User talk:Gamboler
Botlike removals of Google Doodle[edit]
Please immediately stop your bot-like removals of mention of the Google doodle from numerous articles, such as this edit at Ice resurfacer, where your removals are not supported by Wikipedia policy. I have reverted your removal at Ice resurfacer, naming twenty reliable sources that could be cited to support it. You appear to be on some sort of rampage to right great wrongs rather than to improve the articles. Your recent contribution history shows dozens of articles you changed with the identical edit summary. Are you even checking to see if reliable sources support these additions? In my opinion, you should self-revert all of your recent edits regarding google doodles, unless you can demonstrate sound policy reasons why your edits were improvements.
Please respond, and in the meantime, while this is being discussed here, please do not repeat any more edits of this sort, as that may be considered disruptive editing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- You have no consensus to make mass edits of this sort, so I have rolled them all back. "Be Bold" does not mean "Be disruptive". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with above. And then...the edit summary on every single one of these removals..."see my talk page"? Doing mass-scale reversion/editing of multiple pages in different subjects and telling everybody "per my talk page", as if your talk page is Policy? Are you trying to make your talk page the de-facto Village Pump for this singular issue or maybe the Village Pump for Policy or Miscellaneous concerns? You need to stop & discuss before proceeding any further. Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, and thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I'll stop making the mass edits, review your included policy links, and generally try to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia editing policy and best practices. I'm a longtime reader but newbie editor. Before my Google Doodle rampage I focused on fixing typos and doing minor edits for brevity and clarity as I use Wikipedia. I'd like to do more, but the pages on editing policy aren't user-friendly. Is there a basic guide to the editing process for beginners? For example, how would a beginner editor find out about the Village Pump page? Gamboler.
- Agree with above. And then...the edit summary on every single one of these removals..."see my talk page"? Doing mass-scale reversion/editing of multiple pages in different subjects and telling everybody "per my talk page", as if your talk page is Policy? Are you trying to make your talk page the de-facto Village Pump for this singular issue or maybe the Village Pump for Policy or Miscellaneous concerns? You need to stop & discuss before proceeding any further. Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gamboler, fair enough. New users get some extra slack, due to WP:DONTBITE. The main problem, was that this was happening so fast, with possible damage to the Verifiability of the encyclopedia, that I was contemplating notifying the administrator's intervention board, where they could have blocked you from editing, to stop the disruption. I'm glad now, that I didn't; since you stopped, it hasn't been necessary.
- You seem to be here for the right reasons, and I think everyone will back off now, as long as you continue to do what you stated above. Also, a belated "Welcome!", since I didn't get a chance to say that before. I hope I am speaking for Shearonink and Beyond My Ken as well; BMK may be a bit annoyed, since he did the hard work of reverting everything (thank you, BMK!). All things considered, I think he was remarkably gentle with you in his comments.
- As far as your questions, there are various guides and I'll try and link a couple for you; the reality is, since this is an all-volunteer project, everything, the articles, the talk pages, the policies, the guidelines, and the how-to edit pages—all of it—are volunteer-produced. That means, it's not always coherent, there may be duplication, there may be "missing manuals" (there are even pages that are called that!), and stuff that exists, may be hard to find. Village pump is a possible location, but for new editors, I would stick to the Tea house as a first stop. One tip: google's search is better than Wikipedia's, if you know how to use it, especially the
site:keyword. Try some of these searches at Google: - These may have on-page links, that lead you to other ones. If you're starting from Wikipedia, a good place to start, is the Five Pillars—the overarching policy, the "Constitution", if you will. Starting there, you can drill down into just about everything of importance.
- For specific questions, you can also use
{{Help me}}. Just create a new section here on your talk page, type a specific question, and insert{{Help me}}somewhere in your message. An experienced user will come by to assist you. - It looks like you got a brief welcome back in 2018, but with no useful links in it. I'll tack on a "Welcome" message (auto-generated, so forgive the informality of it) below this. Thanks again for stopping, and I think you'll get past this, and have the potential to be a good editor. I hope you will. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nicely said, Mathglot. Gamboler, there's nothing wrong in being WP:Bold, but mass editing is a touchy issue on Wikipedia, and we have safeguards in place to help insure that mass changes have community consensus - otherwise, a single editor with access to the wrong tools could wreak havoc on the place, something we'd all like to avoid. Thank you for the attitude in which you received the advice that was passed on to you. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder if it might be useful to flag mentions of Google Doodles with {{Non-primary source needed}}? I get the idea that just the existence of a Google Doodle isn't itself necessarily notable for Wikipedia and we shouldn't just be citing Google for its own Google Doodle, but it'll allow editors the chance to find secondary sources which comment on it. But I wouldn't do any sort of mass-scale tagging without discussion first. Umimmak (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathglot for all the links and the
{{Help me}}info, and thanks BMK for being kind and patient about my transgression even though I caused you a bunch of work. And thank you Umimmak for your thoughts. I'll start reading the editing guides and promise to reach out with questions and preview my plans before pulling the trigger next time. Gamboler.
- Thanks Mathglot for all the links and the
Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]
As promised, above. I hope this is up to date; let me know if any of these links don't work.
Welcome Gamboler!
I'm Mathglot, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)