User talk:Galobtter: Difference between revisions

Accidental subst

Thanks for catching that. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Module:JCW and Module:JCW-selected-source update

We're expanding WP:JCW to cover something new, so a tweak to the template would be nice.

Basically, it needs to do the same thing as {{JCW-selected}}/{{JCW-selected-source}} already do, but when it's on User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1 (or .../Publisher2, .../Publisher3, ...), it should behave as if |source= isn't a thing and simply suppress the output of that parameter if given or missing.

Can you help? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, Fixed Module:JCW for User:JL-Bot/Publishers.cfg; for Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1, can't you just make {{JCW-PUB-rank}} ignored |source=? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I could, but I'm just sure how the module would handle it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Case in point: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher1 still ask about |source= even if I removed |source= from {{JCW-PUB-rank}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

See [1] Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkey article

A wild Rebestalic showed up again in your home jungle.

(imagine that, a bear meets a gorilla! interesting)

Anyway, I know this was quite a while ago, but why was the article on Turkey under full protection?

I'm aware it might be for a rather sensitive reason, in which case I'm happy to not know

That's that for me, have to catch some salmon you know

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Rebestalic, Full protection is usually used to stop edit warring. If you look at the logs, you can see the article was under full protection for "Edit warring/content dispute". The edit warring is in this part of the history. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

how did I not think of that thanks!

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 08:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Janus v. AFSCME

The reversion you made was wrong. The article is wrong because AFSCME reported 94% retention. Also, those people who still had to pay agency fees still had to vote on whether there is a union or not and if there is under 50%, then the union cannot exist. So if they had 2-6% retention, then the union did not have 50% support and is legally not recognized. The Reason article also said "Given the choice of no longer paying to support unions they didn't want to join in the first place, lots of public sector workers took it." That means, they were in the union. Therefore, the article should not be cited as it does not properly state the law or the numbers correctly. Capriaf

Capriaf The Reason article says that "In 2017, AFSCME reported having 112,233 agency fee payers (compared to 1.3 million dues-paying members), but that figure dropped to just 2,215 in the union's 2018 report." So the number of agency-fee members dropped by 98%, which is what we write in the article. However, yes, 94% of total members stayed, because not many dues-paying members left, as also stated in the Reason article. There's no contradiction between the two articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Galobtter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Airbnb protection

Hi, since Ymblanter says you consulted with him, I wanted to request your input on the issue of ARBPIA-protecting Airbnb. Here's what I said to Ymblanter:

Ijust wanted to let you know that I've asked Arbcom for a little clarification here. I don't think everything with tiny Israel-Palestine coverage should count (it seems a bit extreme to consider Sea level related, merely because File:Israel Sea Level BW 1.JPG appears near the top), so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment I said basically "Ymblanter and I interpret things differently, so would you please tell us which of us is holding the interpretation you intended". As I said there, This is not some sort of complaint/argument/etc. Just trying to get an authoritative statement on this decision's scope. Please let me know if I've said anything that can be interpreted as hostile, because I'm not unhappy and don't intend anything to sound as if I am.

Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)