User talk:Gobbleswoggler/Archive 2

Spelling errors
Hey there, nice to see that you've been doing great work here. If you make a spelling correction, it would be nice if you marked it as a minor edit, as spelling corrections are minor corrections. (See Help:Minor edit for more information.) Keep up the great work! — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
Ooh! Huggle is powwwerful stuff. Rather you than me (Can't  use it on  a Mac anyway). Good luck, and keep up the  good work.--Kudpung (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

O'Leary and O'Neill
Fixed the stats and added a note of explanation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thorne
Think you're missing out the 2009/10 apps on his Bradford profile. As I read it, he has 33 in 2007/8, 37 in 2008/9, and 7 in 2009/10. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it just looks to me as if nobody's got round to updating the stats since the end of October. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Oh, and using "cheers" is my TM. Don't steal my TM >:) Res Mar 03:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse
Hello Gobbleswoggler. In addition to your numerous posts at the help desk indicating a difficulty with understanding what constitutes vandalism, following your most recent post there, in which you used rollback coupled with a vandalism warning and then afterwards asked whether the edit was vandalism (which it was not), going back just a few days, I have found numerous inappropriate uses of rollback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. If you aren't sure an edit is vandalism, do not use rollback, nor warn as if it is. Instead, assume the edit is proper unless you know or take the time to find out differently. Note that there are many types of edits that are inappropriate but which are not vandalism. Ask yourself this question when you see an edit: Am I sure that the person's intent was to deface Wikipedia? Unless you can answer this as a "yes" without hesitation, don't treat the edit as vandalism. If you can't use rollback to only revert patent vandalism, you can't retain the privilege.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, excepting (perhaps) for the first, those edits are vandalism as well as BLP issues, deserve the rollback, not the undo. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverts 5 and 8 certainly don't appear to be vandalism, but the rest don't seem to be inappropriate uses of rollback. Gobbleswoggler, you might like to have a thorough read of WP:VAND so you're clear on what constitutes vandalism and thus what is an appropriate use of rollback. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't expecting to have this conversation with another admin. HJ: We are agreed that rollback is for patent vandalism, yes? These are not. I defy you to point out how any of those edits aren't possibly in good faith (except possibly for 3), much less that they fit the definition of patent vandalism. And Tbhotch: I wasn't fishing for another user who didn't understand when to use rollback but sometimes when you cast a line... I am putting you on notice as well. All of these edits of yours, just from today, are apparent inappropriate use of rollback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1.- Vandalism, improper, etc, etc, ect.

2.- If the user want to make a self revert he must do it complete. 3.- Spam 4.- Yeah -> This is soooo productive 5.- Did you checked this first?

If you have a problem with me and my reverts, say it on my face, you should see all the stuff, not only the selected edit. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 02:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing conversation in detail at Tbhotch's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most could be good faith, but looking at the contributions of those reverted and the article histories, my inclination to AGF is diminishes. For example, on number 2, the IP he reverted had done nothing but add nonsense (like X:DD) to the same article. Sometimes a check of the context reveals that what could be good faith at first glance probably isn't. That's not to say that Gobbleswoggler shouldn't be more careful with his use of rollback. As I say, Gobbleswoggler, make sure you read WP:VAND. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy A1
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I removed your CSD:A1 tag from E-An Zen, as you had tagged it just two minutes after its creation, and at Special:NewPages it asks us "please consider not tagging new articles for CSD:A1 and CSD:A3 within moments of creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". In this case, the article's author was indeed still in the process of writing it. Best regards, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Christophe Victor
Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that I've removed the speedy tag on Jean-Christophe Victor, partly because I thought it might be saveable, and partly because I felt that the content regarding him founding a think-tank, authoring a number of books, and being on French TV was probably a sufficient claim of notability to save it from A7. He has articles on the German and French Wikipedias, and even has an image on the Commons (which I've added to the article). However, I can't find any reliable sources for any of the stuff (the best is an interview in French here), so I'm gonna stick a BLP prod on it. I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Lear's Fool 10:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Lear's Fool 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

CHANDI KOT
I've taken your tag off, as the place does exist and really is near to Warburton, Punjab, Pakistan. (No, I didn't know that before, either...) I've tagged it unreferenced and might add an improvement needed or something when I remember what they are. Peridon (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it to Kot Chandi, which seems to be the proper name. katherine_a (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Beccarelli
I've changed your tag there to spam. It's fairly obviously not a test, and when you read it it's full of I, I, I. Self-promotional - possibly not yet complete, though. Be careful which tags you use - an article that ought to go may survive through an admin declining deletion because the tag was inappropriate. Peridon (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ISIS Papyrus
I have removed your A7 CSD tag from ISIS Papyrus. The article needs help - no question about it - but there is certainly assertion of notability. Frank |  talk  11:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - I see there was only an infobox when you tagged it. That is slightly more understandable, but still - as you've been requested above, perhaps slowing down on CSD tagging would be helpful to the project. Frank  |  talk  11:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OPAR L'Orientale Open Archive
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of OPAR L'Orientale Open Archive, as I feel there is some claim of significance. You are welcome to go to WP:PROD or WP:AfD, however. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Embassy of the Republic of Kosovo in Washington, DC
Hi, I noticed you tagged Embassy of the Republic of Kosovo in Washington, DC for speedy deletion per G11. I removed the speedy tag and redirected the page to List of diplomatic missions of Kosovo based on where I've seen articles on other embassies redirected to. If you disagree please feel free to tag it for R3 or list at RfD. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Buttergate
Hi, I removed your db-test tag from the above article, as it was clearly a purposeful attempt to create an article. I have, however, PRODded the article as a non-notable neologism. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point from the standpoint of this article now that it's been deleted as G1, but per WP:CONTESTED if a prod tag is removed from an article, even if by the article creator and even if in bad faith, it should not be replaced. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined WP:CSD nomination of A.M.S.D. OM 50 NEMESIS
You nominated this article as lacking sufficient context to identify the subject. At the time you nominated this article it read "The OM 50 NEMESIS is a swiss bolt action sniper rifle. It was created in early 21st century. It fires the .50 BMG bullet." That sentence very clearly establishes what the subject of the article is, please be more careful with future taggings. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Maritime safety information
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've removed your CSD:A7 tag from the article Maritime safety information, as the article does not appear to be about a "person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". (I suspect there may be somewhere it could be redirected to, but I don't know where). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Center for Chicano-Boricua Studies
Hi. I've removed your CSD:A7 tag from Center for Chicano-Boricua Studies. Although it does need sources to attest to notability, and needs some rewording, it does at least seem to make a claim of importance, which is all that's needed to avoid A7. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anthony Furlong
Hello Gobbleswoggler, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Anthony Furlong, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''That he has won worldwide competitions and consistently been in the top 10 is a credible assertion of a notability, even if insufficient to pass WP:N. Please take it to AFD for consideration.''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of Sorj Chalandon
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Sorj Chalandon. I do not think that Sorj Chalandon fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because he appears to have won the Prix Médicis. I request that you consider not re-tagging Sorj Chalandon for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with prod or nominate it at WP:AFD. Favonian (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Parsun Marine
Hello VernoWhitney, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Parsun Marine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD of Liban Kulan
I have removed the G4 csd tag you applied to Liban Kulan and replaced it with an A7. The article has not previously been the subject of a deletion discussion, so G4 is not appropriate: it doesn't apply to articles that have been speedily deleted (as I discovered when I made the same mistake). regards Jimmy Pitt   talk  15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohsen Sharifian
Another one! Mohsen Sharifian makes credible claims of importance, so A7 isn't applicable. I've PROD'd it for lack of references, though I also have doubts about its notability. Jimmy Pitt  talk  15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Chak No 18
I've removed your CSD:G1 tag from Chak No 18, as the article is clearly written in English, and therefore not "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Please note that the G1 description clearly states "This does not include poor writing". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nokia 7230
I see you added a PROD to the article Nokia 7230 with the reason "Not set out very well". "Not set out very well" is NOT a valid reason to delete an article! I really think you should pay some attention to the suggestions you have been receiving, and go clue yourself up about CSD, PROD and AfD, as you are causing a lot of work for people having to clean up after you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mont Gosford
For CSD:A2 you need to show evidence that the article exists in another Wikipedia - A2 is not just for articles created in foreign languages. I have removed the tag. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've translated it via Google Translate, which is all it needed (and it seems quite accurate, seeing the article was so short). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stolpalicious
Another CSD removed - whatever Stolpalicious is, it's clearly not advertising anything! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving?
How would you like to archive your talk page? Take a look at mine. I archived by year. Some people do it monthly. I just don't get enough messages to justify it though. sohmc (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI Notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - see Ani Exxolon (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

CSD Tagging Concerns
As you can see above, there are a number of concerns over your tagging of newly created articles. It's true that plenty of them are correct - I've deleted a number of them myself - but the incorrect tags are causing quite a bit of extra work for other editors. Would you consider stepping back from CSD tagging for a while and observing others' tags to get a better idea of community standards? I think that could be helpful to your own efforts and the goals of the project as a whole. (By "observing" I mean watching the tags others put, and then paying attention to the results of those tags, because it's not sufficient to just look at what others do if they are making mistakes too.) Frank  |  talk  15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Seven more declined since I last stopped by here yesterday. That is alarming. I wonder if you have ever considered finding a mentor. The adopt a user program has a rather long list of users willing to mentor more inexperienced users, I think you should consider finding an adopter to help guide you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette
It is usual for editors to reply to messages in the same place the message was left. You have many messages (and some longer threads) on this page left by other users that you have not responded to here on this page. I do know you've replied somewhat in other places, but people coming to your talk page don't know that. What it looks like here is that a whole bunch of people are talking to you and you're not listening. That's one of the reasons the AN/I thread mentioned above was created. Indeed, when I made an attempt to contact you above, all you did in response was come to my talk page and ask about age limits for editing. But you didn't answer my request above. As you proceed through adoption (and we all wish you well in that endeavor), please pay attention to some of the boring stuff too, like how to participate in conversations with other people in ways that are efficient online. Thanks, and please let me know (right here) if you have any questions or comments. Frank |  talk  17:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RFPP
Regarding your request for page protection of this page, I already declined it, but I'm wondering where you see an attack on this page? If there's a legitimate problem, let's deal with that. Frank |  talk  19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi Gobbleswoggler, I thought we had agreed that you'd stop tagging articles for speedy deletion for a short time, discussing how you would tag them on a subpage; and yet you tagged Hoerbiger uk limited, Choppa Trigga Pullaz, Huffman & huffman, YsDesign and Connor Galbraith and you asked Frank if he adopts users. So let me be a little direct: are you really interested in having me as your adopter? Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes,i was just looking for a back-up incase you leave wikipedia or stop adopting.I am still tagging pages that i am definitely sure on and if i'm not sure on one i'm just going to leave it.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're still getting them wrong! I've just removed your speedy tag from IWE Night of Champions, because you had tagged it as CSD:G3, a blatant hoax. For a G3, it must be clear to anyone, even a non-expert, that the article is a deliberate hoax and not just inaccurate. You really need to stop tagging altogether, as Salvio has suggested, and not start again until you have taken up the very kind offer of mentorship and have learned how to understand the categories properly. (And really, you shouldn't be looking for backup mentors while you already have a kind and capable one - should Salvio unexpectedly leave Wikipedia, or decide do dump you, you can look for someone else then). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And I've also removed your G2 tag from Bharata Muni, author of the work Natya Shastra, because it's not obviously a test page. I've re-tagged it A7, as it appears to be about a person, but no importance is claimed (and I think it could arguably have been an A1, insufficient context). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)