User talk:Glaaaastonbury88

Stop making changes to pogues

They are whatever we want them to be and i won't stop this until banned diched

- This is a bit immature of you. The Pogues were an English and Irish band. Not just 'Irish' or 'English'. Going about editing in this way is quite silly and aggressively telling me to 'stop' will not convince me otherwise. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Saint Patrick does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizium23 thanks for the message. Ok I will be sure to fill this form out every time from now on, sorry about that. Best regards.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizium23 I see you reverted the St.Patricks article. The reason I changed it is the move that information over to the St. Patrick's Chapel, Glastonbury page I created. It is my own work too. Thanks. P.S, Sorry again about not updating, sometimes the edit would be literally just correcting one letter. I will endeavour to update the edit summary from now on no matter how small the edit is.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Saint Patrick into St. Patrick's Chapel, Glastonbury. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - yes I was the original creator of this section. Do I have to credit myself? ThanksGlaaaastonbury88 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you do not, but it's helpful if you do. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Church of Our Lady St Mary of Glastonbury, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Whiting, John Thorne and Abbot's Kitchen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Fish and chips, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and do not misrepresent sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fish and chips. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi Glaaaastonbury88, thanks for your ongoing efforts to help improve the "fish and chips" article. Sorry that it seems like it's been a little stressful for you. Just something regarding this edit: [1], while I completely understand your indignation with unfriendly comments, the article's talk page isn't the appropriate place to address it. Article talk pages should be used for discussion of article content only. Comments should be related to edits, not to editors - even if others aren't following that rule. User talk pages on the other hand may be used for discussion of editors' behavior. We try to keep them separate. Thanks. PS, my experience is that people who make insulting comments rarely back down or apologize, and pretty much never if you respond with anger or criticism. If it's necessary to keep interacting with them during a discussion to reach consensus, sometimes it can be helpful to go to their talk page, note briefly that their comments are causing stress, and without making any demands, ask calmly if they would agree to continue discussion without personal comments. It depends on the person. Although you shouldn't have to put up with abuse, sometimes it's more effective to just ignore such comments if possible. Not responding at all is a reasonably good way of teling someone to get lost... There's more information at Wikipedia:No personal attacks § Responding to personal attacks --IamNotU (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi [[User:IamNotU|IamNotU] - Thanks for the message. I'm ok I just thought he was being a bit inappropriate and often people like that think it is acceptable to act in a certain way when it is 'behind a screen' and may have done it to others who would not have challenged his behaviour. But I have noted and accept your comment that there is a right place to have these discussions, so I am sorry about that. Thank you for the comment and I wish you all the best and hope our paths will cross again another day.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk - ok thanks, I am guessing that you do not have an issue with my edit then. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a standard template. It doesn't give my opinion. I'd give it to you no matter how good or bad your edit was. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hi Glaaaastonbury88! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Jones (Musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Now Playing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Jones (musician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jethro Tull and Michael Fennelly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Al Brady (DJ) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al Brady (DJ) 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/Al Brady (DJ) 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hi Glaaaastonbury88! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace 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/Little Darlin's Rock n’ Roll Palace 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.

CUPIDICAE💕 16:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Phil Jones (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phil Jones (musician) 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/Phil Jones (musician) 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.

Mccapra (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]