User talk:Gfoley4: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user was an igloo user!
Trout this user
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 349: Line 349:


Hi, you deleted [[Palmyrene script]] and [[Old South Arabian script]] because of db-g5. That created red links. To solve that, I'd suggest you recreate those two pages, and copy the original content into them. That way no one has to repeat research into what was correct in the first place, and you even get the creation credits. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted [[Palmyrene script]] and [[Old South Arabian script]] because of db-g5. That created red links. To solve that, I'd suggest you recreate those two pages, and copy the original content into them. That way no one has to repeat research into what was correct in the first place, and you even get the creation credits. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:Well, you can't just copy/paste deleted content into new articles. That would be a copyvio. [[Special:Contributions/Gfoley4|—]]<u>[[User:Gfoley4|<span style="color:darkseagreen;font-family:Tahoma;"><big>G</big>FOLEY</span>]] [[User talk:Gfoley4|''<span style="color:goldenrod;font-family:Tahoma"><big>F</big>OUR!</span>'']]</u>— 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:49, 16 August 2011

Status: Unknown

User:Gfoley4 User talk:Gfoley4 User:Gfoley4/awards Special:Contributions/Gfoley4 User:Gfoley4/Sandbox http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Gfoley4&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia User: Gfoley4/vector.js User: Gfoley4/Google Maps Street View User: Gfoley5
"The Crib" Talk Barnstars Contribs Sandbox Edit Counter Vector .js Street View Alternate account
Header: v • d • e
Welcome to Gfoley4's talkpage!

Cape Spear

The Cape Spear spammer is back. Station1 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a range. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

This article should be called Vesuvio Cafe and NOT Vesuvio's. That is just a nickname. As you can see from the official site for the establishment in the article the proper name is Vesuvio Cafe. Please change this article title! Thanks! See the article link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesuvio%27s

Cheers!98.151.53.27 (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (talk page stalker) StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I accidentally 4chan screenshot on Commons

:(

Who.was.phone (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Check your email.

^--iGeMiNix 15:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

retired

A user you know, Crazymonkey1123, has retired. You may discuss this on his talk page. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 19:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response would echo the view of Fetchcomms. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Create new category

If possible, you could please create a new Wikipedia category called: Category:Flavor of Love for the American VH1 reality television series called Flavor of Love. This reality TV show has had a number of spinoffs and there are a lot Wikipedia pages about this show and the contestants for it on Wikipedia already, thanks.12.196.37.227 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Âddition to article LCD

Have put a proposed addition to the article on LCD on the corresponding discussion page but was not able to sign it by putting SwissLCD (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC) under my contribution. How come ? SwissLCD (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You sign your posts with ~~~~, so you don't have to type all that signature out. I checked the edit filter log, and it didn't show any filters that tripped on you. Could you link to the page in question? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackita

Thank you for fixing my mistake on Jackita. I was going to fix it, but you already did. Thanks again! MJ94 (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Sir, actually I need help, I put tag correctly by criteria but some admins like user:AllyD is confusing me about that, you can see that on my talk page, I put the nominating tag for deletion on those autobiographic articles which have not references but this admin stopping me. Can you help me, thanks.--—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIrst of all, AllyD isn't an admin. Second, instead of nominating unreferenced BLPs for deletion through AFD, you can use another process. See WP:BLPPROD. Go to the "PROD" option in Twinkle and select "BLP PROD". —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Need your help

The Bilawal Zardari Bhutto page is improperly titled. The correct title is Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. The page is move-protected. Could you move it? Reformation32 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been moved before. "17:50, 24 January 2010 WWGB (talk | contribs | block) m (0) (moved Bilawal Bhutto Zardari to Bilawal Zardari Bhutto: preferred name order according to http://www.ppp.org.pk/party/cec.html) (undo)" It would probably be best for you to follow the instructions at WP:RM and make an official move request. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gfoley4. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ryan Vesey contribs 15:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New bookstore infobox template suggestion

It would be a good idea for a new bookstore infobox template to be added to Wikipedia. There are a number of bookstore articles listed on Wikipedia and it seems fitting to have a bookstore infobox. Using a company infobox does not feel as accurate. A bookstore infobox would work better. Here are some of the bookstore Wikipedia articles this new infobox could be used for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Lights_Bookstore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_and_Company_(bookshop)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_Book_Mart

Thanks!216.3.118.200 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right changes

What was this about, it showed up on my watchlist "changed rights for User:PumpkinSky from account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed user, file mover, reviewer and rollbacker to account creator, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer and rollbacker (autoconfirmed)"? Just curious. PumpkinSky talk 01:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just removing the Comfirmed right that is unnecessary since you are WP:Autoconfirmed. It won't change anything you see/do. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OH, ok. PumpkinSky talk 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Some stroopwafels for you!

You asked, you got it! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only

Hi there FOLEY, VASCO here,

the last two IPs i reported (message with the same title, seen in this page still) still have not received their due, but that's cool, they have not acted since my report, but their actions were disruptive believe me.

Now, found this: in Nélson Oliveira, "user" up to no good, has even managed to move the footballer's talkpage to another one he insists in creating. Well, at least he's only focused (obssessed?) with only one article, but it's vandalism ONLY!

Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll monitor them, as always! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being friendly

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I know that working hard on Wikipedia can build up an appetite, so I thought I'd give you this cookie for strength. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about socks and blocks

Hello there. At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JimmyDarmodyRules‎ you blocked sockmaster JimmyDarmodyRules (talk · contribs) for 72h. There is a new IP editor who I believe is the same person and currently editing the Falling Skies page. Is this allowed or considered getting around a block? (see contributions of 89.204.188.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 89.204.194.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). IP has removed some sourced ratings information [1] just as sock Arrested Developer (talk · contribs) did here in a mass deletion (removing lots of other stuff, too). Sockmaster/socks were all deleting anything negative from the article, although now IP gives another reason. IP also removed redlinks [2], as did sock AllianceApprovedMagician (talk · contribs): [3]. Just wondering about this. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the latest ip for 72h; extended block on the 'master sock' to indef. I'll also put that page on my watchlist. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion rationales

Hi Gfoley, you have apparently sometimes speedily deleted article citing Not:essay as the reason; this is now being quoted as justification for using that as a valid speedy deletion rationale, which it is not. The discussion is taking place at User talk:SwisterTwister#Speedy deletion contested: Odorless colorless tasteless chemical poison in the worlds water supply. I have argued that in the two cited cases, there were actually other valid speedy deletion criteria, despite your citing not essay. Care to join the discussion? LadyofShalott 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Giants roster template protection

Now that the Beltran trade has been made official (the reason for the edit warring), could you please unprotect Template:San Francisco Giants roster so changes can be made? Much appreciated. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke talk page access of blocked IP

Already protected by administrator Floquenbeam. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you block the school account

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.45.119.15&redirect=no this is not fair to us.my name is ben.this is my family account.tell me the reason why the school account block? message me at my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzygs940 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you didn't make the bad edits, other people have persistently vandalized from this ip address. If this is your house ip, I'd advise asking other family members to stop vandalizing. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it not my house.it the school ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzygs940 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well the same reason applies. To edit, you'll have to stay logged in (as you are now) for the next sixth months at school. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you.we just trying to help the school being safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzygs940 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gfoley4. You have new messages at Manway's talk page.
Message added 05:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Manway 05:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA)

Thanks for your help with the Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA) page. It was my first experience with vandalism so I was at a loss of what to do.--Victar (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not vandalism. Please (re-)read WP:VAND#NOT. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not when you start deleting whole page sections? --Victar (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page says, "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense [is vandalism]." He did give a reason – valid in your mind or not. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 06:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but that man seems incapable of having a rational, constructive conversation. Absolutely irate. --Victar (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam IPs

This IP belongs to the range 125.115.0.0/16, which seems to be producing only spam and vandalism - purely disruptive. See almost no constructive edits, no danger of collateral damage.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly any activity coming from that range – so I'm declining to block. Furthermore, the user is spamming via a range too large to block. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to discuss "vandalism"

From an edit by User:Marinapeaches:

"In 2009, Newsome came under attack for the City of San Francisco's policy of illegally harboring juvenile criminal aliens. The city was circumventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement by harboring or sending the aliens back to their own native countries. [1]"

That's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, and NPOV is covered by the uw-vandalism user warning series. What am I missing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's in the uw- series, doesn't make it vandalism. NPOV is explained in WP:VAND#NOT. Please (re-)read that. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So even though Template:uw-npov4 states "the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice", the offender will in fact not be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he can still be blocked. Just not for vandalism. In this case, I decided to protect the article. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Request to tag protected article for deletion or merge

Hello. You put the protection on Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA) and I was called to discuss the edit war war there. After some attempt to find a reason for this article to exist on the talk page, there seems to be very little support. Everything published about the subject can better be handled in Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA). Or should this be called a merge proposal? Anyway, I can not tag the article, so I request that it be tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've Unprotected this article. Fell free to start a merge discusssion or AFD it. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)

  1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious you did not read the page involved.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I unprotected the page because 1) the edit war seems to have cooled-off 2) Users wanted to nominated the article for deletion. (see section above) It would be harder to do that while the editors that wanted the page deleted couldn't edit it. I will agree that those reasons above are credible, and you should follow the instructions at WP:AFD to try and get it deleted. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had you looked at the talk page, you would have been disabused of that notion.
I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:

Please show a reference to J1c3d or L147.1 in:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf This is about the parent clade, J1c3, J-P58, or the old J1e.
  2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1668/2703.full.pdf This does not even mention J1 and may be a reference to J2, given its own article references.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want from me. I've never stated that I want the article to stay – personally I don't care. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just before you froze it, I tried to delete the offending sections. Then I called for it to be deleted. You jumped to a conclusion without ever looking at the article. If you do not care enough to look at the issues, perhaps you should not have become involved.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I thank you for assuming good faith. :>
JohnLloydScarf, you edit-warred way past 3RR. I could have blocked you for a week! But instead, because you didn't receive a warning, I protected the article. This is a content dispute, which admins are not supposed to get into. Please go to WP:AFD and request deletion if you wish there. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the proposal now with the proper tag. After looking around I have done a similar thing at the related article Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA). Both these articles have very little written about them which can be handled separately or differently from what can be said about Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), and so that parent article should be where all attention moves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My focus now turned to the parent article Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), getting constructive editing amoungst interested parties is even more difficult there. The editors do not seem to be vandals, but they are edit warriors, and there is a lot of talk past each other going on. I continue to attempt to get things up to a better standard. But just as a single issue which does not make it easy, could you have a look at User:JohnLloydScharf's behavior with regards to whether it comes under WP:OUTING? See [4], [5]. It is maybe not a big thing yet, but the editor involved has expressed his confidence that this is ok and I think it would be good to get an outside opinion before it gets out of hand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Blocking that ip address

I've explained why the block is valid. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between my edit and page shown

Have worked as R&D engineer with LCDs for over 10 years. Did make major changes (improvements in my opinion) to the artcle on Liquid Crystal Displays a few days ago. However, these changes have not yet been incorporated in the text. They only show up when looking at its revision history. What is the procedure ? Is there a compulsory review by somebody knowledgeable ? Thanks for clarification. SwissLCD (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SwissLCD - I'm not Gfoley4, but I took a look at your edits on that article and the information you added is there in the article. For instance you added "Displays for a small number of individual digits and/or fixed symbols (as" with this edit and that particular text is in the article right now. I'm not sure why you're not seeing them... (By the way, there's not any compulsory reviews, Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone.) --Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change title of article

Could you please change the title of this article about a documentary to the full and correct title. The correct title of this article should be Citizen USA: A 50 State Road Trip.

Here is the link to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_USA

Thanks!216.3.118.200 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

What you did was an act of deliberate vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

Speedy deleting in the middle of debate? To prove a point? It utterly sickens me. You've totally abused the speedy rule, and have abused Wikipedia and it's supposed reliance on debate. For what? Why? Give me one reason? Outrageous. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't AFD an article linked from the Main Page. Drag it to WP:DRV if you feel so strongly about it. (I'm sure that the consensus will be the same there) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what if you are sure the consensus stays the same? I find it so annoying every time I hear an admin say that. You don't realise what it is like this side of the bit. Yes I do feel strongly about it, and I will drag it to WP:DRV (thank you) - with the same reasons I gave for the Afd. Wikipedia is almost unrecognisable compared to its original aims to me. Maybe it's me - maybe I've just misunderstood what it's supposed to be about all along. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested review of your '2011 London riots' keep decision

I've expanded my argument, and will also put a link from the discussion page of the main Wikipedia page (seeing as its presence there was the eventual reason for giving the keep decision).

Deletion review for 2011 London riots

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2011 London riots. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

I know it's been a while but do you think I'm ready or not yet? WayneSlam 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be ready by now, since it has been more than seven months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have it back! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

email

Hello, Gfoley4. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
replied. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblockable

I thought that any vandalism only account could be blocked despite not having several warnings. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're correct in that they don't need warnings (I mis-spoke) "On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." –WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings But, another reason to not block came to mind. Since both accounts you reported had not edited in about 30 minutes when I got to them, the block may be seen as punishment, which is not the design of blocks. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that they should be blocked, but I respect your opinion since you are an experienced admin. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac station

Please see the new article Pontiac Transportation Center (2011) and the old Pontiac, Michigan (Amtrak station) which has been converted into a redirect. Should the old one have been moved or are there two different structures? If there are two locations we should retain the old for historical resons. If there is just one, the title should just have been correctly moved. And why the disambiguation (2011). You know more about American railway station articles than I do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the old article was about a temporary station, being used while the transportation center was being built. I history-merged the old article to the Pontiac Transportation Center article, as it seems that some of the info was used from the old article. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I would never know that a temporary facility had ever been used. Is the address of the new facility the same as the temporary station? This just doesn't seem right. The article previously read as: "The station is located at a temporary facility near the site of the former Pontiac Transportation Center, which was demolished in 2008. The current station is located at 51000 Woodward Ave., Pontiac." Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's at the same address; of course you can add a paragraph about the former station. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...there was actually a reason why I created the page with the disambiguation...see Pontiac Transportation Center (1983). C628 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Move it back, by all means. I'd also advise a hatnote or something. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point of this action?

Hi, in your edit summary for recent edit / protect action you wrote, "slow-moving edit-war. Both sides please discuss on talk." I find this bizarre. Why would you write that and how does it help? Why didn't you undo the IP's edits but semi-protect the page, what do you think is the purpose of the block?

I have ALWAYS used the talk page, and have had an IP that wither writes single sentences and RVs or RVs without a response. What would you have me do? Is there an policy or essay on what to do in this situation when the other user is really not interested in talking and edit wars for months? What am I missing.

I was previously admonished on the account by Imzadi 1979 and he would provide no clear guidance either but was quite sure what I was doing was an edit war. Understand, I don't want to edit war, I want to talk to the other user, but when the don't talk I don't see what else the options are. Please, enlighten me. 018 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (edited (with strikeout): just noticed that you full protected the page. 018 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies gone wrong

Please follow this talk, which is about a set of speedies you are involved in. Meanwhile, it seems to have ended there already, so I might ask for deletion review. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:ISO 15924

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:ISO 15924. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Set of four). DePiep (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyrene script and Old South Arabian script

Hi, you deleted Palmyrene script and Old South Arabian script because of db-g5. That created red links. To solve that, I'd suggest you recreate those two pages, and copy the original content into them. That way no one has to repeat research into what was correct in the first place, and you even get the creation credits. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't just copy/paste deleted content into new articles. That would be a copyvio. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://articles.sfgate.com/keyword/sanctuary-city/featured/2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfoley4&oldid=445178054"