User talk:Galatz

Welcome!

Hello, Galatz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.Template:Z130

Intentional or not

Perhaps it is not intentional. But please -- if you are going to quote MOS, don't undo what MOS clearly states is ok. That's either careless or intentionally disruptive. I hope the former, which is excusable, if regrettable.--2604:2000:E016:A700:94EF:F45A:4455:DBFB (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It says may, not should be. Meaning its acceptable, but the full year is preferred. Look at Joe Montana or Brett Favre as example. They all use the full date range, even for consecutive years. Don Zimmer, Pedro Martínez, and Al Leiter, once again, all full date range. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Where it is acceptable - leave it as it is. Don't change an existing acceptable format. Ever.

There are multiple date formats that are acceptable, such as numbers or spelled-out-months for example, but the settled rule at the Probject is that - unless you are looking to engage in troll-like obsessive behavior to irritate people, and be blocked -- you don't edit war to move from one acceptable format to another acceptable format. You, however, keep on obsessively doing that, across a swath of articles. That's why people are finding your editing annoying in this regard.

Please cut it out. It is not appropriate, it is not collegial, it is not collaborative, and it is not helpful. 2604:2000:E016:A700:3470:3BC9:318:68AB (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would love to know who these people are you are referring to and what examples you are referring to. Additionally it is appropriate to change it to the preferred method. - Galatz^Talk 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for all your work on pro wrestling categories.★Trekker (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: Thanks. The more I kept digging into them the more I kept finding. I saw multiple times you going back and cleaning up something I missed, so its appreciated as well. - Galatz^Talk 20:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. :)★Trekker (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ocean's Thirteen

Hi,

How is all the material I'm trying to compile for a 'Trivia' part irrelevant? I take it that, initially, I was starting a sort of Edit warring with an active member that self-describes as "removing all edits from unregistered users, out of principle" (which seems a tad exaggerated to me).

I am taking a lot of time to add info on a movie, precisely about a few scenes, and the fictitious setting of its story within the actual city. As I know 'a little bit' Las Vegas myself and found lots of people wondering whether the Bank casino depicted in the movie actually existed, it seemed very relevant that an exhaustive and precise encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, would include such information.

Maybe the title 'trivia' is unsuiting and that is the problem? But then, just re-titling the subpart would be enough instead of deleting all the changes I tediously make, trying to validate the infos and facts with links...

Thanks in advance for all infos and discussions trying to make that page the best possible. Letsseewhatwillwork (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Letsseewhatwillwork: I suggest you read the guidelines for this information, which you can find at WP:TRIVIA, which another user has pointed you to already. Additionally you should read WP:RS which will help you understand how to source information on Wikipedia. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing, just keep in mind the guidelines. Happy to help if you have specific questions. - Galatz^Talk 17:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am following the guidelines.

Well, indeed, naming one part "references in the dialogues" and another "locations" could probably solve the "trivia" question.

However, as for adding and referencing the sources, the slightly frustrating part is that during the time that I am working just on that, the post itself gets deleted before I can fully implement all that is required.

How can I then just post the "trivia part suggestion", with full code and links so far, and start a discussion, so that maybe someone else, out of consensus, decides to add those infos (and create one or more categories for that)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: by the way, does translating content that is already included and got consensus in another language on Wikipedia count as reliable source or a wiki-translating endeavor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Letsseewhatwillwork:No wikipedia cannot be used as a source, however the content might have a source there which you can then use as your source. As for playing with your edit, you can check out WP:SAND where you can fool around with your edits until you've got it right. It is a great place for new users to play with the different things they can do. - Galatz^Talk 17:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, it might be useful to make the edit fully sourced before it gets removed. And typically, getting the sources as identical to other sources of related Wikipedia articles needs that time.

I finally figured out how to start a talk from a mobile device (the talk button not being at the top left-hand corner menu where I was looking for it thanks to the info I was given... for computer users^^"), and although I currently cannot find it back, I hope it will stem into a good enough addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsseewhatwillwork (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Socks

Did you notice that TheCorageone1 got busted for sockpuppetry?

@LM2000: Yeah, what fun now that he is back - Galatz^Talk 14:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling and operations systems

Galatz, looking at your contributions you seem to be focused on wrestling. Would you kindly notify the WP community about your motives to remove information about a secure operation system for a mobile device? The connection between the two fields is not really obvious. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bernd.Brincken:I edit lots of different type of articles, so you once again make absolutely no sense. I have thousands of edits regarding Israel, thoughts regarding baseball, thousands regarding TV shows and thousands regarding mobile devices. I have made the explanation extremely clear to you. If you disagree with me then utilize the dispute resolution. - Galatz^Talk 14:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about the Nexus article, it's real curiosity what connects a wrestling fan with mobile phone systems software. Or the latter with Israel, baseball, TV shows. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bernd.Brincken: I find multiple things interesting. I am sure you do the same. So I edit the topics I find interest in. - Galatz^Talk 23:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, let's book this in the humour account. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Israel World Cup record

Template:Israel World Cup record has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GiantSnowman 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Storylines

Other wresting pages contain the header "Background" not "storylines"(unless contains different sub headings such as "production" I.e. articles like WrestleMania 34. So why on Earth are the Elimination Chamber (2018) and Fastlane (2018) articles an exception? Do your homework before you revert the edits! Zerobrains94 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerobrains94: We have a guideline that makes it very clear. Just because others are wrong, doesn't mean these shouldn't be correct. Read WP:PW/PPVG, its very clear. - Galatz^Talk 17:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to storylines

Okay, I get the point, however, there are previous wrestling pages that have the background heading. Why aren't you correcting those? Zerobrains94 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerobrains94: In the process of it - Galatz^Talk 17:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine

Keep the page incorrect if you want. Sorry for trying to make Wikipedia correct. Keep ganging up on people and ignoring every point they have. This is why people think Wikipedia isnt a reliable source. You put what you want and not what is correct. Goku4Star (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Goku4Star: Everything on wikipedia needs to be supported by what a WP:RS says. Not what a user states is correct, no matter what a source states. - Galatz^Talk 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

How do you expect me to source a TV show? You just revert without bothering to answer my question. WWE uploads only small snippets to YouTube. It's very obviously a typo. Not to mention you guys are using a different time for Seth Rollins than what WWE.com lists. Why is that okay? Michael Cole said something like "Sheamus hasn't been having a very good week, he only lasted 2 seconds in the Royal Rumble." Do you even watch the product? Goku4Star (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Galatz, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ethan Carter 3 Wikiapage

Ethan Carter III Wikapage issue it says "After a public vote, fans wanted to see EC3 face Cezar Bononi as his first NXT opponent.[103]" This information note be worthy to be posted there, but people keep saying its not...some veteran editors say it is undo. Can you review change thanks. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 5:00PM, 7 February 2018 (PT)

Renee Young

While she did claim to change her name, a name change would be officially recorded but there's no evidence of that. VenomHeart (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@VenomHeart: Did you listen to the source given? She is very clear. - Galatz^Talk 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did listen but I need more proof than simple her word. VenomHeart (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@VenomHeart: It might not be enough for you, but per WP:PRIMARY its fine. - Galatz^Talk 19:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to this. VenomHeart (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, I'm Anchorvale. An edit that you recently made to Rey Mysterio seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Anchorvale ^T@lk  06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anchorvale: Next time check before you blindly revert. And even if the page didn't exist, and it was a redirect WP:DONOTFIXIT would have applied, and it should have always been piped through a redirect. It would have been a clear redirect with possibilities - Galatz^Talk 14:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Source Wrestlemania 34

Did you see the source I gave you in wrestlemania 34 This Guy 99 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Advice Thefanofwwe (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	congrats Thefanofwwe (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania Speculation

Including Brock Lesnar is a form of speculation. It may be that he is champion at this precise moment in time and that story lines may be indicating he is going to be champion. It is though not confirmed. The final PPV's have to take place. Lesnar may also have a match at Elimination Chamber, which is yet to be announced. Please do not keep re-adding Lesnar to the match card or the type of match which the Universal title will be defended in until after the PPV's before Wrestlemania have concluded and the match actually confirmed. Sport and politics (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: Your argument is just terrible. If you add it back again I will report you for edit warring. - Galatz^Talk 12:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll happily see you there as well. You have been engaging in the "warring" too as you have labelled it. Sport and politics (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 Royal Rumble

Do not insert incorrect information back into the article or make wholesale reverts when you disagree with one. First, one edit was correcting Seth Rollins time which was wrong even according to WWE's website, to which you reverted to non-sourced information. Second, the onus is on you to prove that WWE's website was not a typo as it appears to be. Basically every other reference on the internet refers to Sheamus' time as two seconds, or that he almost matched Santino Marella's time of 1 second years ago. If it is 20 seconds, you'll have no problem verifying that with another reference saying it was twenty, then we can change it to twenty and say it's disputed. A reliable source can make mistakes and we don't have to treat every character as gospel if we know it's inaccurate. You won't find anything that backs up twenty seconds because the logic doesn't hold when you compare it to the rest of the match. The only argument you could possibly have is that they counted how much time he spent outside the ring, and according to WWE, Heath Slater entered fifth, lasted until eleventh and only spent thirty-three seconds in the match. This is because they didn't count how much time he spent flopping around the outside of the ring. The only thing that matters is once they enter the ring, and you know as well as anyone it was two seconds, so stop inserting garbage and presenting it as fact. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: Incorrect, there is an on going discussion which you chose to ignore, knowing it was there, and unilaterally decided what should be there. - Galatz^Talk 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that your only argument is WP:RS and anyone else being WP:OR, which is some kind of bullshit cop-out to post garbage onto Wikipedia. Your arguments are "maybe they have special criteria" which is no and "have you checked that outside time doesn't count" which as I explained above, is also no. Do you have anything else saying twenty seconds other than WWE's website? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: This is not the place for this discussion. Gain consensus in the talk page, per WP:BRD which your edits are in violation of. - Galatz^Talk 17:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've given up trying to quote policy and moved to, "you're in violation of an essay", got it. This is the exact place for the discussion since you seem to be the main crusader for this nonsense. Like I said, do you have another reference, or are you going to dodge the question again? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I will gladly engage in this conversation in the correct place. - Galatz^Talk 17:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have commented there to no reply, twice, I expect to see you there then, with a reference saying twenty seconds. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

As I said here, apologies for my earlier comments at ANI [1]. I did not read your initial comment properly and thought the extent of the incivility was a single instance of calling someone a wanker, which while not ideal my experience at ANI suggests to me is not the sort of thing ever likely to lead to action. However with the "typical of tiny endowed males" part, I do agree that the behaviour was worthy of bringing to ANI, whether or not any action results. Nil Einne (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: No problem. I probably would not have brought it for just that, but the totality of everything definitely made me think this user is not interested in working with other and or even considering being polite. - Galatz^Talk 00:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the edits that weren't an addition of an empty section. I thought that all of that IP's changes were doing this - apparently not all of them ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I am guessing this is the same IP user that I have seen do similar stuff in the past. They come in and make great edits and then seem to get lazy and just add empty sections instead. - Galatz^Talk 03:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Galatz! Correct, this does seem like the user you're describing. It's interesting that you're reverting so many pages back - I remember spot-checking this user's edits quite well and found all of the changes I saw to simply be the addition of empty sections. Apparently I didn't spot-check well enough, as you've found over 10 changes I reverted that I shouldn't have. Again, thanks for undoing those - I really do appreciate that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: As soon as this IP was blocked, the exact same edits began being made by a user [2]. Both users also have a tendency to edit season articles for sports. Do you think there is enough to open a WP:SOCK investigation into block evasion? - Galatz^Talk 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The user you're referring to has been around for some time (account creation was in January 2016), and the edits made to that article in comparison (1, 2) don't seem to be the same thing or made in the same section or area. Sure, it can be seen as suspicious that two edits were made within a somewhat close proximity of one another timeline-wise, but looking into this matter in a "big picture" perspective doesn't give me anything that I see as solid evidence that the IP continued the disruption as this user. Plus, there wouldn't be much (if anything) that anyone could do in an SPI anyways, since that noticeboard is for proving that two different accounts are being operated by the same person. Please let me know if you have any more questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to answer them and assist you further. Cheers, and happy editing - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: There are definitely some strange similarities in the users edits. Take a look at this. Last month the IP address was adding empty championship tables, with only empty brackets for the incoming champion and nothing else, see here [3]. On the exact same page, the registered user just made the exact same type of unhelpful edits [4]. Seems a little bit more than just a coincidence to me. - Galatz^Talk 03:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WrestleCircus

Why u reputed tag i puted the article with reliable sources like u guys said the content is three has nothing to do with the previous one TheAnthem67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheAnthem67: I have zero idea what you just wrote. - Galatz^Talk 16:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Im sorry for saying do what u have to with WrestleCircus im sorry for what i said and sorry for the problems i just want to start new a journey in wikipedia u now TheAnthem67 (talk)

@TheAnthem67: I know nothing about the federation and have not read through the entire article. I came to it because you added it as a notable independent yet I see no justification for that, plus it was a direct violation of WP:BRD. After you did that I notice you removed the PROD from an article you created which I reverted because you cannot. Follow the instruction and contest it properly. Just click the huge blue button in the box, you cannot miss it. If it survives the PROD then create your case and bring it to the talk page for why you think it should be listed with the notable ones. - Galatz^Talk 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Re Wrestle Circus

Good idea. Consider it done, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A problem

What is ur problem with me and my articles and please don't be false, though cause I'm talking about this "Thanks for deleting WrestleCircus. This same user just did the same thing with creating a draft of Defiant Wrestling which has been deleted more than once. Perhaps should this be SALTed like the other one? - GalatzTalk 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)"

What are u gonna do are u gonna delete and salt each and every article that I create?TheAnthem67 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't delete any article of yours, nor did I nominate any (unless of course you are admitting to being a SOCK and creating Defiant). I have noticed a trend with you and all your other SOCK accounts however. There are procedures for a reason and you seem to think you are above them. All I keep doing is pointing out the policies and guidelines to you, which you don't seem to like. - Galatz^Talk 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A sock, what? Dude, what are u talking about? and no, like I told I wanna start a new journey but do u know what? Point me all the policies and guides to understand what this, wikipedia is all about.TheAnthem67 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange how you claim to be new, after Defiant article was deleted yet you created an identical article. Amazing how you were able to do that. You also say new journey, what was the old one?

You can read all about being a sock here WP:SOCK. You can read about the article for deletion process at WP:AFD. You can read about restoring your edits after the have been undone at WP:BRD. You can see about creating an article that was deleted already here, and other great info on creating articles at WP:YFA. - Galatz^Talk 17:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You continue to change acceptable formats

This is per MOS an acceptable format.

See MOS:DATERANGE: "Two-digit ending years (1881–82 ... may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years")..."

And since it is the first used format do not change it. Please stop changing already chosen acceptable formats.

That sort of edit warring is not acceptable. If you continue, I will seek sanctions. --2604:2000:E016:A700:88BC:545A:BD53:F393 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please go ahead. You are changing it from the preferred to an acceptable alternative. Per WP:BRD you changed and were reverted and must gain consensus before restoring. - Galatz^Talk 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time this discussion has been engaged.

Correct and I explained how it works to you there. I also provided you with tons of examples of why you are incorrect. If you don't agree go to dispute resolution. - Galatz^Talk 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are going around wikipedia acting as though it says just the opposite. As though it says it "may not" be used.

This is a waste of everyones time. And destroys others' enjoyment in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:88BC:545A:BD53:F393 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC) :You are wasting time. Its very clear what the preferred and alternate are. The shorter is not the preferred method, yet you keep changing it to that. - Galatz^Talk 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Link spam

You reverted my text on elimination chamber, I've just added some information that I know about WWE. You sed a reason that I added more than 2 links ok. IM Adding same text again with the only 1 link to my site. is it ok or not, plz replay me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi seeram (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ravi seeram: It was reverted because you are spamming links. One or seven, its still spam. Your edit history shows every edit you have ever made is to add links to the same website. - Galatz^Talk 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Award Received from Fountaineditor

		The Israel Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Israel articles

 Fountaineditor  ► 

Weird userspace page

Hi Galatz. I noticed that, shortly before TheAnthem67 got himself blocked as a sockpuppet, he created User:Galatz/Field of Honor (2014). I have no idea why he made this in your userspace but I thought I should drop you a note in case you were not aware of it existing did not want it in you userspace. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: thanks, he actually created it but it was speedy deleted after his ban since only he edited it. I request the admin move it to my user space since I was planning on creating the page anyway, so I wanted to use it as the basis for creating the actual article. Thank you for the heads up. - Galatz^Talk 00:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss - removing spam link

The reference was a court document. The link provided a way to see the document. As far as I know, it is the only direct link to this document available. Pacer.com, which provides court documents, does not give direct links. Why delete the link? Lexjuris (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You didnt provide it as a reference - Galatz^Talk 21:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The reference in footnote 3 is "Notice to the court, filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, to the Middle District Court of Florida. United States v. Weiss, Case No. 6:98-cr-99-PCF-KRS. Doc. 2446" The link goes to the document being referenced. You can see by the title, case number, document number and content. It is the reference. What am I missing? Should I have put at the end of the reference: "See the Notice to the Court here"? Lexjuris (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I Do have it

Yes I Do have a source for John Cena vs The Undertaker. Thefanofmariobros. (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)