User talk:Gobbleswoggler/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gobbleswoggler. 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 |
|
Speedy deletion of Sister Mary
A tag has been placed on Sister Mary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ged UK (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
recreating deleted prods
You have the right to do so, but they are very likely to be deleted again unless you can answer the objections originally raised. For really minor characters in a show, consider making redirects instead, or inserting basic information into a list of characters. DGG (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Dan casper
A tag has been placed on Dan casper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Largo Plazo (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Man Utd stats updates
I have reverted your updates to the stats of Manchester United's players. The reason for this is because, if the match was abandoned right now, none of those stats would be accurate. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would wait until after the match before updating the stats. Thanks. – PeeJay 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Footballers' infoboxes
You may not know that the appearances in players' infoboxes should include league games only and substitute appearances as well as starts. Also, when you bring the appearances up to date, please would you do the same with the date against the paramater "pcupdate=". You can do this easily by typing ~~~~~ instead of what's already there. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop changing infobox appearances without changing the date at the same time, as you did with David Vaughan (footballer) and others. Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Greenock Morton F.C. upgrades
Kindly leave the stats updates to me to save confusion, as I have been doing it all season, and wrote the majority of the pages. Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries again
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Footballer infoboxes league games only
Please remember infoboxes are for domestic league games only, not for Cup games. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- STOP adding FA Cup appearances and goals to players' infoboxes. They aren't supposed to be included. Struway2 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please remember that only league apps and goals belong in players' infoboxes. --Jaellee (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Michael Ingham (footballer)
With regard to your edit at Michael Ingham (footballer), please note Soccerbase have (for some reason) missed out two Conference games this season. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
EDIT SUMMARIES
Hi Gobbleswoggler/Archive 1! Thanks for your recent contributions. However this is the third time you have been asked to complete the sumlmaries for your edits. When editing an article on Wikipedia you probably noticed there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written in the field will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. Further edits without summaries risk being reverted by Rollback. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
- Comment Please read and take the advice given above. It is good advice, it really helps everyone if you tell us what you did... -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Awards
Hi. On your user page, you state: I am currently aiming to get an award for contributions to football. Looking back over the various commentsc and warnings on your talk page, it looks more as if you are aiming at getting blocked for editing. Please take the well meant advice and requests made by other editors in good faith, and improve your adhereence to Wikipedia editing policy and guidelines. Who, knows? You may then get one of those coveted barnstars :) --Kudpung (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Your RFA
Hello, Gobbleswoggler, and thank you for submitting your RFA. Unfortunately, at this time, your request had little chance of succeeding, so I have closed it to avoid garnering more opposition. If you wish your request to run longer, of course I am perfectly happy to revert myself (or you may revert me yourself), but I urge you to edit more, become more involved in the project space, and consider another RFA in 4 to 6 months. Thank you for your contributions and enthusiasm! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, it looks like you tried to reopen your RfA, but did so incorrectly. Since I wasn't sure if that was your intention (reopening the RfA) I reverted your changes only since the it disrupted the page. I'd be happy to help you get the RfA reopened if you wish that, but it looks like what might be better is to focus on building some of the experience you need before trying again. May I suggest asking for an Editor review?--otherlleft 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I strongly recommend you stop creating RFA's. Not to be rude, but they basically have zero chance of passing, and repeated creations like this can be seen as disruptive. Please, go back to editing, its not gonna happen right now--Jac16888Talk 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, stop it--Jac16888Talk 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oi, stop trying to readd yourself and listen to me. Its not happening, you are not becoming an admin right now--Jac16888Talk 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously, stop it--Jac16888Talk 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I strongly recommend you stop creating RFA's. Not to be rude, but they basically have zero chance of passing, and repeated creations like this can be seen as disruptive. Please, go back to editing, its not gonna happen right now--Jac16888Talk 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted your recent attempts to add your second RfA. Please let it rest for a while; the first one was just withdrawn this week and a second one will fare no better. Frank | talk 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Listen to these guys, this will only end badly if you persist. We've just gotten through banning a user who repeatedly nominated themselves after having an RFA speedy-closed. It would be a shame if you followed them down that road. I'd suggest you read the comments left at your RFA and try to take them on board as constructive criticisms. Try to learn from what has transpired. You are a great contributor of content, you're just not ready to be an admin yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your talk page and the advice on it
Hi Gobbleswoggler! It has occured to me that you may not be aware of the existence of this talk page. Theoretically when you log on to Wikipedia there should be a yellow banner across the top of the page you enter, telling you that you have new messages. You should click the link to be sent here. However, as you are probably not reading this message either, I'm not sure what we can do to help you follow our advice. Perhaps a short edit block would help direct you to your talk page if nothing else works. --Kudpung (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I should be infinging, but I'm all for the block. Or may be, he just looks at out messages and says "Hah". "I will run for adminiship". Let's try not to turn this into a WGB fiasco. Buggie111 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gobbleswoggler. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILYsock(TALK) 22:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've left a note on that page, asking them to take a look at this talk page. Hopefully, Gobbleswoggler will read it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Editing of footballers profiles
I've noticed you've been editing a lot of footballers profiles. That's all well and good if you're doing it correctly. On numerous occasions, I say "numerous" but this is probably up to 100 now, you've edited footballers infoboxes without updating the 'pcupdate' section at the bottom. In addition to this, you've edited Steve Morison's profile on two occasions, yet you haven't edited anything. Whether you are attempting to boost your edit count in an attempt to request for adminship I don't know, but it is extremely frustrating. Moreover, the overall quality of your edits have been low. I use Glen Southam as an example. You edited his infobox, messed up the whole profile and then proceeded to just include the infobox and ignore the rest. Remember, it is about quality editing, not quantity. Please take note of this, thank you. -- Odulan (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
League stats only
Please ensure that footballers' infoboxes include league stats only, which I bring up after you updated Darren Bent with the stats for all competitions included. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Adminship
You really need to listen to me and stop trying to nominate yourself for adminship there is pretty much no chance it will happen right now, and every time you nominate yourself you make it less likely you ever will succeed with one--Jac16888Talk 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've just closed your RfA. Gobbles, please take the advice and wait at least another few/several months before opening another RFA again. Gaining experience needed for adminship takes time. JamieS93❤ 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but adminship is not something you can just get, you need to have many thousands of edits, a few years experience (at least one I'd say), and experience with resolving disputes, deletion (Speedy, Prods, XFD's), knowledge of policies and guidelines, maybe some discussion at ANI/AN, fighting vandalism and AIV, and general article writing, to name a few. You don't seem to realise that adminship here is not an achievement, its a job, and often an unpleasant one too. I would strongly advise you just to edit as you do, maybe expand your editing horizons out beyond stats, and just see how it goes. The only way to have a private conversation is to use the emailuser function on the toolbar on the left when you're on someones userpage--Jac16888Talk 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- This really is ridiculous. Your inability to learn from the lessons of your previous RFAs has insured that you will have no chance at passing for at least a year. You're not going to get adminship just by being persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but adminship is not something you can just get, you need to have many thousands of edits, a few years experience (at least one I'd say), and experience with resolving disputes, deletion (Speedy, Prods, XFD's), knowledge of policies and guidelines, maybe some discussion at ANI/AN, fighting vandalism and AIV, and general article writing, to name a few. You don't seem to realise that adminship here is not an achievement, its a job, and often an unpleasant one too. I would strongly advise you just to edit as you do, maybe expand your editing horizons out beyond stats, and just see how it goes. The only way to have a private conversation is to use the emailuser function on the toolbar on the left when you're on someones userpage--Jac16888Talk 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WP:RFA, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your persistent RfA spamming will not get you adminship. Instead, it might get you a block for disrputive editing. mono (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the statement
Don't want to but in, but what reasoning do you have for being offensive in |this section of a user's page? I can find many ways you could have talked to him a different way.
Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
James Meredith (footballer)
Just to let you know, Soccerbase have for some reason missed two Conference games out of their records and the correct stats for James Meredith (footballer) are 33 appearances; the appearances missed out are against Gateshead and Histon. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback at Gadget's page about Adminship
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Buggie111 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar...
|
The Resilient Barnstar | |
| For listening to the suggestions on your talk page and carrying them out nicely, I present you The Resilient Barnstar. Happy Editing! Buggie111 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: barnstar
Err, it's not really the done thing to ask for a barnstar... - Dudesleeper talk 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Soccerbase stats
All of the stats you have just updated are incorrect; as I've asked to you take on board before, Soccerbase have missed two Conference games out from this season and are therefore incorrect. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Adminship, don't think begging in the sandbox will work.
Gobbleswoggler, I saw your edit in the sandbox regarding nomination a day or two ago. I just want to tell you that that is not the way. The advice that I gave you on Gadget850's page (It's now in his archive) is the advice you should follow. Also, you should look at the contributions of User:BigDom. He's also a football lover and also apllied for adminship, but failed because of other reasons. Try to be like him, wait a couple of years and you might pass. Buggie111 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Gobbleswoggler, many of us have tried now to give you good advice on how you can best contribute to this encyclopedia - in fact it is the main theme on your talk page. the point is that your contributions must be accurate, and that you will probably not be ready for consideration as an admin for quite awhile. The worst thing is that after so many warnings you might get criticised or even blocked for disruptive editing and/or wasting other editors' time, and that would certain put paid to any future RfA fora very long time.--Kudpung (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Fighting vandalism
Hi, I don't want you to think I'm hounding you here, but as you've seen before , I'm trying to help you. So if you really want to help stop vandalism, try to make your own posts as accurate as possible, otherwise some editors might accuse you of disruptive editing, which is also a kind of vandalism.--Kudpung (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, for example, look at the message above entitled Soccerbase stats. I will be one of the first to say that your contributions have improved a lot, but if they are not accurate, it annoys people if they have to correct them for you and they might accuse you of vandalism. If you are not 100% sure of your facts before posting them, it's ok to leave them out.--Kudpung (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter what anyone else said - the thing that is important in an encyclopedia is accuracy. If we don't know something for certain, we leave it out. This is particularly important if one day you want to be an admin, because accuracy is what they will be looking for. And if you do become an admin, you will have to tell people off or not being accurate, so you need to be able to recognise the line between what we can have in the Wikipedia and what we can't. Admittedly, some people don't give two hoots for what they post, but they don't last long. --Kudpung (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kudpung (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Updating footballers stats
While I sympathise with the situation you describe on WT:FOOTY, this is only marginally less irritating, I would suggest, than updating the appearances of one member of a team, but not the whole team on the day. This is almost as likely to lead to duplication of appearances in the player's stats. Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There must be something wrong with your computer, because I can see the infobox just fine. It's been there the whole time. – PeeJay 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalisim revert
I see that you are reverting other user's vandalisim, nice job! I suggest taking a look at WP:TW. Also, remember to warn the user on their talkpage with warning provided at WP:VANDAL and report them to WP:AIV if the going gets tough. See you! Buggie111 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
RfA #4
I'm sorry to report that your RfA has been closed per the essays WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW. May I suggest you spend a considerable amount of time getting involved with the working of Wikipedia before requesting adminship again. Adminship isn't easy and it takes a considerable amount of community trust. Once you've earned a reputation for yourself and you've earned the community's trust and you have a need for the admin toolbox (and understand what's in it and what it does), then you might like to consider running again, but i would strongly recommend you leave it for a year or so and just focus on enjoying your editing. After all, you don;t get any special status for being an admin. Let me know if I can be of assistance in future, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Due to your unwillingness to heed the advice to hold off on nominating yourself, I have proposed that you be banned from nominating yourself again for a period of one year. The discussion is at WP:ANI, your input is welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, if you would agree to voluntarily restrict yourself from re-nominating for a year that would be fine too, and would reflect a lot better on you than a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is leaning in the direction of a topic ban, but there is no firm consensus yet. I would ask again if you would consider simply agreeing not to nominate yourself again for a year or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Warning 74.131.77.112
I had already warned 74.131.77.112 for vandalism at Fake, so I removed your level 2 warning. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism reverts
Neither of these edits is vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
How is Justass a constructive username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.212 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above IP is asking whether the username Justass is acceptable on Wikipedia or not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't you hate it when...
...you can't automatically revert vandalism? I know I do. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 18:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I probably should have been a little more specific. I use Twinkle. I meant when you end up changing the vandalism because it was contributed by two or more editors and you have to go back and restore the good revision, then warn the offending editors manually. ...that was a long sentence. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I don't think you're understanding me. Twinkle does that as well. However, I noticed that you recently used STiki and ended up changing the vandalism to a different version (i.e. still vandalism, but someone else's). That happens to me sometimes, too. I get a little irritated when that happens. Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 18:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Edit: I have to go through the history and click "restore this version" on the non-vandalised version when this happens, then look at the vandals and warn them manually.
Hi!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Greetings! I hope you're having a good day, and it keeps up! Cheers. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, this revert was not very wise. First, the removal of a PROD tag isn't vandalism and second because anybody (even an IP) can contest a proposed deletion by removing the tag and it should not then be restored. If you come across an article you believe should be deleted and there is a contested PROD in the history, you should take it to AfD. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Usage of STiki
Hey there Gobbleswoggler. I am the author of STiki, and my logs have shown you've been doing some excellent anti-vandalism work using my tool. Being that my tool is still in its infancy, I'd be interested to hear any feedback you have so that I can make improvements. I'm always trying to improve the hit-rate (how often vandalism is shown), but it seems much of it is being caught by quick-detection tools like Huggle, Cluebot, etc.. So aside from that, how about the user-interface, warn-functionality...? Again, thanks for your download and use. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- P.S. -- I note that you have received some warnings below about your reporting at AIV. I notice that you often report to AIV with Twinkle, in addition to the auto-reporting as part of STiki. I wanted to confirm that these instances were not STiki instances that were being commented on -- just to make sure there were no errors in the way my warning system is configured. Thanks, -AW
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vandalism?
This isn't exactly vandalism, you could say it's unsourced information on a BLP but not vandalism. Please take some care in what you're warning users for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinalRapture (talk • contribs)
- You seem to be getting a lot of messages along these lines the last few days. WP:VANDAL may be of some help, it defines vandalism as " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It's that intent to damage that differentiates vandalism from content disputes, POV pushing, and other types of problematic edits. To take the example of the edit linked above, if they had changed it to read "she is a long term relationship with the ass of the Loch Ness monster" that would be vandalism. Changing "long-term cohabiting relationship" to "married" is not something that seems to be have been done maliciously. Although not properly verified by sources, it is not vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
My edits to the Forts of Vincennes article were NOT vandalism! UI moved text from one section to the one above it because content-wise, it belonged there. The fort was not named Fort Patrick Henry until AFTER 1779 when GR Clark captured it. Before that it was a British fort named Fort Sackville. None of the actual text or citation was changed in that edit. All I did was move it, and I'm going to move it back. 159.218.3.246 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)70.239.95.56 using a different computer.
You're doing a good job
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| To Gobbleswoggler, for keeping me busy at AIV for the last half an hour or so. Your efforts are appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi there; thank you for your antivandal work. Could I, perhaps, bring to your attention the parameters to which we work at AIV? As you know, they are posted at the top of the page. The critical factors are recent activity and adequate warnings. We usually expect to see four warnings, although this can be less in the case of obscenity, legal threat, attack pages, etc. Saying that Dayton is a lovely city, as on of your warned IP editors posted, is not overtly harmful or vicious, though clearly POV and inappropriate. I see that you are using a programme to detect vandalism which I have not used. Does it allow you to inspect the edits it detects?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I declined a couple of your reports at WP:AIV, because the editor hadn't been sufficiently warned. I will block editors who haven't been given a final warning, but in these cases their recent edits didn't seem to warrant it. Vandal-fighting is a valuable and useful task, and I'd encourage you to stick at it (thanks for all your hard work!) However, do and try and monitor vandals once you've warned them - check and see what they edit next, whether it's also vandalism, etc. Report them to WP:AIV once you've given them a final warning. Once you've got the standard "vandal fighting approach" sorted out so you can do it easily, you'll find it easier to decide which vandals should be reported to WP:AIV even though they haven't received a final warning. Good luck, and thanks again! TFOWR 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! -FASTILY (TALK) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
help please
hi Gobbleswoggler! i am from hindi wikipedia and i am an admin there. i want to know how to introduce more tools in edit option, can you help me to tell about the file in which these codes are filled. like in mediawiki:edittools but in this only lower side tools are given.i watched you on recent change list and i hope you will surely help us--IMayBeWrong (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI
You might like to be a bit more careful with your AIV report rationales. For example, you just reported an IP as "vandalism after final warning", when the final was given over a month ago. I did block the IP because it's obvious there's nothing but vandalism coming from it and it looks static, but you should make that kind of thing clear in case the admin misses it. Keep up the good work and let me know if you need anything. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Spelling error in file title
Hi there, I see you've been correcting some spelling errors, which is great. Please be careful that you don't correct "errors" in file titles. Some files are named with spelling mistakes when they're uploaded, but if you correct the mistake in an article, it breaks the link to the image, leaving a nasty red link instead of a picture. Check this edit for example. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| Awarded for all your hard work correcting typos. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
"Typo"
Please make sure when you're correcting what looks like a spelling mistake in a URL that it doesn't break the link, as it did here. In this case, the spelling mistake has to stand. - Dudesleeper talk 10:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Great Railway Journeys
Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted your revert at Great Railway Journeys. The edit wasn't vandalism and was explained in the edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
hiya, go here and tell them you would like to access "Edit History stats" :) Sandman888 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
- Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
- Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
- Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
- Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
- Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
- You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
- You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page
- If you have any questions, please do let me know.
--There we go. :) Let em know if there's anything else I can do for you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
RE:Huggle
Looks like you've done it now. You can try and run Huggle again now, but before attempting to use it, please carefully read the user manual located at Wikipedia:Huggle/Manual. If huggle still won't run, delete it and then redownload it from here. Cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gobbleswoggler. 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 |