User talk:CharterTheGoob

I'm guessing if you're here, you either:

1. Another Editor here to inform me of a mistake I made while editing sorry :3 I try my best
2. You're a stinky vandal who is here to vandalize my userpage/talk page, to you I say Cope, Seethe, and don't vandalize Wikipedia >:3
3. You're a newcomer asking me a question about an edit I reverted (Don't worry, I only bite vandals :3)

vn-2	This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times.

This user likes to be pinged.

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is a userpage, and humor is cool, so make joke edits, as you did to User:CharterTheGoob. Readers looking for accurate information will not find anything here because its a random goober userpage. User is suspected of being too cool, administrators should take warning and immediately appoint user to administrator status - CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 12:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

because why not? you seem cool ♩¨̮(ง ˙˘˙ )ว♩¨̮

toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

DDDD YAY I LOVE KITTENS!

thanks that honestly made my day :DDD - Ace, a random autistic on the internet 21:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

On Bedani? It was a redline name with no sources, and had a tag on it as unsourced eleven years ago.

Please fix your reversion so that other editors don't have to spend time fixing your mistake. ~2026-21837-82 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about my mistake, a tool I was using for RC patrol had marked your edit as blanking so my sleep deprived lazy ass decided to revert it without actually looking at the edits lol.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, have a good day! - Ace, a random autistic on the internet 15:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your honesty is refreshing! And thank you for quickly fixing it. ~2026-21837-82 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: silly goober test CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 13:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CharterTheGoob. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~~~~ CoconutOctopus talk 13:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Namely, the shadow effect is pretty difficult to read and not particularly accessible. CoconutOctopus talk 13:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hai, are you currently using a white background by chance? CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 13:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 13:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

how's this one?

added some more spread (if thats the way to put it) to the shadow, only other thing now that I'm looking at it on a white bg is maybe darkening the violet CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 13:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd honestly advise just removing the shadow effect altogether. CoconutOctopus talk 14:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: unreg goober test edit (do not revert, this is charter just testing in a guest tab and they will replace this message if it does get reverted) ~2026-22306-73 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello CharterTheGoob, for biographies of living people, there is a prohibition on restoring content removed in good faith without having found a consensus on the article's talk page first. This is described in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Restoration.

There is additionally WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN as part of the verifiability policy, applying to every article. And the Terms of Use by which you, yourself, are legally responsible for content (re-)added by you.

Please keep all of that in mind when restoring content.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)