This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gscshoyru. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
So he is. Heh. Usually when an ip replaces a user page with an indef block, alarm bells go off. I apologize, then, you can put it back. Gscshoyru18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the original article for white male, which was clearly Non-neutral POV. What I added was not a biased view. Examine the pages for other groups- african american, etc. These are written to reflect achievements of the group, without a negative depiction. The page for white male that was originally in place is blatantly a liberal non-neutral POV, it lacks facts about any achievements whatsoever (which are the prominent feature for all other group pages) and it lists statements such as denying discrimination against white men which are at best speculative, and at worst, bigoted. If Wikipedia is uninterested in facts, then I would ask that at least white men be treated with equal respect from a humanistic POV as has been carried out for the pages of all other groups of peoples.
The achievements on those pages are sourced. Yours are not. Also, the rest of your edits are POV, and unsourced. See WP:CITE for how to cite things. Gscshoyru23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
that is CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
poor melodic horror.
I can revert changes just fine, especially if they're by a sockpuppet or against consensus. Also, please sign your posts and put them at the bottom of the page. Thank you. Gscshoyru23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I putt a poland numbers and a sorce of pdf poland census!Ther is allsou no macedonian who declare him self as serbian orthodox you can see macedonian national census!So please putt my artycle back
Thanks
Makedonij 22 Sepzember 2007 (UTC)
I am using WP:POINT in a good way to motivate developers to fix the bug that disables the new messages notice for anonymous users.
Getting yourself blocked won't help. We're aware of the problem, and we're trying to fix it. Re-read WP:POINT... it says to not do what you're doing. Gscshoyru16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I, AngelOfSadness, hereby award Gscshoyru this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for his all of his anti-vandalism efforts and for reverting vandalism off my talkpage and userpage so many times that this barnstar alone will not be enough of a thank you. :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your continuous efforts in reverting my pet stalker. I don't know what the obsession is with advertising my mySpace or real name. If I had anything to hide I would've made sure that my details were not as accessible on Google. The JPStalk to me22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I may have a way to make your life easier...
Hi! I noticed all the people vandalizing your userpage, and I wanted to let you know that you should be able to go to an admin and request permanent semi-protection to prevent vandalism, as I did with my user page. It really does help, and reduces work load (now I just have to worry about my talk page).
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It already has semi-protection... but thanks for the suggestion, anyway. The recent vandals are sleepers or longer-term accounts. Gscshoyru23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Kikyo Citation
If the Citations for Kikyo are not "good" for you, then shouldn't the citations for InuYasha, Koga AND Sesshomaru be taken off too? Slotedpig put those citations there and mine are the same as his. So if mine are n't good enough, his aren't good enough either, since they are the same. Kagome 85 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If they're citations for the same place, then they aren't good enough. That doesn't mean I'm aware of those articles, though, I can only deal with what I know about. Gscshoyru15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
InuYasha Citations
Can you please remove the Citations for InuYasha, Koga and Sesshomaru then? And could you please send a message to Slotedpig as to why they are not "good enough"? I have removed those citations in the past and Slotedpig came back and said I was vandalising and repeatedly put them back up. I am not asking you to do any work for me, it is just maybe Slotedpig will listen to you. Maybe instead you could remove the citations for them and say why they are not "good enough" in your edit note. I do not quite understand why the citations are not good enough, but it seems you do, so that is why I am asking you to do this. Thank you. Kagome 85 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's another, while we're at it -- Rather than making a new section every time you leave messages, hit the edit button next to the section title and indent using colons. That way you keep the conversation together. Gscshoyru22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks yet again. It says on your profile you're an advance Mathmatician, I'm jealous :P I'm really bad at Math lol, in case you're wondering. Yet I am still doing the Academic Math, not in Basic Math. I don't want to seem like I'm getting into your personal life, but are you a math teacher or something? I'm in High School. Final year though :) Kagome 8522:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note the "use colons to indent" part -- like this, for instance:
Just wondering from looking at your profile, how do you get the pictures? Do you know how to make something like "This person likes the anime InuYasha" ? Thanks. Kagome 8522:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:UBX. If one doesn't exist, then I think there are guidelines for making them. Theres a directory of a whole bunch at the bottom of the page. Gscshoyru22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can i just be another person to offer their thanks for all the good work you do at reverting vandalism, especially on my talk page. You already have a few barnstars so i give you something useful :
Hello, i noticed that you beleive the warn i gave User:86.140.177.115 was un-just and that the user did not diserve a final warn. I would first like to state that i agree with you in some aspects, first being that IP's do (at times) get treated rather unfairly, but it is a bais that is based on facts, more IP's vandalize than user accounts. In my own defense the reason i warned the user with a final warn was due to the fact that s/he had been warned with level 1,2,and 3 vandal warns prior to my warn. I thank you for your comments, and i greatly incourge more of them. Thank you, and happy vandal fighting! Tiptoety18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that based on what you saw, if the user had vandalized, that you should have given a final warn. You had no way of knowing that the other two warns weren't exactly valid. I also understand how you might have thought the user was vandalizing based on the diff, as there was vandalism left behind, even though the edit summary should have made you pause and think... and I agree that it is a bias based on facts... though it really is hardly fair to the hard-working ip users. And if you'd been around for the discussion, you'd probably have redacted the final warn, right? So what exactly do we disagree on? Gscshoyru19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That is correct i would have redacted the final warn, uhh....i do not think we disagree on anything. I just wanted to make sure there were not hard feelings, and that everyone was clear on the situation. Once agian, thank you for your time and comment, see you around the pedia! Tiptoety19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with CadillacDTS, and for reverting his/her edits. Here, have a
Jac16888 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
For ignoring the three-revert rule and refusing to let the integrity of Kimbo Slice be compromised. east.718at 01:38, September 25, 2007
Hey, thanks!
I'm not entirely sure where I ignored the rule though... It wasn't today; half my reverts are of vandalism. But thanks! Gscshoyru01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You deleted an external link I posted on making tofu. If it would be deleted, I think a couple of the others would need to be deleted as well since there is no substantial difference. One is a video of how to make a kind of soft 'instant' tofu. The one I linked shows how to make more traditional 'cubed' pressed tofu. I'm not attached to the link being there, but want to figure out what the rational is as I looked at all the other links before posting that one. You guidance would be much appreciated. Annalou
On what basis did you remove Energy Medicine University from the Energy Medicine page? There are other schools listed in Wikipedia, it seemed directly related. It is a private graduate school fully authorized to grant Masters and Doctorate degrees from the State of California. I believed that this article would be a relevant place to put an external link to a university directly related to Energy Medicine. Both Donna Eden and David Feinstein who are in the references are professors at this institution. I am a grad student there, so I have researched this place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalou (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Couple of things -- first of all, the link you put does makes sense, after your explanation, though it's close and I may be wrong. I put it back, though. Read WP:EL for the polices about external links. Also, when editing stuff you're involved in, please be very, very careful, as per WP:COI. And your own personal research has no bearing on the articles, see WP:OR, as well as WP:V and WP:RS.
With that out of the way, though, welcome! Sorry if I was a little bitty hard on you at first -- you don't know polices, and I totally misjudged you. Gscshoyru17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gschoyru, I read all the policies you pointed out which were helpful. I am a newbie, and thought that the 'external links' was a place I could add something useful and get my toes wet before trying anything else. Have a good one! Annalou02:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hersfold(t/a/c) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Gscshoyru, Tiptoety has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ok, maybe. But discuss it on the talk page, as the issue doesn't seem to be clear... and if he reverts again, report him to the 3RR noticeboard, as I've warned you both. Gscshoyru04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus trumps the SPAs that have been focused on this page. The guideline at wp:music is clear and this should be redirected (see the talk). Please protect the page. Eusebeus04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Who, me? I'm not an admin; I can't. Go request it yourself -- WP:RPP. And from looking at the talk page, the issue is far from clear -- so discuss, don't revert. Thanks. Gscshoyru04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2 established editors v 1 wikistalker does not make the issue ambiguous. I will revert tyvm Eusebeus 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC): Do you have any idea what you have wandered into? Eusebeus04:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't -- if you do, you will be blocked for violating the WP:3RR -- this doesn't fall under the exceptions to the rule. Please don't, and discuss on the talk page. Gscshoyru04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This HAS BEEN discussed on the talk page. A bunch of SPAs responded. If you look into it, you will see that a redirect is indeed appropriate. Meanwhile, Alansohn is wikistalking me after his RfC. Soit informé. Eusebeus04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the discussion, I see no consensus. The act of discussing does not give you the right to revert. And the claim of stalking... I see no evidence of that. If he's stalking you in terms of this specific article, then that hardly counts -- he's watching the article. This'd all be much better if you actually tried discussing with him, please! Gscshoyru04:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That has no bearing on the fact that he's trying to discuss this, and as far as I can tell, civilly. I suggest you try the same, and try to come to a consensus, because there currently is none, no matter how many times you say there is. I'm going to bed now, so don't expect another reply. Gscshoyru04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please look into this a bit further
With all due respect I not only made several separate edits to Islam in the United States I also explained them on the talk page. Those who are reverting all of these edits in one fell swoop are not engaging any of these explanations. That is pretty disrespectful. Am I to assume that they will? Also, why should we discuss many different edits made to different ends all at the same time just because someone has chosen to revert them all at once? Finally I didn't blank anything so please be more careful on your edit summaries. All I'm asking is that you look into this a bit more before making those kinds of pronouncements. Thanks.PelleSmith03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not disrespectful. It's policy. See WP:BRD. You may have explained your edits, but that doesn't mean that people agree with your reasoning. Disrespect has nothing to do with it. And yes, it's blanking -- you're removing content. Please discuss on the talk page and come to consensus, before reverting again, or you may end up violating the WP:3RR, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of one edit, or of "removing information." Several edits were made and mostly to rearrange information. How can it part of the process to simply lump them all together in a wholesale revert? Also where do I go from here? If they never answer my comments on their talk page or engage the entry page? I make changes, explain them in edit summaries and on the talk page and they just get to revert without as much as explaining themselves? Lets say I do what you're suggesting. I don't revert again. I've already said my piece on the talk page what's the next step? Please tell me.PelleSmith03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW the page you sent me to says this at the very top: "This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Consensus. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page." What is the actual policy here?PelleSmith03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So I was wrong. It's actually not a policy. But it is the way we try to act, and the way you should, too. Mass removal of sourced content whether in one edit or many Should truly be discussed, rather than mentioned, first. Plus, if you take a look at the talk page, someone's trying to discuss it with you; there's your "next step". So discuss and I'm sure you can come to some sort of consensus. Gscshoyru04:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Look I think this method surely works well in certain situations but I wish you would stop misconstruing the situation. It was not mass removal of content. Clearly you don't edit this entry and you don't want to spend the time deciphering the edits--I understand that. Very little actual content has been removed however, so I don't appreciate the misleading cursory glance turning into pronouncements like that. I repeat very little actual content was removed. The reason why more than one editor disagrees, or has reverted me at least, is because those editors always "disagree" in tandem. They tag team revert war. Another thing you would know if you looked into the edit history of that entry. Context is something that zealous policy, guideline and "method" hounds sometimes overlook. I understand that you may not have the time to dig into the edit history but if you don't then I wonder if its actually productive to involve yourself as you have. Thanks.PelleSmith11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If multiple people disagree with you, and revert without discussing it with each other, then how is that tag-team? Whatever. In any case, there are people who don't like what you've done, and someone is waiting for you on the talk page. You should go and talk to him. That would make by far the most sense. Gscshoyru11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You have proof they don't "talk to each other?" Look into their edit histories. Tag team simply means they support each others edits by reverting those who don't, and they do this without any effort to discuss their choices (at the most one of them will discuss). I've tried "talking" to these editors my entire career editing this page. I'm just happy I don't edit the other Islam related entries they ravage with their edit warring. Again you've stepped into something here that you don't (and why would you) fully comprehend contextually. What will happen now is barring some serious help they will game the system and flush every edit i've made on that page down the toilet without ever really explaining why. I'll read their generalizations on the talk page and their justifications to revert everything based on a small percentage of the edits, etc. In the end, because of methods like this one, I'll lose since there are, as you the casual observer has said, "multiple" of them. Thanks.PelleSmith11:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's more than one of them that disagree, then how are they conspiring? You're looking for something that may not be there. Come to consensus on the talk page, and if they revert you after that and don't discuss, I'll revert them back. Ok? Gscshoyru11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow. That's what conspiracy is. Like minded people working together (conspiring) to further an aim. HOWEVER, I'm not saying they are conspiring, simply that they represent a rather contentious ideological position vis-a-vis Islam and support each other's edits without even considering them or the work they may be reverting much. Do they know each other off wiki and do they communicate? Very possibly but I don't know that and I would never claim that. Its the on wiki behavior that amounts to thoughtless tag teaming. Look into it.PelleSmith11:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If they communicate off-wiki, then we have no way of looking into it. And I don't think they do. Whatever. As you said, I don't understand this, but you do, so please discuss with them, and don't edit war. Discuss directly with them, if necessary. Gscshoyru11:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at their talk pages ... pay good attention to Arrow's. I have, this time and in the past attempted to discuss with him directly. Also note his lack of presence on the talk page of the entry (despite contentious reverts and edit warring). All he does is show up and support the edits of Yahel (formerly Sefringle), Matt57 (as of yesterday blocked for a month), and in the past CltFn. He never engages in discussion, never explains his edits. The last time he taunted me with one line on the entry talk page "I'll have to think about this one for a bit." Sefringle/Yahel will discuss but he will also game the system by discussing generalizations or a fraction of a group of edits in order to revert a whole slew. It is that particular behavior I find appaling and that's why I used the term disrespectful. If he cares enough then he should do his due diligence and work with me and not simply blank hours of work ... much of which ironically i doubt he'd find disagreeable. Again I would really appreciate it if you took a few moments and had a look. Thanks.PelleSmith12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think this is a serious problem, take it to WP:RFC. I have neither the experience or understanding t understand this fully, but I will keep and eye on it, and see if a pattern emerges. Work within the system, even if you think they don't. Gscshoyru12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you've convinced me to at least give it a shot. I'm reaching out to discuss the detail of my edits on the talk pages. I don't see a positive outcome here but I'll try. Thanks.PelleSmith12:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Would you please do me the very gracious favor of checking up on the entry, the entry talk page and the relevant user talk pages in a few days so that you can see for yourself how this plays out. I really would appreciate that quite a bit. Like I said, I'm going to do my darnedest to try working this out without revert warring. Thanks.PelleSmith22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have responded on the talkpage. I am sure people will discuss if you (PelleSmith) don't indulge in personal attacks like you have done to me more than once inspite of being warned before. A whole chunk of content in the article was suddenly changed. All the content that was removed, moved, changed was SOURCED. A lot of it was discussed before in the past and compromises were achieved. Since a lot of sourced content previously discussed before was suddenly changed, other editors including myself do have a problem with it. There is clearly no consensus for Pelle's current edits as of now. On a side note, "moving content to the talkpage" is just not acceptable because it means "REMOVAL of (sourced) content from the article". This kind of covert tactics to make the article the way you want it to look isnt really appropriate or "good faith" Note: I do not communicate off-wiki with any of those editors neither do we "co-edit". PelleS, Please assume good faith NapoleansSword01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Moving that content to the talk page may have been a bad idea. I should have just copied it there. However moving it back instead of reverting all of the other edits would have been easy. Anyway this discussion doesn't belong here. I welcome your comments on the entry talk page, especially if you are prepared to comment on the entry and not simply on my behavior. Lets take this there.PelleSmith02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are calling National Geographic and University of Illinois as not reliable sources, then prove it they are not and tell me how you made such a conclusion, if your excuses are acceptable then I will agree with you.
Thanks
USER:SIKICITURK —Preceding unsigned comment added by SikiciTurk (talk • contribs) 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about those -- I was talking about the turkgenealogy one. It seems I may have reverted a bit more than is necessary, however... but that source doesn't seem to be reliable. See WP:RS and WP:V. There also was stuff added that was totally unsourced, so that's why everything was reverted. Gscshoyru03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism Patrol
Looks like we're attacking vanadalism on the same page at the same time. Sorry for the Twinkle Report. -- Tckma16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. The page should be fixed now, though I think the bold tag may have been re-opened, I think I undid that when reverting all the way back. Gscshoyru16:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
very srry
hey um srry for vandilizing and srry to all the people of wikipedia for vandilizing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdstan512 (talk • contribs)
I was not adding my opinion or commentry. I simply replaced facts that are supported by the references quoted. The information was originally put there by others, not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.31 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I understand why blogs would not be valid sources but why not information from a company web site. Surely this is a valid source for information on the same company. We're talking about a large multi-national here, subject to international laws, constraints and regular audits. Again I not the removed information was not from me. How about the information being included with the caveat: "according to the company's own website" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.31 (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Some information, maybe. But "World leader?" Every company calls themselves that. Information gleaned from a company website muct be taken with a grain of salt. It's much better to get a secondary source -- see WP:RS and WP:V, please. Gscshoyru16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment. How about some of the information without the hyperbole? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.31 (talk • contribs)
Gentelman I am surprised by your action. Being Paksitani I think I know more about our names. I have given the full name, the name he is quoted too. Syed is his family name. What is the problem in seeing the family name of a person? I am not a new here. And givng family name or full name is normal. Waiting for your comments about this...
Ok, so vandalism may have been a bit harsh -- sorry. But this is an English article, so what we refer to him as is what he is named in the article. It doesn't matter what he's called in other countries. It's the same reason why the article on Germany isn't called Deutschland, even though that's what the Germans call it, ok? Gscshoyru16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear you could not convince me. What is the problem in giving the family name? Even in English press it is used. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should provide sufficient information about a person. Syed with his name shows that his ancestors came from Arabia and related to Prophet Muhammad. Is not the American names show from which part of europe a person came or is it not informative to write here a persons lineage. A small word Syed shows too much about this person.
Really? Google-searching for "Syed Pervez Musharraf" (with quotes) returns 8 results. Calling him that is hardly mainstream enough to deserve placement in the article. Gscshoyru17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of Muhammad
Sorry, I think I may have gotten carried away, just a bit. But I have been using the talk page. I'm trying to reason with users whether sources are reliable or not.
What annoys me is when users claim that the "dispute has been resolved" in order to unprotect the page. One the page is unprotected they come back and engage in the same edit warring that occurred before the page was protected.
I'd like it if you could join the talk page of the article and help us in determining who is a reliable source, and who isn't.Bless sins20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
They aren't the only ones who are warring -- you are too. I'm not even going to try to figure out who started it. But you need to discuss this on the talk page and not change the article again until consensus is gained. And if consensus is against you, then give in to consensus, ok? Gscshoyru20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Arrow740 also "not change the article again until consensus is gained." Why did you revert my edits? You didn't even make an attempt to discuss changes.[1]Bless sins20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly? I reverted because you went over 3RR, though you hadn't been warned yet at the time. So now you've been warned. Someone else reverted me anyway, so no worries. And no, Arrow and the rest also should not be editing this page. This page needs full protection again... Gscshoyru20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I did NOT go over 3rr. (see history) Furthermore, I have the SAME number of edits as Arrow740 during the past 24 hours. Aside from that you advised Arrow740 to "report" me,[2] while issuing me no such advice. Then why would you revert my edits without even joining talk?Bless sins20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, if you think so, then go to WP:SOCK, read, and make a report. And back up with evidence. And Bless Sins, if you are sock-puppeting, then stop, as it's against policy. And yeah, I miscounted how many reverts you made, so my revert seems to have been in error. Also, I totally misunderstood what was going on when I told him that -- I thought it was one against many, but that seems to not be the case. So the page needs protection, and you need to discuss. All of you. Gscshoyru20:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we have cleared up this business, Gscshoyru. :-) And Arrow740, please report me to WP:SOCK, if you have any evidence. Every couple of weeks you make a comment suggesting that I have a sock-puppet. That needs to stop. If you enough evidence against me, then report me. But if you don't, please don't make any false allegations against me.Bless sins20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why the tool reverts all their edits... not just one. But blanking was the latest, so that's what I called the reversion. Gscshoyru01:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
HEY
HeY.. Want to ask why you keep changing the page. Do you even know this person? Well to let you know i know this guy very well. GUESS YOU DON'T. Also the case you keep bringing up. That case was solved. He was NOT guilty. I request you please not to change this page. PLEASE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're continually adding content that is POV'd, and have made a web of bad page moves that is going to take an admin to undo. Please stop. Gscshoyru13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems good to me -- though you missed deleting Talk:Governor Of Pakistan, which is currently a re-direct. Also... if you check the history, this has been going on for a long, long time -- I'm not really sure 24 hours is long enough, but that's up to you. Actually... since it has been going on for such a long time, perhaps semi-protection is in order? Gscshoyru13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted that one as well. I've got the page watchlisted, as it seems to be the only one this contributor is interested in, and if he starts again I'll do something more permanent. ELIMINATORJR13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. first i'd like to say sorry for the mess with the Ashanti Empire article. Let me explain. I went to the old Empire of Ashanti page and tried to change the title (move it) to Ashanti Empire. When I tried, I got a message saying it could not be done since there was a page already existing by that name. that page was a redirect to the empire of ashanti so I just copied the contents from the empire of ashanti page into the existing ashanti empire page and made the former a redirect to the latter. i know that's confusing as hell and i probably just goofed things up. sorry about that. if there's a way i can fix this let me know. i just felt the article should be titled Ashanti Empire to keep its naming style consistent with the other other empire pages (Roman Empire, Mali Empire, etc). hollaScott Free15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem -- the page has been marked for "delete and merge" so the admins'll get around to moving it properly. Where you have a move request that you can't do, for whatever reason, then WP:RM is the place to go, ok? You just didn't know policy about page moves -- no problem. The notice is just that -- a friendly notice, so there's nothing at all to worry about. Happy editing! Gscshoyru15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You think this would show up in the news. But it doesn't so don't be so quick to assume its vandalism when someone says that a fake war is fake.
Sorry -- I messed up, here. My fault. I misunderstood your intentions. Your talk page comment was fine and should not have been reverted. Gscshoyru23:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your templates treating me like a new-comer, but what I'm doing is hardly vandalism. It is a content dispute, and the fact that it is "sourced" does not mean that it is not original research. Tazmaniacs18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't call it vandalism. I called it removal of sourced content. And unless you can explain why the sources aren't good, you shouldn't remove the content. Gscshoyru19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my blunder in adding a NEW and legitimate reference to recent fuel cell news to the Fuel Cell references. I spent an hour trying to figure out how to add a reference correctly, and obviously failed.
However, the reference is still valid, and important, so when I do figure out how to do it right, please don't revert it.
In regards to your reversion of the External Reference on the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell that I added correctly, that was a valid, and extremely useful reference to the predominant source of hydrocarbon membranes. Hydrocarbon membranes are supplanting Nafion for DMFCs, and they are totally under-represented in this Wiki article. I may fix that some day soon, but in the mean time, Wiki users deserve to be pointed at this reference, as much as the other external references in the list.
No, they don't. It looks very, very much to be advertising for a specific company, which is a violation of policy. WP:LINKSPAM explains it best. Please don't add it. See WP:V and WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source... and WP:CITE for how to cite things, while you're at it. If you have reliable sources, then you can add content, citing those sources. Otherwise, please don't add links to commercial sites in a general topic article. Gscshoyru20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Then let's be consistent. In the DMFC article, remove the two external links "Startup taking big steps to launching this technology" which goes directly to a manufacturer's site, and "World's smallest DMFC", which goes to Toshiba. Let's not have selective enforcement.
In regards to the citation I tried to add to the fuel cell article, the story ran in at least a half-dozen publications online. I had a choice of several links to use, and decided, based upon similar examples in that same long list of citations where the ORIGINAL source document (i.e., Press Release) was cited several times, to chose the link that had the least probability of going dead -- that of the original release. Again, the very Wiki I was editing provided a precedent for what I was doing.
Finally, I understand the issues about "advertising" for a specific company. But the line gets fuzzy on the bleeding edge of technology, where there might only be one company that is even referenceable, and is, in fact, the center of competence (and information) for that entire field or segment. What do you do? Pretend they don't exist, and deny users the information they could learn from the technical material provided by that company? Thanks. HighConcept21:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If there's a newspaper article, then cite the newspaper article. Not the original source. Secondary sources are much more reliable than primary sources, so secondary sources are what we use -- see WP:RS. And as for selective enforcement -- please, remove the links -- they don't belong, for the same reason yours does not. And if there's a company on the "bleeding edge" then there should be some sort of secondary source about this -- a newspaper article or something -- that you can reference. Online articles usually have links to the company, so the reader can easily make their way to the page. But we don't usually directly link to a company, when the article is about a general topic. Or shouldn't anyway -- this rule isn't well enforced, as you have seen with the other links on the page. Be my guest and remove them -- and when adding information from the news, cite the newspaper article. Ok? Gscshoyru21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Z transform
This post is in regards to the edit in the Z transform page deletion that was reverted, that was an incorrect metaphor, and since it is nonsense, and you do not know what a Z transform is, it should be deleted. So I will delete again, and you will not revert it. Thank you for your time, which I know is valuable because you are spending a Friday morning editing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbehrns (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so I screwed up. Your first edit made me think badly of you, and when your second edit removed content without explaining why, I assumed you were just doing the same sort of thing again. Sorry. I need to assume a little more good faith. You may want to read WP:CIVIL, by the way. Gscshoyru16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan
I have semi-protected the page for a month. Usually I wouldn't do this with such a level of vandalism, but as it's the same user IP-hopping, I've no problem with it. ELIMINATORJR15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have the feeling it is going to need more moderation. I have added a request for comments to the talk section to try to develop consesus on whether or not ancient authors should be included as "early examples of scientific racism," or if they are simply early examples of ethnocentrism as I believe, and do not belong on the page, sourced or not.
Even if consensus is built to determine that ancient authors belong listed here, there are certain outrageous statements being made which must remain deleted. One in particular, which you restored a few days ago, actually states that:
"Europeans thus have by nature a strong, courageous character and "endurance in body and soul" due to living in rigorous, cold, wintry climates. This theory is known nowadays in genetics, race-realist and anthropological circles as the "cold winter theory of intelligence"
I reverted because the information was cited -- but another look at the wording shows that the information is improperly presented. It's a quote, or a belief of someone, but it is not really presented that way -- and the overall tone of the segment you removed is written slightly like an essay, not an encyclopedic article -- so in other words, this section probably needs to be re-written, not necessarily just removed. Your major problem is probably in the way it is presented -- in that that specific statement you mention is not exactly presented as a someone else's views, as it should be. Also, I'm not sure about whether or not the "ethnocentrism" is that or what. However, the content you added in place of it is uncited... I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this, but neither revision is proper. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep an eye on this and comment, if necessary, as things transpire. Gscshoyru17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes well I can see now that my reversion may sit in the middle of a dispute between users who are hotly contesting each others edits across multiple articles. I would like to stay mostly clear of that, still, as to the issue of science, one can not simply grab their Erich von Däniken book and start seriously disrupting Egyptology articles on Wikipedia, saying that "scientists" believe that this early culture was influenced by people from other planets. This will be reverted because a broad consensus of published scientists reject it. Likewise, you can't just grab your Julius Evola book and disrupt science articles and say "so this is known in anthropological circles," that this or that ethnic group is stronger, or smarter, or better etc. Broad consensus in published anthropology rejects ethnocentrism. (just one quick citation Haviland, William A. "Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge" (2005, Wadsworth ISBN0-534-62497-9)
I'm not edit warring. The content is not notable. I'm about to comment on the talk page as well, but consensus is against you. The fact that it may be notable one day doesn't mean it will be notable now. Gscshoyru21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to point out to you that your recent edit to Shadow-X reverted a positive contribution to that page. I realize it was an easy mistake to make, because that editor had been making a bunch of edits that were vandalism, but I'm just letting you know so that you are more careful in the future. That editor was immature, but you might want to check out what he posted in his talk page about your revert. Have a good day!!! 144.92.58.22420:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The similarity of your ip addresses leads me to believe you're probably the same person... but so far I have no proof and won't act on it. And whether or not you are -- if there's a user who's vandalizing, and has done so as a blocked sock, they have no right to edit wikipedia and every edit they make is supposed to be reverted. Besides -- if they're making tons of vandalism edits, how am I supposed to know whether or not their edit was good, especially to a topic I know nothing about? Sometimes being heavy-handed for speed reasons is better than studying every edit a user makes carefully -- otherwise, we'd be slowed down. There's no way we can deal with this sort of thing effectively, otherwise, and the number of useful edits a vandal makes are usually none. I agree with you in principle -- but in practice, there's nothing else we can do. Gscshoyru22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"The similarity of your ip addresses leads me to believe you're probably the same person... but so far I have no proof and won't act on it." That's kind of insulting. Similarity of IP address means nothing. Maybe stop looking for excuses and actually heed advice when given. I was trying to be nice/positive, and I don't appreciate your mean response. 144.92.58.22416:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's just a little odd that you both have the same first 16 bits -- there's a very small chance of that -- and the fact that you're also somehow aware of this is also a bit damning. But that's hardly evidence to convict you of anything, and I said as such. I was just mentioning how I felt. And in any case, I explained my reasoning, whether you are the same person or not. If you're still the same user "playing games" as the blocking admin put it, then my response is adequate. And if not, then I apologize for offending, and accusing, but I have explained my reasoning for why I did what I did, and why there's not much else that I can do. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the only part of my response that was offending was the first line. The rest should have been fine. If not, by all means tell me. Gscshoyru18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right that the first part was the only offensive part. But I think you missed the main point of my response. I wasn't trying to point out a fault in you or anything, I was just trying to give a helpful suggestion to be more careful in reverting edits. And yes, I do agree that it is a weird coincidence that we have similar IP addresses (something I was unaware of until you pointed it out), and it's not hard to see what he did. I noticed his vandalism on a page (when checking the page history) and I was curious to see if he had any vandalism that was not fixed, and that lead me to your 'correction' of his positive contribution and to his talk page. Sorry if I gave you the wrong idea or anything; I was just trying to offer some positive advice for the future. 144.92.58.22414:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok then. I understood the point -- I was just explaining why I really have no alternative to doing what I do, the way I do it. There's no speedy way to filter the good from the bad like that -- and if the user is operating like that, then playing games like that is just nasty. So thanks for your suggestion -- but I really cannot act on it. You picked it up anyway, you fixed it. Odd that the blocking admin didn't fix it. And sorry for accusing you, I guess. Gscshoyru15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I can change my IP16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. Keep in mind the article will be semi-protected if you use multiple ip's and even though you may be editing from another ip, your edits still violate the 3RR. Gscshoyru16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I don't know why some people seem to think things like 1/0 is a number... but they do. Thanks for dealing with this. Gscshoyru05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
chill out
hey man i was targeting nobody in particular if anybody has a problem with me my email is on my profile just drop me a line or get very nasty i have a vampirefreaks.com morbid_angel66623 drop me a line there
That's why it's called "defamation not specifically directed." You were attacking a type of people in general, which is against policy just as personal attacks are. Please don't, and you may want to read WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the reason for your removal makes sense. And I'm not entirely sure what the policy on legal threats is, but I'm pretty sure he should be blocked for at least some duration for them -- especially since I warned him about it. Thanks for letting me know what you're doing. Gscshoyru16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That account is blocked indefinitely until they rescind the legal threat. While they content wasn't verifiable from what I could see, they have no reason to edit here if they are intent on pursuing a legal remedy.--Isotope23talk16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, I wasn't. I was talking about the Grawp-sock vandal, actually. He was reverting the havok the sock had wreaked, which was quite a bit. I needed an admin, saw he was around, and said, when you're done dealing with that, could you deal with this? I wasn't talking about you -- why would I be? Gscshoyru16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that I have been mistaken. You see my changes have erroneously been referred to as vandalism so I just assumed that was the case. I apologize for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, both today, and the last vandalism a couple of weeks ago, it seems i have a guardian angel watching over me(or a least my user page haha). I'm still trying to work out how i upset today's since that was their only edit, very odd. Anyway, cheers --Jac1688820:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As always, not a problem. The ip is probably someone you pissed off before, and his ip changed, or the ip of a user that you pissed off. Or something. Gscshoyru20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As always, no problem. He was already blocked when you reported him, though -- not that it matters. Confused me too, but something didn't smell right, so when I looked at some of what he did, I realized his purpose. Gscshoyru03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for always having my "back" so to speak, for keeping an eye on my talk page when I'm not around. Honestly, I appreciate it so much, and you're just such an awesome editor and vandal fighter, I can't count how many times you've "beaten me" to the revert, lol. I just want you to know how much you are appreciated, and how much good you do. You rock! Ariel♥Gold21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. No problem. Ignoring of course the giant mistake I made just now, I'm usually pretty good at it. I watch my watchlist somewhat more often than the recent changes, so I tend to pick up on vandalized user-pages a bit more often than most. Thanks for the complements! Gscshoyru21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved this from your userpage for you: "The HMer attacked me. Advise the user to stay put rather than post out of ignorance.SLY111SLY111" . Woodym55516:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ann Coulter
How can I add her quotes so they come across as more neutral - she made them lol :P
I don't think you should. You're trying to push your own personal view of her when doing so, and they aren't suitable for the article in general -- no article about a person has a random list of quotes. Put them on wikiquote if you must, but don't put them in the article, ok? Gscshoyru04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. In future any wikipedia edits I make will be far more subtle and unbiased. I'm over the tantrum thing now.... thank you :p Fable198405:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
hi! im new here... was trying to add info for airsoft and i dont really know how to add a reference since i dont have one... coz these are all from my experiences as a player... pls help me out... thanks Obakpogi00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't have a reliable source you can't add it -- see WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on verifiable information, and you're not a reliable source. So unless you can find one, you can't add it. Sorry! Gscshoyru01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen you around, and I noticed that. I started using this username when I was... 13? I just haven't bothered to change it, it's the handle too many people know me by. Thanks for the compliments. :) shoy03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I started using mine around there myself, and... well haven't bothered to change it either. Odd, that. See 'ya around. Gscshoyru03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Painesville train wreck
Thanks for reverting the Painesville, Ohio train wreck again. Look at my talk page to see what the IP had to say about it...I must say, a unique response. Nyttend05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a particularly interesting response -- it was that comment on your talk page that tipped me off about it, by the way. Gscshoyru12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Institutionalized Vandalism, a newly recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia
Our group has now recognized 2 Institutional Vandals, and this is a message to tell you that you are the second identified, and all actions by this user are being databased for trend identification. It is unfortunate you would choose to sideline such an important issue, but there are other ways this issue will be brought back to the main forum. It will amuse us to observe what we call an IV Admin use Admin tools to bury embarassing topics. This just proves our point, and the world will soon discover that Wikipedia, as important as it is, can no longer function as it was intended, or as it should, because of the shortsighted and illogical actions of a few entrenched users with unique controls. Such is life. Kreepy krawly20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not buried. it's been moved so it doesn't dominate the page, but the conversation just exists in the subpage. It's not vandalism, and I'm not a vandal. Also, I'm not an admin -- I have no more power than you do. Your accusations are unfounded, please calm down and stay WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. The recent actions of this user are not appreciated and are becoming distracting. Please cease interaction. NEVER is it the place of another user to accuse Kreepy krawly of a need to calm down, as no such calming down is necessary or will occur. It is suggested that is user offer constructive contributions to the Process rather than focus energy on the benevolent, if upsetting, actions of Kreepy krawly. It's not worth it. Think about it. Think. And we are not obliged to discuss and divulge explanations to identified IV's. We thank our esteemed colleagues in advance for their careful understanding and useful future contributions. Kreepy krawly20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? And "X" manual? I have no clue what you're talking about, and if you continue to be uncivil and make unconstructive edits, I will continue to warn you and revert them, ok? Please stop. Gscshoyru20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This user will not become privy to the meaning of "X" manual, as that indication is for the non-Wikipedians, or "X's," who are following the developments of acrimony related to the original string: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. Please stay away from the Kreepy krawly talk page. This needs to be the end of this. Kreepy krawly21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's it. I'm taking this to WP:ANI, since I'm not really sure what to do about it. You're welcome to make your comments there, once I post. Gscshoyru21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Kreepy krawly has no intention of joining into intentionally distracting discussions regarding acrimony, as Kreepy krawly is on Wikipedia for constructive information theory dialogues, which unfortunately, as in real life, have become riddled with acrimony, as expected. Kreepy krawly does everything to restrain civil behaviour, and to act according to policy, and natural human positive values. There should be no expectation of a contribution by Kreepy krawly any further with this string of acrimony. Thank you for any and all positive contributions to the Human Knowledge Metarepository. Kreepy krawly21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at your contributions page, the link on the left. Every edit you've made so far is vandalism, and if you persist you will be blocked. Please, stop. Gscshoyru20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I have been on for not even 5 minutes. My brother was probably using my account again.Lairtnogaw20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
this is a list of your contribs. Click diff on each to see the changes. If your brother was using your account I would suggest not telling him your password and/or logging out when you're not there. Otherwise you'll be blocked for vandalism, if it continues. Gscshoyru20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's really hard to stop my brother when he's a professional hacker. Nothing stops him from figuring out all of my passwords. He uses a Java C++ password randomizing program to figure out my password, and no, he does not live in the same house as me.Lairtnogaw20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
Really? I don't actually belive you. If you get a password wrong you have to pass a CAPTCHA, and computers can't do that. Besides, how does he know what account you're using? And your password should take a while to guess. And your account would be blocked anyway as compromised. Gscshoyru20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how he does everything, but my brother can do just about anything wih computers. He once changed my uncle's security questions for his e-mail as a prank.Klonky 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs)
I was just wondering, are you that 15-year-old guy with the 2 Phd's from Harvard Medical?Klonky 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
ok nvm then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just created an extra protection program on my computer that needs an 8-digit code, 6 passwords, and 10 correctly answered security questions to be overridden, and terminates any Java programs. keyloggers won't work anymore, and this problem will be taken care of once and for all.Lairtnogaw 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs)
Disney
I didn't vandalize the Disney Channel. The user that did caused Cluebot to reverted it to an already vandalized state. Sorry for the mixup :PFractions22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, the editing situation on Mary (mother of Jesus) has involved the cooperative editing of 3 suspected sockpuppets (along with 1 anonymous user with a similar editing history) persistently towards the same end. The user(s?) edit to varying degrees, but most commonly want to change "relations" to "sex", for whatever reason. This is pointless, because both terms are general and essentially interchangeable- and as none of these sockpuppets have ever provided an edit summary, or posted on a talk page, it doesn't seem like this editor cares much to express reason. My main objection here to the "sex" word change is that it's entirely unnecessary, and unsupported. Not to mention, entirely redundant, as the "Ancient Non-Christian Sources" section already details the exact same thing with specificity.
With this in mind, I'm very skeptical of anything these suspected puppets tries to add (one should note that the puppeteer is currently banned indefinitely), and considering the fact that the edits seem unproductive anyway, I'll continue to oppose these changes with a discerning eye. I'd like to make a sockpuppet report, but I'm a little green in that area (I feel as if the evidence is sufficient for a checkout, but I could be wrong).--C.Logan01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a checkuser will even be required - though if the socks are indef blocked (are they?) then a sock report will be a bit unproductive, but if some aren't, then make the report -- the evidence is more than sufficient. Gscshoyru01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all -- please keep WP:CIVIL -- second of all -- that site isn't exactly reliable -- see WP:V and WP:RS it'd be much better if you found the same statement on the world record site itself and WP:CITEed that, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I could care less whether it is or isn't -- I'm just saying that you need to have a cite from a reliable source, so you should cite a statement that is on the world record's site and not the site you cite. Also, please see WP:CITE for how to cite things, and say second fastest instead of no longer the fastest, as the former is more encyclopedic, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Odd. I may be wrong, then. Point taken. Use that cite, then. Look how they're doing it and do it the same way. And say second fastest, please. Gscshoyru02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Odd. Second fastest seems to be what I wrote. Read before typing, please. "ok? Thanks!" 70.112.86.215 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, Captain? Gscshoyru seems like the reasonable person in this discussion, and the anonymous user had resorted to extreme personal attacks and name-calling almost immediately. There's some irony in the mention of "maturity" by this anon.--C.Logan09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and no kidding. You should see what Kreepy is up to, though -- he's... interesting. Let's just put it that way. Gscshoyru22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
He's very very interesting by the looks of it. But I'm not going to comment on his talkpage as I've seen the reaction he has had on friendly comments or should I say they? AngelOfSadness talk 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for filing that report. He was accusing other people of making personal attacks when they weren't and was trying to sign them with my signature. And I was too busy reverting his edits to file a report. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem, of course. He was being evil to me too, in case you hadn't noticed. And I don't buy his story about his brother... what he explains is not possible. Gscshoyru23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that he attacked you, I reverted his attack, warned him then he told me the brother story again. And proceeded to do what I said in the last comment. He's been blocked indef(Phillipe realises now that the 48 hours block was a mistake and said he would change it). Anyway, that guy and "his brother" has me worn out so I'm going to bed. 'Till tomorrow and I wish you happy editing between now and then :D AngelOfSadness talk 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey.
Hey.
Thank you all for helping out. Becuase I (probably) suffered the most from that IP address, I,Goodshoped35110s, give you all the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! (yay.) :) --Goodshoped35110s04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't actually tell me anything. 1/255 ip's end in 157. Be a bit more specific, please. I deal with way too many ip's. Gscshoyru03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right: I should've examined the edit more carefully. I'm aware editors can remove vandalism warnings -- if I recall, it's to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the warning. It just struck me that judging by the rubbish the editor was adding to articles, he was one of those vandals likely to end up being blocked, and restoring the warnings was just a convenience for the blocking admin. Thanks! --Rrburke(talk)20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Threaded discussion in SP report comments
I think it's a bad idea to debate with the accused within Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly. Answering legit questions is a good thing, but responding to (the inevitable) defensive comments just makes the report longer, and less likely to be read by an admin. WP:SSP is fairly backlogged now, so avoiding extraneous chat is a courtesy to whoever is doing this work.
I do appreciate that you are absorbing the brunt of the invective from this character, probably because the report is filed in your name. I hope this isn't too much of a pain. / edg☺★04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Plus what you've done to my report is a learning experience for me, so next time I will know how to make these things. Besides, what's the worst he could possibly do to me without getting himself blocked? Gscshoyru04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Controversy on Richard Dawkins
Can you please explain why you keep on removing the Controversy section of Antisemitism of Richard Dawkins.
This is not properly discussed on the talk section and no real reason is given for its removal.
The section is based on an unbiased, factual and unemotive event.
It is being discussed, see Talk:Richard_Dawkins#Controversy_section. Though it looks like the discussion has ended with consensus against the addition, so please stop adding it until consensus is for the addition, ok? You're welcome to comment and re-start the discussion, of course. Gscshoyru04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
you said 'Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted.' Can I ask you based on what did you determind that it wasn't contructive? My edits of disinformation werent constructive or didnt "appeare" constructive yet distructive disinformation about an ethnic group is allowed and reverted back? NangOnamos05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That much blanking without discussion needs do be discussed, long term, on the talk page first, ok? Period. You simply removed the whole article! Please explain your reasoning on the talk page and come to consensus with other editors before removing quite so much content. Thanks! Gscshoyru12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Period. The original author of the article has been defaced and has not replied back. Please suggest what should be our next step in regards disinformation on that page (whote page) on wiki about my ethnic group? Since you are the pesudeo cyber scholar of the WikiPedia of facts, I need your suggestion on how to deal with it since your administrators have admitted that they are hopless in such matters and encouraged me to take matters in my own hands. NangOnamos03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Explain what's wrong with the article on the talk page. Then wait for people to comment. And I'm not a pseudo-scholar, I just am trying to keep users to policy whilst explaining what it is to them. And I'm pretty sure defaced is not the word you wanted to use (it means vandalized, basically). And if you're a part of the group, then you have a WP:COI, so you really should not edit the article if opposed. Gscshoyru03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have explained in the talk page what is wrong with it however the original author continues to revert the page back to his claims without providing us any references, sources and evidence for his claim. The article basically covers the same subject matter as the wiki article about Opium production in Afghanistan however it is full of exaggerated claims and maliciously attaches an ethnicity to these criminal activities without any proof or merit. I dont wish to play edit/undo game. The author clearly doesn’t want to discuss the matter since he is clearly exposed. What can be done in this matter? Can an admin moderate participate and take action? Regards, NangOnamos02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, both of you need to stop editing the article and start discussing. Because you're both close to violating the WP:3RR. If you're looking for outside input, WP:RFC is the place to go. And I'll take a closer look at this in the morning myself, and see what's really going on here. Gscshoyru04:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been constantly responding back to all the questions of this user but he/she keeps on blanking and deleting the page. The whole article is referenced. The user asks me for further references. The ethnicity he is talking about . I am from that ethnicity to. I have refernced all the information. The user then questioned the authencity of the publishers articles. The references are all from known newspapers in South Asia. I have asked him to provide references to the alternations that this user proposes. Till now not a single reference has been produced.Can you please refrain him from deleting parts of the article until we get to a consensus on the discussion page.--Khanhamzakhan07:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gscshoyru. This guy claims he has created the Pashtun tribes page without realizing that wiki keeps a track of everything in the History log. He has been proven a liar. Please refer to talk page on Pashtun mafia. This should be enough that this individual is nothing but a trouble maker and is using wikipedia to publish hate speech and malicious materials. I request that a senior member or admin now deletes the page or redirects it to the main article Opium production in Afghanistan. This should close the case and the debate should continue on that main article. Thank you for our quick response. Regards NangOnamos08:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
NangOnamos you have called me liar on the discussion page; without any proof ; I have given you proof for that. You challenged my nationaily and my ethnicity. You have not abided by any rules of the discussion page. You have blanked out the page without any consent. Gschoryo looked over the article it had credible sources. He removed all the unsourced material from it. After 2 min you deleted the rest of the sourced material. You started an edit war . Why are you taking it so personal. According to other wikipedia articles ; i think it has more sources compared to other articles. Please act in a professional manner--Khanhamzakhan09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't look at the actual sources yet. I just removed the sections without any citations whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the rest of the sections were supported by the references, or that that the references conformed to wiki policy. NangOnamos, he did create the article, it's in the history. But that doesn't matter at all, Khanhamzakhan, see WP:OWN. Also, both of you need to see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Additionally, you've now both broken the WP:3RR rule which I warned you both about, so you will both probably end up blocked for 24 hours or so. Use the block to calm down, and I'll take a look at the article, and I'll see what's supported and what isn't, ok? Gscshoyru12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The recent IP vandal
A wikipedia abuse report has been filed on this IP vandal here. I was told about it a few minutes ago and I thought you would like to know about the report as they have attacked you too and you reverted many of their edits. AngelOfSadness talk 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting what you thought was vandalism to my userpage... unfortunately, that was me editing while logged out (hit up the IP's user or talk page). I appreciate the effort though. east.718at 10:56, 10/18/2007
Sorry that you got hit by that too; I use it to avoid vandalism to my userpage, although I was never really a vandal-fighter on your level. See User talk:Equazcion#Re: boggled for all the juicy details on how it works. east.718at 12:50, 10/18/2007
Um, wow. That still doesn't answer the question of where your userpage is though. And it doesn't seem to have screwed up my watchlist, thankfully. A character that parses that way even in the source? I mean it'd have to, but... wow. That's... interesting that it exists, and ingenious the way you implemented it. Gscshoyru12:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm flattered, thanks. For some more fun, try transcluding or substituting that template onto your userpage. east.718at 13:01, 10/18/2007
Schiavo
I am factored out the medical details to a new page, so it is not a loss of cited information. See the use of {{main}} at the top of that section. The medical details and the family struggle were inconclusive: the situation at the start and finish of the 1997-2002 phase was about the same. That section only needs a summary a the details can pile up on a specialized subpage. Primarily, it ia matter of overall article size for the main article: 100 Kbyte articles do not become Featured Articles because the previous editors failed to sort out the historical Importance of different parts of the story. For the 1997-2002, we just need the overall prognosis and maybe a count of how many dozens of times the family members were in court.--Blindedservant22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're moving them to a subpage, then say so and do so. Your edit summaries don't state that that's what you're doing, so it looked very much like blanking of content. Sorry about the misunderstanding, then. Gscshoyru22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Smile!
Hello Gscshoyru, Tiptoety has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Oh, that's nothing. I had an entire attack page created in mainspace entirely full of GIANT BOLD CAPITALS AND CHILDISH INSULTS. Rather flattering, really. shoy12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh goody, vandalism again. Thanks for your hard work in cleaning up the mess. It's nice to have an extra pair of eyes watching out for ya. shoy15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Toad
Hey Gscshoyru,
Sorry, we are new to wikipedia and are not familiar with all the rules. Could you explain to us why it is that Slippy Toad, who is a toad, was removed from the toad wikipedia article?
Basically, that addition is not notable enough for inclusion in the toad article. It belongs in the article on the character itself, not the article on toads. Gscshoyru21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Gscshoyru,
I think I understand now. What makes someone notable enough for inclusion in the toad article?
Basically, information on toads -- you may want to do some reading of policy -- WP:TRIVA and WP:NOT pertain to your addition specifically, and the other links from the welcome template are useful reading as well. Gscshoyru21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I, AngelOfSadness, hereby present this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Gscshoyru in recognition of his speedy vandalism reverts on my userpages and his infinite anti vandalism efforts AngelOfSadness talk 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in and helping with this guy. When I looked at the recent changes, saw his name, and the picture he had uploaded, I had a suspicion he was up to no good. That is, in my experience, the shortest time span between account creation, beginning to vandalize, and being blocked, I've ever seen. It's a pleasure to see such great teamwork. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Pity others couldn't be as courteous as you. Do you realise that in a matter of seconds after you put up the speedy deletion notice someone deleted the article? How am I supposed to reply in time? Concernedcitizen10219:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would have deleted it myself, had I the ability to do so -- but I am not an admin. WP:N may be of useful read, please stop re-creating the article. Thanks! Gscshoyru19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I ran across the bizarre series of discussions involving this fellow (I am assuming), and decided to see what a Google search might turn up, and found this: [[3]] It is now several months old, but if this blog post is accurate, it indicates that KK was behaving abusively for a long time before he was (they were?) caught and blocked. Still, I have to wonder what the point of all of it was... I got the impression that he was mentally ill. I suppose we will never know. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out -- I did the same search myself, wondering if there was any veracity to his claims of... whatever he was talking about, since he seemed to imply it was internet based. And I don't think he was mentally ill, I think he really though his policy idea is better than our current implementation, and when efforts to get people to change policy failed, he probably thought if he started acting with more authority, we'd listen. But as you can see, it had the opposite effect. Ah well. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Gscshoyru00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you are correct. Mentally ill or just annoying, he is now gone. Though, I suspect he will return under a new name. I hope I am wrong. His edits here ([[4]]) indicate he was up to no good for a great long time, he'd simply never been caught, as far as I can tell. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa... he'd been at this game for a long time. Wow. Well, it's good that he's gone -- at least for now. And I hope you're wrong too -- but past experience with people like this makes that resolution doubtful -- and they get more irate each time they come back. At least that makes them easier to spot... but why to people get so pissed at us just because they don't get their own way? </rhetorical> Pity they are that way... I've always wondered what a long-term vandal is like in real life. Because no one acts like this in public. Gscshoyru00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Because no one acts like this in public. I have to disagree with you on that point, sir. I once knew a man (who was legitimately mentally ill) who behaved, in public, much like this fellow did (does?) here on Wikipedia: he generally refered to himself in the third person (though not as a collective), was convinced of his mental/intellectual superiority to everyone around him, and was adamant that he had everyone's best interests at heart if we would only trust him. I came to refer to his "type" as the paranoid auto-didact. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this specific case, perhaps -- but I meant the more usual type of long-term vandal. Short term vandals I can understand, they do it for a laugh, get blocked, and chuckle with their friends. But long term abusive vandals have something wrong with them -- I mean, some of them have sleepers going back to April -- who puts such effort into such a destructive cause in real life? But in this specific case, yes, I suppose some people act like that. Though I'm not sure if any do that aren't mentally ill. Gscshoyru00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
But long term abusive vandals have something wrong with them.... Man, do I ever agree with that. For the life of me, I cannot figure it out. At some point, I just stopped trying. Now, I just warn them until they run out of warnings, and then I report them to AiV. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I just didn't believe it -- and even with the ref, this looks more like triva than anything else, the recipe is not "central to the plot" since it's just in there as an easter egg. Also the ref is not a reliable source... but that's besides the point. You should probably think about refactoring the way you add it to the article -- a mere mention would suffice, writing out the whole recipe is giving far too much weight to mere triva. But I could be wrong, correct me if I am. And I suggest you refactor it before someone else removes it for the reasons I've stated. Gscshoyru01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources on video game easter eggs are tough to come by, but Planet Fortress is an IGN site devoted to Valve games. IGN is the predominant online gaming news site. The recipe isn't central to the plot, but the cake is. It's mentioned over and over, on screens throughout the game and actually spoken by Portal's final character. Sсοττ5834talk01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I know the cake is. But your wording: "Portal contains a cake recipe central to the game" implies the recipe is central, not the cake. And writing out the whole recipe is giving far, far too much weight to a piece of trivia that in my opinion, barely deserves mention in the article. If they want to find out more, they can visit the ref, and the whole concept is better integrated into some paragraph of the article, or something. Gscshoyru01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to work toward consensus. Simply saying "the section belongs" doesn't make it notable. Student erotica is not a notable type of Erotica, so please stop adding it unless you can explain on the talk page why it is notable, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Canvassing is a guideline, and it was not violated in any manner. Once again you go and show your limited knowledge. Its okay to let people who may have expertise on a subject know what is going on so that they may weigh in. Student erotica04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Two users
Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a backlog on SP reports, but hopefully this will be quite obvious. Neither editor has an existing SP or CheckUser report.
Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg☺★03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / edg☺★03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. here. Tell me if I'm missing anything. Gscshoyru03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm editing that a little. Can you also collect the diffs of both user's reversions? That's hard for me to do because I'm on a slow machine. / edg☺★03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
←Sorry to overwrite so much. I had that written and was just waiting for some diffs to come in. I have them now, but my computer crashed twice collecting them, to it took a while. SP reports without diffs tend to get ignored. Hopefully, we've not already been passed over. Can you check to see the changes I made work for you? If so, it would be helpful for you to add a note that I was helping with the report, so the examining Admin doesn't interpret the edit history as funny business.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. South Philly03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes please dont go on your reverting spree. We can see you are excited by few bitmap images with your name and a start however it would be nice if you paid a closer attention to edits rather rendering them vandalism. NangOnamos06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. South Philly21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this may sound like a ridiculous question, but do you happen to know if User:216.95.17.12 is some sort of reoccurring vandal going after you? I'm just curious why he chose to attack your user page so fast? See all the discussion at WP:AN. He's blocked anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Him? He's very recurring -- take a look at the histories of some of the pages he changes. This has been going on for quite a while.
His usual range seems to be 216.95.17.* and 216.95.15.* ...so actually, do you think you could range-block those two ranges, for a week or so? And we'll see if the vandalism stops, 'cause I think the other couple ip's are just flukes. Gscshoyru23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism at User talk:The JPS
Yep. He looked like he had gone quiet, and about the time I delisted him, he struck again. Two more anon IPs have shown up; I've blocked both of those without giving a warning. Fool me once... —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he may have been waiting for the warning, that's what set him off. The guy is a nuisance, I wish we could range-block him but it looks like we can't, as his range is too large. Pity. Gscshoyru23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
He has one... usual target. But... he migrates when he's bored. Check my talk page and say Riana's, as well as other vandal-fighters' for ip's starting with 91.108. He's really, really persistent and obnoxious. Gscshoyru23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Will my edits remain?
I deleted the category of "hard rock" because I have NEVER been in the category of hard rock. I am goth/industrial/elctoronic/synthpop. Neither of my two record labels would have ever put me in that category because they don't even sign hard rock bands. I also deleted a link because the link contained yet more incorrect album credits. My frustration is because I don't believe it is right for someone to tag me as a vandal when they didn't even BOTHER to look at the credits clearly written on my albums. Will my edits remain for the category, links, and especially the info.? I'm frustrated because I thought I fixed all the completely wrong credit info. on my 3 albums this summer. Then tonight I see that it's all back from the dead, so I fix it all again only to see it get reverted and I'm called a vandal on top of it all. I wrote my 3 albums. I spent 10 years of my life writing songs and touring. How would you feel if you saw someone write that someone else wrote your songs because they didn't even bother to look at the album credits (and then they call you a vandal for fixing it TWICE!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H88569 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest directing him to the talk page if he has a specific issue with the content... and keep the WP:3RR in mind, both for him and you. Gscshoyru15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Still, he has personally insulted me. That's why I directed you to the diff. In my view, he/her is removing sourced material. Davnel0315:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
He/she is. And personal attacks are also not allowed. He/she has been warned, both for removing content and for potential 3RR violation (which I think you violated too, by the way). So if he reverts again, don't revert, but report to the 3RR noticeboard. It is possible that he has a legitimate issue with the content, however, so you two should discuss rather than edit warring. Gscshoyru15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Similarity of articles has nothing to do with precedent... but he needs to discuss. And so do you, perhaps. Try starting a conversation in talk, then? Gscshoyru15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! Yes, I did not check to see if there was other vandalism in the citing xources article. I just fixed the vandalism i found. Prussian-Hussar16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that -- that's why I directed to to where I did, because it's much better to revert their edits than to attempt to fix them. So now you know how. Gscshoyru16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Dreamguy
Why have you attacked me rather than problem editor Dreamguy? Does this mean nothing?:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Dreamguy has been tyrannising over other editors for months and you attack his victims! No doubt you will now block me for standing up to wiki-bullies as admins usually do. Colin4C19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no attacking involved. Both of you were edit warring, so I warned both of you about the WP:3RR. And whether or not there has been an arbitration case against him, you cannot use that as an argument for or against the merits of his contributions. Stop edit warring and please discuss civilly on talk. Gscshoyru19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of the Jack the Ripper page you will see long, no doubt boring, discussions of the facts of the matter by me to which Dreamguy has not responded. Colin4C19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then do an RFC, or report him the the 3RR noticeboard after warning him about it. But don't violate it yourself, and don't edit war. Gscshoyru19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to state that I am actually interested in the subject of Jack the Ripper and have read many books about the subject. If you look at my edit history you will see the positive contribution I have made to the wikipedia. Dreamguy has already deleted your comment on his talk page, by the way, as is his wont. (I have never ever deleted any comments on my talk page - is that a merit?). Colin4C19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. You've probably never been trolled before, then -- the history of my talk page is somewhat interesting, with all the anti-vandalism work I do I get a number of interesting comments that can only be removed. And you theoretically should archive, not remove -- but since it's always still visible in the history, it doesn't actually make any difference. Gscshoyru19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to say again that Dreamguy has made THREE reverts. I have made two. I have discussed the issues on the Talk page and he has not. I have obeyed wikipedia rules and he has flouted them. Does that count for nothing? Colin4C19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Looks like I was counting a vandalism revert as an edit-warring revert. So you theoretically have one revert left, but it would be much better to discuss it than to revert again. But he needs to actually partake in the discussion, here... hm. I need to take a closer look at this. Gscshoyru19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
October, 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appeared to be constructive and has not been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Thanks for the message. I am pretty new to contributing to wikipedia. Can you clarify what you wanted me to do? Thank you for being courteous and knowledgable. Robert cone23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, warn vandals when you revert them. One of the links I gave you should link to a list of all of the different warnings you can give. Start at level 1, and work up to level 4, except in the case of blatant vandalism, when you can skip steps. Past level 4, report them to WP:AIV. And twinkle makes doing this much, much easier, if you're gonna make a habit out of it. Gscshoyru23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried. I am working on Safari. I am not that fluent in computer language and programing. You are not being too invesive, you are just trying to help someone that is not good with programing.Robert cone00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Programming ability has nothing to do with it; it's a simple enough process. But if you're not using firefox, then it may not work, as firefox is the mainly supported browser... but did you try hitting ctrl-f5, to do a hard refresh? (Oh and firefox is awesome.) Gscshoyru00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I'm so used to people adding their white-supremacist POV to the article that I overreacted when I saw a new, unsourced section. It's actually not at all bad, it just does need some sourcing for what you say, so I tagged it, (eventually...) rather than reverting it. Sorry about overreacting originally. The template is there, people will see and hopefully add refs -- but see WP:V for why everything in wiki should have them. And again, sorry. Gscshoyru02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Thanks for being reasonable. At first I thought you were an . . . jerk. Glad to have my expectations contradicted. Leadwind02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I try to be reasonable, and assume good faith, but dealing with vandalism I tend to forget that rule sometimes. It's (I think) my greatest failing here on wiki. So sorry for the inconvenience earlier, and glad I changed your first impressions. Gscshoyru02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Just dropping by to say thanks for the revert on my talkpage. It's much appreciated. Keep up the great work :-) Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Actually... check the history. That was edgarde that fixed it up nicely, not me. But I know much better how to make these now, if necessary. And thanks again! Gscshoyru19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, then..um..semi-good job..how's that?...;) Just joking, your efforts are well worth the compliment..you're a fantastic vandal-fighter and a most excellent editor. Dreadstar†19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol... and thanks for the compliments! Well... except for the editor part. I'm not really an editor... yet. I would like to be one, though. Eventually I will start improving things, instead of reverting to the way they were. Gscshoyru19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was reverting them all that way for speed -- but they are all. however, unsourced and should be removed. Gscshoyru23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Mobile phone
You and User talk:ZHUMAS214 seem to be just reverting each other. In fact I think you hit the WP:3RR. Is there some way that this can be defused. His additions do have some references, although they are sparse for the amount of text added. Perhaps tag the section with a {{refimprovesect}} and give him a chance to find more stuff to back up what he says. Of course if what he has added is a copyvio, can this be shown?--NrDg04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I did just hit the 3RR -- thanks for the warn, one more and I'll violate it -- but read the section, it's written like an essay. It's not factual content, but the writer's own interpretation backed up by sources as it would be in an essay. It's not that its unsourced, but that it's non-encyclopedic the way it is written, and would need a major re-write to be encyclopedic. At least that's my opinion; what do you think? Gscshoyru04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It reads a bit like an essay, which is not a problem by itself if all of the facts and conclusions in it ARE backed up by the references. The two references are books so I can't verify whether or not everything he says is a paraphrase of the books or just his synthesis (original research) based on what he has read and his opinions. I'd recommend bringing up specific concerns on his page or the discussion page and asking for better, verifiable to us, references. The information looks correct based on what I have read and is, I think, a good add to the article. It is just missing good references. I think the edits are good faith by a newbie and the standard warnings aren't giving him much guidance. (I have your page on my watch list so no need to reply on my talk page). --NrDg04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, if he can back up what still looks to me like his own synthesis with references, then it'll be fine. I shall tell him so. Gscshoyru04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Great. Good to add the welcome at the top too. You might consider removing the uw-npov3 as well or strike. The previous warnings are probably sufficient. Hopefully he will engage and work to make his additions acceptable. --NrDg05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Multiple academic citations have been deleted by user Saedirof who has replaced hevaily referenced sections with some tales of his own. This is not acceptable. As for the deletion tag it was not placed by an admin. Shakti 2523:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, and afd notice doesn't have to be placed by an admin for it to be valid -- read WP:AFD. But, the page it references doesn't exist, so you can remove it. Sorry for accidentally reverting everything else as I did so... oops. My mistake. Gscshoyru23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually look at the talk page history or anything... I don't know what's going on. Is this a sock?
Yes... it has to be a Mudaliar sock... User:Casper21 was making the exact same edits until that account was blocked. I've been watching this edit war for a while.--Isotope23talk00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
[User:Feeder2|Feeder2] was making a point regarding my user page comment. It is still somewhat the truth but I am working to make it a better place. Anyway, keep up the good work! Spryde00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Wikipedia that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone.
Unfortunately Wikipedia has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and correct.
It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring.
My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on Wikipedia.
See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Your own reasearch or knowledge is not a verifiable reference for knowledge. Nor do the refs you provide conform to WP:V or WP:RS. So it is removed for those reasons. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, it is an encyclopedia. As such, information must be cited by reliable, verifiable sources. Gscshoyru01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
about ronald
explain to me how ronald being a happy clown is not legit. isn't he not? And might i suggest you change your name because when ever i say it i have to form a big ball of phlem or mucus to pronouce it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermannnn21 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the world book encyclopedia 2003, it says, and you can verify it yourself, that "he is characterized with extreme happyness, which reverberates upon the children he encounters. . ." I left that epilipses there because it was not a end sentence. Please respond, I can site, and if this encylopedia is licit in any shape or form, I should be priviledged to provide that factotum.
Oh yeah, and this is not a new account, I am simpily with my accomplice and we happen to share very identical ideologys. Please don't make presumptions, fore its not an acedemically desired idiosyncrasie.
Really? In an encyclopedia? Shame on it. That still doesn't fit into the policies of WP:V and WP:RS, however -- we cite secondary sources, and that's a tertiary source. Perhaps you could use what the encyclopedia is sourcing to say that? Gscshoyru01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The above argument
I just discerned and have been enticed by the above argument. However Gscshoyru, you should recognize his sourcing, and if that does not appease the requirments, then I shall look online until I find a citing that says Ronald Mcdonald is a happy clown (a secondary source of course). I would also like to point out that the accounts that he set up were probably on different IP addressess. Some people can easily circumvent ridiculous blocking like the kind you try to fruitlessly implement. I have absolutly no connection to the above stated, however I will, in his favor, find a secondary source that cites Ronald Mcdonald as a "very happy clown" and inevitably, you will have to accept it. If you try to accuse me of being the same person I will report. I did however just create this account to throw in my two cents.
Thanks for your laborious reading, for I know the compurgative language I use is over your head,
RALMAO, I have just been to the mcdonalds offical website and they themselves have proclaimed ronald as "the hamburgur happy clown". It is now official, thank you very much, it will be up and cited shortly. . .
You're almost certainly the same user as the one above, based on account creation time. Please stop. You'll just keep getting yourself blocked. We're not stupid. And happiness is subjective -- therefore it really can't be included. And mcdonalds own site is not a verifiable, reliable source -- see WP:V and WP:RSGscshoyru02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh...
Unfortunately, it's the lot of the vandal-fighters ..take a gander at this, multiple sock accounts created in advance back on April 22nd...true advanced planning... Dreadstar†02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, even if that bit of stupidity is true, technically, s/he lost. RM wasn't "blocked" it was only semi-protected. The purported "student" was actually the one blocked. Dreadstar†04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You may not be stupid, but nor are you noted for your intelligence. I possess a major in computer sciences from USC and a minor in European Studies. What am i doing trying to cause trouble on wikipedia. I think you associates are full of your selfs and are extremely egotistical. Give up your frivoulous blocking, because I possess an illegal device that allows me to compile and create IP addressess to use for things other than this.
Give up your frivolous effort. Its useless.
I sincerely doubt you're doing anything than unplugging and replugging your modem. Or ipconfig release and renew. I'm doubling in math and CS, so I know a bit more than you think I know. And seriously, please stop. Gscshoyru02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Continuation of Dear Sir
You seem to have taken this an entirely different direction. I am sorry if you disagree with the edits made to laborer. What do you suggest we do for a solution that you find acceptable. I have not placed my own research into the laborer page as it is only a way to relax between work. I am a researcher at Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Construction Engineering Management program and take my work very seriously. You are obviously much more knowledgeable about wikipedia protocol and etiquette so please provide some beneficial advice as to what you prefer as sources. I assume you are not opposed to the formatting changes only the content. Could you also be more specific as to which sources are not acceptable, most were from very respected institutions and researchers.
Granite0702:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What we prefer as sources? There are nice policy pages on them. WP:V and WP:RS explain what sources are and aren't accepted, I suggest you read those. Gscshoyru02:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have 6 more papers to grade tonight and with your help it has taken all day. I was only updating the laborers site between every couple papers as a break.
Can I please restore the laborers page and I will correct the deficiencies over the next few weeks. Interesting enough I created the page so it is all my opinions and thoughts. I do want your help understanding what the expectation is for sources, web sourced, trade union sourced, government sourced, and academically sourced, I used all four.
I also make edits to the heavy equipment page, it also does not conform, or any of the other construction pages. It does not seem realistic to delete the entire construction section of wikipedia. I understand my field is not the most academic but we do use a bit of math and CS.
Ok, I do have a proxy connection to jstor and other sites for my day job here. I will find other sources, the laborers union is almost third party. They are not selling anything.
ASCE is a recognized Journal, the most prestigious in my field in fact! Where else would I source from? It is what we all aspire to publish in.
Granite0702:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I know they aren't. But a source isn't verifiable if it isn't easily verifiable, so you can't use it.
If you want to improve the article properly, you can't leave it in the form it was, and slowly change it. That's just not proper. What you can instead do is make a subpage of your userspace and fix it up there. Put it, say, User:Granite07/PAGENAME, where PAGENAME is whatever you want, and no one will change it there. You can fix it up there till it conforms, and then be bold and replace the current page with it, ok? How does that sound?
you should look up kaizen, continuous improvement, it is a concept they teach here. I guess it is hard to reconform to different rules, but I can create large batches and update if you prefere rather than many small batches.
Granite0702:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your changes currently don't improve, because of source problems. Therefore, they shouldn't be added until they
do improve. I've shown you how to make your own personal workspace, have fun, and try updating the current article when your fixed-up one fits policy. Gscshoyru02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I am 88.87.6.72 but I forgot to log in.
I wanted to delete some of MY oppinions in Talk:Blaqk_Audio which I consider to be not on the topic or the page doesn't need them...
Xr 109:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. And you're about to violate the WP:3RR, so I warned you about it. They have not, so they weren't warned. Please discuss on the talk, rather than reverting, seeing as consensus is fully against you. And please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Gscshoyru12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop in to the talk page related to Fathers' Rights Movement before making any additional edits. I am working to remove bias from the article and am providing credible citations. In addition, I am discussing changes on the talk page. If you have questions about the edits, please discuss them on the talk page rather than deleting changes. Rogerfgay15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked. But your stuff was uncited, and POV'd itself, and we do not talk on article pages -- saying "I'll expand later" visibly in article space is wrong. It's been reverted, by someone else now. And in fact the stuff in the talk pages shows what you are doing is against consensus, so please stop and discuss, first.Gscshoyru18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are people involved with a specific political agenda. There's nothing I can do about their opposition, just as fathers generally. Rogerfgay19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You may want to see WP:CONSENSUS. If consensus is against you, then you you must not keep doing what you're doing, which is going against consensus and about to violate the WP:3RR. Claiming that several unconnected editors all have a WP:COI without any proof or justification is not at all nice. Don't you think it's possible that they're reverting you because you're violating policy? Please discuss on the talk page rather than continually reverting, or you will be blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Gscshoyru19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!
Nice editing man!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Alfred, award this barnstar to Gscshyru for his hard work against vandalism and on an extra note, thanks for the tip you gave me! :) Gunnerdevil401:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you're confused as to what I mean -- you removed his comments from the talk page. That's what I was warning you about. I'm not talking about the actual article at all. Gscshoyru20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In case you are curious, the script removal was due to User:Prckay1 trying to keep people from knowing he edits at User:99.224.49.238 (although him being autoblocked there makes it sort of obvious). It's going to be quite difficult to argue that they aren't the same person now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree with your removal of my paragraph on the vast hoax surrounding Drake's will. I caefully cross-referenced this to the perpetrator, who has his own article in Wikipedia which discusses the matter in depth, and included another reference to an article discussing The New Yorker piece on this scam. Thus, it is clearly referenced two different ways. If these links are satisfactory please return it; it's an amazing example of public gullibility. Richard Weil04:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Your original link did not seem to be a WP:RS, nor did you WP:CITE it properly. But if the New Yorker had a piece on it, that is a reliable source, so add it back using that source as a reference, and WP:CITE it properly. Gscshoyru11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Get Conflict Issue
You have no right to remove the factually get conflict article
from my edit unprotected page. You suggested you placed it on another page. This is not your right to touch my talk page.
--Sagbliss17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest I put it on another page. I did put it on another page. It should not be on your talk page, that's far too confusing to users who wish to communicate with you. Instead, it's on a subpage of your userspace, where you can do, within reason, whatever you want with it, which is what you intended, ok? Gscshoyru17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's it...
...it's gotten to the point where I can't do RC patrol anymore because of you and DerHexer. You're also the reason WP:AIV is backlogged so often. There's only one way to remedy this... interested in running for admin? :D east.718at 19:23, 10/28/2007
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gscshoyru. The reasoning I gave then still applies. Unfortunately, I still have yet to actually contribute to articles. I am interested in it, eventually. But I've only been active for four months, and I really should have some experience contributing to articles first. Plus, I have no experience with AFD's, which seems to be a necessary condition for adminship, as I have seen it others' RFA's. However, your message is quite gratifying. Seriously, you've made my day. I'm not the only person (besides DerHexer) that's keeping you from doing RC patrol, am I? Gscshoyru20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an RfA for you would go badly. Lots of editors who exclusively fight vandals have had successful RfAs; the two that jump to mind are DerHexer and CSCWEM, although they both had around 12,000 edits at the time of their RfA. Hell, Clown's RfA received over 60 supports before he even accepted it. As for AfD, I don't do dick there and my RfA is running away with supports. However, if you want to build some articles first, that's your choice and I can't argue with you. As for the other thing, this is what I see whenever I try to do RC patrol:
Expand me!
Latest revision is made by DerHexer, so it might already been reverted, stopping reverting.
Latest revision is made by Gscshoyru, so it might already been reverted, stopping reverting.
Vandalism revert is chosen on ClueBot, as this is a whitelisted bot, we assume you wanted to revert vandalism made by the previous user instead.
current lag of 11 seconds is more than our defined maximum lag of 5 seconds, will retry in 5 seconds...at which point I get beaten by someone using WP:VF.east.718at 11:31, 10/29/2007
I see stuff like that often too, you know -- usually often off of DerHexer and Oxymoron83 and AngelOfSadness, and sometimes you. Maybe it has to do with when I do vandal patrol that we keep running into each other. It doesn't matter though -- AfD isn't important to me -- but contributing to articles is. This is an encyclopedia, the main point of which it to contribute to. I'm just an ancillary member, currently, I'll I've managed to do is keep the status quo, which isn't improving the encyclopedia. Eventually, say winter break, hopefully, I will get around to adding to a number of math, CS, and possibly science articles, since these are my passions, and what I know most about. Till then, though what I do is important, and my understanding of policies are pretty good, I need to do much of what the most important task in the encyclopedia is before running. After winter break, when I'm back at college, I may be open to a nom, if I've done what I say I'll do. But ask me first. (Also, me contributing to articles will leave you open to do some RC patrol!) Gscshoyru11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
On the Talk Page, I presented an argument for reinstatement. If you still believe that your reversions were the best course of action, then please provide support for that view.
It's called a MISTAKE. I had too many tabs open and I meant to edit a user's talk page Nishkid64 and accidentally edited that. If you read my recent edits you will see that. Why on earth would I vandalized the talk page when I'm trying to get my article reverted? Could you possibly be more reactionary and hostile? Just delete it and move on. Thanks. Even real cops aren't this bad!Apples99 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs)
I'm actually inclined to agree on this one. You're one of our best vandal fighters, Gscshoyru, but maybe a little too quick on the trigger this time. ;) GlassCobra16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec)If it's a mistake you should have told me in the first place instead of, well, "cursing" at me, (yes hell is a curse) and I wouldn't have given you a level 3 warn if one hadn't already had one towards the bottom for personal attacks. I tend to look at the contribs after I warn, since twinkle takes me right to your talk page, and your recent edits combined with the personal attack warning made me mentally dump you into the "trolling because their non-notable article was deleted and their pissed about it" category, and your original message to me only corroborated my categorization of you. Admittedly, it's not assuming good faith -- which I admit is probably my greatest failing -- dealing with vandals makes me see vandals everywhere, which is a bad thing. But you could have done some of the same -- asking kindly if you didn't know what I was talking about, telling me that I was making a mistake, and why, and/or apologizing would have elicited a different response from me sooner. In any case, sorry for assuming you were someone you weren't, and sorry for giving you such a harsh warn. Gscshoyru16:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is for you as you already have many barnstars for stopping vandalsim. I noticed the Geography portal had gone and was panicing about how I was supposed to get it back and which version it should go back to. Next thing I knew, you and come along and fixed it which, of course calmed me down. While this award may not strictly have be given for infinate patience, it is for giving a newbie peace and I'm sure that's allowed. Thank you :) Nengscoz4162002:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have provided reasons -- see the talk. And please read up on policies yourself -- ip jumping to get around the WP:3RR is WP:SOCK, and accusing other editors of vandalism when it is unwarranted and a mere content dispute violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Finally, read WP:BRD -- you made a change, were reverted, so you discuss without reverting again, until consensus is reached. You no not keep reverting if multiple editors oppose you. Gscshoyru03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable.♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"?10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose, that does in fact make sense. Otherwise admins could impose their power on content disputes because they believe they're right, which could lead to problems -- better to be safe than sorry. But even with as blatant as a rule-breaking as this one, though? Gscshoyru18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It is best to err on the side of caution and have another admin look over the situation. Admins shouldn't use the tools if they have been personally involved in the situation. While I really wasn't (the IP filed a false vandal report against the person who reverted him. While following up on it I found he was blatantly pushing his edit through using multiple IPs) it would still risk looking/being improper. IrishGuytalk18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, point taken. It's just that I have found 3RR reporting to be a bit slow, and you have to sit with the bad edit on the page waiting for an admin to finally look at the noticeboard, as there aren't many who "patrol" it. But your 3RR was malformed, so theoretically it should have been refused, so be more careful. I wonder if AzaToth can add an interactive tool to twinkle that'll let you make half-automated reports... hm. Gscshoyru18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
3RR is indeed slow these days. Honestly, I should go over there more often to assist. I didn't provide diffs for multiple reversions, true, but I figured a glance at the contributions would show that is the only article the IPs had edited and the edit summary's show they are simply reverts. IrishGuytalk19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
AngelOfSadness talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, could you please assist in reverting the vandalism of Animal ? I would do it myself but I would prefer an experienced Wikipedia editor restore it to the most correct version.
165.145.220.20112:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are the facts being reverted on the X-Files page? The new X-Files movie has been officially confirmed by Twentieth Century Fox, yet the article is constantly being reverted back to a state whereby readers will assume that the new movie is simply speculative, when in fact it isn't. I have repeatedly attempted to clarify the situation and article yet for some reason a few members would prefer that the content and facts remain unclear! The new movie has been officially confirmed! It is not speculative, so why not make that clear on the WIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA?210.54.245.4422:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you moving the section? The part you're moving seems to be a conclusion of the rest, so moving it and labeling the rest as speculation makes them seem seperate, and the stuff you're calling speculation is a "failed path," so to speak, which does not seem to be the case. So unless there's some good reason to move that section, in which case please explain on the talk, leave it where it is. Gscshoyru22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The new facts are being intentionally buried under the old content. The section is entitled "Future of the X-Files" yet if you read it you'd be forgiven for thinking the new movie is unconfirmed when in fact it in't. Why give preference to outdated ramblings?210.54.245.4422:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
They seem pretty recent to me -- much of what is stated happens in 2007, which is in fact recent. Adding the confirmation I can understand, but moving it still makes no sense whatsoever. And this really should be discussed on the talk, not here. Gscshoyru22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't mention it. I saw The JPS's old friend out and about again, and kept an eye on his contribs, and he hit you for reverting him so I reverted back. Don't worry though. He'll be back, in about 2 minutes... wonderful </sarcasm> Gscshoyru01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's some way you can have a new one e-mailed to you from the log-in screen, if you gave wiki your e-mail when you signed up. Otherwise, you're stuck. Gscshoyru20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Um... there are wikipedias in most common languages, including Spanish. That's why we don't need translations. Go to www.wikipedia.org, and find it, if you want to contribute to the Spanish wikipedia. But blanking page content and replacing it with Spanish is not acceptable, because now English users can't understand. Gscshoyru20:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So what you are saying I should do is add spanish content without taking out the english content, leaving both of them there, so both english and spanish users can read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SayUnclePal (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Not at all. I'm saying there's a Spanish wikipedia for those who speak Spanish, which they can use for information, which is why all content in the English wiki is English. I'm also saying that even though you may not have known this, you should have known that removing the English content is bad, period. Gscshoyru20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I Understand. Can you change it back? I'm not sure how... (P.S. You spelled wikipedia wrong in your last response, so I fixed it for you.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SayUnclePal (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry that the FBI and numerous major news organizations are not good enough for you, exactly what type of source meets your high standards? Honestly, you show a lot of bias here, and it's pretty obvious. There are some Banditos and groupies that wish to sugar coat (would that be coke or meth?) their history (you seem to fall into this group), but the fact is, the article is not accurate and it's people like you that are allowing this to continue. I *will* take it to arbitration if when I add a section on "Illegal Activities" you or your associates remove it without proper discussion and valid reasons. Proxy User22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about -- can I have a diff, please, as an example of what I did that you don't like? In any case, I know absolutely nothing about the Banditos, so I'm not trying to sugar coat anything. But when I remove content, it's usually because the content is unsourced or POV'd, which yours probably was -- please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Thanks! Gscshoyru13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for riding "shotgun"
71.62.216.87 has been trying to insert himself into an ARBCOM, working diligently to try to provoke reactions from parties. You again came to help.
Heh, Thanks! You really should warn him when he does personal attack, though -- see WP:UTM, I believe that has all the user warnings you shall ever need. Gscshoyru16:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it prudent to get into a discussion with a disruptive individual who is looking for a response? That was the underlying reason for my not reacting with a caution or note on the editor's home/talk page. FWIW Bzuk16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
If you don't warn him, he won't get a final warning so he can be blocked. It's a personal attack, and thus he should be warned, and blocked if he persists, and then you no longer have to worry about him. It's not a discussion, it's a revert and warn and ignore (much like WP:RBI). If he's using a dynamic ip, you can always get an admin to semi-protect the page he keeps hitting, or rangeblock if the range is small enough. Or am I missing something? Gscshoyru16:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I reasoned that this was another of a series of sockpuppet attacks generated through a dynamic IP that would be difficult to eliminate, but your advice is appreciated and I will submit that caution. FWIW, I tend to use the "water off a duck's back" approach in dealing with issues such as this. Bzuk16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
Hm... so he is a dynamic ip with a wide range... pity. Does this mean we shouldn't warn him, then? Warnings in my opinion are faceless, they're not real "interaction." If us warning him is entertaining, so is us reverting him, so why change the original method? Gscshoyru16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
An interesting comment by "you know who" made in this discussion is very telling: "stick with DNFT, dumbass" which I can extrapolate to being very sage advice as to how to deal with the subject. FWIW [:¬∆ Bzuk17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
We revert him because he's disruptive and making a mess on articles and talk pages. He's been warned ump-teen times, and every usersock has been blocked. Please, what's the sense in continuing to warn him? If one has a scpript or tool that does the warning for you in one click, that might make sense. But no scripts/tools like Twinkle work right for me on my system, so I have to warn manually. I'm assuming the same is true for BZuk. To me, it's just not worth the extra time to warn an IP address that won't be used again anyway beyond that "edit" session, or to warn the original user who is blocked anyway! - BillCJ17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me he hasn't stopped using this ip -- and he hasn't been blocked yet on it either. So you warn, and then Report to AIV as they usually need vandalism after final warn to block, unless the user's a blatant sock... which I suppose in this case he is. But I can understand not doing it 'cause it takes a bit longer than a single click. And yeah, warning the original is pointless. Gscshoyru17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, I'm out of order in the discussion string. See my comment above about DNFT (image is an icon used in that context): FWIW, a warning has been issued on the appropriate talk page which was immediately followed by a taunt?! Bzuk17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
He's made 7 edits in an hour and a half timespan. WHen he logs in again, even if he's not blocked, he'll simply be on another IP. THis is his pattern. As long as Wikipeidia has an open editing policy that includes unregistered IPs, there's nothing that can be done about him on Wikipedia itself. He knows that, asnd as long as this is "fun" to him, he'll keep doing it. ANd apparently, being warned, when he knows it's useless, is FUN! - BillCJ17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. He's a sock of User:Daddy_Kindsoul who keeps coming back every once in a while and re-reverting to his version, which he can't do 'cause he's a sock. And this is the first time he's used twinkle, which is a pity... he was slower before, and now he'll be fast. Could I have some help reverting, please? Otherwise it'll take me a while... Gscshoyru20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, do send me an e.mail at the following address MXSLA@yahoo.co.uk and explain to me why are you spoiling the article about the SATAMKAR family.
Do you have a better knowledge about this subject (Bene Israel) that I have after 17 years of researches ? Does it bother you to have the name Satamkar written in Marathi. Which rights do you have on the photographs, some of them are my PRIVATE PROPERTY and others have been given to me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxsla (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, if you're saying you're adding content based on your own knowledge, that's original research which wikipedia does not allow -- see the link. Second of all, your content is POV'd, and wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view on content. Third of all, from what you said, it sounds like you may possibly have a WP:COI, and should not be editing the article in the first place. That's why your edits have been reverted. Please read up on appropriate policy, and WP:CITE the content you add with reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks! Gscshoyru12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What did I do
That bot was being retarded so I wrote some stuff. I would like it if you please tell me what I did wrong. Thank You What ever it is Idid not want to trouble for me Ilovebirtbikes 13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are totally wrong. What are you the wikipolice. Look that bot was wrong. Ilovebirtbikes 13:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes 13:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovebirtbikes (talk • contribs)
this is not allowed -- you are not supposed to change another user's page anyway, and completely changing it the way you did is against policy; making the user out to be nasty when he is not. Please don't do it. And I'm not the "police," just a recent-changes watcher. Thanks! Gscshoyru13:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Look I have nothing against that user. So I dont know where you got that i thought he was nasty. Because i never thought that. please get you information right next time and dont acuse someone of saying something they haven't. you sure are acting like the police Ilovebirtbikes 13:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes13:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you did or didn't have anything against the user. I said the way you changed the userboxes made him look nasty. Also, more than 3 exclamation marks is also quite unnecessary. Gscshoyru13:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
When you makes someone out to be something, you make the person seem link the something. It's just an expression, like "raining cats and dogs." Sorry if I used an expression you did not know... but now you do! Gscshoyru13:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So I had guessed... but might as well play it out just in case he isn't. But with his most recent revert, it seems that he is. Ah well... what does he have against you, anyways? Gscshoyru14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I know it sums to that, I was just stating it is in module C2 (core maths 2) for AS (first half of A level) maths, so is hardly that advanced, compared to stuff like linear algebra, real analysis and partial derivatives. Why would anyone want to stalk you projectors, u r well minging, and from ur userpage/boxes u don't sound like good fun AVA rulez14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)It's just the user box... I didn't pick the image. And with your obsession with maths you sound very much like ln of x... Gscshoyru14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the article was about a non-notable person, and so I marked it for deletion, and told you. Then an admin saw the tag and deleted the article under the criteria. Gscshoyru23:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Blaming you? There is no blaming involved. You created the page -- so I informed you that I tagged it for deletion. Gscshoyru12:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That's because it has been deleted. You did in fact make the page -- otherwise my tool would not have automatically informed you when I tagged the page. Gscshoyru12:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Liking your newly-acquired powers, I see? Congrats, by the way :) I like your comment. Normally I'd say something along the lines of Don't feed the trolls... but seeing as he isn't giving up anyways, it probably does not matter :) Gscshoyru02:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
He actually snuck it in before the protection, it's just that MediaWiki handles edit conflicts and histories very poorly if the time between edits is less than the server lag. east.718at 02:17, 11/12/2007
Normally I wouldn't care, but it's getting to the point where he's blowing up my watchlist. east.718at 02:50, 11/12/2007
There's so many changes being made to my talk page that it's taking up my whole watchlist. east.718at 02:54, 11/12/2007
LOL. I'd suggest protecting your page but that would... kinda defeat the point, would it not? We seem to have jumped to June, too... which is good 'cause his socks have been from April for as long as I remember. Gscshoyru02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. No, not yet. The most important job in an encyclopedia is adding content. I have done none of that, yet, and in my own standards of myself, I shouldn't be an admin till I have done that at least for a good while. I think I will start adding to math articles come winter break when I have time off from college and have time to do things other than vandal-fight. Though it does seem to be the season, though... so many are being sysoped lately. As for nomming me... Get in line ;) Thanks for the vote of confidence, however :) Gscshoyru03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
You posted on my discussion i should not attack others pages. This is fine with me, but please tell Dragonflysixtyseven and other administrators to attack all the edits that I have made on Wikipedia and my pages. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camoq (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Attack edits? I didn't know you could do that. You mean revert? Or delete? I'm sure it was deleted according to policy, I'm not sure of the exact reason since I can't see the edits to the page since it doesn't exist, but they're usually pretty good about that sort of thing. Whether it was non-notability or what, they probably linked you to policy explaining why. I suggest you read the appropriate policy, so that the next page you create will conform to policy and won't be deleted, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru03:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit to Mars
Hello. I'm sure it was unintentional, but you reverted a legitimate edit to Mars and labeled it as vandalism. The user who made the edit was attempting to fix a "broken" link in the reference section. It's usually a good idea to check the edits before reverting. Kindest regards, AlphaEtaT / C14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I did check the edits; I always do. But I must have been out to lunch somehow when I reverted, because I should not have at all. I remember seeing the edit, and somehow processed it as him changing the name of the planet, i.e. "Mars", to "Jeffery" which is not what happened at all -- and I have no clue why I thought that either. Thanks for pointing this out to me, I sincerely apologize for my lack of brain function at the time, and the fallacious warning that I gave for it. Totally my fault. I'll try not to let something that stupid happen again. Gscshoyru16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
for reverting vandalism on my userpage! By the way, I find the editing pattern of that IP quite intriguing for a newcomer - what do you think? Of course, it could just be somebody who took offence. No more bongos18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My bet? It's probably someone who's taken offense, but probably not a new user -- there's a thread on AN or ANI, somewheres, I think... Gscshoyru18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
May I add my thanks as well? I was just looking at my page's revision history and saw you reverted vandalism more than once. Very kind of you. Jeffpw22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT me that is in a "revert war" (and I object to your characterization of it as such). There is ample evidence that POV issues exist. By continuing to remove the POV tag you are in fact VANDALIZING the article. Please stop, or I will make a formal complaint. 75.172.38.23302:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What are these issues? If you would be so good as to state them on the talk page, then we will be able to discuss them with you. But simply tagging the article without explaining why doesn't help us help the article. Please explain what the POV issues are, and we can try and fix them. Thanks! Gscshoyru02:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have opened a sockpuppetry case against User:WiccaWeb and his puppets (including 75.172.38.233 and Proxy User) for their actions on the article and its talk page. Thought you should know. Also, please accept my thanks for patrolling this article. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Quit huffin' bike fumes. Don't you have better things to do? You have such a NEED to own that article that you can't accept that others might not hold your view. What revert war? Seems like YOU, Mmoyer, and YOU Gscshoyru, where the ones doing all the reverting. Proxy User03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously hard to be civil to people trying to get me banned for disagreeing with them. It's a shame really. All over a POV tag I wanted on an article, and now all this. The problem is some "editors" take ownership of articles and can't accept other views. Proxy User04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Ownership has nothing to do with it. If you were to explain why you think the article is POV'd, then maybe the POV tags belong. But if you don't explain, then they don't belong. It's that simple. All you need to do is explain your reasoning, and that would help resolve this conflict. Otherwise, how do we know what you have problems with? Gscshoyru04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Proxy User, et al, have been asked to provide concrete evidence of POV no fewer than eight times and can or will not do so. Though I applaud your patience and clear Good Faith in dealing with them, perhaps it is time for WP:DNFTT. Cheers! Mmoyer22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Only eight? Really? I thought it was more. Like, at least 30 or so ;) Ok then, your point is taken. I shall try to stop answering his questions/comments, though it may pain me to do so, and simply revert with impunity, until such point that they have followed our previous advice... ah well. Thanks for the jerk back to reality. Gscshoyru22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I am done for a while. Let's slow-roll this per here and wait a day. It can't hurt (it's only a tag, not a blatant vandalism), and they won't have anything to do in the mean time. The sockpuppet case is reopened. Do you think there is value in an RFC on him/them? Mmoyer23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen that before. That is most intelligent. I shall have to try that.
I reverted it myself though -- he's been blocked for 48 hours and the page protected, for disruption, so I figured I could revert, and cite WP:IAR if someone called me on it. But what you just showed me is a most useful idea. Gscshoyru23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Digg
Um, I would think that digg would be a reliable source for events pertaining to digg. And as far as notability? I assumed that the actual size and scope of the hoax, not to mention the importance of the hoax's subject, would make it notable. Wikilost00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
No, digg is really not a reliable source, even about itself. See WP:RS and WP:V. And I still don't see how it's notable beyond any other hoax on digg... you need outside sources to show notability. Gscshoyru02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Um.. I don't know if you'd looked at the sources, but they are the actual articles on digg. There is no doubt that the hoax happened, because you can SEE it still. As for notability, I'll work on it. Wikilost02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Because some random fictional character that almost no one knows about being named after a place is simple not notable enough to be put in an article about that place. Put it in the article about that character, on in the article on the book or whatever that includes that character. Not in the article about the city. Thanks! Gscshoyru14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stumbled across something that reminds me of the viral marketing campaign 'Ethan Haas was wrong' and I'm not sure if it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Also, I am not experienced enough at all to make an aricle about it. Here's some of the links I've found about something called "The List Incorporated"... http://whatistli.blogspot.com/ and http://LYBRI3RPI.blogspot.com/. So if you think it's notable enough for an article feel free to make one.
-Benji
coses.art@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benji williamson (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today is where you want to go -- I'm not much of a writer myself. But request there, following their rules, and they may make an article if they determine notability, and won't if they don't... but... I suggest you read the polices WP:V and WP:RS because blogs are not reliable sources. Also, WP:N is our notability policy for articles. And welcome, though, and happy editing! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I wrong
Hi, you were the one who introduced me to the requirement of citation for a claim that has been challenged. Am I off base here: Talk:Sam#Primarily_a_male_given_name in thinking that the claim I have disputed should not be returned until it is sourced?
Am I wrong? Or am I just encountering stubbornness? I tried being bold, I got reverted, so I tried discussion and referring to policy and I got reverted. Well I don't want to edit war, but I do dispute the fact in question as being dubious at best. I really do not want the readers of Wikipedia to be misinformed. Sam Barsoom (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're not supposed to keep reverting during the discussion. But I do agree with your assessment, that unsourced content should be removed when disputed, and I don't see what could be lost from a disamb. page from removing it, since they're not supposed to be encyclopedia article themselves. It is a bit of a silly thing to argue about, though. The cite-needed tag is fine, and I suggest you continue to discuss it rather than reverting. Gscshoyru (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am citing it
I have been a resident in Clearview, Wa for 20+ years. I think that I am able to use myself as a resource for the information I am posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorn12345 (talk • contribs)
Thank you for the revert on my user page. Clearly, that anonymous user is confused about how things work around here, so I will not take offense at his actions. At any rate, I appreciate the revert, and the message you left on his talk page. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, nothing to be offended at. He was confused and uniformed. Now, hopefully, he's not confused. Always better to WP:AGF, don't you think? That way in cases like these everyone ends up happy :) And the revert, is, as always, no problem :) Gscshoyru (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's usually up to no good -- he's trying to provoke a response, since that's what trolls do, and shall not get one. Thanks for explaining, though. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comment at the talk page of the user who made personal attacks in response my deletion of his trivial edit. If that sort of thing bothered me I would not have become a Wikipedian! Viewfinder (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
=nevermind!!
i understand where the template goes now. sorry for the stupid mistake. i thought i did put it on the talk page. i asked for further clarification on the COI page but i no longer need it. thanks for your help.RodentofDeath (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved from user page
I don't know if this is the right place to put this, (Your page is very hard to navigate around), but I need your attention. I have to require information I have lost... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThegreatWakkorati (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 November 2007
It's supposed to go on my talk page, which you get to from the "discussion" tab link at the top of my user page -- same as everyone else. What do you need? Gscshoyru (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
He's allowed to remove it from his own page... but not from others, unless you're trolling, or vandalizing, and I don't think you were. Gscshoyru (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Admining at this time of night is never a good idea and you have my sincere apologies for the incorrect block placed on your account by myself. Please feel free to trout as necessary. Regards, GDonato (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even notice... so no problem. Page moves are a bit hard to mentally process, and that's why you blocked me, right? No problem :) Gscshoyru00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Pi equals 3?
Sorry for intruding, but I'd like to suggest that you let the guy you converse with at Talk:Pi have his misconceptions in peace. He's either a semi-clever troll or an honest crank, but in either case it's a waste of time to try to make him see the light. Otherwise, I imagine, you will soon need to prove in detail that any corner of an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees, and so on and so forth all the way down to the parallel postulate, which your opponent will then denounce as a shallow lie that orthodox mathematicians perpetrate for various ill-defined but clearly nefarious purposes. At some point one just has to stop responding, perhaps citing Goodwin's law. –Henning Makholm04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, no one talked about the forbidden subject... and why stop talking? Better that they understand than that they don't and this one doesn't look like a crank -- it looks to me like they understand now -- see the conversation. They seem reasonable to me... just misguided. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hy,you have 4 sources of Macedonians in Hellas(Greece) on discussion page,can you please put the numbers on the article of ethnic of ethnic Macedonians.I will soon put in new sources of macedonians in World.
Thanks
Makedonij18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What a collection of Barnstars! I'm flabbergasted, intimidated, in awe..
Thanks for stopping by my user page. You left such a polite message that at first I believed it was machine generated :-) You write that contributors should take pains to produce references (I'm paraphrasing). How can I argue with that? In this case though I'm somewhat at a loss..
To begin, I'm not quite sure whether you were refering to my >>nignog<< remark, or was it the philological addition? Since the philological included an example (a reference of sorts), I guess it was the nignog. Unfortunately here, as with many other topics, it can be difficult to produce a formal reference apart from years of living experience - in this case in the UK. [Hmm. Come to think of it I do believe I heard the term used in a film; but it was an ephemeral piece, and I'll be darned if I can remember the title].
Perhaps I can encourage you to discover an insouciant sympathy for my position by inviting you to reconsider many of the natural day-to-day elements of the social life where you live. Take, say, an idiosyncratic way which small town chinese storekeepers might have of greeting an unfamiliar customer (not sure why I thought of that, except that its common enough to be a familiar part of life, while, still being recondite enough to pose a challenge in finding a reference). Whether or not small town chinese storekeepers have characteristic ways about them where you live (Ni hao. Cash cash no take checques..) I believe you can imagine something of this sort which everyone in your community would recognise and agree with, but which can be vexingly difficult to formally reference.
It was all of them. All three. They were uncited, and if you're starting a paragraph with "it must be noted" then slow down and think about what you're gonna say. 9 times out 10, you're writing an essay, which doesn't belong -- wiki is about cited content from reliable sources. So your edits were obviously in good faith, for which I thank you. But, please read WP:RS and WP:V -- all content must be cited. Even you're right, you're not a reliable source either -- see WP:OR. So sorry about reverting your well-meaning edits, but they were uncited and slightly POV'd, and therefore removed. If you can find good sources for them, and remove the POV-ness, by all means, add them back, ok? Thanks!
Oh and the barnstars -- they're just for vandalism reversion. I still have yet to do anything useful, like add content to the encyclopedia. Gscshoyru01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Actually, I did not make changes to another editor's post, but I have no explanation for what happened. I did get an edit conflict notice, but I thought I handles it properly. No clue.--Cberlet (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this an irrelevent change? I'm commenting in agreement of a preexisting topic about deleting of nonnotable content.
I'm stating my reasons why I agree with the author on the freaking talk page. You have absoultely no reason to stop me from stating my opinion on a preexisting discussion about whether or not how pages are deleted is fair on the talk page.
Please explain howyou can delete my comment without reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.41.35 (talk • contribs)
I reverted you as user:Wikoogle, as you were trying to put a criticism section on the policy page, and were spamming your commentary in every section. Then you added a giant block of text that other people wrote, along with your commentary -- see this diff, which is why I reverted that. Now, as a comment on a discussion, it's still iffy, but it can stay. Gscshoyru (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Legit Question
And how is it that you can ban someone by IP address? Does this not then prohibit free access to Wiki due to public/work computers that share internet access?
Hello Gscshoyru. I've been witnessing your superb work here on Wikipedia and wonder if you would be interested in becoming an administrator. If you are, and if you need a nominator, I hereby offer myself for the task. Best regards, Húsönd17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Wait about a month or so. I haven't been active the last month 'cause of exams, and I have yet to actually improve articles, which in my opinion is the most important thing you can do, since that's what wiki is all about. But exams are over and it's winter break, so I plan to fix up some math articles. Once I've done that, and gotten back in the vandal-fighting groove once more, then you can nom me. Gscshoyru (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Gscshoyru, you have helped edit some of my work when I first started out on Wikipedia, and was hoping you could review my latest article I have added on the Toloy Foundation Charity. Im looking for guidence and suggestions on how I could improve the article and my editing skills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuloy_Foundation. Your advice would be appreciated, kindest regards.Susanbryce (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... I'm not too good at that sort of thing, to be honest. I was more dealing with biased content and POV of a certain someone that dealing with layout and content and whatnot. It looks fine to me, though, but WP:MOS is the resource if you want to know the generally accepted layouts and style and that sort of thing. Sorry I can't be more of a help, though... Gscshoyru (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gscshoyru, appreciate that, due to some earlier difficulties I had on articles, Im actively trying to seek out several experienced Editors who can review my work in the future and offer some guidence. If you can think of anyone that can be of help in reviewing some of my work, pls let me know, kindest regards.Susanbryce (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply
First of all I did not use Twinkle. Second of all you should try reading my reasons for editing: "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources" and that is what that userbox is doing. That userbox has already been deleted in the past (see Template:User evol-4). 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm using Twinkle; not you. That's what that means. And it's a user page. And the template was restored immediately after. That's the sort of thing you need to take up with the user; if it's not a blatant violation of some policy, discuss with them first. Also, what the heck are you doing in all your other edits? Please, stop. It's vandalism. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ummm then why is the template deleted right now? Look:
22:23, 28 October 2007 Jc37 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" (indef blocked user evading block)
11:04, 3 January 2006 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) restored "Template:User evol-4"
09:43, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
It should be deleted. As for a couple of my other edits why would you transclude a userbox with parameters if one without parameters already exists? And why would you keep a barely used template? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the general decision, of the link you told me. That was keep. As for the rest... barley used is not the same as not used, and you're screwing up templates. Please, stop. And as for the user page, that seems to be maintained by the user, and there's no listing of what it is anywhere. Please don't edit user pages without permission. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm ahhh huh that still doesn't explain why the userbox is still deleted does it?
Do you even know the protocol for barely used templates? Do you know what you do with them? You either subst: them or replace them with a better template, and that is what I was doing, the complete opposite of vandalizm. I am not screwing up templates I am fixing them. And user pages have to be edited when they contain malicious content. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I had actually told you before you corrected it but there was an edit conflict.
I am merely doing what is right. I am doing what any other Wikipedia user would want me to do. I am cleaning up templates, categorizing them, contributing to the project. Please stop reverting my edits.
this is not clean up. It's a total change. And you seem to have tried this before, by your edits, and were reverted then, as a sock of an indef blocked user, and the same will happen now. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That is how it is supposed to be mate. Those are the same colors as Template:User blank-5, so it only makes sense to change them as other users can misinterpret someone -0 as being -5.
Then create a new template. Otherwise the name is confusing. And where in that link is policy that shows that evolution support is a violation? Gscshoyru (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ummm by create a new template what do you mean? Along with what do you mean when you say the name is confusing?
If you make a template that has to do with language stuff, then make the name have to do with language. Otherwise the name doesn't reflect what the template is.
And, ok. I'll give you the template formatting stuff. You are an indef blocked user, you should not be editing, according to policy in WP:BLOCK somewhere, I believe, and so that may have been a bit of an overreaction. As for the evolution userbox, however, it isn't propaganda or anything. It's simply stating belief. Otherwise the "I am a Christian" userboxes could be removed too. Gscshoyru (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"If you make a template that has to do with language stuff, then make the name have to do with language. Otherwise the name doesn't reflect what the template is."
...What? That is horrible grammar, and please what should the name be?
Cmon man I gave you a link and everything to Content restrictions, you can't find the right link to WP:BLOCK?
You forget two things about the evolution box:
THE REASONING IS RIGHT THERE. It is the third line in content restrictions.
Is "I am a Christian" deleted? No. Is evol-4 deleted? Yes.
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Why do you bother using these run of the mill templates? I just edited again and gave my reasons on his user page. But also why should I stop editing? I thought you were going to get me blocked because I am an indef block user??? Isn't that right???
Step down from your pedestal, feeling high and mighty when I have combated you and won everything you have thrown at me. You feel too superior and think you have automatically won because you clean up vandalism. Wow I did that too when I was a Wikipedian. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the IP user quacks rather clearly to be User:PatPeter evading a block. I've blocked the IP accordingly. Per rules on block/ban evasion, please feel free to revert all the IPs edits. - jc3703:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop replacing your comments -- they're removed as the comments of an indef blocked user -- I know you're the same person as above. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
They're removed for the same reasons they were before, which I've already stated. And there's no other reason for you to replace them. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And where in Wikipedia policy does it say that about my edits? Also would you stop with the annoying subst: ed templates? You are going to block me either way aren't you? 172.164.199.13 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry to take so long -- any response here is likely to be heavy, so I'm hoping to make the right sort of decision. Since the users seem to have a fair amount in common, and since several users I trust are strongly of the opinion this is a sockpuppet, and since this user is creating a huge amount of disruption that I can't anticipate any reasonable person would purposely cause, I've blocked the user. They'll surely be back on another IP, so I've semi-protected your talk for 24 hours. Feel free to report any more problems to AIV, I'll try and watch but will be heading out for the evening in under an hour. Anyhow, thanks for the replies. :) – Luna Santin (talk)03:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No. It wasn't. Cmon cite how it is vandalism, I am still waiting. And I don't have to keep to WP:CIVIL, besides I am only speaking the truth. You think you are high and mighty because you stop IP addesses on wikipedia, not stopping to judge the one who challenges you as good.
Cmon, do it. Prove me wrong. Cite where in Wikipedia policy it says I am vandalizing wikipedia, because I can already tell you how you are. 172.166.222.171 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You're editing another user's user subpages, for no reason other than you think the page is a certain something. The user has already noticed what's going on, and basically stated that they prefer the current version. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I can change my IP 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appeared to be constructive and has not been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
But a little angel came along and fixed it! 
Thank you! Tiptoety 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.