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

Shabbos App page

I'd appreciate if you go have a look at my latest version of the Shabbos App page. At the very least we should say that Rabbis and engineers looked at it and said it's a hoax a year ago -- and here it's a year overdue and the website is down. Boyblackhat (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations on Nefesh B'Nefesh page

Hi Galetz, just wanted to let you know that I added a bunch of citations to the Nefesh B'Nefesh page. I removed the citations needed box, since I believe the page is now well sourced.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Galatz, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your balanced approach and civilised writings that I've recently came across here & there in the WP. I like and do appreciate it :) Universal Life (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels

Your recent edits to Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels assume that this article covers all tunnels under Gaza. It does not. Rather it refers to tunnels that cross the Egypt-Gaza border. To my knowledge, none of these tunnels have been targeted by Protective Edge. Rather than revert your tags and changes, I would ask you to reconsider which ones are necessary and undo those that are based on a misunderstanding.--Carwil (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I guess then the title is not clear. I know its not the ones used for terror, but there are smuggling tunnels in more than just the Gaza/Egypt border. When I look at the article I would expect it to be about all smuggling tunnels, and since there is no way of knowing if these tunnels would have been used for terror or smuggling. I guess the article wasn't clear to me in general which is why I added the clarify tag too. - Galatz (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No border (or other legal regime banning movement, like prison regulations), no smuggling. I'm pretty sure that the types of Gaza Strip tunnels I listed under "Scope" on Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip is comprehensive. Seemingly, all the internal tunnels are on that page now.--Carwil (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi Galatz. I see you are tagging numerous articles for citation needed for the population and council jurisdiction. Here you can find a list of all the settlements under Bikat HaYarden council (and then subpages which detail their history, perhaps answering more of your tags), and here you can find the populations (2011). Cheers, Number 57 22:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go through them tomorrow and try and add some stuff from those - Galatz (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE

Given your edit here[1] I thought it worthwhile to remind you of WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE as two of our core content policies. In short, you should endeavor to add new reliably sourced POVs, not to remove reliably sourced POVs you happen to disagree with. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli ship articles

Hi, I'm not sure how to write you back so I put my words here. There is no much source in English or Hebrew about the subject on the internet. The references I found on the net is not completely correct, yet much of it is correct. Because I familiar with the subject from close I allow myself to correct it. So I have 2 choices: 1. To delete the reference from the page. 2.Keep the reference but to correct it on the wiki page. Not all the information is from the web. Lots of it from an internal book that didn't go public and other info is from the field itself. However, I will appreciate your attention for my English grammar and vocabulary. In the end there a lot of info, I cross between them, choose the best I found and correct the spare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokuya (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Bodies in exchange for prisoners

I believe that due to the ongoing interest in the two possible captive/slain soldiers, and the current, intense negotiations between Israel and Hamas over the exchange of bodies for prisoners, Oron Shaul can now support an article, which I have created. Hadar Goldin can probably support an article now, too. What do you think?ShulMaven (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion they should consistent with others in the past. The general consensus was however they didn't and both were deleted. Its tough to say much has changed since then though - Galatz (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In Appreciation of your diligent, well-sourced editing.ShulMaven (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. What is your basis for asserting that Israel uses solely DMY format? My understanding is that it uses both MDY and DMY formats. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: If you look at any Hebrew language news site they use DMY format, for example [ynet] or [haaretz]. For their English language websites they use MDY to appeal to their American target. I have never seen anything in Israel not use DMY. Also if you look at Date_format_by_country you will see they only list DMY for Israel. - Galatz (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say, they use MDY on English language sites. I believe that just as they have three national languages, they also accept both the MDY and DMY date formats. This is -- of course -- an English language website, so conforming to what they do in English language websites certainly seems acceptable, at minimum. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: If you look at MOS:DATE TIES it says whats used in the country most common. Because an Israeli website has an Americanized version doesn't really mean much in my opinion. Additionally if you check List_of_official_languages English is not an official language in Israel. - Galatz (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes we have multiple languages in that status. Road signs are a good reflection. As I expect you know and will agree, road signs in Israel are most commonly set forth in all three languages.

As to your (again) referencing a Wikipedia article for support, I always find it a good starting place. But sometimes, as here, not any better than a wiki generally is (especially the case, when as here, the text you point to lacks any ref whatsoever -- I'm not sure how that makes it something we should rely on).

It's a curious matter, but as far as what Israel's official language is, the answer apparently stems from Mandate times. According to Article 82 of the Palestine Order in Council, passed in 1922, “All Ordinances, official notices, and official forms of the Government and all official notices of local authorities and municipalities in areas to be prescribed by order of the High Commissioner, shall be published in English, Arabic, and Hebrew. The three languages may be used in debates and discussions in the Legislative Council, and, subject to any regulations to be made from time to time, in the Government offices and the Law Courts.”[2]

Interestingly, as well, from the same source, "Last year ... 150,000 Israeli teenagers took their Bagrut, or matriculation exam, in English".

In any event, I would go with the test of road signs, and what the English papers use as a format (without even getting into the mandatory law and Bagrut, though they are supportive), to reflect that the MDY usage is an acceptable alternative (I could also rely on non-acceptable experience, which I imagine is driving you, in the opposite direction, as well). I don't accept that it is irrelevant what Israeli papers use as a format -- I think it is of great moment. The fact that you ascribe reasons for such usage is interesting as guesses go but not pertinent -- we should allow editors to follow any country's common usage, whatever the country's papers' assumed rationales may be. I would go with the approach we use in Canada, and - as the country usage does - accept either approach, but require that the usage be consistent. Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks and abbreviations

BTW, I'm pretty certain -- though I haven't looked for the basis right now -- that the rule is that the lede and the text both should be viewed as stand-alones when it comes to wikilinking and abbreviations. Thus, a wikilink and/or abbreviation in the lede does not result in us failing to wikilink the first instance of the phrase in the body (same with an abbreviation). --Epeefleche (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: I may be mistaken I thought that wikilinking more than once when in lead was only for longer articles, but it is possible I am remembering it wrong. I did not think that applied to abbreviations. The article in question had PFLP wikilinked more than once in the body of the article itself however, so I know one of the removals was definitely correct. I will confirm with the policy and put it back if I am wrong - Galatz (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: This is what I am basing it on WP:OVERLINK. Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. It says should appear once unless helpful for the reader to have it more than once. I am not sure if that article qualifies for needing it more than once, but correct me if I am wrong. - Galatz (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork. First -- yes, I was prompted to leave my note by that article. Second -- I agree with some of your changes, as you indicated above there were further instances of wikilinking than those I was focusing on. And yes, wp:overlink captures my understanding. Following it, a wikilink in the lede is fine, a second link after that in the article text following the link is fine, and there should be no further links. I believe the same holds for abbreviations. I think it helpful for that article to have them both once in the lede, and once in the body of the article. Also, I believe that what you wikilinked was not just the org name, but the name+abbreviation together; I think just the name should be wikilinked. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess based on the reading of it, its really up to the editors personal feelings on whether or not its needed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - Galatz (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply

It is true, you're saying I have to reference every single episode of Impact Wrestling since June 19, 2014? That's not been the case for any other locations, but fine I shall do it. Also it doesn't mention the UK as that has not happened yet. The structure of the sentance is perfetly fine as it is 100% accurate, since June 19 2014, Impact Wrestling has been taped at only those two locations.Pawac (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pawac: No you just need a reference that would somehow state that this is true. To show that they were in 2 specific locations doesnt mean they haven't been in others. It might seem obvious to you but that still makes it WP:OR - Galatz (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ron Bennington

Please see WP:BLPCRIME. You may think this is properly sourced, but one notice from a newspaper does not proper sourcing make, there was no conviction, and it has undue weight since it's basically the only verified biographical fact in the article. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Per WP:BLPCRIME

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information."

There are a few main points here to consider. 1 innocent until proven guilty. I never said innocent or guilty, only reported the facts he was accused of. If you think it was worded in a leading manor than add the word accused, but its not cause to remove it 2 Relatively unknown peron. Based on WP:ENTERTAINER he meets the notability criteria, so I wouldnt say he is unknown. 3 Is it sourced by a WP:RS. Yes it is. It does not require multiple RS to report on each instance reported, you only need one. Especially since this occurred in 1997, the early days of the internet.

Based on all of this what cause do you have for removing it?

Additionally you removed any link on the page to The Ron and Ron Show, and stated WP:OLINK as your reason. Under what cause should it not be linked? Under what circumstance should it not be linked with the Main template, similar to how Ron and Fez and Unmasked (radio show) - Galatz (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Galatz, I have corrected that link--it's the "main" template there that's unnecessary if the item can easily be linked from within the text. As for the BLP matter, it doesn't matter whether you say "innocent or guilty"--you couldn't say that anyway. What matters is whether we should report it or not given that there was no conviction, that it was apparently a minor matter of minor significance (given that there's only one source--the internet has nothing to do with this), and that it was undue since, as I said, "it's basically the only verified biographical fact in the article". If you feel differently you are welcome to take it up on WP:BLPN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia: when you expanded/created the radio show article you copied content from at least three articles, and that needs to be acknowledged. I just made an edit where I listed that--PLEASE do so with the first edit. It is quite important that content be correctly attributed. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I mentioned it here [3] where it was going but you are correct, I should have mentioned where it came from.

What I do not understand is why "it's basically the only verified biographical fact in the article" is reason for moving sourced info. Shouldn't instead you add the tag that the section needs expanding? Why not just use the Template:Expand section tag and leave the verified information that is there?

If the main template was the issue shouldn't it have been done consistently? What made Ron and Ron different than Ron and Fez or Unmasked? - Galatz (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Last things first: I started, maybe I didn't finish. Give it a go--if you do that (removing those "main" templates), and you try to write out that whole thing as prose rather than a list of sections, it will look at lot better (less choppy). About the copying, yeah, I guess it's something you have to know, and I happen to know it, and now you know it too!

But you are overdetermining the "sourced info" bit--the essence of this info is that it's negative BLP info. If it weren't negative it wouldn't be a problem, but right now the only sourced fact we have is that he is...well, fill in the blank (not here, in your mind), and that's just not OK. If the sourcing is valid, if the material is serious enough, and if there is more we have to say on the guy than just one negative detail from a fairly long somewhat public life, it's an entirely different matter. The problem here is a lack of balance.

Now, if you redo that article to make it more like prose and less like a list, that would be a good start already--still, though, you have to ask yourself what benefit it is to the reader. It's not our job to provide every verified fact (WP:FART), but rather to give a properly verified and fair overview of a person if they pass our notability standards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks. It should have more on his life outside of radio, but there just isn't much out there. - Galatz (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely there's more to find on a man who has a cigar-flavored cupcake named for him... (that's pretty revolting, by the way...) Drmies (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha thats hysterical and clearly not legit, fixed and referenced - Galatz (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

COI

on the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America article. If you are unaware of issues with COI editing in WP and don't care about them, please don't do things like removing COI tags without reviewing the article for neutrality. The tags are there for a reason, and should only be removed with reason. Removing the tag and leaving puffery and other crap content behind, means that the abuse of WP stands. Why do you want to be that guy? I am baffled. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am baffled on why you are not following WP rules. You point to rules that completely do not back up your claim. Every WP rule says if something is unsourced you tag it, not to delete it. I properly tagged this article yesterday and less than 24 hours later you removed the content. Please copy and paste SPECIFICS not pointing to general long pages if you disagree with me, as I have been kind enough to do for you. Unless its contentious information about a person, you tag it and leave it. Please read these rules and do not blindly sight them, as by you removing them you are in violation. I suggest you read the rules, educate yourself, and self revert - Galatz (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." from the lead of WP:VERIFY. There are no "rules" in WQP. There is policy, guideline, and essay. That is policy, as strong as it gets. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

and i would appreciate it if you answer my question. Why would you ignore the instructions to review the article for NPOV before removing the tag? Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I believe the key that you are missing is in the line before that which states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I don't believe you are challenging the validity of that information, just the lack of sourcing. I agree it should be sourced however I did not have the time to work on that yesterday. I spent a lot of time working on Paper Mill Playhouse which also lacked a lot of sourcing and needed a lot of help with its formatting. I chose to spend the time fixing it, I didn't just remove it. A lot of the information is very informative, but it was not sourced.

I did not ignore the instructions of reviewing the article for NPOV before removing it. I clearly read trough the entire article as you can tell by the changes made. I did not however feel it was POV based. You removed certain statements such as "grew substantially," which I do not consider to be POV. I definitely agree, you could make a case for WP:WEASEL for it and it can be removed based on that, however that does not warrant a COI tag. I don't disagree with the removal, but the issue was with WP:COI. The article was far from perfect, as I mentioned before I was more focused on other articles. The issue though is with whether or not there was any conflict of interest. - Galatz (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

i am not missing anything. unsourced content is not "informative" - it is noise - a bunch of words, and per policy it can be removed. thanks in any case for answering my question. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

thanks for fixing my mistake!!! Boardg (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

TNA

Isn't necessary to include all wrestler who resigned with TNA (In fact, usually we don't include them). I included Hardy, Anderson and Abyss because they're former world champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree:The burden is on YOU to prove that is the criteria that should be used. I suggest you read WP:REMOVAL. Most specifically anything that talks about properly sourced information. It is relevant to the topic and sourced, meaning if you want to remove it you should be taking it to talk. It is not up to you to decide. What you do is you bring it to the talk page, you propose your changes, and you make them consistently throughout the page. I suggest you revert your changes and bring it to talk as per the WP policy. Additionally you still haven't addressed the logic in how a list could possibly be "1, 2 or 3 all resigned," it just doesnt make any sense. - Galatz^Talk 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should I discuss every change I make in the talk page? We should summarize. We don't need a long list of wrestlers who resigned with the promotion. Two of them, the most important, it's fine. We never talk about releases or resigned in other articles, except the most notable ones. To include Spud or Tyrus (two mid-carters) doesn't look important to the article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree:Because thats what WP's policy says to do. Do you need more of a reason than that? You are changing complete content. You should get a consensus on the talk page about the way things should be done and that way it can be done consistently in all future references. I am not disagreeing with you, just talking about policy.

Additionally you need to pay attention to what you are editing. The first time a person is mentioned they should be wikilinked. You removed wikilinks to Eric Young, Davey Richards, and Rockstar Spud. It is your responsibility as part of making edits to correct this and add the wikilinks where needed. - Galatz^Talk 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Am i changing COMPLETE content? I reduced seven names to four. Talk page is for big changes, not for every minor edit an user made. Do you realy think any user in the project will appear to talk about a minor change? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Venues

This is really ridiculous now. Every single episode of Impact Wrestling was referenced to show that for the time period in question Impact Wrestling was only taped at those two locations. Your previous statement that you do not believe it has, seemingly, been your only reason why you insist on there not being evidence to prove this. However you do not require the same level of evidence for any other period of taping for TNA, particularly from Universal Studios. You're claiming there needs to be references to show that Impact Wrestling was not taped from any other venue during the period of time, which is not how things are done, is not necessary and makes no sense seeing as every single episode of Impact Wrestling was referenced to show that there was no other venues during the period of time in question. Not to mention that your needless request is impossible to fulfil, is one expected to reference every single venue worldwide to show that Impact Wrestling was not taped at the venue for every single day from June 19, 2014 to January 29, 2015?

Pawac (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pawac:Again as I have said over and over and over read WP:OR. If you are doing your own research figuring out where they taped each week and coming to your own conclusion, its OR and it is against WP's rules. That is the reason why they require a WP:RS for everything. If you have a source that says "Their UK show is their first show outside of XXXX and YYYY since ZZZZ" then your statement is correct. Unless you have something saying that you are doing your own research. Whether its accurate or not, its still against WP's rules. The way I reworded it accurately reflects that they taped shows in both places but does not imply it was exclusive. Unless there is an RS saying it was exclusive it should not be on WP. I do not care how confident you are that it is accurate, its still against the rules.

You could perhaps make an argument by the way you had referenced every single show that it fits under WP:CALC but it really doesn't. How would one know there wasn't a different show you didnt list. Find a source that states it properly or leave it off. You cannot include your own research. - Galatz^Talk 00:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am familiar with WP:OR and there is NO original research as they were ALL referenced and thus did meet WP:RS. Your argument is based on nothing and you have avoided points I raised. It is not against WP rules, for every taped episode there was a link to it's location. Links to other locations cannot be found because there weren't any. No WP being broken. NO OR. Does meet RS. Bring in a mod if you, somehow, think this untrue. Pawac (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pawac: I do not believe you have read it. If you did you would realize that going through and checking every single event is the EXACT definition of OR. The third sentence in the page clearly states This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. What you are doing is analyzing the data and coming to a conclusion. That is a violation plain and simple.

When it comes to an RS for OR here is what it says Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. Please explain to me how this is not exactly what you are doing? You are using a source to IMPLY and REACH a conclusion.

I beg of you to please show me how you can argue that isnt exactly what you are doing? Don't just say it, prove it. - Galatz^Talk 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now provided yet more links to further prove this is true. You are the only one who does not believe it, you continue to ignore raised points about you ONLY doing this for these venues because you personally do not believe it happened despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that Impact Wrestling was taped elsewhere because it wasn't. This was very public knowledge last year and I am certainly not the only one who has provided links for these locations, yet you ARE the only one removing them. If you seriously think what you're doing is correct and not just some petty reason based on your refusal to believe (your words) TNA taped here, then you should do the same for all the other locations, like Universal Studios, as I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, much like you did the suggestion to bring in a mod/admin. It's simple, the fact Impact Wrestling was solely recorded from the venues mentioned is definitive, other editors have added references too, you're the only one to remove the facts due to some irrational failure to believe TNA taped from the venues in question. It is clear, it has been referenced several times and clearly shows the sole venues are as stated. Very telling that you undid your edit and reverted back to mine. I consider this issue closed. Pawac (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pawac:Never have I ever said it was untrue. All I did was say you are doing your own research. I pointed out to you the key sections that prove its OR. How does this not fit into it? Additionally as you can clearly read I said I didnt want to edit war, but you chose to ignore that. - Galatz^Talk 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes you did. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling&diff=640419211&oldid=640418844 Pawac (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pawac:That was a completely different set of circumstances at that time that you are completely missing out on. I even explained to you at the time, that you apparently chose to forget, that I said it wasn't true because you were ignoring the UK dates that were coming up in January that were not mentioned. Those have since come and gone and the dates of your claim have been added. Completely different set of circumstances and 6 months of activity has changed since then, but good try. - Galatz^Talk 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel at the Olympics

Hi Galatz,

Please do not revert my edits. We'll keep using the standard format of Olympic countries pages. Do not add the gender or any unnecessary column for every table because it will lose consistency to the standard format. For the gymnastics, sections for rhythmic and artistic are separated from one another. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Help?

Hi -- I wonder if you may have the wherewithal and time to help me, as you've done in the past. I'm looking for (more) RS support in Hebrew that Marc Hinawi is Christian. Relates to a DYK hook. Only if you have the time and inclination, since I suspect your facility with the language is better than mine ... tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Silent intifada incedents

I have seen that you have removed the Netanel Arami incident (what also known as "פיגוע הסנפלינג" (the Snapling attack) to Israelies), The sources [4] [5] [6] find the victim as victim of terrorist attack, and many WP:RS mention that cover up allegations. Could you adjust the info on the event so that it could be followed  ?

few other RS on the subject - http://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/local-q1_2015/Article-efee90b408c5c41004.htm , http://news.walla.co.il/item/2805231 , http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4596337,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.170 (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Moto X disambiguation page

Hi Galatz, I think when the user searches for Moto X, Wikipedia could use a disambiguation page, since the term can be ambiguous. Would that be a reason for a Moto X disambiguation to exist? It's not even work, actually you made the first version. --Makkachin (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Makkachin: I had originally created one for Moto E, Moto G and Moto X once the second versions came out. Upon discussions it was decided that we didnt need a separate page for each of these since they are all part of the same Moto line. Therefore we had the 3 all redirect to the same main page which included all three of them. What is the advantage of having 3 separate pages rather than the redirect to the one main one. - Galatz^Talk 14:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's like searching for United States, then getting a list of all countries in the Americas. Yeah they are all countries in the Americas, but I entered in a very specific search term, not a broad search term. Why am I getting Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, Canada? Maybe that's not what disambiguation pages are for: I don't mean "Mexico" when I search for "United States". However I understand it's popular to merge disambiguation pages into bigger ones in Wikipedia so I understand how the changes have come about. --Makkachin (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Galatz, I was looking back at one of your reversions, and it just bugs me that your reasoning for reverting is that there was "no reason" to have the disambiguation page. The search term is Moto X, there is ambiguity for that term, therefore there is disambiguation for that term. What more is there to explain? If an average disambiguation page does not need an editor to actively argue for its existence, why should you ask what the advantages of a disambiguation page is, especially when WP:DISAMBIG is well written to explain? --Makkachin (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the main thing comes down to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic we are working with here is the Motorola Moto line. There might be 3 sublines within it, but the Moto line itself is the primary topic. Anyone who is looking for the Moto X would wind up on the Moto page with all their relevant info they need, because its the primary topic. - Galatz^Talk 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Galatz: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

'bout your name

Just wondering.. is it supposed to be Galatz?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: nope, my family is originally from Galați which the name comes from. - Galatz^Talk 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny since you seem to be intrerested in Israeli related articles.. Oh well.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: I definitely am, but just a coincidence. - Galatz^Talk 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert at Partner Communications Company

Your revert at Partner Communications Company [7] was absurd. This leak was reported in a RS and not OR. Thanks. Shuki (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shuki: Its wikipedia policy, read Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content and everything else at WP:RUMOR - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a poor choice of words by me, but certainly you read the source I included that did not mention speculation or rumour but brand change as a matter of fact. Shuki (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)