User talk:Gob Lofa/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Afrikaner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transvaal

Bernadette Devlin McAliskey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mid Ulster

Empire of Nicaea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexios III

Fionán Lynch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Daly

Franche-Comté (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jura

Intelligence Corps (United Kingdom) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Collins

Irish Confederate Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Restoration

Mountain warfare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hearts and minds

Norn language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scots

Spade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hegemony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thebes

Jeju Uprising (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jeju

Martin Meehan (Irish republican) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Special Powers Act

Psilocybin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mayan

Segregation in Northern Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Segregation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ukrainian War of Independence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Don (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Please Leave Edit Summaries December 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Icelandic Language does not have an edit summary. On close inspection, your edits helped improve the article but an edit summary would be great!

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DElliott (talk • contribs) 11:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Akureyri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spit

Battle of the Ebro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spanish Republic

Newgrange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cobble

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blue Lagoon (geothermal spa) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

', when the band visited Iceland, as well as in the [Britain's Next Top Model, Cycle 5|fifth cycle]] of ''[[Britain's Next Top Model]]'' which used as photoshoot location.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mullen Gang may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Patrick Nee]]''' was born to an [[Irish language|Irish]]-speaking family in [[Rosmuc]], [Ireland]] in 1943. He was brought to the US by his parents in 1952 and became a member of the Mullen Gang at

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Genetic history of the British Isles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Great South Wall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spit

Haute-Savoie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fascist Italy

Russian Far East (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Port Arthur

Svalbard Global Seed Vault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Icecap

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David C. Coates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Red Hand Commando (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to East Belfast and West Belfast

Route, County Antrim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bann and Treaty of Berwick

UDA West Belfast Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to UDA and West Belfast

Aliens Act 1905 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Amlaíb Conung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norse

Desmond Noonan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salford

Freddie Scappaticci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to West Belfast

Goidelic languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Hebridean (sheep) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horn

Irish Republican Socialist Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TD

Kippure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FM

Phibsborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cabra

Protestant Irish nationalists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reform Group

Ronald Bunting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to East Belfast

Þingvellir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kindling

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Force Research Unit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Britain, Ashford and Hythe

Alan Lomax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Danish resistance movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Collaborator

Second World (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inequality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Maritime timeline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phoenician

Warrenpoint ambush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Armagh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to American Century may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The US also possessed a powerful global intelligence network in the [[Central Intelligence Agency]]).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Seventh United States Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Saar, Mark Clark and St. Raphael

Foula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Croft and White fish

Mantrap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cage and Snare

Population exchange between Greece and Turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Turks and Serez

CIVETS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inequality

Francis Drake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nombre de Dios

Irish general election, 1918 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to UVF

Massacre at Béziers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Valence

Rovaniemi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lapland

Sediment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cobble

Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to International Socialists

Special Forces Support Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Parachute Regiment

The Front Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Multinational

Treaty of Alcáçovas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Doble

William de Burgh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lismore

Þjórsá Lava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Skerries

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

partial revert

I have partially reverted an edit you made to Mohammed Omar, as the referenced sources do not speak to the credibility of the military official's claims. Informed you here as a courtesy. 67.161.254.8 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1996 shelling of Qana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Katyusha

Argentine Regional Workers' Federation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Capital

Intelligence Corps (United Kingdom) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to NCO

John Gregg (UDA) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rathcoole

Moscow Trials (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lubyanka

National Army (Ireland) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kerry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Atmospheric escape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Titan and Io

David I of Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kelso and Selkirk

Fair Isle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hanseatic

First Boer War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transvaal

National myth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal

Siege of St. Augustine (1702) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sally

Vestmannaeyjar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Seal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of Michael Gaughan]</ref><ref name="tirghra">''Tírghrá'', National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) ISBN 0-9542946-0-2 p.142</ref>
On 31 March 1974, Gaughan, along with current [Sinn Féin MLA [[Gerry Kelly]], Paul Holme, [[Hugh Feeney]] and fellow Mayoman [[Frank Stagg]], went

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wars of the Three Kingdoms may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:Riot against Anglican prayer book 1637.jpg|thumb|right|450px|The spark — riot in [[St Giles'

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dissident republican may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

regard both the [[Northern Ireland Assembly]] in the north and [[Oireachtas|Oireactas Éireann]]) in the [[Republic of Ireland]] as illegitimate, along with their respective police forces - the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Attack on Ballygawley barracks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to RUC

Protestant Coalition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Red, white and blue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm Gaarmyvet. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I edit a lot. Care to be more specific?

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Death of Ian Tomlinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balaclava

Scottish Borders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Democrat

Thurles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cashel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications

When these appear, you should resolve them yourself, not wait for others to do so. You seem to be repeating your disruptive editing again. Are you trying for another block? I reverted your edits. Jim1138 (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ulster Defence Regiment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Antrim, Captain and Territorial Army

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Profit

Operation Demetrius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baton round

Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Territorial Army

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pope Gregory XI, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason was that the content was duplicated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gob Lofa (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 March 2014‎

That is true, but you did not say so. You can't expect other editors to somehow guess the reasons why you make changes. See my message below about using edit summaries. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The content was duplicated quite on purpose. The goal of the lede paragraph(s) is to summarize the body of the article. The lede should never have original information in it that is not also in the body. Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The exact same sentence word for word, though? In the very next paragraph? Gob Lofa (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as documented on this page. In particular, you are still not taking care to avoid linking to disambiguation pages, despite receiving endless messages about doing so (70 messages from a bot over a period of more than three years, and one from me last October). Please try to be more careful, and please do take note of messages that you receive here, which as far as I can see you never do. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gob Lofa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked for disruptive editing? Where?

Decline reason:

See block message ... all these dab notices finally got to be too much. I'd add that this edit, even if it's not been reverted, may come under the Troubles ArbCom case. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block notice says "persistent disruptive editing, as documented on this page". That means that the reasons for the block are mentioned in the numerous messages which have been posted to you, and which you have ignored. I singled out the issue of linking to disambiguation pages, because that is the issue that is most commonly mentioned. However, if you look above you will see other issues. I will now mention just one other problem. There are several messages above asking you to use edit summaries, the earliest dating from 14 April 2011, and the most recent from 1 March 2014. It is really unhelpful to make edits with no attempt at all to explain to other editors what you are doing and why. When you edit a page, below the editing area there is a little box labelled "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)". Please always type into that box a brief explanation of what you are doing. For example, in the Pope Gregory XI edit mentioned above, you could have written "removing duplication of statement already made", which would have made your purpose clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Piping

Your link to southern Iceland was redirected to Farthings of Iceland. I wp:piped it to the latter with [[Farthings of Iceland|southern Iceland]]. Try that next time. I saw the change to Katla and was hoping for interesting news! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Jim. I've been waiting on Katla myself for a while. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour

Hi,

I reverted this edit to the Endeavour article, and thought I should explain why. I'm generally a supporter of wikilinks as they help readers find related topics of interest. But:

Some terms you wikilinked, like sun and Pacific, are common words which are understandable to virtually all readers without needing a specific link. The Manual of Style discourages links to common words as it can make the article hard to navigate.
A couple of other terms you linked, like "Transit of Venus" and "skiff" were already wikilinked higher up in the article. Again the Manual of Style discourages wikilinking terms multiple times on the same page.
Removal of the word "Royal" from an appearance of "Royal Society" - this improved readability but I'd argue that "Society" itself is not so clear in the context of the page; and
Expanding "powder magazine" to "gunpowder magazine" - I had no particularly strong view except that "powder magazine" is the more accepted term. However if you're keen on gunpowder being referred to instead please feel free to re-add.

Happy to discuss, and Happy New Year. Euryalus (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it all sounds good except #3, there's only one Society being referred to in the article. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your continued use of DAB links creates work for others.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for writing. I have to say that, having checked out your helpful link to Wikipedia:Vandalism, I'm not sure your and Wikipedia's definition coincide. I'm a bit more horrified that someone who makes this mistake is allowed to decide who gets blocked. I certainly wish I'd seen your notice, no matter its accuracy, before now. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not strictly vandalism. Jim's choice of words was ill-advised. But it is certainly disruptive editing and he was well within his rights to issue you a warning template for your behavior. But, you ignored it, so enjoy the vacation time. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." - you're not being very strict there at all, are you? Gob Lofa (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Happisburgh footprints does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I figured an edit as basic as simple linking didn't merit an edit summary that would take longer than the edit. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing unhelpful editing. It is really unfortunate to have to block you, as most of your editing is good. However, blocking appears to be the only thing that has any chance of getting your attention, as you regularly ignore talk page messages. You have continued to link to disambiguation pages, and you have continued to almost never use edit summaries, despite repeated messages about those problems, and a short block. I have also found a few other problems in your recent editing, including other inappropriate links, and removing content from articles without any explanation, which is another thing that you have previously been warned about. As has previously been explained to you, these problems cause extra work for other editors, as they have to spend time checking to see what needs to be done to clean up when you have linked to inappropriate pages, spend time checking to see whether unexplained changes without any obvious reason should be reverted, or whether they do actually have good reasons. Please take the small amount of trouble required to (a) give edit summaries briefly explaining what you are doing and why, (b) check links that you give, making sure that they do actually link to suitable targets, and not to disambiguation pages, pages with titles that seem relevant, but are actually unrelated to the article you are linking from, etc etc. Also, please start taking notice of messages on this talk page, including answering other editors who raise questions, and cleaning up yourself when you are told you have made a mistake (such as linking to a disambiguation page), rather than leaving it for someone else to chase round and correct your mistakes. As I have already said, most of your editing is good, and I do not like blocking basically good editors, but after the enormous number of times you have been told of problems, your total failure to change your ways leaves no other option. The last block made no difference to your editing: I hope that this one will prompt you to change your ways, as the only alternative seems to be a much longer block, which would be most unfortunate. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That blows. I stopped reading those messages a long time ago as they were always from bots, a situation that changed only recently. I regret that now because I've missed non-bot messages about discussions that would have interested me, as well as making it look like I'm determined to ignore any criticism of my edits. If you feel the need to keep the block going all week, that's up to you, but does it really need to cover talk pages? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking like a big yes. Thanks for staying in touch. Gob Lofa (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have just proven how determined you are to ignore criticism. By placing the {{bots}} template to deny DPL bot from notifying you about disambiguation links and by not addressing the reason you were blocked, you're not making a good case for your unblock or continued presence here on Wikipedia. You are not entitled to ignore messages simply because they come from bots operating here on Wikipedia. Bots operate on behalf of humans for very good reasons, mainly to reduce repetetive and arduous tasks. DPL bot was designed to reduce the load on other editors who have to clean up after people like you, by notifying you directly of your mistakes so you can fix them personally. By denying DPL bot, you're essentially giving the finger to the community and telling us that we will be cleaning up after you whether we like it or not. As a member of the community, I resent that message, and I support the admin's block wholeheartedly, because it seems that you are not getting the message here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange as it may sound to you given the assumptions you've been making, I believed I was being offered an opt-out because the bot had undone my edits and no further action was necessary on my part. Thanks for (inadvertently) clearing that up. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hundred Days' Offensive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked (2)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for using another account, Pollo Negro, to evade the previous block issued by JamesBWatson. This has been confirmed by a checkuser. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth to you, if you had either posted a request for an unblock, or simply drawn my attention to this page by posting a link to my account, I would seen that you have now started to respond to messages, and I would have been happy to unblock you. However, as it is, I did not know about it. (My guess is that your remark "Looking like a big yes. Thanks for staying in touch" was supposed to be a sarcastic way of criticising me for not coming back to check. However, I make edits at a rate of roughly 1000 per month, not counting admin actions and deleted edits. I do not go back to check every one of them every day on the off chance that someone may have made a response to it.) I hope you are never blocked again, but if you are, and want to request a block, then use the method explained in the block notices above. Just posting a message here and hoping someone will see it and respond to it is very much a hit-and-miss method. Also, it may be helpful to know that if you post a message in which you link to another user's account, and sign the message with four tildes, the user will get a notification, so they can come here and see what you want. You can do this by posting a message which includes (for example) [[User:JamesBWatson]], and make sure you end the message with ~~~~. Alternatively, you can use {{Reply|JamesBWatson}}, which will show on the page as @JamesBWatson. The reason why I am here now is that the link to my username in the block notice just above this message caused me to get a notification.

A bot can recognise a link to a disambiguation page, and give you a message about it so that you can correct the error. However, there is no way that it can correct the error for you, as it has no way of telling which of the links in the disambiguation page is the one that you meant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I feel like a Wikipedia-disruption-tornado in recovery. Trite as it sounds, I just don't know what came over me. With your help, I feel a brighter day is dawning. For my sake, and the sakes of my victims, please keep up the good work. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gob Lofa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a sock puppet Gob Lofa (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Blocking checkuser says otherwise. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Perhaps the blocking checkuser could tell us, a sockpuppet of whose? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those would be Heavy Knife (talk · contribs) and Pollo Negro (talk · contribs) according to the edits made by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) as you were blocked. Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the block statement reads "This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet". It's specifying this account, not those two. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You understand that a sock puppet is an illegitimate alternate account, right? The two I mentioned were used by you to evade the block on the account of Gob Lofa (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly. What I don't understand is why this account is being described as a sockpuppet account. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gob Lofa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a sockpuppet (see above) Gob Lofa (talk) 12:29 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

So this is the master account rather than the sock account. So what? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What am I missing? If you concede it's incorrect, why is it being described as a sockpuppet account in the blocking statement? I'm not happy that something that's untrue is the reason given for the block. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason given in the logs for the (current) block is {{checkuserblock-account}}. Since it seems to upset you, I've also removed the template above which indicated that this account was a sockpuppet, instead of a sockpuppeteer. Happy now? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not the fact of the template that upset me but what it said. What you've done is remove the false justification given for the block but left the block in place. The link you gave me to that template tells me "CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked permanently to prevent abuse." That's a little vague. What abuse? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What abuse? Using sockpuppets.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel we're making progress now. Can this be confirmed by the blocking admin? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We're being worked.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, this is Kafkaesque enough already. You need to be explicit. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Or not, it's up to you. It's quite possible the blocker is referring to my previous tendency to avoid edit summaries or create bad links. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gob Lofa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Still a huge lack of clarity about reason for block and where to go from here. Reason for block has been removed but not replaced and block remains in place. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block is for using sockpuppets to evade a previous block. This has now been explained several times. As you are now misusing the unblock template through spurious requests I am, with some reluctance, disabling talkpage access. Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been explained by the blocker until recently. An incorrect reason was given, then removed and not replaced. Others came and gave explanations but not the blocker and I had no notion of how accurate these explanations were, given the blocker's silence. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello Gob Lofa. I'm the blocking admin/checkuser. I checked your account while you were blocked and noted that you were using another account to evade the block. I looked into this deeply and, as far as I could see, the two accounts were behaviourally and technically indistinguishable. This is as explicit as I'm going to be. You were given a chance to edit sensibly, but you were blocked to prevent disruption to the project. You created another account to evade that block, then, when that account was blocked, you created another account to do exactly the same thing. Evading blocks in this manner is simply not acceptable. I'm not happy to support an unblock unless you can convince the unblocking administrator that you will contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chase, thanks for finally getting back to me. I must say, I'm a little horrified that you've now blocked this account from editing even this talk page. I can't decide if I'm more disgusted by that or your decision to do it at the same time you finally replied, a decision you make no reference to in your reply (I'm presuming you're the culprit for this extension of the block, no-one else has come forward). I'm uncertain why you simultaneously suggest convincing an unblocking administrator and compel me to edit here using an IP address. JamesBWatson writes about his block of me: "you have now started to respond to messages, and I would have been happy to unblock you. However, as it is, I did not know about it." Obviously, you disagree. I've been editing for years without problems. I wish you'd stop doing what you're doing. 86.45.61.107 (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I apologise for presuming you had also blocked me from editing here, I hadn't seen Euryalus' message at that point. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anticipating your request, I have restored talkpage access so you can respond to Chase's comment above while actually logged in. With respect, the apparent wikilawyering over which account was a sockpuppet and which the sockmaster, didn't seem to advance your case. But again, feel free to log in again and respond to Chase directly.

On an unrelated topic, I think this may have been mentioned above but if not - the DPL bot doesn't correct or revert the wikilinks you've created to disambiguation pages, it just notifies you of them. If an unblock occurs, please consider going back through your past edits and fixing the links. Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was mentioned about the DPL bot and it's my intention to get on that if I'm permitted. About wikilawyering, first I got called a vandal. If I hadn't challenged that by referring to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism it would have stood and anyone coming to this page may have believed it. You may consider this Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, to me it's important that how I edit Wikipedia is not falsely portrayed. I wasn't disputing the use of sockpuppets, I was perplexed that the blocker seemed to believe that this account was a sockpuppet account of another, giving the impression that a sockpuppet account was being prevented from being used again rather than that I was being blocked for having used sockpuppets elsewhere. Chase was quite specific about this when it would have been just as easy to use clear language describing the reason for the block e.g. "this user has used sockpuppet accounts". Again, you may consider this wikilawyering. I'm just bemused at the lack of accuracy when blocking a user indefinitely after years of problem-free editing. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry says "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator." The main account didn't have to be blocked. The original block, the reason I started sockpuppeteering, would have been lifted if the blocker knew all the facts, like he said above. I didn't attempt to influence votes or discussion by pretending more support than existed. It strikes me that my offences are very much at the lower end of the scale, yet I've been blocked indefinitely. What gives? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Where do I go from here? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? I don't know where to go from here, can anyone help? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is always Wikipedia:Standard offer. Elizium23 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given some of the stuff I've seen people do here, six months seems somewhat less than proportionate. I'm having serious difficulty getting my head around this. I've been editing for years, must be thousands of individual edits, without any bother. The original problems that came to a head recently and led to the blocks were easily resolved once my attention was brought to them. It strikes me that the letter of the law is being enforced rather than its spirit. Is this really par for the course? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, who's the unblocking administrator Chase refers to? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The "unblocking administrator" is whichever administrator reviews your unblock appeal and decides to lift the block. The Standard Offer is - as the name suggests - pretty standard; six months' time-out tends to be the norm. I'd suggest taking it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is mental. I'm still unclear as to the reason for the block. Ever since the official incorrect reason was removed no replacement has been put in place. An uninvolved admin coming here for the first time could well form the impression that I've been blocked for a week (see top of section) and wonder what all the fuss is about. Everyone bar Chase seems to believe the block is punitive, for using sockpuppets. Chase seems to imply instead that it's preventative, that he believes I'm determined to edit non-constructively, but doesn't confirm this or explain why. If it's the former, I'm a little shocked at the proposed length. If it's the latter, why is there such faith in this determination? Ever since my attention was drawn to the problem, I've used edit summaries and avoided creating disambiguation links. Does Chase really have this belief? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been explained several times above, but once more, with feeling:

You were blocked for two days for disruptive editing.
You created additional accounts in order to evade the block.
Your block was extended for an indefinite period because of the evasion.
You will not be unblocked until we can be sure that you will not continue to disrupt Wikipedia.
You have not posted an unblock request that suggests you will not continue to disrupt Wikipedia.
Therefore you remain blocked.

I do not know how to make it any clearer. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it has been explained several times. My problem was it was also explained several ways. I thank you for what seems like the most likely explanation for how things got to this. You seem to be confirming that the block is a mixture of punitive and preventative. I suspected this but I'm glad to have it confirmed. I can understand the first impulse but not the second. Can you please tell me how to post an unblock request? I have to say I'm a little confused as to why you and others seem to believe I would disrupt Wikipedia. JamesBWatson seems happy I don't want to, have you spoken with him? I thought that aspect had long been laid to rest. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry = abuse/disruption. You have created multiple sockpuppets, so we expect that you will act disruptively. Your conduct on this page - at best, a surprising inability to understand, at worst, wilful obtrusiveness - has not helped alleviate that concern. As to making an unblock request, see the guide to appeals for instructions and advice. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to obtrude, but you're being a little obtuse. I've understood perfectly anytime I've been given a proper explanation, unlike many of the throwaway comments here that purported to explain but were often contradictory. Why on earth would I create more sockpuppets if I was unblocked? Or what other disruption do you fear? I can't help but feel you're all making mountains out of molehills. Thanks for pointing me toward the guide to appeals, I appreciate it. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)