User talk:Imgoodcop

Welcome!
Hello, Imgoodcop, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Hacking in roblox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content protocols, and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * How to write a great article
 * The perfect article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Hacking in roblox


A tag has been placed on Draft:Hacking in roblox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Redwarn - A good tool.
Hello. I've noticed you patrolling the recent changes page. There are several tools that can help you revert vandalism on the Recent Changes page:
 * Twinkle
 * Huggle
 * RedWarn

All of these simplify the process of reverting vandalism and are easy to install. I suggest using RedWarn, as it is easy to use, and can revert vandalism with a sing-click. To install RedWarn simply do the following:


 * 1. Go to the non-existent page User:Imgoodcop/common.js


 * 2. Create the page and add the line  to the page

Once you do this, you should be able to use RedWarn. For further information please go to the RedWarn tool page. --Incagnito (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC) I’m sorry


 * Ah...Okay :) --Incagnito (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's fine. We all make mistakes. Also, please put your text at the bottom so it is easier to read. --Incagnito (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Hello. I'd like to intoduce you to a policy and a fundamental rule of wikipedia, which is AGF. AGF stands for Assume Good Faith, so please do that and not revert every edit you see. --Incagnito (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Ok

July 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Shelley High School. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AviationFreak 💬 03:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism
Hello, when undoing vandalism, please make sure you undo *all* a vandal's edits, preferably using one of the tools described above or the manual reverting procedure. You failed to do this at AISSMS College of Engineering. If you do not change your vandalism-reverting/warning procedure, you may be blocked, as your current one is doing more harm than good. Graham 87 05:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Over-zealous vandal fighter: need eyes on their edits. Graham 87 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Hi, first off thanks for your efforts in fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. We do appreciate the effort you're making. I think the main point being raised is that you should only be reverting edits that are clearly vandalism. On Wikipedia we always assume good faith, the fact is many new editors come in and insert good faith edits, like adding personal commentary or opinion that doesn't meet our editorial standards but because they aren't trying to hurt the project probably doesn't constitute vandalism. Please read WP:VD and make sure you understand it properly. The rollback or undo button can really turn off a new editor if they have good intentions but lack policy knowledge and care should be taken. Thanks again and reach out to me anytime for help. Cheers. Glen 15:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - I've come here for the same reason as . I think that he has outlined most of what I was going to say, but I'd like to emphasise the point that the only time when it's OK to revert an edit without leaving an explanatory edit summary is when the edit is sheer, unambiguous vandalism. I don't mean adding an unsourced assertion, or adding a citation to a source that you don't think is reliable - I mean adding something like 'This guy is a total asshole' to a BLP, or adding loads of random characters into a sentence making it unreadable. For anything else, use an edit summary to explain why you are reverting, so that the editor is able to address your concerns. Yes, that takes time and slows you down - but it's necessary. You also need to take the time to read the content you are changing before reverting it - in looking into your recent editing history, I've seen examples of you reverting the addition of an apparently reliable source to an article, reverting edits that had fixed a broken link, and even an instance of you reinstating obvious vandalism that someone else had removed. Slow down, be sure that your revert is going to be an improvement - if in doubt, don't revert. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  15:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello, I'm Politanvm. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to GoFundMe seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Politanvm talk 19:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)