|
User talk:Gobbleswoggler/Archive 1
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 recreating deleted prodsYou 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 casperA 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 Man Utd stats updatesI 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' infoboxesYou 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)
Edit summaries
Greenock Morton F.C. upgradesKindly 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 againI 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 onlyPlease remember infoboxes are for domestic league games only, not for Cup games. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 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:
AwardsHi. 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 RFAHello, 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)
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)
Your talk page and the advice on itHi 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)
Editing of footballers profilesI'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 onlyPlease 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) AdminshipYou 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)
March 2010
Why the statementDon'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. TalkbackMessage 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 AdminshipYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Buggie111 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Barnstar...
TalkbackYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Re: barnstarErr, it's not really the done thing to ask for a barnstar... - Dudesleeper talk 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Soccerbase statsAll 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)
Fighting vandalismHi, 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)
TalkbackMessage 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 statsWhile 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 revertI 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 #4I'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)
Warning 74.131.77.112I 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 revertsNeither 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)
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)
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 STikiHey 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.
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)
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
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)
June 2010
help pleasehi 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) FYIYou 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 titleHi 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
"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 JourneysHi. 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) TalkbackYou 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:
--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:HuggleLooks 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)
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
