User talk:GiggsIsLegend

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GiggsIsLegend. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome and the cookies! I can assure you they were delicious :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post[edit]

I've replied on my talk page, and given you the template I was going to if real life hadn't interfered (very hectic day & a dog just out of an eye operation). Sorry about all that. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! Nice to see an admin that isn't angry-pants! Everyone seems to be arguing or taking each other to Arbitration Committee but I'm sure I'll get the hang of editing well and stay out of the wikipolitics. Also, there isnt a reply on your talk page, but my post to you has been deleted Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=563156607&diff=prevCite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). but no worries, I'll have a read through the template. Can I add that line about Haitham al-Haddad attending the televised debate without including the video link now? I still think I shouldn't have had that line reverted. Once again, thanks for your help :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I seem to have deleted that, no idea why. You can add it but someone might remove it or ask for a source, which can be the program. Why not add that as a reference but without the link? Actually most Admins aren't angrypants, although most of us get dragged into things from time to time as we can't do our job without upsetting someone! Sorry I didn't reply earlier. If you'd posted to my talk page again I would have had an email notice and would have responded. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dougweller, a bit of assistance please. The article Lister Community School was quite detailed for quite some time now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lister_Community_School&oldid=592202547 but an admin deleted most of the information (rather than request citations from the school website etc) and left it like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lister_Community_School&oldid=592371559. I didn't want to seem confrontational as I'm a sporadic editor who is still fairly new, and so I thought I'd ask for your help rather than start an issue. No rush, whenever you are able to reply. I'm open to advice. Thanks :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was largely unreferenced, and sourcing information to first-hand sites (i.e. the school website) is problematic for a number of reasons. You really need third-party coverage - the council, or local papers etc. Giant Snowman 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School articles are often a mess. Giant is right, we really need sources and where possible independent ones. Information such as the Head can be sourced to the school website. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and the talk page of the project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools where you might ask for help and advice. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses Giant and Dougweller. Can the same removal of unsourced material be carried out on Brampton Manor Academy Cumberland School Eastlea Community School Kingsford Community School Langdon School, Newham (Not even sure that one has the title properly written, we dont add the borough, do we?), Little Ilford School Plashet School The Royal Docks Community School St Angela's Ursuline School Sarah Bonnell School Stratford School. I would have done them all myself but I think it would come across as page-blanking and I'd rather not be blocked for vandalism :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do it yourelf, using an informative edit summary, such as 'removing unreferenced information, per RS and V" or similar. Giant Snowman 18:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you saw my edit[edit]

WP:DEADLINK is useful. I've got an extension on Firefox that allows me to rightclick on page and find it in for instance the Internet archives. An as I said, sites such as the TV site aren't useful as they just accept what they've been told. Thanks for the thanks! Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip and the WP:DEADLINK. Im having a read through it now and picking up things :) I'll keep it in mind. Also, the article had a few links to youtube videos which I tried to replace with actual articles rather than youtube links. But it all vanished upon your revert as I hadnt saved it yet :( Am I correct in assuming that youtube videos as sources are not acceptable? Also, the article Islamic Research Foundation is basically copy and pasted from the website. Its probably one of the poorest written articles and I actually doubt it is notable enough to warrant an article. Should I nominate for deletion or simply put a twinkle tag on it? Once again, thanks for your help! :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have had an edit conflict message with your text somewhere at the bottom of the page, it shouldn't just have vanished with my revert. YouTube videos are acceptable at times if they are on an official site, but it all depends on a variety of things including of course what it's being used for. A source may be considered a reliable source for A but not for B. Looking at the article now. Back soon. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it was about something else a few edits ago.[1] - it was rewritten to be about the Kolkata Islamic Research and Welfare Centre, then rewritten again in the copyvio version. Take a look at it now that I've reverted it. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It reads much more like a wikipedia article now. GiggsIsLegend (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of material[edit]

Thank you for your concern for WP:verification, and deleting material from school pages which is not directly supported by inline citations.

However, much of the material could easily be verified from the official websites which are given, and in at least one case you stated in the edit summary "deleted majority of the text that was uncited" [2] but you actually deleted four valid citations – what was that about?

It would be better to tag the pages {{refimprove}} or {{inline citations}}, or to add {{citation needed}} tags on particular statements. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Thank you for your advice. I was told by Giant Snowman that it would be possible to delete uncited text. [3] I couldnt find any referenced information regarding the History, Location or Intake. As far as I'm aware, using the school website as a source should be avoided, and so i deleted those sections. As for the deletion of cited material, I'm unsure as to why I did that and I must have made a mistake. If you look at the edit made by Giant here [4] (in particular, the sections that are totally uncited), I was trying to do something similar for this article. Also, thank you for the tags youve mentioned, I'll definately have a look and keep it in mind. I'll avoid editing or mass deleting uncited material in future and let the experts take care of it. Thanks for your assistance though, apologies for the error :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Jimbo - "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." That is what I follow. Cite tags do little. Giant Snowman 14:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GiggsIsLegend. @GiantSnowman: For negative info in BLPs, I agree; it should never be entered without a citation, and no delay is needed for removal. However, for commonplace and inoffensive info that is likely to be verifiable from the external links already or commonly provided (in the case of UK schools: EduBase, Ofsted and the schools' official websites), it is wasteful of other editors' effort to delete it; in practice, hasty removal would often be biting new editors. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags at Kat Shoob[edit]

I re-added them. I'm not sure if they are still necessary, given the cleanup you have done and the other edits that may have happened since they were originally added. Let me know if you need additional help with tagging. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I was worried it would look like I was just vandalising so I had to leave a note in my edit haha... I'll have a look for some references hopefully sometime soon. Re: the tags, is there a list of tags with corresponding messages that I can use? How do you know what to type? I often come across non-neutral/poorly-referenced articles and unless I have time to cleanup, I just leave it. Once again, thank you :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is the semi-cannonical list of the top-of-article (or top-of-section) message boxes. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meldonium Doping[edit]

″The paragraph is concise and clear as it is.″ Thanks for your edit. This paragraph should keep its conciseness, therefore I removed the Twitter feed; but that isn't far enough, I think. --Je suis Nigérian (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left the page for a short while and there are constant edits being made. I'm assuming good-faith but it needs to be stressed that the article should not focus too much on Sharapova. I've tried to request a temporary semi-protect but I dont think its been done yet. I'll rollback to your version in a few hours rather than waste time doing constant clean-up now haha :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will be appreciated. --Je suis Nigérian (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, GiggsIsLegend. 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]

You know, I saw this and thought to myself "Hmm...I should ask Dougweller (talk) who to choose; he'd know", so I popped over to the candidates' statement page and voila! Look who's standing for election. Looks like I know who I'm choosing! :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, GiggsIsLegend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, GiggsIsLegend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wan-Bissaka[edit]

No, I didn't see your request at RFPP, just noted all the disruption myself - great minds etc.! I have updated RFPP to show that. Giant Snowman 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]