Geoffr

No problem Geoffr! I had to drop off a package for a friend (Postal Strike in England at moment) and took the opportunity to take some photos of two nearby railway station. Got off at Woolston, delivered it, then walked to Sholing- both well worth a visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashereyre (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 October 2007

I'm in the UK, so I know about the postal strike all too well. Great pictures BTW. Geoff Riley 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

I was glad to do it, can't stand vandalism :) OMGsplosion 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good decision at RfA

You made a good decision to withdraw, in my opinion. Keep editing consistently and well for several more months (at a rate of 300 or so edits per month, I'd say maybe 6 more months might be enough), and I think you'll find the community more open to your nomination for adminship. Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you know, it was nothing personal, from any of us who commented on your RfA. I know it was brought in good faith. Some things I look for in an admin candidate are as follows:

• Shows knowledge of the policies relevant to the areas of WP that they wish to contribute to as an admin.

• Demonstrates a clear understanding of WP:BLOCK. (i.e. When it should be applied and when it should not.)

• Has a decent track record of strong contributions to Wikipedia. I usually use about 2,000 edits as my benchmark, but I will consider users who have slightly less than that, and I don't vote for every editor who has more than that. With less than 500 in your track record, you had little chance of garnering much support.

• Expresses themselves clearly in writing. This is where grammar, punctuation, and spelling come into play. It's important (in my opinion, at least) that admins have at least a basic concept of how to properly use the English language.

• Demonstrates a cool head in the face of contentious situations.

I hope this helps, and let me know when you plan to run again! K. Scott Bailey 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't taking it personal, although I didn't think my grammar was so bad... being English as I am! Hey, I'm a computer geek... :-) Geoff Riley 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I was working out how to withdraw already before you had posted your comment. So I wouldn't let you take the creditblame for my withdrawal anyway. LOL Geoff Riley 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lymm

Thanks for the kind words. I'm in a bit of a 'cleanup frenzy' at the moment. Snowy 1973 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism to DAZ Studio Aclapton (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Geoffr! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Events spammer

Hi, you warned this person numerous times (a few "last warnings" also). Please do what you say you are going to do. Please look. [1] [2]

Thank you, WikiTony (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool

Please explain to me how the addition of external links relevant to the town of Blackpool (Official Tourism Site, Illuminations Information, etc) is vandalism. Surely, in an article about an actual location, links to it's Local Authority tourism website and information on its largest tourist attraction are not, in fact, vandalism. Rather, they are perfectly pertinent to the article in question. In short, how does this fit any definition of vandalism? --194.82.141.169 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

I've replied on the talk page! _GB^T/C 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nefertiti

Is there any particular reason that you add "i read this in my social studie book" to the Nefertiti page? If you want to cite something, you must add it as a citation footnote and do the proper MLA style not jut "i read this here" sort of thing. Cheers.--Jab843 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, totally confused me there for a moment: I've just had a look and see that when I reverted some vandalism (by 75.43.139.32 at 23:34 and 70.130.204.237 at 23:36), I didn't go far enough back and the 'i read...' was left over from a previous vandalism attempt (by 70.130.204.237 at 23:28); thank you for spotting it and sorting it out. --Geoff Riley (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page.

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Reliableforever (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony Williams

No worries! I'd presumed it was (as it clearly was) a good faith edit anyway. Have fun.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Philips Park

Thanks for the info. I cycle through it regularly but unfortunately am limited to published sources, unless I can find anything in print I can't really enter it into the article. I've noticed the work they've been doing lately though. Shame they can't rebuild what the council demolished in 1950! Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a fair bit going to happen around Drinkwater Park, I think it may all be part of the same scheme. The link is here and here. I'm really hoping they do something on the mountain bike front. There is acres of land to build a good trail around the area, and the best bit is that you'd hardly notice it was there once done. Obviously they'd have to be mindful of the deer though. I have a regular cycle route around those parts, you can see it here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Geoffr. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Geoffr. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Geoffr. 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)

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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)