User talk:GoldVillage

Welcome

Hello, GoldVillage! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Miyagawa (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Gibson & Giant George

Hi, thanks for the comment you posted on my talk page. As such, I conducted further research into the two articles and found that what I originally stated was supported in the citations and therefore have restored them. If you wish to change stats and figures, please provide cited independent secondary sources for them. Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccaptable

You're the one claimed Gibson to be 107 cm at withers in the first place, YOU're the one who should provide evidence for that claim. His Guinness record certifikate didnt even mention withers.

George was measured to 39 1/8 at withers and 42 5/8 at mid-point of his neck - we have Nassar's own words to prove it http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/3/9/6/1/227076-216938/GiantGeorgewebpage.JPG

Your lies & false propaganda must end here and now / GoldVillage (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your accusations. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith before responding to me again. Now regarding your comments, let me explain - I did not write the Gibson (great dane) article, all I added was the template at the bottom of the article and details of his death, along with citations. George has been cited at his height as reported on the article. Please feel free to correct it with an appropriate replacement citation, however I suggest you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research before you do so in order to ensure that it is an appropriate source. Good luck with the articles. Miyagawa (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Miyagawa. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson/Giant George

I have added a citation for height to Gibson, I hope that now settles that matter seeing as it was never an article I wasn't involved with massively in the first place.

I have again reverted your edits to Giant George. Prior to you edits, I had added a citation for his height from Guinness World Records itself which proved the height already on the article was the height which had been put into the public domain. Please re-read the links about regarding sourcing and you will see that the reference you provided is not suitable for Wikipedia. Miyagawa (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Gibson (Great Dane). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Miyagawa (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Giant George, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Miyagawa (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neither respect or accept these ridiculous warnings. George's page needs to be changed to the correct measurements and if you dont do it, i will. We all knows that he was measured to 42 5/8 inches at mid-point of the neck and 39 1/8 at withers. http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/3/9/6/1/227076-216938/GiantGeorgewebpage.JPG

so why do you spread false propaganda here at wikipedia? GoldVillage (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:If not involded why interfere?!

Please stop your inadequately sourced edits to Gibson (Great Dane) and Giant George. I have already given you the benefit of doubt as you are new here. Please read the links above regarding sourcing and you will see that the sourcing you are trying to use is not suitable for Wikipedia. Until you use adequate third party sourced referencing, I will continue to revert your edits and issue warnings. I am more than happy for you to change any articles, if you can support it without using either a) original research, b) non-third party referencing, c) screen grabs of websites or d) blog hosted content. 19:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Giant George, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Miyagawa (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Sorry if this sounds unfriendly, but you really need to listen and talk to other editors before re-introducing your changes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for saying the truth...

I want the whole world to know how corrupted wikipedia is (the guinness controlled encyclopedia)

It all started when i improved the "Gibson Great Dane" article (who had errors everywhere) i pointed out that Gibson, according to guinness, was simply measured to "42.2 tall" and not the "42.6 at withers" which was claimed in the article in the first place. I even linked to the guinness world records certificate itself to prove it, but according to user Miyagawa it wasnt allowed(!) the excuse was: "is not suitable for Wikipedia" (the guinness world records certificate itself is not suitable for the guinness worlds records tallest dog?! imagine that)

This user Miyagawa started to change back the Gibson page and included all the earlier errors, with no source to backing up the claims (i.e 7'1 ft on hindlegs). I once again changed it to the correct data which i once again backed up with the guinness certificate itself which resulted in warnings and finaly a ban (set by Materialscientist)

In this case these users are either a bad loser (who start cry when proved wrong and cannot accept it) or simply someone who works for the guinness world records.

Either way, thats something who should not be respected or accepted! GoldVillage (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've had a quick look at the history, and I think the problem was that a scan of a certificate hosted on a blog/podcast site does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. I'm not saying it's fake, but it could be simply done - I could easily produce a version of that jpg with entirely different contents and put it up at another site. So for that reason, amongst others, actual text articles published by known reliable sources are what we need - if you can find those, I doubt you'd have any problem. (Oh, and I'd suggest you try to assume good faith regarding the actions of very experienced Wikipedia editors and admins, and try to understand their reasons - coming out fighting and accusing them of dishonesty and/or bias is very unlikely to get you anywhere). Best regards. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not accept that as an answer!

I have been involded in this since 2004, and IKNOW thats the real certificate. is it my fault if i cant find it at guinness website anymore? and why would the site http://www.dogcastradio.com/ have a false certificate? (yes the certificate is on that site)

saying that it could be fake is so lame! so if thats the problem, i could have edit the article without any sources at all because it wasnt any source there in the first place(still the article was accepted?!) I also pointed out for Miyagawa that the 7'1 ft claim on the hindlegs for Gibson are pure nonsense, everyone with one eye and one brain cell will realize that Gibson is no way near 7'1 in all the pics he is posing with ppl - the evidence is out there! sadly Miyagawa isnt qualified for that. No matter what i do, you will have EXCUSES!

Even when Miyagawa was proven wrong he/she must have a reason for lying about Gibson! i demand my ban to be removed right now! should anyone be banned then its Miyagawa GoldVillage (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You either have to accept Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, or you don't edit here - it really is as simple as that. (And if the article was originally unsourced, then yes, that was a problem - but the way to solve it is to add sources that satisfy the WP:RS requirements). If you want to have your block lifted, please follow the instructions given in the block notification above, but if you want to have any chance of success, I'd suggest you need to change your attitude and stop being abusive to other editors first - I've no idea who is factually correct regarding this dispute, but Miyagawa has been nothing but civil and polite towards you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO WAY

-I- have alerady accepted Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, and i gave a great example of that when i improved the GIBSON GREAT DANE article what part of that dont you understand?! Miyagawa on the other hand is the one who DONT gave any reliable sources and just PROVED THAT when changed my article what part of that dont you understand?! Miyagawa has NOT been civil and polite!

if you have no idea who is factually correct regarding this dispute THEN DONT DEFEND Miyagawa & Materialscientist!!! (the one who banned me) its simple as that!

IDIOTS

GoldVillage (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, well, I tried to help by offering an uninvolved third-party opinion and some friendly advice. But you clearly don't want it, so I'll leave you to try to get yourself unblocked your own way - best of luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT

If you really wanted to help then you could have asked them to remove the wrongly set ban! i explained to you why its wrong, but you keep ignore the SUBJECT(read gibson) as usually! so i may ask again, what part of that dont you understand? GoldVillage (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't ask anyone to lift your block even if I wanted to, because that's something you have to do yourself - it's explained in the block notice above. Best of luck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if the "Gibson Great Dane" Guinness tallest dog article is wrong (i dont find any) as i changed the former wrongly 42.6 claim to the correct 42.2 (supported by Guinness) GoldVillage (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEMAND

I demand that user Miyagawa should be blocked since the user is a proven liar, as provided in "Gibson great Dane" article (7'1 claim = pure nonsense, and 42.6 claim for shoulders is a LIE)

Guinness certificate said 42.2 and didnt even MENTION shoulders.

DEMAND

I also demand that user Materialscientist should be banned, for hiding the truth by looking after the user Miyagawa's personal interests.

"you really need to listen and talk to other editors before re-introducing your changes"

SHOULD I TALK TO OTHER USERS BEFORE RE-INTRODUCING THE TRUTH? OMG

I personally do not care what you say about me, but, if you do not stay WP:civil against other editors, you will get blocked again, only because of incivility. Please keep that in mind, for your own sake. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Gibson Great Dane article to the correct 42.2 inches which is supported by Guinness themself which i also used as a source. Now, Miyagawa will have no reason to change it back to the old false version. GoldVillage (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not continue to edit war on Giant George. While you probably sincerely believe that you are right, Wikipedia works by consensus. If you continue to show unwillingness to accept this, and continue to be uncivil to other editors, you will be likely to be blocked for a longer period than before: perhaps indefinitely. Please take this as a final warning. If you edit Wikipedia disruptively again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]