User talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2011/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hai again.

Watch [1].--iGeMiNix 23:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a pretty obvious sockpuppet of "NYCSlover". They have already stated that they like Mafia II and the NYCS.... sigh... —GFOLEY FOOL— 00:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Lol at least you have the mop now.--iGeMiNix 03:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Help on the M train page

The IP thats edit warring on the M page continue to accept the users' advice. Can you please request protection on the M train page infendity? 24DeathRow173 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Is there any chance that you are "NYCSlove" and the "24..." ip? There is already enough evidence to block you right now, based on contributions. —GFOLEY FOOL— 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have cited my case which I believe has quite solid footing in wikipedia rules. I have cited numerous sources which clearly state that the statement is false. I have not found ANY sources in support of the statement mentioned, and as no citations have appeared on the statment, I have therefore challenged the statement, and have removed it as it is not cited and clearly incorrect. 98.14.158.206 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Request forr voting by the community

I would like request your opinion here. Thanks and cheers. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 00:45, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 1 tidying

Hi Gfoley4. I notice you deleted this page as a talk page of a deleted page, but actually the parent page was moved here, so maybe the talk page should go here instead? Or not, it's not particularly urgent to keep it around. :) 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I thought I responded to this thread already... =P Well, I redirected it to the main page, not the talk page since pages cannot redirect to redlinks, Let me know if I can be of further assistance. —GFOLEY FOLEY— 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Gfoley4. I was actually requesting undeleting the talk page (deleted here) and moving it here (sorry I was unclear on that), but it's not a big deal either way. 28bytes (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh! I got it now.  Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What was that

? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to hit the "Change code to wikimarkup" button in my preferences so it made it a little "funky". —GFOLEY FOUR— 06:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Message

I'm trying to figure out what he/she is trying to do here, because so far, they've uploaded a bunch of non-free feces. I'm trying to figure out what they want to do, and point them in the right direction. It annoys the hell out of me when new editors get warnings about the same exact thing, but they don't ask questions/learn from mistakes/find out policy. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Your message just was a bit vague. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Block of Piski125

I noticed you blocked User:Piski125 indefinitely for vandalism. This user hasn't contributed anything of a positive nature, but there are only 4 edits in the last 3 months and none since 2008 before that. I don't see anything to earn such a drastic block. What am I missing? Jojalozzo 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Usually even if an account doesn't produce any good edits in a recent time in the recent few months, it is enough to warrant a block as it is assumed that he will not contribute is a good manner.--iGeMiNix 15:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. I'm not an administrator but have seen a lot of blocks and this is the first I have heard or seen a policy that blocks someone indefinitely because an administrator decides they will not contribute in a good manner. Please point me to the policy pages that describe this. Thanks.
  2. Why are you and not Gfoley4 responding to my question?
Jojalozzo 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Indefinite blocks are pretty common IMHO for vandalism-only accounts. An indefinite block doesn't mean someone is permanently banned from the community; it just means the user is receiving a "time out" until discussion takes place and he/she requests to be unblocked. See WP:TIMEOUT. I'm sure that if User:Piski125 made a sincere unblock request and stated a desire to contribute productively, the block would be lifted. A lot of admins would probably have gone for a shorter block here and saved the indef. block for a second blocking, but I don't think it was way over the line. As far as why other people are responding, see WP:TPS. I'm sure Gfoley4 will respond when he gets a chance. Zachlipton (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
An indef block is completely appropriate for vandalism-only accounts. The purpose of a block is to prevent damage/disruption to Wikipedia; if an editor has only used their account for vandalism in the past, then an indefinite block stops that behaviour from recurring. A short block on an account that only vandalizes haphazardly is pointless. If User:Piski125 has a change of heart and decides that they would like to contribute positively they can request an unblock as directed on their talk page. WP:INDEF has additional information as does WP:VOA. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, I apologize for not getting to this sooner—you caught me right as I was going to sleep and I didn't have time to respond.

As well as making some other "questionable" edits, Piski125 obviously participated in a 4chan /b/ raid. (If you're not familiar with these threads, someone whose post ends with a certain number gets to decide on which article they "raid") In this case the article they were raiding was Win. Even the edit obviously shows that they are a part of it! Normally we block accounts that participate in these raids indefinitely, and IPs editors 31 hours. There have been cases that I've seen where an account was making good edits until they participated in a raid and then.... BAM, they are blocked indef. As always, I will consider lifting the block only if the user posts an {{unblock}} request. Cheers. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that's a reason. Organized vandalism is a level of abuse that I hadn't been aware of (other than some reddit-based activity in List of animals by number of neurons) but now I'll be on the lookout. Jojalozzo 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol

C'mon guys, let's be WP:CIVIL; you know the rules. Feel free to e-mail anytime. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Lol, at the guy above, he is one of the reason why I quit this place, been here for 3 years, yet he doesn't even know the policy and then doesn't appreciate when others help. Heh, fuck the wiki community.--iGeMiNix 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Huggle

Have I gotten closer to get my Huggle privileges back? WayneSlam 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have gotten closer to getting your Huggle privileges back. I think you have done a good job so far but I would strongly suggest waiting a month or two, so you don't seem over eager. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not, I'm just asking. Will you let me know at that time when I'm ready? WayneSlam 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As a wise HJ Mitchell once said, "you'll know when you're ready." Paraphrased, since I can't seem to find the direct quote. :/ —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. WayneSlam 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Edit semi-protected

Thanks for catching my template goof on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Only a simple mistake. :) —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge

Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question..

If you don't mind sharing...how did you do this?. Thanks -- Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it was mostly code inside HTML comments like <!-- & --> All the code in between is "jumble"-- it doesn't mean anything. The only thing making the text appear is a subtle {{/}} outside of the --> that transcluded everything on User:Gfoley4/. Hope this helps. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked everywhere and couldn't find the sub. Thanks -- Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a bit hidden. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I figured it out because WikEd highlights syntax (comments are orange), giving me an unfair advantage! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


user blocking

can this user named "Vijaya Homes" be blocked. the person has done repeated vandalism to a single page for commercial gains. The person(rather foolishly) has used his own companies name as the user name which speaks all. It is a real estate company situated in the city Jamshedpur. The person has blatantly posted the names apartments in his recent edits. Further i see no signs of improvement as the account was made for this very purpose. Hence he should be banned permanently.

some links http://www.vijayahome.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vijaya_Homes&action=edit&redlink=1

Thank you -- devx101 [TALK] 10:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. There is a noticeboard for these kinds of things, you may want to report there next time. Also, please note that there is a difference between a ban and block. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User:FibrebondCorp‎

Could you please delete User:FibrebondCorp‎. I just saw that User:Salvio giuliano deleted it but i missed the red box because i was editing the page before he did that. I feel so embarrassed. Cheers. Jessy (talk) (contribs) • 22:51, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

and goodbye! :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I see you're in this cool category, could you remove my rollback rights and indefblock me? I would appreciate it. Thanks again for everything. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry to see you go. :( —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

You're right, it looks like the move was more contentious in the past; I've re-protected the page to allow debate to continue.

By the way, why did you IAR delete Seriouser? It seemed a pretty clear hoax to me. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah... The page looks a bit more "hoaxer" now that I look at it—with the random names and all. My mistake. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove your page protection on the World Wrestling Entertainment Page

Your protection is blocking the page where we can not move it to the official name which is WWE you can also check here for people who supported the moveTalk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment#Requested_move Zanwifi (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves should go on for 7 days. You may wish to see #Page protection section on here and here. As of right now it appears that the move will go through, but you can never know... —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Iamsittingonurabdomin

I'm a bit curious as to why you did this. I deleted their second nonsense page and warned them not to do it again. Some two hours later you blocked them. I don't see any intervening edits of any kind. The pages they created were stupid and obviously inappropriate but they stopped doing it after being warned. I also don't see the username violation you hinted at in the block log. I'd like to know what part of the username policy you believe it violates. I would parse that out as "I am sitting on your abdomen." Silly, but we have plenty of silly usernames. Finally, the template you left them says they are temporarily blocked but the log indicates you indefinitely blocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Bad block, I admit it. Unblocked. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Phew. I don't recall interacting with you before and one never knows how an admin is going to react to a message like that. Credit to you for acknowledging and correcting an error. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:24.188.200.219

Don't forget to put the block template on the user's tp - I was also about to block this user and wouldn't have known if I hadn't checked their block log first. It also gives them the possibility of responding to the block. That said, if they make any more silly comments on their tp, you may wish to consider escalating the block to include the tp. Gosh, we new admins have a lot to learn don't we ;) Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I actually did put the block template on there but it was removed by the ip. =P [2] I re-blocked with talk page access disabled, too. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Awww, that burns. I'm not even going to teach you the secret admin cabal handshake now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Dang it! =P —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts at User talk:Tbhotch

Hi. It looks as if Special:Contributions/80.109.114.160 is a sock of Special:Contributions/69.207.4.244. Can you block? Jsayre64 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete

That IP you blocked made a revdelete-worthy edit on my talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

done. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
? (@ your edit summary for this reply)Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I was saying how I'd prefer to handle these requests over e-mail instead of on a talk page so as not to deny attention\. —GFOLEY FOUR— 12:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. Baseball Watcher 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Check your mail.

^x2--iGeMiNix 02:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin

Sorry about that, I put that admin tag by mistake; Come to mention it- How do you become an Administrator/Moderator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldblooded (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thank you for your eagerness to help, but it would not be a good idea for you to try to become an administrator since you only have around 70 edits. Most admins have at least several months of solid editing and at least 4000 edits before becoming administrators. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well i was asking him and apologising becasue i acciddently put an administrator tag, And be fair im usually reasonably busy and ive only been on here since January so 70 edits is very good, and most of them werent just correcting spelling mistakes, Ive added certain things and sections and so on. But anywho thank you.

Goldblooded (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gfoley4. You have new messages at Crazymonkey1123's talk page.
Message added 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Block

Hi there FOLEY, VASCO (217.129.65.5 IP) from Portugal here,

yes i have merited this for a longtime, due to my summary behaviour. I have a bipolar disorder which makes it very hard to control myself when faced with: 1 - vandalism; 2 - unexplained removal of content.

Keep up the good work (if you want me blocked, letting vandals do their deed, by all means), have a nice weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear GFoley4:
I'm Cliff, a/k/a User:Uploadvirus, and FYI ... I was the editor that made the (most) recent complaint, via User:Chzz, about the above-named editor/I.P that you issued the 24-hour block for. I came here to notify you that, after I posted a note to HIS talk page complaining about his long-term pattern of repeated disruptive edits and edit summaries, he IMMEDIATELY posted me a very civil, contrite, and positive note in response at my talk page.
I accepted his apology in good faith, and was satisfied and somewhat hopeful of a positive outcome. I also let User:Chzz know of his nice response to my concerns. When I saw that it was you that had actually imposed the sanction, I wanted to thank you for what I feel was your very swift, just, and equitable actions herein.
All that said, I was QUITE disappointed by his parenthetical remark to you above, "if you want me blocked, letting vandals do their deed, by all means". I'm NOT convinced of the contriteness, appropriate, or intelligence of that. Quite a SHAME! In any case, and again - thank you for that extra work. Let me know if I can be of service to you.
Best regards:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Back from the dead Cliff...My suspension is over, i have returned, will try to amend my ways even harder this time...

i hope you are not as offended as User:Uploadvirus by some of the contents in my original message to you (the stuff in parenthesis), there i was merely venting my frustration on being (rightfully) blocked, which did not allow for my fight against vandalism (can't do much blocked, can i?). I have had people come to my page and call me every name in the book, just for reporting their vandalic ways, one "chap" was on my case for almost one year, reverting my daily edits and so...I was in no way offensive to you.

That said (and i have also messaged Chzz and Virus with this note), sorry for any incovenience and keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Alright. I hope you don't get frustrated again! :)

    PS, I wasn't really offended by the comments made in parenthesis that you'd made. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhhhh

Hey, Gfoley, how's it going? Could I trouble you to explain this? Swarm X 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Right to vanish. He requested via IRC... —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As I assumed, but why'd you remove it five minutes later? This is all just out of curiosity, BTW :) Swarm X 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus (on IRC) was against the personal note. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? Good god. Swarm X 01:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gfoley4. You have new messages at Rsteilberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Changed signature

 Done; Thanks for the help changing the signature. —Rsteilberg talk 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to help. —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yshes

Why did you remove their death threats without blocking them??? LiteralKa (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Block of 74.110.161.90

Thank you for blocking 74.110.161.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Whoever is using this IP address is basically harassing users by vandalizing our user and talk pages. He vandalized my user and talk page last month and came back today. It would be best to keep an eye on this IP so that once his block expires next month, you could immediately block him for longer periods (like 3-6 months) if he comes back to do same vandalism. Thank you again for blocking that vandal IP! November Hotel Romeo Hotel Sierra Two Zero One Zero ✈ 03:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have their talk page on my watchlist... we'll see in a month. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:213.94.181.85

Why did you send me warning, I have not edited any pages today. Please tell me what i am supposed to have vandalized. 213.94.181.85 (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandal at large!

Hi there FOLEY, VASCO here,

It may be not easily noticeable by the person not familiar with soccer, but this Norwegian "user" (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.88.13.239) is engaging in vandalism. In infoboxes, he removes chunks of content without one word, he has already been warned in this new IP (he has had others, User:NuclearWarfare, no longer an admin, helped me deal with one of them), what can you do about it? This is vandalism, believe me...

Attentively, thank you very much in advance (i have already reverted some of his stuff), from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Warned user.. I am declining to block for now since they have not been very active lately. (Only 1 edit a day ago, a few edits 3 days after that) I do agree that this behavior is disruptive though. Please re-report if/when they make more "bad" edits.
P.S. NuclearWarfare is an admin. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the on-sight reply man! Oops, my bad, last time i checked he was not, he must have been "re-promoted", kudos to him! :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Attentively again - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Yep. Again, I cannot block as there last edit was in February. I'll keep an eye on them though. Thanks for brining this to my attention. —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Bad Girls Club (season 7)

Hey, I've asked a question, but it is hidden inside of your box that you had created. Any way of exposing my question for it to be answered? AJona1992 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Looks like a wikitable got in the way. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, have a great day! AJona1992 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

hello

Nice Page I Like All The Details StickyNicky911 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Page blanking

If a user blanks a page, could I rollback it? WayneSlam 21:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in WP:VANDTYPES yes, but I think you would also benefit with leaving an edit summary for these. You may want to use Twinkle or a script like User:Porchcrop/rollback.js (which I use) that allows you to enter an edit summary while still reverting it. See User:Porchcrop/Rollback Summary for how to install it. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I installed it, so what's next? WayneSlam 23:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So if you see unexplained removal of sourced content, click the "sum" button on the [rollback | sum] and at the end put "unexplained removal of content". —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I only see rollback. I don't see sum. However when I click rollback, a couple of times, something popped up before the revert was made. WayneSlam 00:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
You put the wrong one... no big deal. Replace the current one with importScript('User:Porchcrop/rollback.js'); —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Nothing still. The first one of the two was importScript('User:Porchcrop/rollbackSum.js');. Never mind, it works now. WayneSlam 00:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi there FOLEY, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you,

you might want to keep an eye on this standard (luckily) IP (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/182.173.73.135): lots of content blanking and/or vandalism, probably up to no good. Has been warned numerous times, apparently says "talk to the hand"...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, I'll put that ip talk page on my watchlist and look out for any other vandalism from them. :-) —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism and problem with user undoing reliable sources

This user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cresix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.196.37.227

Is undoing reliable sources (The New York Times) I added that mention the subject in the article, Tim Wise, by name.

And they are sending messages accusing me of vandalism. I'm not vandalising, adding New York Times references in attempt to IMPROVE an article is not vandalising. This user is under the delusion they are an editor. If you could please look into this so this person doesn't take it upon themselves to undo reliable sources, all I wanted to do was IMPROVE the article and add more reliable sources.12.196.37.227 (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

These edits are a combination of good and bad edits. Sorry if I reacted hastily. Cresix (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes Cresix, you did act a bit hastily. Please try to take the time to look through the whole edit and assume that 12.196 is at least trying to help reference the article. Another mistake was that you left him/her with a templated message (See WP:DTTR) A quick look (I know it takes longer for Ips) would see that 12.196 is a long time contributor. A better note would be a "personal one" explaining why you though the edit was wrong.

@12.196 You may find the templates {{cite news}} and/or {{cite web}} handy. They are an easy way to put the author, date of publication, accessdate, etc. on citations. See ya both around. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi there G, VASCO here,

could you, if please, protect (semi or full) Vieirinha's page? Vandalism afoot (and it's not the first time!), with people saying he is a Portuguese international when he's not, other times inflating some of his stats. An anon "user" really went the distance, with 20 or so edits, and here he's caught "wiki-lying" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vieirinha&diff=next&oldid=422934735). Last time i checked, conveying false info in an article IS vandalism.

Attentively, thank you very much for whatever you can provide - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While these edits are borderline and most are BLP violations (especially in the diff you linked), I am declining to protect it. This is because of one reason: The page hasn't been edited much. There were a few edits from April 7, then a few from mid-March. (To put a RFPP template, I would use Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.) I also added a {{refimproveBLP}} tag to it. explaining the BLP policy in short. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media

Note that File:Belenlogo.png has been tagged for deletion as an orphaned non-free media, and will be deleted if this situation remains in seven days. Thanks. Courcelles 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Added back, it looks like an ip removed it without an edit summary. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Status Removed

Hello, Gfoley4. Since you're an admin and all, do you happen to know why the featured status was removed from the article "Lego"? I would like to know so that I may fix it.JoshE3 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Check out the header on Talk:Lego. It has a section called "Article Milestones", which includes links to the discussions when the article was originally promoted to FA and the later section when it was reviewed. The removal actually happened quite a while ago, Aug 7, 2006. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NewSubwayLove sock IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.194.237.169

They are currently banned for 31 hours. I highly suspect that they are the same person who has previously been vandalizing under various usernames. Don't know what appropriate measures would be, but I would expect that they will start causing trouble again when the ban runs out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.158.206 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Two articles that should be combined

I'm thinking these two articles should be combined into one since they are about twin brother film directors and one of them has their own Wikipedia page:

It might make more sense for the John Polonia one to be combined into the Polina brothers article.12.196.37.227 (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I redirected John Polonia to Polonia brothers, there wasn't much content to save from the John Polonia article—the refs were pretty poor, and most of it was already on the other page. —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New film article

Could you please take a look at this new film article:

I can't get it approved. It was a major Paramount release with Alan Alda and Ann-Margaret and there are sources and reviews listed in the article from The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Chicago Sun-Times. Isn't that notable enough? Thanks.12.196.37.227 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Other new film article

I'm having trouble getting this one approved too, thanks:

Okay. Instead of me accepting all these submissions, why don't you ask Armbrust at his talk page? Ask him why he declined the submissions. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2011/April&oldid=1088350621"