable because wikipedia really doesn't like these subjects & can't produce balanced articles then they just shouldn't have them at all. It's very wrong now in 2019 for anyone doing an internet search to get as a top result a totally misleading result from wikipedia - and as I pointed out the other day on Apple you just use "Look Up" & get this propaganda treated as fact now. So the ramifications go way beyond the choices wikipedia is entitled to make. Thanks for listening - what do you think I should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.15.235 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to say that my attempts to discuss this & related issues on article talk pages are disallowed because not a forum 86.148.15.235 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like the issue is that you are not bringing much in the way of reliable sources to the talk page discussions. Articles are written based on reliable sources, with the core content policies being verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. A lot of your points seem to be your opinion on the current everyday situation etc, rather than reliable sources.

Also, Wikipedia, as a mainstream encyclopedia, gives the mainstream point of view; per the neutral point of view policy, we present the scientific consensus on issues and the highest quality reliable sources are academic sources. Sources from alternative practitioners are not usually published in high quality scientific journals/good quality media and so are not considered reliable (not because "followers of Jimmy Wales don't like any of them"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Galobtter. Most of what you say I understand. I am mainly a reader of articles who comments on article talk pages when some anomaly arises within the article. The degree to which i am welcomed depends on the subject & the community involved but I have had many very positive interactions on a range of subjects. I don't know if you are able to say more but on my main specific point I'll try just once again. Here I understand well that, to put it simply, when it comes to something like whether a type of medical treatment is likely to work or not, then wikipedia has a responsibility to source only from high quality mainstream scientific journals. The specific point I raise here though is in a different category altogether. I am asking what could be more mainstream & high quality than the OED in determining the general usage of a word? I am arguing that the very methodology wikipedia must employ to verify medical accuracy has placed it in opposition to the OED in a context where the OED is in a much better position to judge the mainstream view. If wikipedians were just writing for their own entertainment that wouldn't matter to me at all but prominently publishing a statement that misrepresents a group of people is irresponsible & socially harmful. In general you are right, the number of sources I bring is low compared with the number of words I write, but for this one particular need the source I brought should quite logically have trumped the other sources in this particular context. If I still think this is wrong is there any other wikipedia page I should take my query to? (I'm the same guy as above but ISP has changed my ident) 31.51.220.92 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I could bring any number of other sources for this, the OED will have looked at those too, but if the OED is ignored what's the point? 31.51.220.92 (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A year ago ...

thanks for doing the needful
... you were recipient no. 1916 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are aware that the media sources you are going by on this entry are biased and do not accurately represent the group, not to mention blatantly referring to Antifa rioters, who are in video attacking these group members, merely as "counterprotestors", right? I have to question whether you are biased to this topic or not. Are you? There is literally video of Antifa rushing them at a peaceful gathering, protected by Patriot Prayer's constitutional rights. So, how do we get this on there, and correct the opening entry.

Issues like these are why wikipedia is thoroughly unreliable. Biases sources and blind eye enforcement of their points of view. Please show me something better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.13.222.58 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED; you're not going to last long here if you have such contempt for reliable sources, as they are the bedrock of our how we write in a neutral point of view. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL!!! So, you are telling me that proven biased liberal "news" sources like Al Jazeera and their opinion pieces are reliable, and neutral? lol Really? Have you actually investigated these situations? Watched the actual video evidence that runs counter? You are aware that news media in america slants one direction of the other, and these mainstream media sources are the worst of the worst in this article? I'm free to edit this article with Fox news sources, and any biased source I can find in print in order to change this entry, then?

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

user:Beetjuicelover420 appears to be a vandalism-only account. I would like to seek a block. CLCStudent (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chutia people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Chinese (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) 09:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter. Per this discussion I've just had, would it be possible to flag the edits adding the short description with your script as minor? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And also @Pbsouthwood: - apologies, only just seen the reply on Cassiopeia's talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I don't think all additions should be flagged as minor, but I added an option to mark edits with the script as minor. @CASSIOPEIA: the descriptions on wikidata that you are importing were added by a bot based on categories. I think it may make more sense to have a bot add descriptions based on categories here than importing it semi-automatically (though semi-automated does allow some level of human checking that a bot wouldn't have). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, Description from wikidata is about 90% correct which I have imported to articles. For those are incorrect, I manually edit them. To say here, do you mean, you will set up a bot to add the wikidata short description info to the articles in Boxing cat and all its subcats as well? I am not sure what I should do at the moment, pls advise. Thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: If the wikidata descriptions are 10% incorrect, then importing descriptions semi-automatically as you are doing is reasonable; I was just wondering if it is possible to save time and do things faster by generating descriptions automatically here as was done on Wikidata. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Galbotter, When I meant incorrect, it also include description is only partial info "such as American boxer" where wikidata short descr is only "boxer" or short description is too long. Those take is actually wrong, would be less than 5%. Would we able to find out which articles on a said category which have no short descriptions in wikdata? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My experience with Wikidata descriptions is that the quality can vary a lot depending on the topic, which is unsurprising, as they were often added by the same person across a topic. They can very often be improved, but are quite often good enough, so the gadget works very well for me. I occasionally use import, often use edit and import and the rest of the time usually compose one from what can be gleaned from the lead. Occasionally I omit as not adding anything useful to the title, and occasionally the article is so poorly written that I can't work out what it is supposed to be about and just give up as a waste of time. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this - much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter. Thank you for reviewing my page Mintos. Unfortunately, my page Mintos was deleted from Wikipediua and I would like to restore it and explain my position. Mintos is European largest peer-to-peer lending platform. I am creating the article not in the marketing purposes. There are similar articles on Wikipedia about different peer-to-peer lending companies like Funding Circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_Circle), Lending Club (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LendingClub) or others. I am hired by the company to create content and am being rewarded for it. I have rewritten the text and deleted the marketing related information leaving the basic information about the company. My relationship with User:Sparklz2048 are professional - this is a previous project manager for this project. this user no longer works on this project. Can you plase update me and explain how can I create a new Mintow Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ik158 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No matter how neutral of an article you create, the company needs to pass WP:NCORP to have an article, and Mintos clearly does not. I'd recommend refunding your client. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that there is alredy a page of Mintos in Italian Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mintos) created by independent editor and i wanted to make it available also in English. Is this possible? I have also disclosed my relationships with the company on my profile page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I see you're doing editfilters now. I have a question if you don't mind. Is it possible for an edit filter to detect if a page has a certain template on it, or if the page is in a particular category? Not asking for any action, I just want to know if it's technically possible. The context is this. ~Awilley (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You'd need a separate filter for this as a filter cannot both disallow and warn and tag (as 602 currently does). Checking if "DS/Aware" is in the page's wikitext is easy (i.e detecting if a template is on a page); the tricky part would be - just because someone has {{Ds/aware|topic = ap}} doesn't mean someone should be prevented from added e.g {{subst:Ds/alert|topic = e-e}} so you'd have to detect the topic code. But that should be technically possible. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"...cannot disallow and warn and tag"... But it can warn and tag. Could the text of the warning message be modified based on the scenario? Like if DS/aware|topic=ap is on the talk page, could the warning message say "This user has placed DS/aware on their talk page indicating they are already aware of blah blah blah"? ~Awilley (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: I was going to answer no, since the abusefilter extension itself doesn't have any support for dynamic messages, but it is possible here with just an edit of the warning message (no change to filter). Place something like {{Ds/aware|topic = foo, ap, ee}} on a page (ex. User:Galobtter/sandbox3), and then add "Testing of Ds/aware abusefilter" to see the warning message (provided by 953 ). I did this by using a lua module (Module:Sandbox/Galobtter/Ds-aware) to check if the page has the template and add a message if that is the case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Bravo! I think something like that could work. ~Awilley (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if this were implemented for template MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS it would only be necessary to edit the template itself, and not AbuseFilter/602. Correct? ~Awilley (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, only need to edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Guys, I just tried editing User:Galobtter/sandbox3, and nothing happened. Did something break since you wrote this? It's a relatively urgent problem because Awilley just told arbs to try it…[9] — JFG ^talk 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

JFG, only the text "Testing of Ds/aware abusefilter" triggers the filter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'd suggest to make any text trigger it, to match what it should detect in a real situation. — JFG ^talk 20:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we should detect the addition of a {{ds/alert}} template to a page where {{ds/aware}} is present. Details about the topic areas can be fleshed out later, but I think we must properly demonstrate the proposed solution to arbitrators. — JFG ^talk 20:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

In reality, the warning message of Special:AbuseFilter/602 which detects {{ds/alert}} would be modified. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter! Was this user created by you as a test account? I noticed it from the response made here that seems to indicate that it is. I just wanted to ask you in order to be sure... Let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, no, not by me, (I'm not in the habit of praising myself :)), my guess is it is DannyS712. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Nope, I thought it was you --DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, then I wonder who it is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I tested the sandbox example, and it worked. Hopefully, it was not that difficult a task for you to put together. Again, thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Not much work, and the technical aspect piqued my interest :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Galob - I'm confused over this? I was going to add the code to my notice at the top of my page but it's gone? You have a sock playing tricks or your account has been compromised? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I was doing some testing on the talk page; I think you're looking for User:Galobtter/sandbox3, not User talk:Galobtter/sandbox3. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ooops, well that's a relief - TY. Do you think that after you, Awilley and JFG volunteered to do the work that our Arbs will ever get around to giving it a thumbs up? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

INSPIRE shows her at PCTS, the PCTS website has not been updated for a year, moreover, 'rising' is a term of art at Princeton meaning offered, accepted but NOT started yet, similar to a 'rising Senior' in high school who is really just a junior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.189.34 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

PCTS are Principal Investigators, the other 90% of PDs are not at Princeton, Harvard shows her address as New York not New Jersey, PCTS PIs do not start until September 1st of each year. Inspire does not have a PI designation, and Junior implied faculty position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.189.34 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A Princeton Principal Investigator is a person allowed to seek outside funding, a Post-Doc cannot hire staff and fund grad students as can a PI. Most people don't know that PCTS means PI, so until they do, both should be included for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.189.34 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you edit Special:AbuseFilter/614 to replace chung[ue]s with chung[uea]s? I caught this as getting through. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your work with the edit filters and other Wikipedia stuff Abote2 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter!

You closed the TfD about Infobox Finnish municipality as NC. But it says:

• Subst and delete
• Delete after replacement
• Keep until replacement
• SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and IP proposed it itself for substitution)

Seems the result would be "Replace (subst:) and (then) delete"? Not?

I today outsourced all the data code from the infobox to Category:Data Finland municipality templates, which is inside Category:Data templates. Cf. also Category:Template:Metadata Population. Now infoboxes or other pages can retrieve the data stored in the data templates indepent from the infobox. The replacement could start soon.

Could you adjust your closure? TerraCyprus (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

TerraCyprus, I did not close the TfD as "subst and delete" because per the DRV started by Zackmann08 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality), it was unclear if the substitution should be done, and there was not enough discussion after the DRV (only one comment) for a consensus to subst and delete the template.

It looks the edits you have done have made substing viable; I would suggest starting another TfD to evaluate that (you can ping the participants of the previous discussion). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

But the DRV was relist, and in the relist only one objection occurred. So it is 3(4):1. The DRV apart from relist had endorse (Pppery). It was maybe unclear to Zackmann08 and the pro-relist voters, if the replacement had to be done. But even Zackmann08 only made a DRV, not an objection to replacement. Pigsonthewing asked for clarification regarding the DRV, but did not change his vote. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraCyprus (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dude, can I just give the image to you and bestow upon you all ownership? I will revoke my ownership and write anything you want to make the image yours, and then YOU can put it up and I never worry about it again? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinimumMax (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Galobtter, thanks for pointing out mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Prefer-recent to me. However, I don't seem to be able to get it to work. For example, if I want to search for my posts on RSN, I might go to the noticeboard and enter sunrise prefer-recent:1,7 in the search box, but the results aren't actually ordered by date like I want. I'm guessing the problem is the suggestion in the instructions that it only works in highly refined search results. I've also been looking at mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Explicit_sort_orders without success. Do you know anything more about this? Sunrise (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise, the date search results display in green and also sort by is the date of the last edit. Unfortunately, because of say bot edits to fix formatting issues etc, this may not correspond to archive ordering - that's the issue I see when doing a search for "sunrise prefer-recent:1,7". Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. I only note it means that ordering search results by date (that is, by when the edit that matches the search result was made) is not actually possible in the current system. :-) Based on your answer I tried ordering by creation timestamp and it comes the closest, except that the live page gets counted as the oldest instead of the newest. (And that a search like this really shouldn't require editing URLs, of course!) Sunrise (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been editing since 2004, but I think that the ability to create a named account is at the heart of most of what's wrong with Wikipedia, so I edit without one. Best, 73.92.193.211 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

JLYK the watchlist-related userscript you recently added to WP:USL doesn't work when "Live updates" is enabled. I tried on Opera; probably won't work with other major browsers. Caught my attention 'cause I'd made a similar script some time back. —RainFall 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

RainFall, Hmm, Works For Me™ with live updates on Firefox, it may need a few seconds after each update to update the links, but otherwise there is no reason for it to not work with that. (to be clear, I'm using the live updates functionality provided by default in the watchlist, I don't know how it'll work with User:RainFall/ajax-watchlist.js etc). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about the original, "sane" watchlist too. I tried "installing" the script instead of injecting it to my browser but no luck. —RainFall 10:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, 🤷🏾‍♂️, if you're interested in debugging, it would be useful to know if the script manages to set the target to "_blank" for watchlist links. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Galobtter! Is there a way to use Shortdesc helper on a Wiki where it isn't installed (e.g. by adding something to common.js)? I would like to use it on hr.wp to preview short descriptions from Wikidata (the Croatian Wikipedia doesn't have a local short descriptions policy) above an opened article. I would use it just to preview short descriptions, but not to edit them.

P.S. great gadget ;) --Hmxhmx 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmxhmx, added instructions User:Galobtter/Shortdesc_helper#For individual use, but if you just want to see descriptions I'd recommend d:User:Yair_rand/WikidataInfo.js as more designed for that.

P.S. Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hmxhmx 08:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Was really glad to see your comment there. If you have any potential candidates in mind, please let me know - I've been asking around about this for months now. Would be glad to provide a co-nom. Thanks, GAB^gab 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad, I actually do have some candidates in mind, but I'll be quite busy over the next week or two. But I'm definitely interested in discussing nominating someone with you, so when I get the time I'll email you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, just let me know. I've been out a bit more than I'd like, too, so no pressure. GAB^gab 21:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Thank You for your help and participation regarding my DS alert proposal. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help! Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Question - The Ds/aware template I'm using includes all the topic areas subject to DS.

1. Is there a limit to the number of topics one can add to the template at one time before it breaks?
2. It appears the template can be detected by the filter when hidden, correct?
3. I've asked a few users to test it on my page because after I trigger it the first time, it won't let me test any other topics. Is there a limit to the number of times or alerts one can check on the same UTP? Sorry for inundating you with all these questions but I've been bitten by our new toy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

1. No
2. Yeah, the code just needs to be in the wikitext - doesn't matter if it is in a comment or not
3. Hmm, you should be able to trigger it again as long as you reload/reopen the edit window. The way the filter works is that it first warns you, and the allows you to make the edit, but if you exit the edit window, you'll be warned again. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

the user-page-image help in any manner, as to your's being an angry guy? We shall never know:( ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess gorillas are angry guys.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Just saw Template:Ds/aware and it's such a great improvement that I'm surprised no one had thought of it before! Thanks for the contribution! Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking higher up, it seems this is a joint effort with Atsme so this is for you too! Thanks as well Wug·a·po·des​ 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Atsme proposed the general idea, and Awilley the more specific form with {{Ds/aware}}, but I did do the technical implementation :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks so much for developing this! As discussed at the WiR talk page, here are a few names of men who have come up in the bot results. It's not a large number, so won't be a big deal if the bot can't be refined to leave them out without leaving the drafts we want out too. There was actually one biography of a man I got interested in, and worked on the draft, so that ended up being a plus! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Draft:Porter Ray
• Draft:Utpal Khot
• Draft:Thomas Tobias
• Draft:Peregrine Fellowes
• Draft:Syed Umrao Ali Shah Jilani
• Draft:John Ferrar (merchant)
• Draft:Nick Paley
• Draft:Daniel Morgan Taylor
• Draft:Brian Rosenworcel
• Draft:Pascal Lagesse
• Draft:Lloyd Dulany Addison
• Draft:Vernon Hill (flautist)
• Draft:George Katsimbalis
• Draft:Benjamin Davis (American-Russian writer)
• Draft:George Le Cronier

RebeccaGreen Thanks for providing the list. Looking through, there are some ways to exclude male biographies (e.g. exclude if the article has "he was") but that would also cause false negatives, so I think any changes to reduce the amount of male biographies in the report would be more effort than worth it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to re-ping you on whether you'd like to collaborate on an RFA nom. If so, just email me GABgab 14:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Emailed! Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Galobtter; this is in response to your decision to ban me from editing the Toby Young article. You said I could come here in the first instance, and so I'm doing so. I'd like you to think again about the ban and to consider the following points. I'm not very good at finding and linking to things on here, but I believe you'll find, if you are able to click back around the controversy over the relevant sentence, that what I say below is true.

1. All my edits to the relevant sentence were made with reference to Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. I consistently tried to change the phrase 'misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts' to something like 'Twitter posts that some/many have seen as misogynistic and homophobic.' My view has been that we don't need to take sides in the controversy - we simply need to inform readers of it. Readers can then make their own minds up. (Note that my aim has not been to insert language asserting that the tweets were definitely NOT homophonic and misogynistic.) 2. The record will show that I made repeated good faith attempts at compromise, from watering down my language (even to something like 'tweets that were widely seen as homophobic and misogynistic') to agreeing to keep that phrase as is but adding a reference to Young's defence of himself in Quillette right afterwards. All these attempts at compromise were rejected out of hand. 3. I several times referred the matter to various fora. On these occasions, several other Wikipedia users agreed with me that the phrase as stands could use some re-working to abide by the neutral point of view policy. In fact, it's my recollection that it was nearly always the majority of users who supported a change to the language, with a small number of insistent and active opponents (e.g. Fae) refusing to change it. At any rate, there was very clearly never any consensus against my view. 4. Through the course of the controversy I have always been unfailingly polite, never resorting to speculation about my interlocutors' motives. This has been in striking contrast to Fae, for example, who repeatedly accused me of bad faith, and made groundless insinuations about me. 5. It's true that I have made a good number of reverts and changes to the phrase in question, but that's also true of Fae. I may have stepped over a line in Wikipedia policy that I'm not familiar with, but if it was just my reverts that drew the ban, I fail to see why my reverts should draw a ban but Fae's shouldn't, especially considering that I was the one defending Wikipedia policies, and I had the support of the majority of those who commented on the controversy. 6. I have a pretty clean record on Wikipedia, mainly contributing sections of articles on Greek history. I think this is the first big controversy I've been involved in. Fae, by contrast, is apparently often involved in controversies of this sort - in fact I happened to notice that there is currently a complaint against Fae for what looks like highly partisan activism on the article about the Yaniv affair. 7. I'm also, as I noted above, not incredibly clued-up technically. I've struggled a little bit to put my case against Fae and a few other highly active and motivated partisan accounts, all of which seem much better connected with administrators. I also have a full-time job so can only spend time here once every few months. (This, by the way, has definitely undermined my faith in how serious Wikipedia takes political neutrality, and meant that I'm now less willing to spend any significant amount of time contributing.)

That's all for now. Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll reconsider the ban. I should add that I'm still very willing to work towards a reasonable compromise with respect to the phrase in question. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleisthenes2 This appeal largely does not address the behaviour that got you topic banned, i.e persistently edit warring over months to restore the article to your preferred version, and also per my reading, against most editors views - "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Nor is "the other editor was also bad" a valid appeal: while WP:NOTTHEM is about unblock appeals, the advice there about not complaining about other people applies here too. Stating that you have "never resorting to speculation about my interlocutors' motives" and then accusing editors of being "motivated partisan accounts" a few lines down doesn't help your case.

There are ~5 million other articles you can edit and my advice is for you to edit productively on some other article. A record of productive editing on other articles would help any appeal, as would focusing your appeal on addressing the issues that got you topic banned rather than on other editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought this was a sock account that someone has started in order to poke Eric. I'm dumbfounded to see that not only is this a legit account, but one that carries sysop permissions. Quite extraordinary. Cassianto^Talk 07:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is quite needless and Galobtter is one of the more competent and clueful sysops over here. People can disagree and that's quite normal. ∯WBG^converse 08:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? Well in this particular situation, this "competent and clueful" sysop has completely misjudged the situation. Perhaps Galobtter should go and find a safe space somewhere and learn the difference between a personal attack and a comment made as a result of bear-baiting. Cassianto^Talk 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

^^^What he said^^^. GregJackP Boomer! 09:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, WBG. @Cassianto, I'm already at the safe space capital of the world, so I'm good on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Galobtter. You really shouldn't be both the filer and an "uninvolved admin" at the Eric Corbett AE. Several admins have said so. I don't know if my ping about it worked, so I'm asking you again, here, to move your comment from the "uninvolved" section up to "Additional comments by editor filing complaint". It's both confusing and weird for you to shapeshift like that. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I saw your ping (and those of many others - always nice to wake up with 8 red alerts :)). I was spending some time reading the various discussions; I'll move my comment up soon since commenting below seems to have caused more confusion than clarity. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

See User_talk:109.145.100.228 - TP history and edits demonstrates unwillingness to change their bad habits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks handled! I was asleep :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got another issue for you - see Alberto DeJesus. It's in the NPP queue, so I started reviewing it. It appears to be a hoax but before I tag it as such, will you take a look at it? The dates don't line-up with his age, school, work, and address of his purported companies. The cited sources I checked are all "write-about-yourself" kind, or just plain fake. The address for his primary business is actually the business address for The Hub Group, 60 State Street, Suite 700, Boston, MA 02109. Hopefully I caught you before you went back to sleep. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is a hoax, but definitely spam. Don't have too much time to look at it but Special:Contributions/Yesmikeyoutube who moved the draft to article space looks like a sock of Special:Contributions/Smith1325. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty proud of my, ahem, wholesale stealing of your adminhighlighter caching . Enterprisey would be pretty disappointed in my js "programming" but hey, I learned how js objects worked today, so it all works out! Anyway, I wanted to drop by and express my appreciation for your scripts! Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

L235, thanks! Feel free to ask me if you need any help with a script etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Beautiful script :p I also would like to thank you (Galobtter) for writing your scripts. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)