User talk:Gfoley4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Gfoley4's talkpage!
This page was last edited by LawrencePrincipe (talkcontribs) 0 seconds ago

Rollback[edit]

Thank you for your offer of rollback rights. I would be glad to have them and will try to put them to good use. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What?[edit]

That is quite possibly the most obvious vandal I've ever seen and the user needs to be stopped at once. Also, please be more careful not to confuse editors. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. My bad. GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Few tagged redirects remained[edit]

Wrt Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_21#Wikiproject_israel which you closed by deleting more than 50 redirects, 10 pages remained undeleted as they were omitted in discussions page though they belong to same category of wrong capitalization. Using Special:PrefixIndex/Wikiproject, they are: Wikiproject Architecture, Wikiproject Peru, Wikiproject bangladesh, Wikiproject dinosaurs, Wikiproject edinburgh, Wikiproject marketing and advertising, Wikiproject medicine, Wikiproject open access, Wikiproject videogames, Wikiprojects. There was a related nomination by me on July 23 The above listed pages were already tagged by nominator, please delete the above, Thanks, -- Cited third page (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Boom Yes check.svg Done! GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Allders[edit]

In response to your message here. As the article explains, Allders ceased trading in January 2013. If you follow the link, you will find that it leads only to a dummy placeholder page, containing nothing but further links to Facebook, Twitter and Youtube (all largely inactive accounts). I don't know whether this is hosted by someone with a genuine intention of reviving the brand, or represents something more sinister by somebody who has acquired the domain name – but either way, it has nothing to do with the company described in the article, and in its present form provides no information of any value to the reader. I think spam is precisely the right word. I am going to remove the link again, both from the infobox, and (now that you have kindly pointed it out) from the external links. GrindtXX (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tehminaaali[edit]

Hi. At AIV here, in response to:

you wrote:

    • {{AIV|dc}} Certainly a weird edit, but nothing blockable yet. GFOLEY FOUR!— 1:02 am, Today (UTC−7)


If I remember, the posting was a very typical spam, with an external link to a nutrition supplement site, a bunch of random words and phrases designed to pop up in unrelated searches, followed by the same link again. It seems like obvious promo-only activity to me to create an account and then immediately post something like that.

I only mention it because I'd rather not have to keep watch for them to do it again when they realize it's missing. It seems they almost always do if not blocked, whereas having to create a new account again (and any technical stumbling blocks in place) seems enough of a deterrent to prevent the bulk of them from trying again. Please reconsider and thanks for your time. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has already blocked it. I really couldn't make heads or tails of that one edit, so I went with declined. I was not aware that's a common spambot "technique"; I will certainly be on the lookout for those. Thanks for the message. GFOLEY FOUR!— 06:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection of WP:FFU[edit]

I'm considering taking off your protection of WP:FFU even though it was truly being vandalized, because with the protection, we are defeating the purpose of WP:FFU. The files for uploads page is for unregistered or non-confirmed users to request that files be uploaded. With it protected, no one can request. When these editors try to upload through the file upload wizard it points them to this page. Do you have thoughts on this? I think I'd rather patrol the vandalism than prevent users from making requests. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Yes check.svg Done GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to keep an eye on it and if it becomes to chaotic, we may have no choice. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Full page protection[edit]

Hi Gfoley4: Wikipedia full page protection ends today. Request for short extension of full page protection. Could you glance at this? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I will consider protecting it again if the edit warring starts back up after protection expired. Pages are not normally protected re-emptily. GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand your comment about pre-emptive safeguards. I have placed one edit to start repairing the numerous citation template requests which were placed throughout the article by one editor. The editor has had a history of returning to place the same citation template over and over again regardless of rewording efforts made to address the citation requests. Today, I am cautiously addressing only one citation template request from the long useful list of them identified by User:Pigman from last week to see what happens. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Update. I have just done the second repair to the deadlinks and dozens of citation template requests inserted by a previous user on the Wikipedia page and its Infobox. What I am finding is that the previous editor has deleted citation material from the text of the page, and then gone back and inserted the citation template requests after deleting the material containing the requested information. That previous editor has had virtually free access on the Page during the last several weeks, and it seems like at this rate of one repair per day it shall take several weeks to repair all the deadlinks and dozens of citation template requests which were inserted by that Editor in this way. If possible, please keep an eye out on the page since that previous editor has a history of doing this over and over. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, I will definitely keep an eye on it. Might have to even be semi-protected if this vandalism continues. GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism by that user along with edit warring has returned by that User following full protection expiration yesterday. Requesting "Admin only" page protection for the page since that user is autoconfirmed. Two other editors have already requested a topic ban to be placed on that editor. This is the list of further deletions of cited material by that editor followed by the re-inserting of citation template requests to provide the deleted material after full page protection expired yesterday:
(cur | prev) 05:01, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,454 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid suggesting that a single major vandalism case has happened) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 04:08, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,391 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (→‎Community: Failed verification|reason=No mention of a study performed in 2012. request reference about 2010/2012 studies) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 03:57, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,339 bytes) (-141)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove unclear part (statistics)) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:58, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,446 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove contradictory "however". language) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:52, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,407 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎Community: request reference on "often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg"... whatever that means) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:45, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,470 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (lead: request clarification of quote) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:42, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,363 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: remove "however") (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:40, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,373 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: restore request reference about bots application for ban enforcement) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:35, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,337 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (Undid revision 619916164 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) Per Talk) (undo | thank)
All of the edits by that editor were done immediately after the full page protection expired yesterday continuing the edit warring by that editor and what you referred to as vandalism above. Requesting "Admin only" page protection for 14-21 as requested by 4 others on the RFC there. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I will hold off protecting for now, but if edit warring continues I will consider it. Will monitor closely. GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Evergreen Fir has now joined the discussion and expressed distress about Talk:Wikipedia. Could you contact that editor to indicate that this is being done as part of the discussion here on this Talk page. User:Evergreen apparently did not know that I was the editor who requested the original page protection (which expired Tuesday), and that 4 editors including Admin:Eustress have tried to get constructive Talk discussion going with User:Che... with no success for 4 weeks. Without knowing any of this, User:Evergreen also foreshortened the RFC which I had promised to start there when I originally asked for Page protection. Any counsel to User:Evergreen Fir would be appreciated. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Rangers FC[edit]

Hi. I noticed you have stopped anyone but administrators from editing the article for now. Could I request that you consider making the edit that I and two other editors have tried to make to the article but the change is constantly reverted by the same editor, Gefetane. I tried to amend the full name of Rangers FC to 'The Rangers Football Club' and quoted directlt from the club's own website to support this change, but this single editor refuses to accept this change - as I say two other editors reverted Gefetane's revert of my change but he just reverted them back as well. We can't have a few highly motivated editors deciding what is acceptable to be in article.

This is what I tried to replace 'Rangers Football Club' with in the infobox: The Rangers Football Club

Trust you will make the edit on our behalf - and I assume Gefetane is not an administrator who could revert you :) Thanks Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the page is only semi-protected which means you could make the change. Remember not to edit war as well. GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh - sorry...and thanks for replying Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! for the obnoxious reversion[edit]

Sorry, I didn't mean to undo your edit in such a way, it's just that I was already in the process of reverting, and we had an edit conflict. I hope you forgive me! --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all good. Not even your fault I should have reverted to the edit you reverted to. GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)