Jump to content

User talk:Boomage

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

Welcome

[edit]
A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop.
The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial.

Welcome!

Hello, Boomage, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that you have an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Jimmy Bullard, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Bullard. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Bullard, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Jimmy Bullard. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

December 2012

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Danny Green (footballer born 1990). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oliver Turton, you may be blocked from editing. Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oscar Pistorius. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Mason (footballer, born 1991), you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Joe Mason (footballer, born 1991) was changed by Boomage (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.946 on 2012-12-24T19:49:00+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jamie Mackie, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Jamie Mackie was changed by Boomage (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952708 on 2012-12-24T19:59:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

Merry Christmas. This sort of message will not help.

Ariconte (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

re:Cluebot

[edit]

Hi Boomage: I saw your message at the Cluebot Commons page and looked at a few of your edits that Cluebot has reverted. (Cluebot has not blocked you and cannot do so. An admin can however note the trail of reverts and decide to block you if warranted.) If I may offer some unsolicited advice ... I think the "He is known for his hard working attitude" edits are not vandalism and you should follow the instructions on the templates for them and report them as false positives. But the statements are very general; they would fit better in an article if you had a reference where someone had said that about the player in a newspaper article. Do you? The other two edits, Cluebot is reacting correctly to your use of colloquial language, which doesn't fit well in an encyclopedic report on someone's career; plus they're kind of negative, wouldn't you say? Again, if you have a solid source you can reference something with, it's another matter. But remember that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, normally maintains an unemotional, just-the-facts tone that is boring compared to, say, a sports blog. And requires that sources can be found for everything. All in all, I think you're better off adding things that you have a source for, and adding the reference. If it can't be sourced, sometimes it's because it's not really encyclopedically relevant. ... and in those cases people are less likely to revert Cluebot and put it back in. Whereas if you add something useful and well referenced but the bot still goes off at it, people generally will put it back in. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Methecooldude. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User_talk:Yngvadottir that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Also User_talk:methecooldude Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About ClueBot NG

[edit]

Hi. I see that you've been complaining about ClueBot NG. Most of his reverts are actually correct; ClueBot NG is helpful to Wikipedia. If you feel like you made a helpful edit that ClueBot NG incorrectly reverted, you can report a false positive. Read the instructions on User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives to report a false positive. Also, remember to sign what you type on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end of what you're typing. Hadger 00:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

attacking someone on wikipedia is never a good way to give feedback, but if you want you can message me on my talk page and as whatever questions/problems about editing you have. good luck

Ryan shell (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Speedy deletion nomination of The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory AN/I Notification

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 14:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Hi. It looks like you're quite new here, and you seem to be having a few problems, so I hope you don't mind my offering a few words of advice...

  • Wikipedia only hosts supported factual encyclopedic information - we do not host personal and subjective opinions, like "He has a resemblance with Emile Heskey and Pelé", or unsourced commentary like "The club has received praise for its zebra like kit". Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, original research, and what Wikipedia is not.
  • New additions need to be sourced, so if you think a player's nickname is relevant for an article, you would need to find a reliable source to support it - see reliable source policy.
  • Please, let's have no unsupported claims like "Jimmy Bullard, outside of football has starred in the action thriller 'Batman The Dark Knight' playing the 'Joker' taking over for the majority of the film from the tragic death of actor 'Heath Ledger'."
  • Edit warring is also not allowed here, so if someone reverts your edit, please discuss it on the article talk page and see if you can get a consensus supporting what you want to add - please see policies on edit warring and consensus.
  • It is not appropriate to write in the style of a sports editorial, as you did here. Just a simple factual statement of the result, plus possibly a quote of a reliable source, would be appropriate - but not your personal editorializing.
  • Leave off the "ClueBot must go" nonsense - that bot removes massive amounts of vandalism and other inappropriate content, and we would be swamped without it. It sometimes makes mistakes, but I don't see any in relation to your edits.
  • No personal attacks. DO NOT use terms like "dumb gits", "cocky arrogant gits", "Listen up git", "Are you a 10 year old?", or anything similar - if you do it again, it will get you blocked.
  • Cooperation, not confrontation. If you want to get on here, you need to drop the confrontational approach, and try listening to experienced editors when they give you advice or alert you to mistakes you are making. If you find yourself in a content dispute, discuss it in a civil manner on the article talk page. And if you don't understand why someone has reverted you, ask them civilly on their talk page and you will get a much better response than attacking them.

Anyway, that's probably enough to explain the core of your problems, so please listen and adjust your approach here. If you continue as you have started, I can promise it will only be a matter of time before you are blocked from editing - and it won't be a long time. In fact, you're lucky it's me who chose to approach you here - there are other admins who would have blocked you already. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just one more thing, You say you wish to upload images, so you need to be fully aware of Wikipedia's image use policy and copyright policy. Copyright can be complicated, and there are lots of links on that latter page that you can follow. But in short, if you took a photo yourself you are generally free to upload it with the appropriate CC-BY-SA license (see WP:CC-BY-SA for an explanation of what that means). But if the photo was taken by or published by another source, or you have taken it from another source, then you must ensure that it is already released with a license at least as free as WP:CC-BY-SA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boomage: Seconding what Boing! said Zebedee says above. I've closed the grey box around Bwilkins' first message here; that should make it clearer that they included links to Wikipedia's policies; you'll find helpful stuff if you follow those. I'm pleased to see from your latest message to me that you now realise you need references; the policy is verifiability. But please note that you can't just use your personal observation as a reference; that's original research and because we're an encyclopedia, not a journalism or research publication site, we require third-party refs, which is why I pointed you to newspaper references. Websites are fine too, but not private blogs or forums. See the links :-) Let us know if we can help you. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More advice

[edit]

Your "Anti-Cluebot Movement" can't have an encyclopedia article, because of the WP:Notability requirement to show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You can't show that because, as far as I can tell, the "movement" is just you.

I told you I would give advice about how to pursue it within Wikipedia. The best way would be to make a proposal at WP:Village pump (proposals); but if you take my advice, and that of Boing! said Zebedee, you will drop the idea, because you will only make yourself a laughing-stock. Despite your claims of support from many others, I have looked through all the messages to and from you (everything on Wikipedia is open) and I see only your repeated rants, and no support from anyone else. Cluebot NG is generally considered an extremely valuable contributor to Wikipedia's running: the volume of edits from vandals, and from well-intentioned contributors who do not understand Wikipedia's requirements, would overwhelm the limited resource of human anti-vandal and new-page patrollers without its help and the help of other bots.

When you join a new community, it is as well to take things gently at first and watch how things work, rather than rushing in assuming that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You should also make some effort to follow generally accepted standards - for instance, it helps conversations on talk pages if everyone signs their contributions by ending them with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ which the system turns into a "signature" with your username and the time and date. You were told this in your first welcome message, and again since, and still you are not signing messages. This just adds to the impression that you don't care how things work and are making no effort to conform or fit in.

Read again all the advice that Boing took the trouble to give you, above. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute, once you understand that Wikipedia is different from fan-sites and doesn't want comment or opinions, just facts backed up by references, and that it is a collaborative effort by people working together, politely and co-operatively, with a common aim. JohnCD (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is gwickwire. I see that other editors have already talked to you about your dislike of ClueBot. I understand as well, as I help new users in the Teahouse and on the IRC help channel with issues, and this comes up a lot. Like others have said, report a false positive. It helps ClueBot learn. Otherwise, there may have been a reason for ClueBot's revert. If you look at ClueBot's false positive rate, it's very low. Honestly, ClueBot's false positive rate is less than some humans. However, it still happens. If you'd like my help resolving your concerns with Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you. Also, as others have said, putting ~~~~ those 4 tildes at the bottom of your posts allows us to know who has posted. :) gwickwiretalkedits 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Elliott Chamberlain because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! GiantSnowman 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Boomage, GiantSnowman - I think I see where the born-in-Wales idea comes from, as I'm currently looking at this, which does indeed imply he was born in Wales. However, this says otherwise, as does nearly every source that comes up here. All the best to you both, Quantumobserver (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boomage here

Yeah i thought there was a mistake when i saw that it said he was from 'Bermuda' but it turns out 'Paget' is a small parish of Bermuda where he must have been born however he must have welsh connections in his family, hence why he is a welsh international footballer. I looked at the exact same website Quantumobserver and thought he was welsh so i edited it to wales, however with a bit of research i found out that 'Paget' is in Bermuda so GiantSnowman was right to undo my edit. I foolishly didn't look at the references thats why it took ages to find out the Bermudan connection.Boomage (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Boomage[reply]

No problems both - I intend to improve the article shortly and provide a direct reference for the Bermuda place-of-birth to prevent this confusion in future! GiantSnowman 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sean Gannon (footballer)

[edit]

The article Sean Gannon (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ariconte (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sean Gannon (footballer)

[edit]

The article Sean Gannon (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: we have specific notabiity guidelines especially for footballers - articles about players who do not meet those notability requirements cannot remain on Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Block notice

[edit]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sean Gannon (footballer)

[edit]

The two proposed deletions are actually two separate processes for two different things. The first (not done by me by the way) was for a lack of sources in the article. Since you added sources you were right to remove the deletion tag. The second has to do with the subject of the article and not how it was written. In order to have an article, a subject must meet certain inclusion criteria. These are called notability. For footballers, there are two relevant sets of guidelines. The general notability guideline, which covers all subjects and says that if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources are notable. This, however, does not include the routine sports journalism that has covered Mr. Shannon. It's quite rare for footballer to meet this guideline when they do not meet the other relevant guideline which is specific to football. It says that footballer is notable if he has played in a fully professional league or has played for his country's senior national team or at the Olympics. For the purposes of this guideline, the WikiProject on Football maintains a list (found here) of leagues confirmed to be fully pro. You'll not that the League of Ireland is not included in that list.

If you disagree with my assessment you may remove the banner at the top of the article saying that the article has been proposed for deletion, provided you explain your reason for doing so either in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please be aware, that is you do this there is a third deletion process that I will pursue if I disagree with your objections. Under this process, the deletion of the article would be discussed by interested editors for at least seven days, after which, if consensus to keep, delete, move, redirect, or merge the article is reached the appropriate action will be taken. Given that the notability of LOI players has been discussed to death in the past, it is unlikely that such a discussion would result in anything other than the deletion of the article.

Finally, please do not take this personally. If I had guess, I'd say about 50% of new editors have one of their first deleted. One of the first articles I ever wrote was deleted almost immediately. I hope this clears things up. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Sir Sputnik. That was very helpful. It's a shame, as I spent an hour creating that page. As you may have gathered from my user page, I take a keen interest in lower league football teams. No offence to you, but I think this system is ridiculous. No matter how lesser known a footballer is, creating a page for them nevertheless benefits Wikipedia. The state of the lower league footballer pages on here is currently appalling, and if pages like mine keep being deleted, Wikipedia is going nowhere. There seems to be no reasonable explanation for why lesser known players shouldn't be represented. I'm from and live in England, but I don't see any reason why LOI players shouldn't have pages. In fact, others already do have pages which aren't being removed.

Besides, no need to worry any more, I've been blocked by Bwilkins for no apparent reason.

Boomage (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Boomage[reply]

Not for no reason. This edit is why you were blocked; it's a completely ridiculous personal attack on JohnCD; even more ridiculous when you realize how very far from legitimate the pages he deleted were. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, pages like this get deleted all the time. If you wish to change the guidelines on notability of footballers, feel free to initiate a discussion at WT:FOOTBALL or wherever else you feel appropriate, once your block has expired. In the meantime, if you know of other similar pages that also infringe our current guidelines, do let us know so we can clear the place up a little. Kind regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Writ Keeper, I see where you're coming from. I just have personal history w:ith JohnCD deleting my pages, and I think he is a bit heavy handed with innocent people on his talk page - See his last comment on this page, for example;. I over reacted, and should have kept my thoughts to myself. I'm just quite passionate about the way things are run on Wikipedia. Even you might agree that Bwilkins was a bit over the top to have blocked me for a whole week, especially as I'm new and am currently providing useful edits to the pages of lesser knows footballers. I do apologise for this personal attack, nevertheless. Boomage (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Boomage[reply]
Okay, I'm glad. I (obviously) chose not to block you for the comment, but it wasn't really an unreasonable decision to block; the idea did cross my mind. The week length is just the so-called "escalating block", I think; your last block was for 48 hours, and blocks usually increase in duration as they increase in number. It was a pretty blatant personal attack, especially out of context the way it was (not that context would've made it better). I wouldn't have made the same decision, but I'd say that Bwilkins was well within policy and admin discretion to make it.
Your take on JohnCD is surprising to me; he's always been pretty reasonable in my experience. He is being a bit short in the diff that you link, but there is some underlying context there: the guy he's being short with isn't as who should say "innocent". He's been around nearly a year, and he seems to have been in a bit of trouble, including some prior problems with copyright. Copyright is a serious business. I know we assume good faith, but assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact; at some point, we have to exercise tough love. We can't just keep humoring people who constantly cause serious problems, like copyright infringement or posting the private information of a minor, over a long period of time. At some point, the kid gloves have to come off. :/
Anyway, do feel free to post an unblock request (this is a good page to read for help with that). Your acknowledgement above is a great start; if you just add a promise not to do it again in the future (with the understanding that there will be much less tolerance for repeat behavior), then you should be in good shape for an unblock. I may or may not serve it myself (have to give some serious thought on whether I'm an involved admin at this point), but someone else can take a look. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jordan Clement

[edit]

The article Jordan Clement has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he didn't actually make a single appearance for Aldershot? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to remove the notice as I am currently banned, and will be for a week, so can't even contest this before it's automatically deleted. If your issue is with his number of appearances at Aldershot, see the references I provided. You'll find all sources state that he has not made a single appearance for Aldershot, other than as an unused substitute on the bench. Boomage (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then he doesn't meet our current guidelines for notability. Hence the notice for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are a joke, along with your guidelines. So you take down articles because of your awful guidelines, but surely it is worth keeping the articles because they can only aid peoples knowledge, like its better for the article to be there than it not being there, even if it doesn't meet your guidelines. Boomage (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
GiantSnowman agreed to take the PROD off; he'll send it to AfD once your block has expired, so that you have a chance to make your case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've removed the PROD - I tagged it without realising Boomage was blocked, and it seems unfair. I'll take to WP:AFD when the block expires. GiantSnowman 17:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boomage, nice to see you back and wanting to do some good work here. Please let me or any other admin know when you're needing help, we'll try our best to assist. As I mentioned earlier I have taken the Clement article to AfD, please join in the discussion here. GiantSnowman 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation & NOTFORUM

[edit]

Hi Boomage, please read Wikipedia:Indentation before making anymore talk page posts as you kept failing to indent your comments and it makes the conversation harder to follow & I have already had to reformat that discussion yesterday. Additionally I suggest you don't make anymore posts like this as Wikipedia isn't a forum which is something one can be blocked for. I have closed that discussion as it's entirely unproductive & a waste of everyone's time if have something legitimate to discuss then feel free to open a new thread. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zavon Hines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garry Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that mistake. I have since corrected it. Boomage (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Lee Cook playing for QPR.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Cook playing for QPR.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. LightGreenApple talk to me 23:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lee Cook playing for QPR.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Cook playing for QPR.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove for You.

[edit]

DPandaOPande (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

I can see you believe that Cluebot NG is deleting constructive edits. Cluebot NG is important to deleting most types of vandalism, and getting rid of it will fling Wikipedia back as a completely unreliable source of information.(Although it isn't still now considered a reliable source anyway.) You have to be patient and maybe just ask for the bot to be blocked on certian pages only.(You can do that, can you? It only seems logical.) It seems more in the ballpark to me. Well, sorry that Wikipedia seems to dislike your ideas, but this site is a work in progress, so be patient. Hug da panda.--DPandaOPande (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Yes blocking certain pages sounds good. Here's one...ALL OF THEM. But OK I will be as patient as possible to try and find an alternative to this automated piece of rubbish. Thanks for the idea Da panda of pandemonium but we need better alternatives than this. Boomage (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Boomage. You have new messages at Methecooldude's talk page.
Message added 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove for YOU!

[edit]
You won a Roy Orbison clone!
You don't have to get angry at every stupid suggestion I turn out. ClueLess NG does hundreds of edits as hours go by; therefore the bots' actions may make it seem like a piece of coded rubbish when you are only looking at 1/400 of what it does. Have a nice day! MgWd (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saeed Al-Zahrani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Wahda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox stats

[edit]

League stats only in infobox. Mattythewhite (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Mattythewhite. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sean Gannon (footballer) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sean Gannon (footballer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Gannon (footballer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Boomage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muaiad Admawi for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muaiad Admawi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muaiad Admawi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boomage&oldid=1145814625"