User talk:Ginggangsgoolies

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Irwin Stelzer, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Irwin Stelzer was changed by Ginggangsgoolies (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-08-21T16:29:06+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Do you hold another wikipedia username or have you ever edited under another username? Best wishes, --Counter-revolutionary 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit of this user was to link a lone year. The second edit, blanked a page. All further edits are on talk pages saying baronets pages should be moved. This is clearly not a new editor, as only a previous user would know the quote from MoS. Also, I very much doubt the first actions of a new editor would be to suggest page moves! It has also been written in exactly the same format & nearly exactly the same words as done by User:Padraig (see [1] for one of many examples). It could of course be a coincidence... --UpDown 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a new editor. I can't help this this user, User:Stramash and Vintagkit's recent block may be connected. I may, however, be totally wrong and would be willing to admit this of course! --Counter-revolutionary 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wrong, CR, I'm a banana. David Lauder 09:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scattering discussions

It is a very bad idea to scatter discussions over numerous talk pages as you have been doing with most of your edits to date. If you really would like to rename, e.g. Sir John D'Oyly, 6th Baronet and numerous other articles, please raise your WP:POINT on one page only so the debate is centralised. On that page you could list specific examples which seem to you relevant. Eg d'Oyly. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, before suggesting that an article should be renamed, please carry out a few checks. Many famiies with baronetcies used the same first name through several generations, and in these cases the titles are needed for disambiguation. In many cases there is already an article on the baronetcy, which provides one place to check; in other cases, the baronetcy article does not yet exist, in which case you can check the lists of baronets at http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/Baronetage.htm

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit like asking him to reply to himself. David Lauder 09:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]