User talk:Galobtter

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

Hi Galobtter, Why can't we have a separate article on Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery just like MBBS or any other degree courses? Why did you redirect the BHMS article to Central Council of Homoeopathy, which seems to be a govt. organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs) 13:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton-Rodrigues The degree is only in india unlike say MBBS. It's regulated by that organization - which sets the qualifications. Also unlike MBBS, I didn't see enough coverage for a separate article, so I though it was better to merge there. (The material is still there) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Galobtter; Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) is an Indian govt. recognized undergraduate degree course just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. No matter if the course is only in India. University Grants Commission (India), AYUSH has recognized it, what more recognition does it require? About coverage, there are plenty of sources available on the Internet. After my initial research over Google, I am sharing some of few news refs, i found TheWire, DNA, Livemint, and Times of India, Deccan Herald. There are great refs available on HighBeam and Google Books as well. I think we can create a separate article just like Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery. What do you say?--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Elton-Rodrigues Do you see anything in the sources that would allow you to expand what is already there in the Central Council of Homeopathy article? You can add any material there, and if gets too long, then it can be split off. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For your recently contributions. Nice. HindWikiConnect 14:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nom Nom Nom. Thanks HindWIKI! Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's really nice. Keep it and Thanks. HindWiki^Connect 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Galobtter, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump North Korea

Hi Galobtter.

I'm trying to sort out what happened on the little bit in the lede where you reinserted the "pressured NK" language after I had reverted it and it was under discussion. I can see that you briefly accepted Anythingyouwant's view that this was OK, but then the discussion continued -- I don't think that I was aware of your reinstatement at the time -- and I continue to find the argument for "pressured" without any specifics to be a POV insinuation that the Administration is actually pressuring or doing anything at all about the issue, when in fact we have no reports about what if anything they're doing to counter NK. Do you feel that the single word "pressured" is better than "mocked and threatened...", or "mocked and threatened NK to pressurr it..." ? I couldn't tell whether this got lost in the wash or whether you now prefer simply, "pressured". As I've said, this sort of thing, which comes up in many of these active Trump articles, adopts the statements of the Administration as true descriptions of their policies, even when RS consistently tell us that their self-descriptions are false. To take an example from recent news, WP should not report the current tax legislation as a "middle class tax cut" or "jobs bill" -- both repeated assertions of the Administration -- when RS cite expert analysis to the contrary. Tweeting insults and threats vs. North Korea do not constitute "pressure" because they have no demonstrated effect on NK nor any basis in theory or policy for expecting such effect. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think pressure seems reasonable. It has been reported in RS. I do agree we shouldn't use the administration's talking points, but RS do use pressure. Maybe "mocked and pressured", but to be honest I really don't care that much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't care either. I have more or less given up trying to whack-a-mole all the POV language tilts that come up in these articles. Some of the users are not native English speakers and may not be fully aware of their mistakes, but I think in some cases the twists and turns are too clever by 1/2. The idea that Trump has applied pressure is treated by most RS as a laughable and frightening misrepresentation of his actions. Even Sen. Corker spoke out about this. The American Politics articles have lost nearly a dozen great editors over the past year simply due to disgusted attrition at the tactics of the motivated partisans. The good news is that eventually there will be much less room for spin and deflection as historical perspective on these events becomes clearer. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 05:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Did you look at the talk page before making this edit? I only ask, because I literally just posted there about 2 minutes ago an explanation that we don't change content based on WP:OR, which is what he provided. I was trying to encourage him to learn about OR a WP:RS and adding proper sources. Then you just go and make the change anyway. I thought perhaps the timing was so close you missed my reply. - ^theWOLFchild 09:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I did see your reply. However he was not trying to add material; WP:OR only talks about adding material - not removing. It's uncited, and so can be removed as having failed verification (does it make sense to leave false information in an article?). It would be different if he was trying to contradict a reliable source, but in this case it's actually quite likely the original material was OR too.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. But in light of my reply, it sends the wrong message. We want to encourage proper sourcing. And in light of that, and that fact that I agree with you about it being unsourced, I am going to add a ((cn)) template to see if we can flesh out a source. Better than straight up deleting. If no source can be found in a timely manner than I agree it should be removed. Thanks for the reply. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Bleach Blonde Baby

This track is more significant than interweb which is an independent wikipedia page. The music video had a lot to talk about but I hadn't exactly finished it yet but I saw it as acceptable to be published at that certain stage. smartalek22 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and here's my edit conflict comment. I see that you reviewed "Bleach Blonde Baby" (I didn't write it but reviewed and edited the page for its original author) and are concerned about its notability. The 18-second preview of the newly released video just trended #1 to #3 on YouTube, and the video itself was released yesterday to hundreds of thousands of views. The song itself is one of the main songs on an album released in October which has been listed as one of the top 20 pop albums of the year by Rolling Stone magazine. It should have more references, and will undoubtedly receive those, but I'd say its notability has been established by the tour and album, and will be established further. Just my two-cents French Euro. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartalek33 and Randy Kryn That interweb song looks quite possibly like it needs to be merged in too. Also it's preferable that instead of having lots of short articles on songs, we instead have one good and long article on the album - Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. So you can add the content (viewable here), to the album article instead, and only if there's too much, then you can split it off. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would respectfully differ, as Poppy is a prominent artist and the album and songs having their own separate notability per other single-song pages related to other artist's albums. The "Interweb" page is picking up quite a few views, and these will increase. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Randy Kryn I mean I don't see more than a good paragraph or two being written it. I quoted from WP:NSONG, a guideline - assuming the song is notable, it doesn't make sense to have an article on it when a lot of the stuff on the page is just repeating content from the album article. The material is still there and people can still see it. People can still read about the song "Interweb", it's just not on a separate page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The music video was only released yesterday for Bleach Blonde Baby it has already trended on youtube. As for interweb. It has been performed on national television in the US and that is why they deserve independent articles. smartalek22 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartalek33 It is possibly notable. However why not include the content in one nice article on the album? (perhaps under a section called "Singles") Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The #1 trending on YouTube for its preview (of all things) may count as a chart listing, although I'm not sure. Would that get it over the hump? I'm assuming it will pick up more notability, and one unique thing about the video for the song is that the artist spells out quite clearly "Everybody dies" in happy fuzzy party-style presentation and lettering, fuzzy lettering that she has used as an identifier for her videos. Quite interesting actually, and I advise you not to listen to it or any of her videos, as soon you will be addicted and then where would we be. In any case, if kept both these song pages should probably be simple names without the qualifiers (song) etc., as BBB doesn't have any other listing on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see the point of having 3+ separate articles on each song + one on the album when they can be included in one article. As the guideline NSONG says, even if the song is notable it still may be preferable to have merge all the content into one page if there isn't enough material for a seperate article. The title of the song will still redirect to the description of the song, just they're all collated in one page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I will add more to the article and include references. There are quite a few details I haven't added. smartalek22 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fly, Smartalek33, fly. In the meantime, many albums and artists have article for songs, and these two from this debut studio album will, I'd say (WP:CRYSTAL at hand), stand the test of time, and by time I mean how about giving these a couple of weeks and see where they land? I again implore you, Galobtter, not to delve too deeply or at all (sort of like The Simpsons opening saying that nobody should view it) into Poppy, as you may be trapped into a very interesting artist, singer, and the overall patterns that she and her associates have been creating for several years now. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tether (cryptocurrency), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Banks and First Commercial Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason of Tagging for Deletion?

About BambooHR, The issue of wrong writing style is solved about award list. The Software page cited references from PCMag, Deseret News, Inc. (magazine), Entrepreneur (magazine), Bloomberg, Daily Herald, The Financial Express, Forbes, and The Salt Lake Tribune so there is no need to raise question on notability of the topic.

• https://www.inc.com/todd-mckinnon/the-10-apps-to-watch-in-2017.html
• http://au.pcmag.com/cloud-services/41880/guide/the-best-hr-software-of-2017
• https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/289703
• http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-biz-pays-employees-to-take-vacations-or-get-paid-to-take-vacation
• http://www.financialexpress.com/industry/vacation-on-mind-but-money-is-tight-these-5-companies-pay-their-employees-to-go-on-holiday/625217/
• http://www.heraldextra.com/business/local/during-live-elevate-summit-bamboohr-expands-its-outreach-to-global/article_e38551ff-57ee-59cc-b44c-bf596b5049fc.html
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2014/03/19/want-your-new-employees-personal-commitment-take-their-onboarding-personally/
• https://www.deseretnews.com/top/3743/57/1-BambooH
• https://www.pcmag.com/article/351854/bamboohr-extends-its-expertise-to-payroll-management
• https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=254211320

Please consider deleting the Tag you added in page. EShami (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

EShami The point of the process is so we can discuss whether it should be kept or not. If you can convince people that it is notable, then it will be kept. The awards list still seems to be there, just into prose. Its still entirely promotional, writing about how it's "known for being the best place to work" etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on resubmitted page

Hello,

I authored a page on Hitachi Vantara. You declined the page so I reworked it and resubmitted it. Not sure if I resubmitted it correctly. Can you check to see if you see the revised page and let me know? Or point me in the right direction? Thank you!

Momoflisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momoflisa (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Momoflisa You have submitted it correctly, however the problems still seem to remain. Like I said, I'd suggest adding to Hitachi rather than having a separate article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion at Donald Trump in violation of 1RR restriction - Arbitration enforcement

Please undo your last reversion, as it is within 24 hours of your last reversion on the article. The current page restriction reads: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. Thank you in advance! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coffee Whoops! Done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your expedient response! Happy editing! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coffee Hey, I'm not sure exactly how this works (there are so many rules I've probably got this wrong), but is that formal warning technically a sanction (being logged in the sanctions log)? If so, I don't believe I met the awareness criteria..(not that I care that much) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Less a sanction, more of a saved log of your new awareness. There's nothing bad about it being there on you (in fact if there isn't a violation in the future, it has no impact to your account whatsoever), it's just to ensure other administrators are aware that watch this area. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Coffee Ahh cool, yeah I know it isn't bad or anything, was just wondering. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MetaShare

Hello Galobtter, I will take the actions you request for improving the page MetaShare during the day. I will come back to you later to ask for a new evaluation. All the best Epicurus One (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Epicurus One: Well, I was unable to find sources, if you can find some good. Just remember the sources have to be independent, so anything overtly positive with a lot of quotes from the people behind metashare is is not going to be independant. Also, need sources about the software, not just its features (which should just be removed - it's overly positive and reads like an advertisement) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter:Thank you for your valuable feedback. I’ve now tried to improve the article. The reason I like to have a MetaShare presence at Wikipedia is all the MetaShare's competitors are there already Dropbox (service), Google_Drive etc. I used SharePoint as a template when creating the MetaShare page, hence the section with features that differs the different editions. (The same sections can be found at the cloud computing services Wiki-pages I just mentioned as well.) I’ve now removed all references from MetaShare itself, and replaced them with other trusted and verified sources. I also tried to clean the article from what can be considered as promotion according to Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If you think it now meet the requirements you may remove the plate, otherwise I will continue to improve it in line with your directions. All the best Epicurus One (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Epicurus One You can remove the template yourself, as it says on the message. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Sharepoint isn't a good model - I don't like the feature section there. Blogs are not reliable (see here for a simple explanation of sources). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New page patrolling

As someone interested in new page patrolling, I wondered how best to deal with articles such as companies of dubious notability. There are three main options that I see; tag the article for notability, take it to AfD, or do nothing (mark as reviewed). There is presumably a category of articles tagged for possible notability issues, and if so, can you identify it for me? If it contains thousands of items that seldom get actioned, that would put me off adding more and I would be more likely to nominate it at AfD. Alternatively it might contain relatively few entries, being a source of articles for people who want to list things at AfD. Do you know? I just went the AfD route for Red Canary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I'm not that experienced with patrolling either - actually I've done way less reviews than you have..I'd ask TonyBallioni for someone more experienced. But anyhow, the easiest way to find a category is to go to the template documentation - it's Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability. There are about 64000 tagged....most tag categories are huge, so I prefer to not add to them if I can help it. So I prefer to AfD - especially for companies, as they usually aren't going to be notable under the strict WP:NCORP and assuming they are less than 5 years old all sources should be easily searchable on google and google news etc. So it usually doesn't take more than 5-10 minutes to do WP:BEFORE. Most of their articles are promotional etc so I don't feel they should stay around. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking at that category, I see it has over 50,000 entries and I agree that there is really no need to add to it, leaving the company adverts in place indefinitely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I typically go the AfD route, especially if by an SPA or non-extended confirmed account that doesn’t show signs of being here to contribute outside of promotion. The difficulty with corps is that they’re often reference bombed with primary or promotional sourcing that doesn’t count towards the GNG. Learning how to spot it is something that takes time. I used to hate reviewing corps for the same reason, but I eventually got the hang of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I'd say there isn't much spotting to do when it's like pretty much every article on a corporation, but yeah it's pretty annoying. Also annoying in AfC reviewing, going through 30 sources that don't have anything. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed in general, but if you’re new to working the NPP/AfC it can take time to learn things like TechCrunch and Crunchbase haven’t been considered to count towards notability in virtually any AfD for the past year or that Forbes Contributors is a blogging platform with no editorial oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah forbes contributors is one of the vaguely wtf things. Maybe there can be a guide called, "Field Guide to Company Notability" that has all this crap.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If these recently formed companies were notable they would include references to the mainstream financial journals in which they were discussed to back that up. But they don't, because they are small scale, local, not publicly traded, have raised a couple of million dollars in seed capital, have won a tech award etc. There must be hundreds of thousands of such companies in the US alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Even raising 100 million doesn't mean much unless something significant is done with that money. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Corporate notability is one of the most difficult things to deal with and it is made more difficult because basically any company can meet the wording of the GNG within a month or two of incorporation if they try: they don't even have to be selling anything yet to do so. NCORP tries to explain what the GNG means and what sourcing is acceptable and isn't but it still requires a lot of judgement. The important thing to remember from a notability front is that for companies, we require intellectual independence from the subject. That means a WSJ article that is 90% an interview with the CEO doesn't count, but a NYT piece covering the products they sell would. I've started arguing more from WP:NOTSPAM at AfDs: the text of WP:N makes it clear that passage of the GNG alone is not enough for inclusion if an article fails WP:NOT. When you're dealing with subjects of borderline notability with a lot of PR based references, its difficult to sort through the mess. If an article fails both NOTSPAM and is questionable on the GNG, that should be taken into account in an AfD, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Me too, yeah - I've been seeing you do that, and it makes perfect sense. Just because something isn't eligible for G11 doesn't mean it can't be deleted as advertising. That helps with dealing with coi/paid editing too. Unless it's clearly notable, if it's anyway promotional (which it almost will be considering the references), I've been taking it to AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

But

2019 in film is not an empty article. But whatever. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

el cid, el campeador Well, there are films in bollywood that are slated for 2019. Will have to add them of course, but in a just a minute I found Housefull 4, which is for diwali 2019. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

21:12:27, 19 December 2017 review of submission by Momoflisa

• Momoflisa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Hitachi Vantara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I revised it significantly. Thanks for that tip on adding it to the Hitachi page. I’ll add to the Hitachi page as you suggest. I see that page has a list of Hitachi subsidiaries and divisions, some of which link to standalone pages for the sub or division. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Data_Systems , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi#Hitachi_Consulting . I want to post a similar kind of standalone page for Hitachi Vantara. How can I get that to happen?