User talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2012/May

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

 * —  Imzadi 1979  →   00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Twitter not reliable?
How come a comment on the official twitter of somebody doesn't count as a "reliable" source? I believe that's first hand source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artcuate (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:TWITTER #4. I believe this is a joke, and there is doubt in my mind of its authenticity. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Flushing and North Side Railroad
How did my article on the Flushing and North Side Railroad earn a C-class rating? I'm not complaining, not by a long shot. I just want to know what I did right. DanTD (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See here. In my opinion, the article you made is way better than a "start" class. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV
How can you simply clear the page without taking any action on these vandalism reports? That simply makes no sense. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 03:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I should have put a better edit summary. Anyways, IP #1 was not really vandalism and rather stale. IP #2 should be taken to WP:AN3 as it is edit warring, not vandalism/spamming. IP #3 should be taken to WP:ANI as it is again not vandalism. The account should have no action taken on it again as it is not vandalism and I'm not sure on the possible outing. Finally, the IP you reported did not, in my view, did not actually vandalize. It's not obvious that the IP was trying to harm Wikipedia. They should be cautioned to used edit summaries to explain their edits although. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can comment only on the IP I listed, who has repeatedly removed those, and other, templates from Willy Wonka-related articles, despite being asked numerous times not to do so, or to explain his reasons for doing so. He has failed on both counts.  The repeated deletion of legitimate templates, despite warnings, and in the absence of an explanation, seems like vandalism to me.  Perhaps you would have better luck convincing him? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the editing is disruptive – but I didn't view it as enough to block at that time. I will put the page on my watchlist and will certainly consider blocking the IP if they continue. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate that. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)