Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mistercontributer. 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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) 06:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi Bobbyot (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Rampart (film), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SubSeven, thanks for the reminder. Mistercontributer 18:54, 6 August 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobby Dodd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Punter and Tailback (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting links which unintentionally pointed to disambiguation pages Mistercontributer 22:19, 4 Oct 2012

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the FAC tonight. Sign next to where it says "nominators", if you don't mind? I know you're looking forward to this :) Disavian (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to. That would be great if History of Georgia Tech becomes a featured article, which would be good recognition for your hard work, and also good for other reasons as well. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work there. A couple of points though - we don't use forums or open wikis as sources. I found a replacement for the forum you linked to and put the citation tag back on the other. See WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the belated welcome, feedback, and information. I will follow these guidelines going forward. The reference work was my Christmas present to everyone who has contributed to that article. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance on this page.--LesPhilky (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am glad I could help. Mistercontributer (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I nominated G. Wayne Clough for FAC. If you've got time, your help would be appreciated. Thanks :) Disavian (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to help, but I do not want to do anything to hurt the nomination. Would it be helpful if I worked on copyedits in response to the reviewer comments? Mistercontributer (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be fantastic. Looks like you've done a great job so far. :) Disavian (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FAC was closed - I think our problem was that there aren't many FAC reviewers, something I keep running into. Per the closing admin's suggestion, I opened a peer review about the article. Disavian (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we keep trying both History of Georgia Tech and G. Wayne Clough will eventually be selected as featured articles. Both are well written and well referenced articles. Also, both articles have interesting and informative content. We may also consider nominating Bobby Dodd as feature article sometime in the future. There are many football fans on Wikipedia who would probably help with reviewing that article. Mistercontributer (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying again... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/G. Wayne Clough/archive2 Disavian (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should keep trying. I made edits in response to the first reviewer's comments, except for the comment that there were too many references. Please make improvements to my edits as appropriate. Thanks Mistercontributer (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing great. Oh, I opened another one today: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2. That's another GT-related article I've worked a ton on. Disavian (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made several edits today in response to feedback from the most recent reviewer of the G. Wayne Clough article, but this last reviewer had several comments and questions which still need a response. I also reviewed the Georgia Tech Research Institute article, which is very thorough and also very well written. Hopefully these articles will eventually be selected as featured articles. I will continue to help out where I can. Mistercontributer (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2 got some replies lately. If you have spare time to have a look at those, great, if you don't, I'll get to them. :) Disavian (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made several edits in response to feedback from the most recent reviewer of the Georgia Tech Research Institute article, but several comments still need a response. Hopefully, this FAC will not be closed before we have a chance to respond to all of the comments. Mistercontributer (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kennedy Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Mistercontributer (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mistercontributer, thanks for your work with the Clough article. Feel free to ping me when you are finished, and I will do my best to respond asap with my second round of comments. ceranthor 19:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roy Riegels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of

"Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mistercontributer (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Bobby Dodd at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Contributor, you've done good work and you're a good sport. Now, in true Bear style, I'd offer you a Pepsi, but I couldn't even do that to my worst enemy. Cheers and Roll Tide! (..."send the Yellowjackets to a watery grave...") All the best. :) Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the positive feedback. Mistercontributer (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bobby Dodd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• university-of-florida-athletic-hall-of-fame&pg=5924%2C2336850|title=Graves' Record Among The Best]|publisher=Ocala Star-Banner|date=1987-08-20|accessdate=2013-06-30}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks Bot Mistercontributer (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia Tech main campus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goatman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks Bot -Mistercontributer (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with an extremely over heating laptop which shuts off whenever it feels like. I did list my major concerns, especially with comprehensiveness and sourcing and I await your response. Thanks Secret ^account 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 256. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This proposed hook has been revised. Please let me know if the number of characters for this proposed hook needs to be reduced further? - Mistercontributer (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you're a contributor to college football articles, so could you leave your opinion here: talk:WikiProject College football#NFL_Draft_section. I'm trying to get responses. Kobra98 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is not in the archive because it was pulled from Prep by Espresso Addict a couple of hours before it went to the main page, here, but they forgot to remove the credits along with the hook which is why the articles are credited as successful DYKS when in fact they never appeared. Gatoclass (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive contributions to Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. I am personally fond of your lists, and usually use them as a template when I feel I need to make one. Here are a few notable Georgia Tech football players of yesteryear which could use some more contributions:

• Lob Brown
• Walker Carpenter
• Judy Harlan
• Albert Hill
• Jack McDonough
• Froggie Morrison
• Tommy Spence
• John Staton
• Jesse Thrash

Cheers. Cake (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cake. Your color scheme for the GT templates has grown on me. I also appreciate the work you have done with GT football articles. I have kept a list of articles that I have worked on since I became registered user on Wikipedia as a reference. In the past I have revisited these articles and looked for additional opportunities to make improvements. However, I am currently on a semi-"Wikibreak." I still review changes made to the articles on my watch list, but I am not actively making improvements, at least not very many. When I become more active again I will consider working on the articles listed above. Thanks again and keep up the good work! - Mistercontributer (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means take your time, just know I will relish any edits to the above articles. That's a good thing about the colors. I can understand the wish to avoid white on gold for fear of lack of contrast, but I noticed that GT helmet seemed to work just fine, and followed the university standards to mimic it. If only the same could be done for Notre Dame or Pitt or the other schools which, to an outside observer, seem to just toss in the navy with the gold. Surely even green makes more sense for Notre Dame, but then I am rambling. My reason for responding was to share this tidbit: Shaping college football contends 1925 is the first year with the widespread use of the forward pass in the south. If this is true it makes the image of Doug Wycoff a great one. Cheers. Cake (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Although your edit-warring over my decision is disruptive, I will give you a fuller explanation of why your comment is unhelpful and therefore inappropriate. You are using a particular case to discuss the alleged deficiencies of the socking policy. What you are saying, although superficially in response to the misguided speculation of other editors, could be said about any sock master at any SPI. That sort of comment, if it goes anywhere, would go at WT:SOCK, not at an individual case.

In addition, some SPIs are more cluttered with comments than others. That makes it difficult for the SPI team to evaluate them. Your comment exacerbates an already busy SPI. That would still be okay if the comment were helpful to evaluating the case, but it's not.

SPI is not like other noticeboards. Although not a perfect analogy, it is more akin to an arbitration proceeding than boards like WP:ANI. In any arbitration proceeding, the arbitrators and clerks are entitled to remove comments, as well as block editors who refuse to accept their decision. Think loosely of SPI CheckUsers as arbitrators and SPI clerks as arbitration clerks. Although SPI clerks do more substantive work at SPI than arbitration clerks do in arbitration proceedings, they both have the authority to remove editor comments if they are inappropriate. If, as here, the editor whose comment was removed objects, then the proper venue is the clerk's or CheckUser's Talk page. That doesn't mean your comment will be re-added, but it affords you an opportunity to explain why you think your comment should remain and the clerk or CU the opportunity to discuss it with you. Battling with the CU or clerk is not something you should ever do. I am going to revert you again. Please don't force me to block you for disruptive conduct by re-adding your comment (in any guise).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: For the record, I am not edit warring. I was making a valid point in that case, which you seem determine to censor. Adding the comment back with an explanation was the only way I knew how to explain why the comment should be included in that thread. I will not add that comment back again due to your heavy handedness and abuse of your administrative function. I have never been accused of edit warring during the seven years I have been editing Wikipedia. In my opinion, you reverted that comment since it pointed out a weakness in the system, which directly impacted the case being discussed. Mistercontributer (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment initiated the discussion above: "If this is what is happening, and this editor becomes blocked again, then this editor will most likely create another sock to get around the block, using software which changes IP address, or simply edit Wikipedia from another location. Not being critical but this block system does not seem to be very effective with addressing these types of issues." This sock case involves a user suspected of being banned multiple times and creating socks to bypass the bans. The banning system is obviously ineffective since it does not prevent problematic editors from causing disruptions. The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. Much time, energy, and effort is spent documenting evidence required to catch and re-catch socks. There must be a better way, such as developing software program to help identify these types of issues, otherwise we will continue to struggle with this problem. Mistercontributer (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Bobby Dodd, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing items from articles without providing adequate explanations in edit summary such as "removed photo" and without providing adequate explanations on article talk page is vandalism, since that edit is simply one editor removing an item from article without having justified reason. Mistercontributer (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly but surely covering Tech football from 1915 to 1928. Given any images are going to be in black and white, the "uniform" parameter seems useful to at least show what the jersey looked like in color. If only I could draw. The 1921 football yearbook and a 1925 game program seem to show at least the 1920 and 1924 uniforms. Can say from at least 1921 to 1927 they had the same "look" or shapes with the possible exception of the socks. I forget what that type of uniform is called, with the sort of semicircles on either breast. Do you know of any other depictions of Tech in color from this era, or where to find e. g. covers of football yearbooks? Cake (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cake; I will investigate. I will keep you posted. Mistercontributer (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, been working on John Heisman. Let me know if I missed any big Tech stories worth including. Cake (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cake; good work on the John Heisman article. I have not yet found any other depictions of Georgia Tech football uniform in color from the 1920's era. I will keep looking. I will let you know if I find anything. Mistercontributer (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]