User talk:Gaelen S./Archive 1

RFA
Hi - please take a quick look at WP:GRFA and WP:NOTNOW. Despite your best intentions there is no way that the community can decide based on the limited data available. 7 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. While we welcome your offer, you need a fair number of contributions (at least 1000 edits usually) so there is something people can judge you by. This is nothing personal but you cannot judge someone after only 14 edits. Also, what you want to do does not require adminship at all, just do it. I suggest you withdraw your RFA as it's virtually impossible to succeed. You might also want to request an experienced editor to "adopt". If you need any help, you can also use help or ask at the help desk. Regards  So Why  08:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now closed your RFA under WP:NOTNOW since there was no evidence that it would be able to pass as successful. You are advised to read that page and take its advice to heart. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

YouR move of Spooks
It is the usual practice on Wikipedia to use the original name of a television programme as the page title. Your change was not only contrary to this principle, but not discussed by you first on the Talk page. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not alter the Spooks/MI-5 redirect page, as you did. Any further chnages of the type you have been doing will be treated as vandalism. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect that is the usual way of conducting edits and I have no qualms with you or others editing in that particular fashion. However, the show's title is also MI-5 which means it should be incorporated with the rest of the title. In any case, one of wikipedia's five pillars states that you should challenge the status quo[1]. However, I would like to thank you for voicing your opinion and I will put it up on the discussion page as per your recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs)


 * Please remember to put your answers below messages and to sign them using four tildes ( ~ ), otherwise they might look as if the other person wrote them. Regards  So Why  09:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaelen S., you are completely missing the point. There are many TV programmes, films, books, etc. that have aletrnative titles, but we simply do not include some/all of them in the page name as in a "Original/Something Else" format. The original title always has priority, no matter in how many other territories another may be used. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that what I am doing cannot be considered vandalism under wikipedia policy which states that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I will put it up for discussion and hope that you understand that all I am trying to do is improve upon wikipedia's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs)


 * No, it can't. But repeating the same change after someone voiced their disagreement can. And please sign your comments using the aforementioned four tildes ( ~ ), even on your own talk page. Regards  So Why  10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gaelen S., I noted that you previously tried to change every instance of "Spooks" in the the latter to "Spooks/MI-5" despite your changes being immediately reverted by other editors. Despite the latter, you then carried out a highly unusual and invalid page move. When I reverted it starting the reason why, you replaced the redirect on Spooks/MI-5 with the content from Spooks. Note once did you seek to discuss this issue on the relevent Talk page. Individually the edits you carried out may not be vandalism, but collectively - and in clear defiance of the reverts by other editors - they were heaidng in that direction. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Galen, I explained all this to you in shorter form when I (twice) reverted your additions of MI-5 to the title. The US and a one time Canada se that title, but that's not a valid reason to add them to the title.  The show, as produced in the UK, is called Spooks, and that' the title people will look for.  Adding MI-5 just creates unnecessary confusion, and that never improves the encyclopedia.  The introduction already addresses alternate names, and that is sufficient.  Drmargi (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from. All I really wanted was an explanation on your part. I will bring it up in the more conventional way. Thanks! Gaelen S. (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Tony Blair. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism, but could you be a bit more specific? What in particular do you believe is biased about my edit? Gaelen 00:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Wikipedia:Editor review/Gaelen S.. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Ipatrol (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

?
I'm just wondering, what are you trying to do with your Editor Review? Are you trying to get it speedy deleted or just change it? Cuz I can't figure it out.  Pop Music Buff talk  01:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what you are talking about. Could you clarify?
 * Gaelen 01:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well from the revision history you made the page, then blanked it, then it was tagged for speedy deletion, blanked again, then all the info was replaced, then tagged for speedy deletion again, then all the info was restored again. I'm just curious as to what you were trying to do, to help you if you needed any help.  Pop Music Buff talk  01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I was just having issues with sorting out the organization of my page. I have it all worked out now but thanks for noticing! Gaelen 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Vandalism is hard to by when casually making your way through the encyclopedia. However, recent changes (link also on the left under "interaction") offers the list of the most recent edits made to the project. Go there and you're bound to find vandalism to revert (by pressing "undo"). Then warn the user that made the edits with appropriate warnings. Do this for about 3 weeks then come back to request rollback again.  upstate NYer formerly wadester16 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the recent changes look for red numbers like (-1,006) or (-500). It means that the page may have been vandalized. Remember to read the Edit summary before reverting the page. Check out Help:Contents/Tracking changes and Vandalism and WP:ROLLBACK. -- David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 22:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Gaelen S., I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 02:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must ask that you use your rollback more carefully in the future. Reverts such as these, are not appropriate uses of rollback. Please use undo or TW for reverting edits that are not clearly unproductive. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is to inform you that you are a topic of discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback access has been removed due to misuse which continued despite warnings,, and failure to respond to them. Stop using Huggle and reply or you account will be blocked. Cenarium (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)