User talk:Rose Abrams

It was good news!

An unconscious piece of computer program that stills provides the occasional sunshine!

I saw the big blue 1 at my inbox in the middle of a big category cleanup and thought "oh dear, someone's already gonna revert-war?". But instead, it was the humble software saying that this was my 1000th edit! My god, that was a pleasant surprise :) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 10:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gaioa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits. Since you had some involvement with the Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

I have nominated your redirect "Squatting Slavs in Tracksuits" for deletion. BirdValiant (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bank run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Withdrawal (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) 10:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your views on a page, please?

Hello Gaioa...you may recall helping me develop my article on Joe Clifford, in particular getting it to meet notability criteria. I've been working on another article about an author, Tom Pitts. After some discussion, that piece was moved to Draft mode for continued development. Mainly, it's been harder to meet notability criteria in this case. I've been doing some more work on it. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know how close you think it is to being suitable for resubmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Pitts Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rory1262:. Hi. Yes, I do remember that discussion that we had. But I'd like to point out that my scrutiny of the last article was not out of "interest". I am not by any chance more reliable than anyone else in the topic of notability, and have never been. The only reason I went into Joe Clifford was because of edit patrolling at Special:RecentChanges. Therefore, I must politely decline your request for advice. Try navigating the policies yourself - that way you'll learn in the process too. Start at WP:N and work your way to understanding Wikipedia. Kudos! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 02:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks all the same. :) Rory1262 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for adding humour to an infobox discussion! - I stopped commenting, find them a complete waste of time, but read of course, and your deity box made my day! I just read again what I said in 2013, - no need to change, I'll just add 2017.

Happy 2018 for you! (don't miss to click on the image of a green heart) ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: (corrects tie and flickers cigarette, in gentlemanly thankfulness and humility) Hehe, thanks. All in a day's work.
And humor aside, it really feels like the core argument of the anti-infobox people, making Kubrick and others appear inhuman. A high five for infobox continuity✋️! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Call me Gerda, please, and take the tie off: the cabal of the outcasts is open for you! (That is a group started in opposition to one person alone doing TFA, - and now one of us is a TFA delegate, so we hope) - I'll add another comment to the subpage, by Voceditenore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you but no thank you for the invite, Gerda. I have decided not to enter any WikiProjects at all, since I want to keep my interest in editing Wikipedia purely and strictly casual. Joining a gang would likely give me a participation-stress a la Facebook. So nothing personal :) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You made me smile again. I only said it's open, no? You are not the first to whom I say that you are a member by what you do ;) - I formatted your deity box, hope that was ok? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Gaioa. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Biblio (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sir thank you sir! I'll get on the backlog immediately! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gaioa. Thanks for volunteering. I've noticed you've made a number of PRODs. Would you mind re-reading WP:PRODNOM, and particularly WP:DEL-REASON, since a current article's state and current sources are generally not a good reason for proposing any kind of deletion. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Aha, I think I understand your concern. And yes, I may have marked some articles for PROD for 1) deeming bad sources as basis for non-N, rather than searching for N myself thus assuring whether or not N exist, and 2) called out some articles for being unimproved throughout a certain timespan, as if they had some kind of rule about "improvement deadline" akin to CSD#G13. But well, it's ny first day with this, and I'm learning from your advice - I just ended my patrolling session and will refresh my mind a bit, so I'll come back and do things right next time. Wikilove to you for letting me know!
Also, I consider the point of PROD (calling itself "uncontroversial deletion") to be a way of saying "almost but not quite CSD" and/or "maybe CSD but not sure" - correct me if I'm wrong in this modus operandi. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A Prod is useful if you're sure that a page would be deleted at AFD due to failing both GNG and any SNGs, you don't expect the page creator to object, and you expect your justification to convince the admin who'll assess it (as well as any other random patrollers and page watchers who come across it). Not saying these shouldn't be deleted (or that others will necessarily agree with my assessments) just that they shouldn't be for the reasons you've stated:

• Samuel "Savoirfaire" Williams: Need to assess against WP:NMUSIC. There are a couple of possible claims there.
• Government Barisal College: This would have used to have been an automatic keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES/WP:INDAFD, but schools have been cracked down a bit in the last six months or so. Without digging, it would probably be a delete but would likely be controversial at AFD.
• Greening the Pipeline: Multi-million dollar public works project with news coverage. Possibly too soon for an article, but certainly a merge/redirect candidate to Western Treatment Plant#Main Outfall Sewer or Federation Trail
• Nick Walsh (referee): Top-level referees for baseball and cricket are presumed notable. Football referees aren't, but would need a search.
• Raymond Transportation: If something smells copypasted then use https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ to find it, and if so then either fix + request a WP:REVDEL, or speedy WP:G12

... plus your speedies for Apolonia Fier (women), KF Dajti (women), and The Door (Albania) are invalid since all compete in the (top-level) women's football championship which is at minimum a WP:CCS, and almost certainly sufficient to establish notability. I know there's a backlog at NPP, but would you please consider participating (slowly, carefully and with assessments based on notability guidelines and WP:BEFORE) at AFD instead, for the near future? Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that there's a lot of documentation on N, especially about differing topics. Most of these, I browsed through. Once again, I think the mistake I did was to base my judgement solely on sources present as opposed to search myself. So yes, I agree that the bottom line here is sit down and have a cup of tea. Well, sorry you had to follow my tracks and clean up my mess, but maybe that's all in a day's work for you, kind sir or madam :)
One more thing: is there a quick way to access the "Find sources" links on the bottom of {{notability}}? If there was an addon or something for just autogenerating these links on any article's interface, that would be perfect. I bet my right arm that there is and I've not heard of it. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I suggest AFD is that it's a gentler ramp because you can see on what grounds others assess an article's notability (ideally including the closing admin when there are competing arguments). Sorry, no idea re any add-on. Cheers, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, and I'll look for such an addon - surely someone must share my need. Thanks for everything! Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

New Year (Auld Lang Syne)

I think your addition of an explicit mention that we bid farewell to the old year on New Year's Eve can be left in place. Given we're talking about the conventional Gregorian new year there's only one moment we can logically "farewell" it, so the calendar reference is just a little redundant, but the redundancy doesn't "grate", and the resulting text remains clear and consecutive. More importantly, the link between bidding farewell to the new year and the other "farewell" uses of the song mentioned in the next sentence is not lost. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing non-English films

Hi, the issue of which country is the film's origin does not always have a clear answer. That is why sometimes multiple countries are/should be listed. For example if you look at films such as The Hobbit (film series), which if you only use one country to identify it, would it really be accurate to only list New Zealand and not the United States? There are many examples I'm sure you are aware of.

A second point I want to point out is the nature of co-production between mainland China and Hong Kong film industries. Today, there are Hong Kong films does not have mainland financing/investments, but these are typically small art-house films. In terms of big budget commercial film-making (such as The Monkey King series), the clear exact line between what is considered mainland China and Hong Kong film productions is very much vague, even professionals would find it difficult to define it. They are typically financed by mainland China production companies (source Variety [1]) and are primarily targeted at mainland China market. That is why when it comes to films like these co-productions, it is hard to categorize them.--Getareu8 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, let's take this on the article-specific talk instead. Don't wanna WP:OWN this article more than necessary. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,