Jump to content

User talk:Galobtter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scm5791 (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 16 December 2018 (→Leonid Afremov: New draft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Congratulations, you are now an administrator!

Galobtter looking confused as to what the d-batch button does....

Hello Galobtter. I am pleased to report that I have closed your RFA as successful. Good luck with the new tools, and feel free to stop by my talk page anytime if you have any questions. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With 208 supporters, Galobtter's RfA is the tenth to succeed in 2018 (image courtesy of Linguist111).
*cough* Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And have a read of Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school, you come to find it's oh so true at times... Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am slightly late to the party, but just wanted to drop by and congratulate you on the passing of your RfA. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop by. I am usually always around to lend a hand. --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I love the image and caption you added Ritchie333, you seem to find fitting ones . --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, since when has being confused about something ever stopped me? User:Ritchie333/GA should be the perfect page to test what the d-batch button does Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This cat roolz! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is serius biznis

Welcome

Enjoy your new status as a punching bag for POV-pushers, spammers and other ne'er-do-wells :-) Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cats and gorillas. Some people sure are excited. Well, congratulations to you, and let me offer my personal opinion that the arguments opposing you were very weak. Good luck! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Administration Nomination

Hello Galobtter, could you please nominate me to be an admin on Wikipedia as i have been seeing many vandalism and wish to ban these accounts which do so. So please do nominate me and i will coorporate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theamazinnghelloworld, Please see Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article approval due to admin vandalism

Hello Galobtter. I have seen that you are an amazing administrator and contributor on Wikipedia so I feel that I can trst you on this. Earlier this week I created an article Draft:John Kavinraj Philip, and submitted it for review. It came back but i was expecting this. The admin that declined my article stated on my talk page saying I am a b**** by creating this article and having no help and useless towards wikipedia. I was very hurt and as an admin on Wikipedia that was not the attitude i was hoping. I have seen that you are great at your job so thats why I came seeking help from you. Could you please personally review my article as you are a great administrator to trust and i supose the best yet. My sources come from books, magazines, newspaper articles and booklets. Please do consider it so that I can continue my passion on contributing on Wiki. Thank you so much Galobtter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galobtter. I am sory but I think you were mistaken as I am not being paid to edit nor create this article but to be honest i spent 3 moths researching on this and recently got my Wiki account to have this article created. Please do advice is my reference not enough because i think it is good enough because I have books, magazines and newspaper articles to refer back as source. Please do consider my article and i will update and put in more sources if requested but my prayer is for it to be created and accepted to be an article. I dont want my work to go to waste because of that admin. So i want your help and please do help me Sir Galobtter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galobtter, its ok, cuase that guy that admin that said bad words to me deleted my article. He called me a f**ker this time. I was really pissed o him condemming my article. So Galobtter, while I am creating my article again (I copy pasted it incase of an emergency) so could you tell me if my sources were not up to standards or what. You name it I will fix it ad please do upon God I am begging you to help me because many admins have never helped me when I asked for advice in the live forums and talk pages none of them helped me but. Please do help me out.I will listen to you all the way and follow your instructions. Please do i am begging you to help me and approve my article. What am i lacking just name it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theamazinnghelloworld, Stop lying about other people - nobody called you a f**ker - if you recreate the article and it is not substantially less promotional it will just get deleted again and you'd likely be blocked for continued promotional editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Galobtter, thank you for reviewing Nas Daily Corporation page. That was not the page where the incident happenened. It happened on my first article John Kavinraj Philip. He is a great person and i researched him for 3 months and I was quite mad when the=at admin said that to me. Then later a guy named Deb deleted the draft so I dont have the history record. Thank yu for at least answering me and I am trully thankfull. Due to no admins answer me but your really and awsome Wikipedia. Is it ok if I recreate my old article that got deleted and you review it and give me your advice? I am willing for any type of advice from you as an admin.

TheamazinnghelloworldThis accusation didn't happen either, and I have checked every single edit related to the deleted article of John Kavinraj Philip. You've been asked to stop lying, and immediately return to doing so. How about taking some time off from article creation and read up on some of the information available on reliable sources and also promotional editing. If you continue disrupting Wikipedia by accusing others of wrong when they're not doing anything even close to resembling what you are saying you'll be blocked from editing to avoid wasting the time of administrators with false accusations. -- Longhair\talk 10:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Longhair, Slightly late, I already blocked them :). (the history of John Kavinraj Philip and wikiquote:John Kavinraj Philip is probably relevant) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You acted while I was checking their credibility. Job done :D -- Longhair\talk 10:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another bit of admin abuse deal out :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the mop cupboard btw. When somebody is grovelling and piling on praise, they want something (if they're new here anyway) :D -- Longhair\talk 10:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I wouldn't unblock. Your decision is well-justified, and I'm only offering a view in case well-meaning interference has made you feel that you have been too severe... Deb (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't either... -- Longhair\talk 13:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And every time I assume good faith, I end up looking like an idiot. Can we change that AGF to ABF or something, you know, just for efficiency? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still good to have someone thinking about AGF, though yeah, one bad thing about AGF is that it makes you look stupid if the editor does turn out to be bad/malicious :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's my fault. I missed the f**er content here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One can still assume good faith while keeping WP:Competence is required in mind :D -- Longhair\talk 13:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
For being baptized by fire. :) Dear oh dear. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Anna Frodesiak. Not the easiest start to admining, I suppose :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more on me for not taking all that advice about "taking it slow" :D Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgement and pace were just dandy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category creation protection

Hey, now that you are an admin (congrats on that!) you might be able to help me. I am doing maintenance on Arrowverse characters and while trying to create Category:Arrowverse characters, I've noticed that it is protected. Looking at the deletion discussion linked there, it seems that either the rational was flawed at the time, or that the situation has changed which would now allow the category to be created.

As recent RM discussions have concluded, all character articles in the "Arrowverse" franchise which need disambiguation should be disambiguated with "(Arrowverse)" - Oliver Queen (Arrowverse), John Diggle (Arrowverse), Joe West (Arrowverse) and Barry Allen (Arrowverse), and I've recently created the corresponding redirect category Category:Arrowverse character redirects to lists. Also, looking at one of the rationals given in the category delete discussion about how the MCU does not have such a category - this too was created Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe specific characters. The category structure would benefit from having a category for characters, in the same way it benefits from having Category:Arrowverse episodes for the episodes. Hope you can help me out with this. --Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, TBH, I really don't deal with categories that much and wouldn't know if creating the category would be appropriate or not; and anyways, you'd want to ask the protecting admin (ping CactusWriter) first to see if they'd be willing to allow recreation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll ask him (first time I ever needed to do this and the page itself doesn't really say who to contact other than "administrators"). --Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a new admin and everything...

...so I'll try to be gentle, but this AfD close [1] is completely off the mark. You said, "article meets WP:GNG based on the provided sources and so merits a stand-alone article", but that logic doesn't track. Usually at AfD the question is notability, but not this one. The question here is WP:NOPAGE which deals with the question of whether a subject, assumed to be notable, should nonetheless be covered jointly with other subjects on a shared page. The arguments presented on that question, not on notability, are what you should be evaluating. EEng 21:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those arguing for keep argued there was enough information for a separate article and for the "presumption" of suitability for a stand-alone article that WP:GNG gives; those are reasonable arguments, and were made by the "predominant number of responsible Wikipedians".
Not only that, to present a WP:NOPAGE argument, those arguing for delete would need to at the very least point out what "shared page" the person would be covered in; no one arguing for delete did. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Odd that you refer to "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians", linking that phrase to WP:CLOSE, which explicitly warns "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". I guess we'll just have to renominate specifying a specific target page. EEng 16:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the bulk of it which talks about "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy." Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry my search for that phrase in CLOSE didn't find it somehow. Nonetheless I still think it's off the mark. It's not a question of which of GNG or NOPAGE controls, because they are two steps of a single decision process presented on the same page -- not uncoordinated, policies or guidelines found on disconnected pages directing conflicting things. Most participants in the discussion insisted on speaking only to the first part of the process -- GNG -- and ignoring the second part -- PAGEDECIDE aka NOPAGE. Anyway, thanks for your replies. EEng 17:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

...to the deep end of the pool. It only gets more fun. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the old, supposed, Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. But I’ll be more careful around Galob after gaining this new tool: [2]. O3000 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GLOB!!!!?? HOW DARE YOU DISRESPECT ME! That's a blocking. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Short for global, indicating global knowledge and your interest in global warming. Did I get away with that? Are they smiling? O3000 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:D :D
You're spared .. for now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
I'm a little late, but that won't stop me from torturing you passing on what the puppy told me after my RFA passed –
eleven long, sordid, hasn't-Katie-gone-away-yet years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable. I'd be shocked if you haven't done it already.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
    It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway.
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 02:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Hello

@Galobtter:, I have edited {{User MU}}, Now can I remove deletion tag. Afingba Mangang (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afingba Mangang, just wait for Liz to see if she'd withdraw the nomination. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn! Thanks for taking care of that, Galobtter. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

If they need suppressed so they don’t show up in drop downs, it’s usually best to contact a steward directly or go to #wikimedia-stewards connect and request a steward to suppress it globally. Because of SUL, it’s really a global issue (and if it really shouldn’t show up in drop downs, be sure to request suppression and not lock-hide.) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, ah okay, thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
It looks like you've received a few of these recently so I thought I'd make the hat-trick. Thanks for your work at RFPP helping to clear the backlog. Best, Mifter (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing talk page

You may want to revoke User:2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:78's talk page access. Thanks! EclipseDude (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already on it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please go to talk page for all of the edits you just reverted

There is no rule that says I can not edit the page, it only says it is "strongly discouraged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melizdean (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melizdean, COI editing may only be "strongly discouraged", but promotional editing and adding copyright violations are 100% not allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific on the talk page on what was promotional editing and copyright violations? I listed out on the talk page the edits I am proposing. Thank you. Melizdean (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was not deleted

I nominated [3] Nobember at list of redirects for discussion a few days ago and the result of this was delete. However, I noticed that the redirect hasn't been deleted yet and is still there? I also don't understand why the discussion was closed so quickly, I thought that maybe it could be relisted due to a lack of consensus but that's just my humble opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 05:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris, I have no idea why it didn't get deleted; I relisted it now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take part in a survey

Hi Galobtter

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion

Hey, responding here to the "strong oppose" part of your vote at the noticeboard, so I don't clutter the discussion too much there. Would you mind clarifying some things for me, because from what I gather from your various comments I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of consensus-required, and I'd like to try to get on the same page. Would you be willing to discuss this for a bit? ~Awilley (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, Yeah, feel free to ask/discuss with me here :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first let me make sure I understand your position.
1. You believe that the consensus-required restriction has brought a great deal of stability to the Trump article.
2. It has brought the stability largely through enforcing a list of "current consensus" items that are the result of lengthy talk page discussions.
2a. Bold edits that go against the "current consensus" are quickly reverted because they violate consensus-required.
2b. If consensus-required were removed this would no longer be the case. For example "false and misleading statements" could be changed to just "misleading statements" without violating discretionary sanctions, and then we'd have to rehash the issue (again) on the talk page.
3. If the the consensus-required rule were removed, the article would become less stable because the old, settled disputes could be reignited every time someone makes an edit that goes against the current-consensus.
4. Removing the consensus-required rule would allow single editors to overturn a consensus garnered through a wide RfC. (I'm extrapolating from your statement that "articles are meant to represent consensus and single editors should not generally overturn a consensus garnered through a wide RfC." Let me know if I went too far.)
5. The end result of removing consensus-required would be more lengthy discussions and RfCs rehashing old issues, and a less-stable article, with a constant churning of the Lead, including those sentences that previously reflected current consensus.
Please let me know where I got your position wrong and correct me. (I'd also be interested in what you think my position is, but if you're short on time don't bother.) ~Awilley (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a quite good summation of my position (I'd add, that I think the lead Donald Trump of is in quite a good place now; and a hashed out neutrality where every word is debated is unlikely to be improved and only is likely to be worsened by drive-by edits) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Let me see if I can root out some incorrect assumptions that I think your position is based on.
  • Bad assumption 1: Removing the consensus-required rule removes the requirement of consensus. This is false. Consensus is required, always and everywhere. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy and will never go away. The assumption that removing the DS rule will result in people suddenly ignoring consensus is the same fallacy as assuming that the removal of the Civility restriction (also placed by User:Coffee) would result in people suddenly becoming uncivil. I removed the civility restriction a month ago [4] and there hasn't been a noticeable change in incivility. WP:CIVIL is still a core policy and it still applies. I think this assumption underlies points 3 and 4 above.
  • Bad assumption 2: The system of "current consensus" stems from and is enforced by the consensus-required rule. This is demonstrably false. The "current consensus" list actually has nothing to do with the consensus-required restriction, and actually stems directly from the small-print of the 1RR restriction. Go to {{American politics AE}} and open the collapse box at the bottom where you will find this: "With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion." My proposal in no way modifies the 1RR restriction or exemptions, so the current method of enforcing "current consensus" would be unchanged. (I'd also point out that Talk:Hillary Clinton has had a list of FAQs that has served a similar purpose as the Trump "current consensus" list since 2008, 8 years before Coffee came up with his consensus-required rule.) I think this assumptions underlies points 2, 2a, 2b, and parts of 3, 4, and 5.
I believe removing these assumptions invalidates points 2 through 4, and part of 5 (the bit about the churning of sentences reflecting current consensus). Let me know if you would like to discuss any of these points. (I was thinking #3 might merit further discussion about reigniting disputes.)
I would still like to further discuss #5 as well as the role consensus-required plays in forming consensus, but let's put that on hold for a bit so you can respond to the above. ~Awilley (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, Okay, I've been thinking about this for the past hour or so, and I'm still thinking over some points/how much to reconsider my position. I'll sleep over it and have a response tomorrow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, no problem. I'm grateful you're taking the time to think about it. ~Awilley (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Migrating previous template protection to new template

Hey Galobtter, I've created Template:Infobox reality competition season per the result of the result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 5#Big Brother season templates and was asked if the previous template protection Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame had, could be enabled for this one as well. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the semi-protection those two templates had. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Galobtter,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked!

I went to look for some tasks earlier and came across 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami at an "articles that need copy edits" page. I took a crack at the first two paras. and realized none of it had inline cites. WHAT A DOG! And to think it was once an FA, now merely "B". It needs to get some citations for what we both know might be fact, but that's not good enough.

Shocked, I tells ya. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:LEADCITE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hamster Sandwich, The sections particularly being requested to be copyedited are tagged, e.g at 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami#Sri Lanka Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or, there's never a bad time for an old hamster to learn new tricks, such as finding and adding citations :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not finding cites which is the difficulty now... It's finding cites that match the material as presented....Not a big deal, one or two suitable news sources covered that story. I'll stand by my editing so far there though, as far as prose. Those lede paras were a mess, stylistically. Quick question... Are "The Guardian" or "The Mail" suitable sources? They both seem kind of straddling a line between a blog and a news outlet. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a major mainstream newspaper (so WP:NEWSORG applies); just make sure you're citing the news section and not opinion. If by The Mail you mean the Daily Mail, then no. I'd suggest looking in Google Books for sourcing and see if you can find higher quality sources than newspapers reporting on the day. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Afremov: New draft

Hello, I wish to create a new draft for "Leonid Afremov" in my own words, no copy/paste from other websites. Just one or two short paragraphs. Is the article now banned for creation? I'm reading the following: protected Leonid Afremov [Create=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite)... Thank you for your answer. Scm5791 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galobtter&oldid=874052976"