User talk:Gob Lofa
- 1 A page you started (The Front Man) has been reviewed!
- 2 Unblock request
- 3 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for May 2
- 5 The Americans
- 6 June 2016
- 7 Restrictions concerning editing about the Northern Ireland flag and other articles connected with The Troubles (in its widest sense)
- 8 Your behaviour
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for June 7
- 10 June 2016
- 11 Following Instructions
A page you started (The Front Man) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating The Front Man, Gob Lofa!
Wikipedia editor King Of The Wise just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Try expanding the article. Add some more sections, telling more about the book- its chapters and views, reception of the book, how bono reacted, sales information, development history or any such thing that you can.though not any unreferenced thing.
To reply, leave a comment on King Of The Wise's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Provisional IRA Derry Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterside (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.
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'd no idea that the definition of vandalism had broadened to include restoring the stable version of an article while a discussion continues. Gob Lofa (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is not what you did. You deleted an enormous amount of text with no discussion, given that others had been edit-warring, that does not justify it. What you did was likely to be disruptive, given the 1rr restrictions and sensitivity of the subject. So, don't come all innocent with me over that! You have a long block log for inappropriate actions, so take this as a serious warning. (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I did; users adding text during the discussion were warned that the stable version would be restored while the discussion continued. I have discussed my reasons for restoring the stable version, as have others. I'm going to allow you to come all innocent with me; it's obvious your familiarity with the previous discussion is at the same level as your ability to define vandalism. I'm bemused by your uneven approach; you haven't threatened any other editors, even those with a fondness for editing despite ongoing discussions. What gives? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh! I see. It is a standard warning, and you were disruptive. So, I withdraw the stanbdard word used and replace it with words to the effect that you were being disruptive, which you were, given the action you took after the delay of 16 days, and the lack of immediate discussion of a topic you knew was highly contentious. I do not withdraw that. (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I accept your withdrawal of your insult, but how can you characterise restoring the stable version while a discussion is ongoing as disruptive? That flies in the face of everything I've been told. The policy of restoring the stable version is designed to prevent edit wars; it's the opposite of disruptive. I don't know what you mean by 16 days; my edit before last was on the 31st. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Even innocent persistent questions can be disruptive. Of course, I suggest you I know that as well as I do. And the 16 days referred to your lack of discussion. I note you tried the edit on 31st which was partly what caused the article to be protected at that time, just as it has done now. That you remade the edit just now suggests you are as guilty as the others of edit-warring and playing the system to avoid the 1rr restriction still without discussing it. You mentioned BRD in your most recent edit to the page, which you did on 31st, so I see you broke the convention yourself, because you made no contribution to the talk page to discuss the matter in between then and your most currect edit. So let's just drop it and I urge you to discuss content on the talk page of the article, rather than persist in this unhelpful bickering. If you have solid cases to make, make them. Otherwise it really does seem like you are just being disruptive whilst trying to innocently appeal to a process, which in fact you have not abided to either (I mean BRD). Stop it now. (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your persistent attempts, which if I was less kind I might describe as unhelpful bickering, to characterise restoring the stable version as disruptive in order to save face are themselves disruptive. I'm under no obligation to continually remind edit-warriors that we have policies for content disputes. I saw no need to augment what Snowded and Asarlai were saying, which has been broadly similar to what I had already said myself. I'm not surprised you're urging me to drop it; you've dug a hole for yourself here. Clear off my talk page and get your facts straight before you come back. Now, please. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Restrictions concerning editing about the Northern Ireland flag and other articles connected with The Troubles (in its widest sense)
|This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. I am sending you this to help you stop yourself from breaking any restrictions imposed by the Arbitration committee for matters concerned with "The Troubles"
Please carefully read this information:uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Please be reminded that articles about the Northern Ireland flag come under WP:1RR. Try to work within the restrictions placed upon us all, and it is far better to work with others than work against them. I am trying to inform everyone who has contributed to the discussions or edited about the Northern Ireland flag. Also, be aware that behaviour wider than 1rr editing can result in discretionary sanctions. (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to remind me of that, and there was a week between my edits. You've informed no participant (bar me) in that discussion of anything, an unusual policy of yours. How does someone as ignorant of the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism as you end up being in a position to block anyone? Sanction thyself. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
1. If you read WP:PREFER you will see that I have complied with what is allowed in implementng a full protection. 2. I have warned all editors who have not already been warned by others and who I have seen be active recently in edit-warring about the Arbitration sanctions. This includes behaviour not just on Flag of Northern Ireland. If there are any I have omitted, please tell me, and, after checking, I will also warn them. 3. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. I am well aware of the matters you claim I am not, and your personal attacks upon me are becoming tedious. Stop it. 4. The above constitute sufficient responses to your accusations. The matter is now closed. (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Will you withdraw your personal attack on me above, and cease further disruptive behaviour on this page?
- Commenting on your behaviour as an administrator is not a personal attack. I am allowed to do that and what I have written is clearly justified. If you continue with these sophisms, I will block you. Now, stop it. (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, I never said it was vandalism. If you would like to point out exactly where I used the word "vandalism" to describe your edits, I would be grateful, otherwise, please withdraw the accusation. (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Boy Floyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegger (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.
- This morning, you wrote "I have an additional problem of having got into a wrangle with a rather persistent editor...I am now not convinced that I could be justifiable in wielding any future discretionary sanctions against this editor by virtue of my interactions with them making me involved. I would be grateful if some extra help could be given." Then, I admired the honourable way you refused to use administrator privileges in a personal dispute. You ought to have kept to that course of action. You introduced yourself on my page with an inaccurate insult and you've pretty much continued in that fashion. Your wounded pride is no justification for your action; I want you to unblock me and I respectfully suggest you then consider your position. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: intentionally or not, your last comment at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland gives the impression I deliberately flouted an instruction given me by an administrator who wrongly accused me of being a vandal. I didn't; Ddstretch instructed me to stay away from his talk page after I had instructed him similarly. Only one of us has defied that; the conversation you saw was copied and pasted. And there you go. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text