User talk:GarethBaloney

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission has been declined for one or more of the following reasons:

1. It is primarily designed to threaten, disparage or attack its subject.
2. It is a biography of a living person that is unreferenced and entirely negative in tone.
3. It is a page that is purely vandalistic in nature.
   

This page meets one or more of the general criteria for speedy deletion and may be deleted without notice. Users who continue to create inappropriate pages will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jimmy Saville is a nonce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all the term 'nonce' means "a person who commits a crime involving sex, especially sex with a child." which he did do over the course of 50 years.

Second of all, Jimmy Saville died in 2012. He is not alive anymore (thank God) GarethBaloney (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GarethBaloney! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GarethBaloney

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Significa liberdade and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect The smiffs, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 28 § The smiffs.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Mommy kink has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Mommy kink until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Human high-quality man has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Human high-quality man until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The article Qingen Xu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a BLP article about a very minimally notable person. It is unacceptably poorly sourced. The only part that even begins to suggest notability is the claim that he is banned from China but that is only sourced to his own website. The rest of the sourcing is bad too.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Esos son Reebok o son Nike? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Esos son Reebok o son Nike? until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The article Mikke Van Hool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG--coverage is limited to database entries and photographs, no secondary RS appear to be available. I found a mere-mention in an F1 memoir , but that's not enough coverage for a biography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

To edit in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area on Wikipedia accounts must be at least thirty days old and have at least 500 edits. This includes editing talk pages, with the sole exception being for simple and specific edit requests, which should be in the form of "change x to y for reason z", complying with EDITXY. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I must deprod it, because it's been through AfD once. You must BVI back to WP:AfD and create a second nomination. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thankfully someone else appears to have redone it for me! GarethBaloney 15:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hilton Cowie, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GarethBaloney! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! — voidxor 22:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I know this is silly but your redirect Bootycheeks made me laugh a little too hard. Keep up the good work!

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Howdy. This is so minor that I don't want to revert again, but I disagree with your edit here. [[Wikilink]]s is a shortcut syntax for [[Wikilink|Wikilinks]], and is in my opinion superior to creating the page Wikilinks and then redirecting it to Wikilink. Hope that helps. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be completely honest, I didn't know. It just looked a bit wrong in source editing, although as you said it's a very minor issue. GarethBaloney (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

With two clicks, I found significant coverage and added a reliable news source to the article. So I deprodded it. Bearian (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Very well then. GarethBaloney (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you recently removed content from British Rail Class 02 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hilton Cowie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton Cowie (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ecourter (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Noob vs pro vs hacker has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 7 § Noob vs pro vs hacker until a consensus is reached. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Junlper, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Syracuse Circuit, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Cheers! GarethBaloney (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Gareth, do you think Niv Publishing merit an entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-37513-39 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking if you want it deleted...? If so then no, it has enough sources to justify an article. GarethBaloney (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, GarethBaloney, The "Template:AI-generated" tag placed on the article "Reactions to the Mishima Incident" is an unfair label. I wrote this article by personally and thoroughly reading through extensive source literature on Mishima. While you may have little knowledge about Mishima yourself, I am deeply familiar with the research surrounding the Mishima Incident and have no need to rely on AI to write about it. Although I sometimes use translation tools for language assistance, the content itself was written by me from scratch, strictly grounded in academic literature on Mishima. I am not asking for an apology, but I hope you understand. みしまるもも (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I placed the tag there due to several phrases looking rather unnatural for English writing. Perhaps it is a quirk of the translation tools used? GarethBaloney (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

GarethBaloney-san, thank you for your reply. Since I am not very good at English, I use tools like Google Translate and Gemini to help with translation. The underlying Japanese text is, of course, written in my own words after thoroughly reading and digesting the reference materials. Could you please point out specifically which parts sound unnatural or are grammatically incorrect? みしまるもも (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The Reactions to the Mishima Incident explains the main reactions to the Mishima Incident. The incident caused a great shock to various people, and numerous reactions from newspapers, political activists, cultural figures, and writers were reported.

These first two sentences are redundant to say, as we can assume the reader knows that the article is already about the reactions of those involved (or commentating on) the Mishima Incident.

In 1970 Japan marking the 25th anniversary of its defeat in the Pacific War against the United States, "postwar democracy" (戦後民主主義) was being put to the test from two sides at once: the New Left and Mishima.

The clauses in this sentence do not make sense. It should probably be like "25 years on from Japan's defeat by the United States in World War 2, the country's fragile post-war democracy was being challenged by groups such as the New Left and Mishima's own Tatenokai."

[...] every monthly magazine running a "Mishima feature" was a first in the history of the Japanese media. And people flocked to stores to buy these magazines and Mishima's works, all over Japan.

A sentence starting with "and" is not good. Including another "and" in this sentence challenging to read.

Another thing I would like to add is that links to other language Wikipedias can be done without needing to add a bracket with the original link in it. This is documented at Help:Interlanguage links GarethBaloney (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out, GarethBaloney.

• Regarding your first point: as a basic structural convention for an article, I believe the lead section should first state the core premise of the article—namely, that the Mishima Incident generated a massive social reaction, and that the article explains the responses from newspapers, political activists, cultural figures, and writers. Even in "Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II," an overview of this nature is included as part of the lead format. However, since there is some overlap with the explanation in the second paragraph, I will adjust this later.
• Regarding your second point, I think there may be a slight misunderstanding. Adding the adjective "fragile" would constitute original research on your part. It might be somewhat difficult for non-Japanese readers to grasp, but "postwar democracy" is inextricably linked with the "Japan–U.S. Alliance"—a form of subordination to the United States that serves as its counterpart—and remains a robust structure in Japan to this day. Therefore, it is by no means "fragile," nor was it "fragile" back then.
• The explanations by experts on Japanese modern and contemporary history regarding this point do not mean that a "fragile" postwar democracy was being "challenged" by Mishima and the New Left. Rather, they mean that 1970—25 years after Japan's defeat in WWII—was an era in which the true meaning of the pervasive "postwar democracy" (specifically, whether it was a "democracy" that the Japanese people truly accepted) was brought into question simultaneously from both the left and the right: by Mishima from a nationalist perspective, and by the anti-American, anti-Treaty New Left. These commentaries suggest that this era, marked by the fervent movements of both Mishima and the New Left, exposed the internal "contradictions" behind the politically appealing phrase "postwar democracy." I will revise this section later as well to make it clearer. I will also fix the third point regarding "And" and the links. Thank you again for your input.

みしまるもも (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)