This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gfoley4. 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.
Rollback
Thank you for your offer of rollback rights. I would be glad to have them and will try to put them to good use. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
What?
That is quite possibly the most obvious vandal I've ever seen and the user needs to be stopped at once. Also, please be more careful not to confuse editors. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In response to your message here. As the article explains, Allders ceased trading in January 2013. If you follow the link, you will find that it leads only to a dummy placeholder page, containing nothing but further links to Facebook, Twitter and Youtube (all largely inactive accounts). I don't know whether this is hosted by someone with a genuine intention of reviving the brand, or represents something more sinister by somebody who has acquired the domain name – but either way, it has nothing to do with the company described in the article, and in its present form provides no information of any value to the reader. I think spam is precisely the right word. I am going to remove the link again, both from the infobox, and (now that you have kindly pointed it out) from the external links. GrindtXX (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
{{vandal|Tehminaaali}} – On User:Tehminaaali: account is being used only for promotional purposes. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:40 am, Today (UTC−7)
you wrote:
{{AIV|dc}} Certainly a weird edit, but nothing blockable yet. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 1:02 am, Today (UTC−7)
If I remember, the posting was a very typical spam, with an external link to a nutrition supplement site, a bunch of random words and phrases designed to pop up in unrelated searches, followed by the same link again. It seems like obvious promo-only activity to me to create an account and then immediately post something like that.
I only mention it because I'd rather not have to keep watch for them to do it again when they realize it's missing. It seems they almost always do if not blocked, whereas having to create a new account again (and any technical stumbling blocks in place) seems enough of a deterrent to prevent the bulk of them from trying again. Please reconsider and thanks for your time. —[AlanM1(talk)]—02:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone else has already blocked it. I really couldn't make heads or tails of that one edit, so I went with declined. I was not aware that's a common spambot "technique"; I will certainly be on the lookout for those. Thanks for the message. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 06:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm considering taking off your protection of WP:FFU even though it was truly being vandalized, because with the protection, we are defeating the purpose of WP:FFU. The files for uploads page is for unregistered or non-confirmed users to request that files be uploaded. With it protected, no one can request. When these editors try to upload through the file upload wizard it points them to this page. Do you have thoughts on this? I think I'd rather patrol the vandalism than prevent users from making requests. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I will consider protecting it again if the edit warring starts back up after protection expired. Pages are not normally protected re-emptily. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 17:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand your comment about pre-emptive safeguards. I have placed one edit to start repairing the numerous citation template requests which were placed throughout the article by one editor. The editor has had a history of returning to place the same citation template over and over again regardless of rewording efforts made to address the citation requests. Today, I am cautiously addressing only one citation template request from the long useful list of them identified by User:Pigman from last week to see what happens. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Update. I have just done the second repair to the deadlinks and dozens of citation template requests inserted by a previous user on the Wikipedia page and its Infobox. What I am finding is that the previous editor has deleted citation material from the text of the page, and then gone back and inserted the citation template requests after deleting the material containing the requested information. That previous editor has had virtually free access on the Page during the last several weeks, and it seems like at this rate of one repair per day it shall take several weeks to repair all the deadlinks and dozens of citation template requests which were inserted by that Editor in this way. If possible, please keep an eye out on the page since that previous editor has a history of doing this over and over. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, I will definitely keep an eye on it. Might have to even be semi-protected if this vandalism continues. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism by that user along with edit warring has returned by that User following full protection expiration yesterday. Requesting "Admin only" page protection for the page since that user is autoconfirmed. Two other editors have already requested a topic ban to be placed on that editor. This is the list of further deletions of cited material by that editor followed by the re-inserting of citation template requests to provide the deleted material after full page protection expired yesterday:
(cur | prev) 05:01, 14 August 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (215,454 bytes) (+12) . . (→Vandalism: avoid suggesting that a single major vandalism case has happened) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 04:08, 14 August 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (215,391 bytes) (+52) . . (→Community: Failed verification|reason=No mention of a study performed in 2012. request reference about 2010/2012 studies) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:52, 14 August 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (215,407 bytes) (-63) . . (→Community: request reference on "often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg"... whatever that means) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:40, 14 August 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (215,373 bytes) (+36) . . (→Automated editing: restore request reference about bots application for ban enforcement) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 02:35, 14 August 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (215,337 bytes) (+425) . . (Undid revision 619916164 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) Per Talk) (undo | thank)
All of the edits by that editor were done immediately after the full page protection expired yesterday continuing the edit warring by that editor and what you referred to as vandalism above. Requesting "Admin only" page protection for 14-21 as requested by 4 others on the RFC there. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gfoley4; After taking a week off, the tag bombing and deletion of material has restarted by that same user earlier today. Here is the edit history from earlier today:
Edit history of tagging and deletion for September
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(cur | prev) 00:59, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (213,045 bytes) (+65) . . (request to clarify lead's last sentence) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:56, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,980 bytes) (+35) . . (→Diversity: request clarification of about "the potential of existing editors to nominate more women administrators") (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:53, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,945 bytes) (+53) . . (→Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters: request reference on finances) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:48, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,892 bytes) (+27) . . (→Diversity: Wales agreed to what?) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:45, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,865 bytes) (+8) . . (→Coverage of topics and selection bias: request reference about number of locations covered) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:38, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,857 bytes) (+109) . . (lead: flag dubious figure on Britannica) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:36, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,748 bytes) (+195) . . (→Language editions: mark statistics on North America as failing verification) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:28, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,697 bytes) (-61) . . (→Community: remove explanation suggested for 60% account desertion, used trying to explain drop of active editros) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 00:18, 2 September 2014 Che... (talk | contribs) . . (212,758 bytes) (+60) . . (→Community: restore flag on vague parenthesis. flag sentence on "outsider"/"insider" terminology as failing verification and request proper reference) (undo | thank)
This is only for September and repeats the same pattern of deleting material over and over, and then marking it as missing with multiple citation templates with the apparent objective of delisting the page at all costs. Same pattern in July, same pattern in August (see previous message above), now same pattern in September. User:Mj and User:Forbidden have tried to keep up by fixing the tag saturation but this pattern is persistent. Were you aware it restarted a third time? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit request - Rangers FC
Hi. I noticed you have stopped anyone but administrators from editing the article for now. Could I request that you consider making the edit that I and two other editors have tried to make to the article but the change is constantly reverted by the same editor, Gefetane. I tried to amend the full name of Rangers FC to 'The Rangers Football Club' and quoted directlt from the club's own website to support this change, but this single editor refuses to accept this change - as I say two other editors reverted Gefetane's revert of my change but he just reverted them back as well. We can't have a few highly motivated editors deciding what is acceptable to be in article.
This is what I tried to replace 'Rangers Football Club' with in the infobox: The Rangers Football Club
Sorry, I didn't mean to undo your edit in such a way, it's just that I was already in the process of reverting, and we had an edit conflict. I hope you forgive me! --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You blocked Joseph Harn but have yet to block his other account, Electrified Pony. I posted at the latter to advise him on his future here. I will watch his contribs and block at the first whiff of NOTHEREness. But, feel free to block at once if you wish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe it went from Chicago into Indiana then branched off south to Danville, IL. After Danville it extended on to Cairo, IL but I believe that was an affaliate of the Big Four Railroad. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Anaheim (train station) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fettlemap (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I only place self-requested blocks on actual registered accounts. While I appreciate the effort to stop vandalism, the IP can be dealt with if/when it vandalizes. —GFOLEYFOUR!— 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
