User talk:GabberFlasted

Hello, GabberFlasted, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Andy Carroll. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mattythewhite (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback on your revisions for dreadlocks. It is a derogatory term that has not been recognized in the community of wearers and apparently is the popular term being used everywhere. Please provide advice on updating the page to reflect the correct name “locs” and also identify the source of the incorrect term “dreadlocs” as I believe Wikipedia is a source of misinformation on this topic.

Humbly,

Concerned Citizen 76.182.104.189 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you reaching out to discuss this. I will refrain from reverting edits to the page myself as they're discussed.

Your suggestions, if accurate, would definitely constitute valid edits, but you must understand that your community of 'wearers' is not the global one. I would encourage you to open a discussion on the Dreadlocks talk page, especially if you have additional sources to share. I would also allege the though Wikipedia could possibly be a source of misinformation, changing the information without a source is just as likely to be misinformation.

GabberFlasted (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions against vandalism. Regarding the recent reverts you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might've seen some recent vandalism from my shared IP, I told some kids in my electronic class that our township had a page and they wouldn't stop vandalizing it, I've gotten them to stop now. 47.19.130.149 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your efforts in counter-vandalism... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 18:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GabberFlasted, Thank you for your contributions.

When reverting possible vandalism or any other editors' edits, it is recommended that you notify them of your actions. This is a polite request that you should embark on doing so.

To help you with that, Twinkle and RedWarn become very handy.. (especially Twinkle is easier to use as no special requirements are needed). This link Wikipedia:Twinkle could help you with more information that you may need. Happy editing! Volten001 ^☎ 19:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please work with me on Sexy Vegan page? Everything I am saying is true & you delete it. I included his Federal Election Commission filing from the government website & you just deleted all my edits. I can provide more references if you want but he is not a famous criminal but there was just one incident & it is referenced in the controversy section but it is not appropriate to mention it in the lead plus he doesnt use youtube or tik tok & a hater wrote all that false stuff. Kristin carlicci (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can u please revert ur edit & i can add references to show my claims Kristin carlicci (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why do u insist on reverting my corrections? i have lots if sources Kristin carlicci (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. In the process of some of your changes you rewrote cited content to not adhere to the source provided, deleted some sourced content, and added some questionably POV content. Please read

WP:NPOV for some basics on writing articles of still living people. Yes, I am already making more edits to try and keep the page factual. I am not interested in slandering this person, or maintaining a certain depiction of the subject. If you have new sources, please make edits that only add or change information backed up by that source. If two sources have conflicting information, it may take some deciphering to identify the truth if at all possible. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Did u read his citations though? he just cited stuff like a tik tok sound. Sexy has over a million instagram followers & doesnt use tik tok. I included his FEC presidential filing & Sexy gets paid from his music streams & has 5 albums released so it is not accurate to say he is amatuer musician plus it is not not worthy to mention he was an extra and it is redundant to say he is a vegan and refundant to repeat the bestiality allegations a dozen times. He was just accused of bestiality after a dog ran up & licked his butt & then he pleaded to disturbing the peace so he was never convicted on it & so it is not appropriate to mention it a dozen times & list it in the intro like he is a famous convicted crimimal. Please revert my changes as they are more accurate. I can add references to them after u revert back Kristin carlicci (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but if u read his sources they do not support what he says, he just posts his hater comments & then lists sources that dont agree with them. if u revert my controversy section u will see that my references confirm what i say, none of his references say “Sexy dances wierd” and his sister calling him “SV” is not note worthy to mention, he was on the show for legally changing his name to Sexy Vegan and walking around in a speedo. Not what the Pet Semetary says. Pet Semetery is obviously a hater and should be blocked to keep it factual Kristin carlicci (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I will not speak to the actions of another editor as I have not been keeping up with this article and the progression if its content.
• I have reviewed your claims regarding the subject's convictions and would like to thank you. The article was indeed misleading and I believe I have removed most of what was patently untrue or ambiguously misleading. I will continue reviewing for these changes.
• I will try to look into the FEC link you posted.
• I also intend to review the sources of the article, as it does seem bloated and I most likely remove anything that I think is inarguably not reliable.

Thank you for your patience and collaboration. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we lock the page as it is at least not a complete hit piece now, before it was just a blantant smear piece but at the moment it is decent so can we lock it before pet senetary gets back on and vandalizes again? Kristin carlicci (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. I would ask that you stop editing the page (as will I) for the time as I am investigating how to proceed with this article. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it be but can you please lock this page as Sexy is a controversial figure prone to haters & vandalism so the page needs to be protected. Kristin carlicci (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can request page protection

here, at Requests for page protection. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Pet Semetary is back and vandalizing article, please stop them Kristin carlicci (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gabby, can you request page protection? I can’t figure out how to Kristin carlicci (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a valuable experience for you to learn how to do it yourself. I will however let you know that due to how wikipedia works, there are multiple kinds of page protection, and almost any kind would prevent you from editing. However, it is unlikely that the page in question would receive a protection so heavy as to stop I or the editor your have a conflict with, as we are confirmed users. You are still free to request it though. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment. What did you have in mind by "controversial pages"? I usually try to avoid them, but not always successfully. It had been eight years since I was reported at ANI. StAnselm (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. I know I have my blind spots so I figure everyone else does too. I'd hope people call me out when I inevitably deserve it, but that never has to be aggressive or hostile.

I wasn't going to namedrop it there because it didn't need to be said that publicly. But Lugnut's departure was not pretty by any sense, and the act of leaving 'posthumous' barnstars (not just you) surely raises some kind of flag for many, especially since it left a foul taste in the mouth of most involved admins no matter where their opinions fell on the matter.

Of course, take everything I've said with a grain of salt. We all have different experiences here and my opinion is certainly colored by my experiences. I could be reading things entirely wrong for all I know. GabberFlasted (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I believe the edit I made was correct because war is war. It does not violate neutral point of view and it is a piece of non-notable information. If we don't include the information about Vietnamese comfort women here, then neither do we need to include that piece of information. It's either all in, or all out.203.166.241.41 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. I often review recent changes to search for vandalism, and seeing the removal of cited content and the addition of a War Crimes link made me prematurely assume that the edits were vandalism. I have reverted the article to your last version before I encountered it. My apologies, and thank you for your patience. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've read through the page on

Those templates are available for anyone to use. If you are confident that nobody will argue with putting a lid on a part of a discussion, you could do it. But if your action would be controversial, you would be better off to refrain and let someone else deal with it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my PM page and the talk page thing at qanon. It's being set up so there is literally no "right" thing for me to do, whatever I do I will be told it's the "wrong" way to do it. Since that's a bullying tactic there's no point. 76.142.93.168 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GabberFlasted. Just a friendly reminder about reverting vandalism. I understand that mistakes do happen, but it's always a good idea to keep an eye on the revision you revert to, and make sure you're not restoring vandalism yourself. In this case, [1] your revert directly restored the vandalism of Joe Burrow being the owner.

I admit I have been guilty of doing something similar, which is why I periodically check back though my reverts and make sure I haven't actually restored vandalism and make reasonably sure that the revision I have reverted to is clean.

Thanks for everything you do. Cheers! --DB1729^talk 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I'm aware I cast a pretty wide net and I try to address only the most obvious vandalism/problem edits, and leave the rest to more knowledgeable/confident editors. I saw what looked like a name being replaced by a nickname and didn't think much more of it. I still wouldn't say I restored vandalism so much as failed to correct it but I appreciate the folks casting tighter nets and double checking. Thank you again, GabberFlasted (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Poor choice of words on my part. If it caused the tone of my post to seem stern at all, sorry that wasn't my intention. And I completely understand how that could look like a straight forward revert. I had the benefit of the fact I was looking for that sort of thing at the time, in a topic I'm quite familiar with. Otherwise, I might have done the exact same.

My concern is vandalism is harder to catch when the changes are "hidden behind" a familiar editor's edit, however it may occur. Like on my watchlist, sometimes I tend to ignore a revert made by an experienced editor and assume they took care of everything and all is well again. Or when editors running AWB or any method of mass drive-by fixes, one of those edits can come in right after a vandalistic edit and "hide" it from watchlists. So I always cringe a little when I see it happen. Yet, it seems the vandalism (the ones I know about) still gets caught, usually sooner than later. Either way, happy editing! All the best! DB1729^talk 02:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a message to let you know that your "contribution," such as reverting my contributions, is not constructive. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles . Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 63.155.40.17 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to explain why you believe YOU have the right to edit-war for your preferred date format. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The POLICY which you should know before touching an edit citing that policy states why the edits are preferred. The only edit war here is the one which you have declared. Show some respect for other editors by examining the issue instead of reverting people's corrections without comment. Hunter Hutchins (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Hutchins: I have examined the issue. The IP has changed date formats that have been in place for over a year. On double checking I have found that the CE convention has been present in these articles for at least a year. Without checking the entire history of an article to find changes going back who knows how far, I reverted the edits as they were a new IP citing the very policy they were otherwise violating WITHOUT pointing out where they were originally changed. I would hope you yourself would be pointing out where these policy violating changes were that the IP was supposedly reverting but I am regardless left to find that myself. So before I re-revert the changes I'll give you a chance to point out how far back the change was made, since you've apparently already found it. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On third review of MOS:VAR and ERA, and a review of your history of interactions with editors, I would remind you that

MOS:VAR states that it is inappropriate for editors to change between styles without a substantive reason, and MOS:ERA states that it should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. This is to say that there needs to be a reason more substantial than "It was BC in 2006" to justify this change. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I only verify that policy violating changes occured, I don't seek to amass a thesis on which people like yourself can debate. MOS:VAR states that when one style has been used, it must not be changed without substantive reason. Making such changes is against policy, which is why I reverted them. There's no "one year" clause, and there is no requirement to cite the time or context of the original policy violation for people like you to pontificate over. Because you do. You look at other editors as vandals; you look down on them for not thinking your way. I will replace my carefully chosen edits, and YOU will respect them until I agree with your reasoning for trashing them, or until an actual authority sides with your reasoning if you choose to continue your Internet Fight with me. Hunter Hutchins (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a good reason why the articles should use your era styles, with diffs, please stop disrupting the articles with these edits. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bob243987wiki here, sorry for messing with the page sweatshirt. Hopefully that can be forgiven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob243987wiki (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I copied a note code from the article Eagles of Death Metal, where a single note is used to file away citations for all the genres that band was cited under, over to Talk:Legendary_Shack_Shakers#Musical_styles, and the code didn't display like it does on the other article and I have no idea why. I was trying to demonstrate a way that most of the citations can be kept and the section simplified without removing the content, but it doesn't seem to be working. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, The moment this comment came in I was looking into just what happened with that talk page. I am not terribly familiar with citation markup but I'm checking it out. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RockabillyRaccoon: It seems you didn't tell the code where to place the note.

Placing {{reflist|group=note}} will make the page render that list of references (in this case a note) where the template is placed. I am not sure this is the best template for the job but I'll look into that seperately. For now I think there is nothing wrong with what you are trying, at least in terms of the coding. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The information I deleted regarding Dexter Manley is not disruptive. I am trying to delete this information as it puts Dexter Manley in a bad light and this information is not completely accurate. This page was created to show his accomplishments as a football player and the information I deleted did not have to do with football. 137.83.201.122 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wikipedia pages on living persons (

notability guidelines, it is included in the article, even if unpleasant. Thank you for reaching out, and I hope this helps. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please specify what content of the Controversies section you find objectionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Battle_of_Fallujah&oldid=1125365104 GalantFan (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @GabberFlasted: In particular, I would like to see your explanation of why the Controversies should not even mention that civilians were killed by white phosphorus, or that male civilians were not allowed to evacuate the area of battle for their own safety, or that civilian casualties were considered excessive, or that US fired DU ammunitionGalantFan (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed it is because it was a recent addition (less than 24 hours) and it's riddled with spelling mistakes and no citation whatsoever. I also can't find a single source online to corroborate the "flag of Ottoman Greeks". Hope this helps 2601:5CE:4380:3A0:A0AC:4B8B:E47C:5184 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated your edits. Thanks for notifying me. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I apologize for trying to edit alone the Disappearance of Ana Walshe.

Ana was born Ljubičić, and her last name from her previous marriage was Knipp.

Her disappearance was first reported by her work colleagues, and then Brian reported it as well. Brian Walsh was first arrested and charged with misleading a police investigation, on January 8. And on January 17, charged with murder.

Brian was arrested not only based on Google searches, but also "Investigators were able to find many items that had been discarded in Swampscott, and had the state crime lab perform DNA testing after it was determined that blood was on a number of the items.

On the slippers, Tyvek suit and tissues, DNA was found that belonged to one or both of the pair, according to prosecutors."

Can you pls change that?

I'll let you know if I find anything else. SilvijaRu (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out! On Wikipedia we can only use information pulled from sources (preferably reputable secondary sources). Her name as Ana Knipp is cited in the article, so without a more specific or more reputable source identifying this we have to keep what we have sources for at the time. As the other charges and facts are present in the article, I'm not sure what else you want added. The same goes for other charges and from what I can find, I'm only seeing charges for murder and disinterring a body without authority. If you can present a reliable source that presents otherwise it should be able to be included in the article as long as it doesn't directly contradict the others. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, what are preferably reputable secondary sources?

Knipp

https://localtoday.news/ma/ana-walshe-told-dc-police-that-brian-walshe-threatened-to-kill-her-120417.html

https://www.wcvb.com/article/missing-cohasset-woman-ana-walshe-massachusetts-husband-brian-walshe-jan-12/42461631

Charges... You can hear directly from the prosecutor here and and you can see exactly when it was

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KII_SgExTf8 SilvijaRu (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see
  WP:SOURCE
  for a rundown of what sources we use.
• Those sources look good, but they still don't reference the name Ljubičić. With these sources I agree that we should not say she was born Knipp, but we still need a source for that birth name. I believe for something such as someone's name, a primary source would be acceptable as well. But until then we shouldn't use the name Ljubičić. Nevermind! While I wrote this Tamzin has found a source that definitively uses Ana Ljubičić and included it.

I hope this helps! GabberFlasted (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Your a OP bro stop removing my shit"
4.7.118.226 (talk · contribs) c. April 2023
Transcribed by GabberFlasted (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gig 'em! Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi GabberFlasted, thanks for reaching out. I removed a sentence from the Dark Souls article because it was redundant. The purpose of the bonfires is already explained completely in the preceding text, and the sentence's position makes it something of a non sequitur. If that's not sufficient reason to remove it, I apologize. Thank you for including the link to edit summaries, I am still learning. 24.29.199.34 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out to me! I reviewed what you said and you were right, that sentence was a bit out of place and redundant. I thought the whole paragraph was a bit messy and nonlinear, so I rewrote it. Hopefully it is a bit more clear and succinct now, and the ideas flow more naturally together. Feel free to edit if you think it still needs improvement! GabberFlasted (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you real, Or just a bot? 40.138.165.5 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TiggyTheTerrible - likely the person accused of vandalism.
Skyerise - another person who might be the subject of the "vandalism" accusation.
VenusFeuerFalle - involved in the content dispute but probably not who was meant by "vandal".
Wikiviani - already notified by Researcher1988.

If you prefer I can notify these people or I can leave it to your judgment as a neutral third party. I was honestly trying to keep them out since my concern is over behaviour and not over the terms of the edit conflict itself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are more involved at Zoroastrianism than I so I trust your judgement. If you think it is Tiggy please notify them. Thank you for asking however. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll keep it to Tiggy for the moment. Wikiviani used a U| tag for Skyerise so they probably know and VFF would probably rather not get dragged to AN/I for something that really isn't their circus beyond getting misgendered in the course of it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]