User talk:Gscshoyru/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re. User:Jimbo Wales

Every edit that isn't a reversion isn't vandalism. Mind explaining how my edits were? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)}

Thanks. Do check next time, though. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for catching that; I didn't realise that there was any vandalism until I checked my watchlist and saw that you'd fixed it. Nyttend 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

re: hidden palms

First off, don't threaten me. Secondly, I have never been warned. Thirdly, I didn't "vandalise" any page.MMAfan2007 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing above your "warning block" is not a warning. It was about a petition that I found. Until an ADMINISTRATOR with full proof of status can tell me that I am not allowed to insert a section about fan support then I will continue to do so.MMAfan2007 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. I added a petition the first time, but not the second. Like I said, until an ADMINISTRATOR with full proof of status can tell me that I am not allowed to insert a section about fan support and where to write a complaint then I will continue to INFORM those. MMAfan2007 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just YOUR opinion. I don't see an administrator telling me this isn't allowed. MMAfan2007 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm in what was added though. It is simply informing fans that continue to support the show as to where they can complain. MMAfan2007 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=128641 and http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=128545 and http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=127820 are good sources enough. MMAfan2007 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know newspaper articles were more reliable than the fans' mouths themselves. Hmm. MMAfan2007 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that primary sources aren't enough? I don't quite understand. MMAfan2007 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the talk page revert.Dust Filter 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User User:Tjnewell

I don't know who to complain to about this so I figure that as you reported him the last time. He keeps deleting comments on my user area as well as his, and I saw him editing the Wiki page with an abusive song about me. (Yesterday ~1.40 UTC) Please help! Jamee999 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is Tjnewell. I offer my full aplogy to Mr. Jameee. I thought he would take it has a joke and he obviously has not . Itherfore aplogise. I delated his talk pages beacuse I felt guilty. I apoliges and hope you will not block me and I wil lget back to my antivandal hunt on the aeroplane sites. Sorry Tjnewell 09:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Please don't do that, it's unnecessary. After all, our average editor doesn't know what AIV is. Besides, it goes against the spirit of WP:DENY and WP:DIV. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's OK :) If other editors are doing it, they shouldn't be! Anyway, keep up the good work :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Barton Town Old Boys F.C.

stop vandalisng the article fool.-- SalvoCalcio 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that was my mistake... sorry, I misunderstood what you were doing. Gscshoyru 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

Sorry about that, it was an honest mistake because I was just trying to add the info about the new record-high that it set, but I edited it properly now. Rodrigue 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep no problem. You're forgiven. ;) Gscshoyru 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

About your revert to Talk:Primary boycott ... you realize that the bot went and tagged every article that coin image as part of the stub template? Also, someone already fixed FU Rationale on the coins? I wouldn't be so quick to call someone a vandal. --evrik ^(talk) 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just got your message. No problem. --evrik ^(talk) 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Help! Have I done the right thing

Sir, you seem to be an experinced wikipedian. I came accros an inapproprite message on the Talk:Orlando International Airport page. Have I dealt with this in the right way ( I have also left a message on the guys talk page) Tjnewell 10:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

wtf

I didnt vandalise. Say sorry for excusing me of stuff I didnt do. --Jaasmeimer Eoosteraatz 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe replacing page content with "FUCKING JERK" as shown here: [1] counts as vandalism. Gscshoyru 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

nope that wasnt me --Jaasmeimer Eoosteraatz 15:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... then either someone else logged into your account or you're lying, because the change is marked as made by you. Gscshoyru 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you're enthusiastic in what you do, but don't revert my changes without a legitimate reason, it is NOT vandalism. I stated what I intended to do,EVERY SINGLE CHANGE on the talk page of the article before I did it. Im going to revert it back to how it was one more time, If you change it again I won't be the one that's vandalizing the article. Anon 003 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize you posted what you were going to do on the talk page. However, a consensus had not been reached, and since it was reverted, you should probably reach a consensus before changing it again. However, I know little about the subject, so I'll let someone else who knows more revert it and discuss it instead. P.S. be careful of the three revert rule... you're very close to violating it. Gscshoyru 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stay out of my business

OOOhhhh!!!! you're scaring me. Help me Dave!!!!--JJonz 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For that small revert at Steel's page, that was my mistake. --No.13 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just one of the many mistakes you have done in this days.... Each one can judge on his own!--Giovanni Giove 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: July 2007

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Duff, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Personal attack"? It's a statement of fact, nothing more. If you're going to go after someone for personal attacks, how about those who support banning him in the first place? – Gurch 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I saw your latest comment on Gurch´s talk page; and I think that you may wish to take a look here; Gurch did the same with another user which was not banned. ♠TomasBat 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I´m not very sure on what to do right now. Gurch´s addition of block templates to users who were not blocked was discussed here, and the result was not blocking him, at that time. ♠TomasBat 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is banned. Please see their most recent contributions, for example here – Gurch 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see what you're doing. You're pointing out a flaw in the way Wikipedia and another program interact, in a way that has effectively blocked Duff, though his username itself is not blocked. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, though you must admit from my standpoint it was pretty damning... and I still think there should be a better way to protest this. But I apologize for being so harsh. Gscshoyru 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a flaw in the way Wikipedia interacts with anything. There are no technical issues here. The problem is an idiotic policy that was not decided on by the community and which goes completely against Wikipedia's philosophy of openness and pseudonymity. There are better ways to protest it, but none of those work either. As a result, constructive contributors are being banned, not to mention checkusered in violation of the privacy policy. This "policy" prohibits 20% of the world's population from editing the "enyclopedia that anyone can edit". The excuses given are that it cuts down on vandalism (so what? schools vandalize for more, but we only block anonymous users in such cases) and that there is a chance people might use it to have multiple administrator accounts at once (despite repeated reiteration of this "problem", there is absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened or is likely to happen, and with or without this "policy" there's nothing to stop it happening anyway).

"The free enyclopedia that anyone can edit" is more "the free encyclopedia that you can edit if SlimVirgin approves of it". Sad. – Gurch 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Something to remember is that there's a difference between banning and blocking.
Some editors really are effectively banned, solely for desiring privacy. While although adding the templates are obvious wp:points, they certainly aren't malicious, and are, rather, a way to force people to accept that editors are becoming victims of policy. It's not something I'd personally prefer to do, if only because it uses the same template as a 'real ban/block', but is still a genuine attempt to improve the project by protecting editors.
(I know you didn't ask, but just in case you don't see why hiding IP's matters...) I primarily edit at school, in my office. Anyone with checkuser (or who can get an ip from a checkuser), and nslookup could very easily determine not only my school, but the precise office I edit from. It would then be a trivial matter to learn my personal identity (just ask the secretary). The other two IPs I edit from would detail my travels across the border (US/Canada), and would essentially allow a person to know precisely who I was, where I go, what I do for a 'living'... pretty much far more information than the average person wants available. If I had, for example, a crazy ex-wife or something, then she could very easily use my IP to track me down. These are serious concerns, and anonymous editing isn't malicious in and of itself. Banning people for wanting to protect themselves may be the only option, but it should be a public and transparent option. Wanting people to see these victims of policy certainly shouldn't be sufficient reason to block gurch.
(Incidentally, so you don't think I'm trying to justify my own use of proxies or something: I don't use them. Anybody could find out a great amount of information on me, and even track me down, but I'm not personally paranoid enough to care about that. However, several people really do have to worry about that sort of thing, whether it be ex-spouses, stalkers, etc., and they shouldn't have to choose between safety and being able to participate in projects) Bladestorm 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, policy rather than techincal issue... that's what I meant. 20% of the world? Ew...

Yeah... I understand now. I totally misunderstood what the intention was of the edits. I apologize for well... not assuming good faith. Which I perhaps should have. I'm not going to take sides on this issue, because I don't know enough as of yet, but it's a viable issue and Gurch's edits were a form of protest, so to speak. It would be good if there was a way to have both anonymity and the ability to block ip vandals, but this seems to be difficult, if not impossible. So no hard feelings, right? Gscshoyru 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not difficult. Tor IPs can be blocked anonymous-only, with account creation disabled, just like any other IPs. No anonymous vandalism would be possible; potential vandals would have to create an account elsewhere first, which we would then block directly. We've been doing this for years with school IP ranges and it works perfectly. Yet the FUD over "anonymity" and also "admin sockpuppets" (again, something for which there is no evidence, at all, of even a single isolated incident, let alone a persistent problem) appears to be working – Gurch 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I still don't think it's an entirely good method of protesting. :) Anyways, there is a possible solution, though I don't know how likely it is to be adopted. Admins can continue editing even if their IPs are blocked. I can't remember precisely how they explained it, but they're basically ipblock-exempt. At least one user has applied for adminship primarily to get that exemption, but that doesn't tend to make as strong (or at least, as focused) of an RfA. The solution would be to allow people to apply for ipblock exemptions-just a single bit, much like the sysop bit. Anyone who wants one can get one, but first vandalism and yer out. Wouldn't take long to weed out who's abusing them, and who isn't. Bladestorm 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean a category, ... like ip-blockless, in addition to admin? That'd work perfectly. Why don't we implement it? Gscshoyru 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You really think we didn't already think of that? Nope, no chance. As a result of this, existing administrators can edit via open proxies in violation of policy whenever they like, with no consequences – but nobody else can – Gurch 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok... that's just stupid. Why not? What was their reasoning? Users wouldn't gain any additional powers, just the ability to edit. They'd need usernames to do so, so they'd be traceable. What more do you need? Gscshoyru 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't state, with certainty, the reason, but I have a guess: Lack of organization on behalf of people who want to allow this. Personally, I am intensely in favour of it, but... I haven't done anything about it. I wouldn't know where. Or how. Bladestorm 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You could always post a message on Jimbo Wales' talk page... if he doesn't already know about it. That'll get attention to it. Gscshoyru 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He is already aware of – and opposed to – this policy:

I do not know if I have changed my mind from this time. But I don't think so. I still support generally blocking anonymous proxies, but I support using soft blocks rather than hard blocks.--Jimbo Wales 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite "not changing his mind", he disagrees with the policy in its current form. When he made that February 2004 mailing list post, it was not possible to "soft block" IP addresses (block only unregistered users). Now that it is, he, like most of us, would like to see Tor "soft blocked" – Gurch 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What do I do to complain about wikipedia editor Gregalton´s very detrimental attitude?

To all editors:

Wikipedia editor Gregalton´s attitude and behaviour is very detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia.

It can be verified quiet easisly in the history section of the Historical Cost article that he does not allow people eminently more qualified than him to add to the article. He reverts their entries and then studies the references and summarises the entries with his own often incorrect entries. He thus proclaims that he is the final referee and contributor to this article. Anyone can verify this in the history file.

He does not come to a concensus in the discussion page. He makes arbitrary decisions.

I propose that Gregalton be banned as a Wikipedia editor for some time till he changes his very detrimental attitude.

Can anyone advise me how I go about to get this done? I would appreciate that. It is very easy to prove from the history file what I am saying.

In the case of the Historical Cost article I can prove this in the history file. The proofs and time line are all there on the history file. Very easy to prove.

D´Artgnan 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. It is much appreciated. Keep up the good work! :-) Lradrama 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yes they can do some daft things that make you smile those vandals don't they? Did you recieve the barnstar like that, or how I'd sent it? I bet you had a shock if it were the former... ;-) Lradrama 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to fix an article, being told I'm vandalising

Why are you accusing me of vandalism on the St Laurence School page? I'm the one reversing the vandalism that has already been carried out on the page. It's true I may have removed 90% of the text but this was only talking about fictitious organisations and personal comments being made about the teachers. What's more, any information about the school has been lifted verbatim from the school prospectus. I'm trying to clean the page up and make it into a proper article here. SJH 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look at your changes... oops. I was completely wrong. The content you removed was pretty POV'd, and sourceless. Sorry... I see a lot of deleted content, with no immediately identifiable reason and no reason in the edit summary, and I revert, and go on to find the next vandal. If you put an edit summary in, this sort of misunderstanding is much less likely to happen. But, I shouldn't have reverted your changes, it seems, and I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out. Gscshoyru 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I should have used an edit summary - I'll make sure I do this in the future :-) SJH 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

user:68.92.55.94

is a sock of Mariam83 (talk · contribs). She is on a spree and any similar vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV immediately. See also WP:ANI#Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page by User talk:164.156.231.55 twice and for updating the vandalism count. Angel Of Sadness 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Your 3RR report was not complete and therefore may be ignored by the reviewing admins. Please consider going back and finishing the report. A set of instructions are included at the bottom of the WP:AN3 page. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Live Earth

i was simply CORRECTING the line "East Rutherford near New York" to "East Rutherford in New Jersey". Nothing wrong with my corrrection.

Take a look at the diff, here: [2]. You deleted content. However... there is some bug that erases lines in some browser, I think... though I'm not sure which, so it may not have been your fault. Gscshoyru 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: July 2007 - Ha Ha

Sorry about that. A kid in the room got hold of my keyboard for a moment. I guess I'll have to log out every time I leave the laptop even momentarily now ... Jmath666 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your anti vandal diligence during the last days and the revert on my userpage. Oxymoron83 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

Gscshoyru - please discontinue your arbitrary reverting of my edits. You are merely keeping an article from being factual and historically accurate for some reason.

If your edits were in good faith, I'm sorry... but you deleted swaths of information without discussion on the talk page or explaining in your edit summary... and such edits are considered vandalism. I gave you warning, but you didn't listen, and continued deleting things. When you get unblocked, in 24 hours, you can discuss the changes you wish to make on the talk page there, and come to a consensus. Gscshoyru 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?

May I remind you that you also are guilty of the 3 revert rule as well in your efforts to undo my edits. You can also be blocked for this as well. --CrystalB4 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done two edits to the page in the last 24 hours. It takes four to violate the WP:3RR, which you have done. Revert again, and you will be reported, it'd be much better if this was discussed on the talk page, first... Gscshoyru 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thematic motifs of Lost

The content that the user keeps trying to reinsert is unsourced Original Research. There's already a discussion about it by other people on the talk page; he just can't seem to understand why repeatedly inserting his own unverified theories isn't the way to go. As noted at Wikipedia:Verifiability,

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed...

Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -70.189.74.49 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the information I am attempting to retain in the article has two external sources and the show its self is a primary source. Second, despite you acknowledging that there is a discussion on the article's talk page, you have made no effort to engage in this discussion. Third, you only confuse the issue when you use a section of the guideline that refers to BLP for a work of fiction. Nearly every item in that article would not meet the standards to be included in a biographical article. Fourth, you broke both the spirit and the letter of the three revert rule. Fifth, you seem to have a singleness of purpose that causes me to view you with some suspicion. Finally, you have not commented on my talk page either. I wish you the best in editing the encyclopedia, but your actions have made me wonder about your intentions. Perhaps, you should look at editing some other articles for a while or engaging in the discussion on the article's talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that'd be a good idea. The article's talk page, instead of say, mine? Actually... it's kinda funny that there's a conversation on my talk page that I'm not a part of. Gscshoyru 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• How about instead of useless repetition, putting your warnings on Ursasapien (talk · contribs) and Qwerty7412369 (talk · contribs) for repeatedly reinserting their own unsubstantiated theories, and ignoring the requirements ofNo Original Research to provide reliable sourcing. As I pointed out above, all unverifiable content can be removed at will; re-adding such content is vandalism. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--70.189.74.49 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They aren't actually in violation of the 3RR. You are. They only have about 2 edits apiece in the last 24 hours, you have at least 5 or 6. They've said stuff on the talk page, you just revert and revert and revert without discussion. However, I'm trying to be fair here. Please discuss this on the talk page, and come to a consensus. The edit summaries aren't for arguments. The talk page is. Gscshoyru 23:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd look at the article's talk page, you'd see that there's already been a discussion, with Leftyman basically laying out the same points. The individuals seem to refuse to believe that they are required to provide an actual source for their material. Again, as Jimmy Wales said, "I can NOT emphasize this enough...[Pseudo-information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."--70.189.74.49 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize this. But you haven't said a word. To be totally honest, the only edit you've ever made (but one) is to revert those changes... what do you have against that information that is probably true, but unsourced? There's lots and lots of other information like it out there. And though you are going along with wikipedia policy... that still doesn't change the fact that you are in violation of the 3RR. Please discuss it on the talk page, alright? Gscshoyru 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pls check

Please check article history , the article was very neutral till someone recently added some copious volume of POV. I have not "added" any POV but taken away some. Please look at checking the history before jumping to any conclusion. Haphar 12:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the very first change you made to the page: "The film is one made straight from the heart. The film deals honestly with the mistakes made by the leaders and the defeat suffered by India in the war. The film looks at the plight of those who mattered the most in the war - the jawan." is very POV. The other edits to the page are more of a critical review of the film, which is not encyclopedic. I admit the stuff you're removing is POV, but the stuff you're adding is hardly better. The stuff should be deleted from the page wholesale. Gscshoyru 12:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Learn to look at the history, whatever you quoted has not been put in by me. Haphar 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look here: [3]. The word heart was added by you, it was not there before. You should delete the rest of the POV stuff as well... Gscshoyru 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You look here [4] See paragraph 3- The word heart and the sentences were already there. I have not added one word to this section. My last additions to this page was the awards section some days ago. In my edit which you reverted a only DELETED. Please do look at understanding how the history section works and how to go about looking at past edits before leaving reamrks about wikipedia policy on talk pages. Please feel free to delete whatever you feel is POV on the page. Haphar 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I have no clue how I missed that. I do know how to use history, (and I don't like you implying otherwise) but for some reason, when I did a ctrl-f for the word, I never saw it on that side. Also, the way the diff of your edits look, which I already showed you, makes it look like you added content, not just removed it. And when I'm reverting vandalism, I can't give every page a good look, or I'll get slowed down, so there's the occasional mistake. My fault. In any case, the rest of the POV in the article (which was the whole section, unfortunately,) has been removed. Gscshoyru 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well put yourself in my shoes, I remove POV from an article and then get a message telling me not to add POV, and then get more messages telling me I added stuff, while all the while I have not added anything but removed POV. One would get a little worked up over it. Anyway alls well that ends well. Haphar 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. But put yourself in mine -- I see that there's a lot of removed content from the article, and at first glance of the diff page, it looks like the POV content was added, rather than removed. But it is in fact, totally my fault. And yeah... all's well. Gscshoyru 13:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Edits

Whilst the ending has not been officially confirmed, it is believed to be real at this time. However, I don't want to post links (for obvious reasons). If you search around though, they are findable. It is the opinion of this editor that the piece itself is legitimate enough to be worthwhile. Apologies for the gaff earlier deleting the article - I was trying to remove some vandalism at the time, and got a conflict error which ended up in my accidental deletion of the whole thing. PeteWailes 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaffe error understood. However, if you read the talk page, belief of reality is one thing, confirmation is another. Unless it is officially confirmed, please don't put information about it up there, as explained on the talk. Thanks! Gscshoyru 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Apologies for any trouble caused. PeteWailes 15:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, this is from ScythedBlade. You accused my IP address of vandalism, but it is not. I have given you the link to the copy of the book. Please refrain from false accusations.

Re User: ScythedBlade On Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Sir, please refrain from false accusations. I will only accept the reason is that the material I provided is fake, although it is completely verifiable as the real copy of the book. Download it. Then you can say I'm wrong.

Dude... please. It could be a hoax, it's not confirmed. It may look like the book, but it may not be the book. Stop posting would-be spoilers. Gscshoyru 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Gscshoyru, I never vandalized any article. I merely reverted to one that distinguishes between North Africa and sub-saharan Black Africa, because it makes little sense to write about the architecture of "africa" when the two regions have no connections. I also believe the tags are useful. What makes you think this is vandalism? wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, supposedly.

To be totally honest... your edits are identical to another ip just yesterday, who was blocked by an admin for the same edits. I'm using that as my reference point. Try debating on the talk page, first. Gscshoyru 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

STRANGE

WHY DO YOU CHANGE EVERYTHING WITHOUT A REASON???? WHY cannot i just change a genre??

Why are you changing everything without a reason? I'm following another editor's lead, who I trust to be right. But if I'm wrong... explain how, on the talk pages of the pages you're changing. Gscshoyru 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for backing me up with User:87.167.210.141. The guy is a suspected sockpuppet, so I decided to watch what he does and all he does is change the genre of bands. Other editors were reverting the same edits of his earlier but they weren't in the last hour. So I picked up were they left off and unfortunately it got ugly. Thanks again Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've seen you before, and figure you know what you're doing. Sockpuppet of whom, though? Of just ip-puppet? Gscshoyru 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On their usepage it says their a suspected sockpuppet of User:AFI-PUNK but someone had added, in the last few minutes that, he also a sockpuppet of User:Minutes to Rise who was "an SPA intended to provoke edit wars over music genres". Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Thematic motifs of Lost" (Re: July 2007)

Thank you for your message. I would like to point out that I am simply restoring material that an unregistered user (User:70.189.74.49) is repeatedly deleting. If you look at the discussion page for Thematic motifs of Lost you will see that I frequently make contributions to the discussions regarding this article, and if you look at this user's talk page (User_talk:70.189.74.49) you will see that I have attempted to contact them directly regarding this matter. I have received no response to either effort from this user. This user is refusing to discuss this issue or make any attempt at consensus with the other editors, a clear disregard of the first step of Wikipedia's policy for dispute resolution. Furthermore, I suspect that this user may be a sockpuppet for another user who is disgruntled with the edits I and Ursasapien have made on this page.

I understand that this user and others may not agree with my reading of the Wikipedia:No Original Research rule (namely that in certain cases an entry can be based solely on primary sources, and that this is quite different from an article based on original research - please see my entry "Primary Research is NOT Original Research" for more details). However, in this case, it seems to me that this user's single-minded obsession for deleting our edits without discussion (and apparently doing nothing else on Wikipedia) borders on vandalism, and I would argue that my reverts are a legitimate response to this problem.

I must admit that I have become quite frustrated with this issue and am more than willing to have a third-party intervene in this matter, whether through Mediation or Arbitration. Though I obviously feel that my position is the correct one, I would prefer that there be an objective rule consistently applied to all entries in this article as opposed to the fickle whims of a few users which seem to currently govern this article. As I point out multiple times on the discussion page, User:70.189.74.49 and others are being quite inconsistent in their claims of Original Research; this is infinitely more aggravating than someone who simply disagrees with me but is nevertheless consistent.

Lastly, I would like to say that I recognize that you are doing your job by issuing me this warning. Though I freely admit that I am frustrated by this matter, this frustration is in no way directed at you. I do see that you have been discussing this issue with User:70.189.74.49 as well. I also apologize if I have been a bit long-winded, but I feel that I need to make my position clear, as I fear that this issue will persist for some time. Thank you.

--Qwerty7412369 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page and talk page, its much appreciated--Jac16888 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting up with User:87.167.242.147. There is no doubt that he is a sockpuppet of the guy yesterday. I think slowly (very slowly) we are getting through to him but unfortunately he'll probably be back tomorrow. Also thank you for reverting vandalism by him off my user page. It's much appreciated. Happy Editing Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And the same to you. Thanks, etc. You should probably report to AIV so you can stop him early, though. Gscshoyru 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that in future as I was busy undoing his edits and making a sockpuppet report(my first one :D). Again thanks for helping me. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Editions of Harry Potter articles in light of as-yet officially unreleased information.

The release of unofficially released information, considering that it is out there, is not vandalism, but merely adds to the completeness of the Wikipedia articles on Harry Potter. If people don't want the plot spoiled, then I suggest they don't read the Harry Potter articles; not only do entries on literary works inevitably contain plot details, but the entire base of information that they are summarising are from primarily - almost completely, in fact - fictional sources. As such, there is considerable difficulty in providing an accurate picture of The Harry Potter series' spells without spoiling SOMETHING for someone. This is something that cannot be avoided, and in the interest of providing all the information there is on the topic, is necessary. Indeed, many of the sections in the Harry Potter Spells article provide plot details of previously, already released harry potter novels, and nobody baulks at the fact that those are available. This is the entire point of the spoiler tag.

I do not vandalise: I merely do my best to provide as broad a picture as possible.

I suggest that you not let your own feelings for having the novel get in the way of your objective obligation to the pursuit of free knowledge, and stop being so (I hesitate to use the term) nazist about enforcing your own belief. Unfairly branding something as vandalism undermines the whole wiki concept. I therefore ask that you reconsider your revision of the Harry Potter Spells page, and any future revisions of similar pages, if they are indeed inappropriate. It's not exactly as if the information isn't going to be there in two days, anyway.

Unkind regards,

220.233.118.209 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the fact that you're posting spoilers that's the problem. It's the fact that you're posting unconfirmed information. You don't know that the leaked copy is the real book -- against all probability, it could be fake. Your edits are not currently verifiable as the actual book content, and are therefore removed. Got it? Gscshoyru 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux

I'm not vandalising the page, you stupid moron. I'm adding legitimate, sourced information from my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows from DeepDiscount.com, which shipped the book several days early as a mistake on their part. Because I have a legitimate hard copy of the book and am not relying on the "leak," the info is fully legitimate, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to withhold information in this situation.

Get your facts straight, and quit accusing everyone of "vandalism." Did you even read my edits?

Wikipedian06 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. But seeing as I don't have proof you really have the book, it's still not verifiable, and you still can't post it. And if it is real... can't you wait like 4 days before posting it? Thanks. Gscshoyru 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting 4 days

It's not Wikipedia's duty to withhold information as they become available. Read the talk page on HP7.

If the media is reporting all these leaks (and in many cases, actually including plot details within the news articles), why can't Wikipedia have information once it's readily available?

Wikipedian06 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no proof that it's a leak and not a hoax. I suggest you take a look at the talk page, because at the bottom it says stuff about people who post spoilers being banned. Gscshoyru 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proof that the leak is legitimate

Apart from bloomsbury books having said that it is pretty convincing (check the wikipedia article), the simple fact that there are so many people editing the pages with similar information from a variety of sources should alert you to the fact that the source is genuine. As far as I'm concerned, you need a thorough spanking, and after that, a lobotomy. You obviously have very little sense as a cognisant human being.

That's actually because they're all using the same leak. Not different sources. Look, it doesn't matter what I or you think, anyways, the admins have pretty much decided this, to wait until the book is out before putting out the plot of the book, because as of now, it's not verifiable. And also, you should probably keep your comments WP:CIVIL. Because you can be blocked for personal attacks. Thanks. Gscshoyru 10:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reports at AIV

Fair enough, I was just trying to undo all of that guys pointless edits. Unfortunately I think he's stopped but I will make a sockpuppet report for him anyway Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report is made, and he hasn't edited anything since. If only there was a way to block this guy altogether but he keeps coming back and nothing is done about him(Except what we do). Again I appreciate you putting up with his nonsense. Thanks Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the edit history of that article or this user besides an edit war over whether or not some song is "post hardcore" or "post grunge". The only person who seems to be even trying to compromise (keeping both) or trying to talk on the talk page is User:87.167.242.147. The user may or may not be a sock, the checkuser seems to indicate that he is (BTW, using different IP addresses is not sock puppeteering, because most people have no control over that.) But WP:AIV is for the report of blatant vandalism please read WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not for a better understanding of that. It's not the place to report anyone who bugs you. I have no opinion on what the genre of these songs are. I do have an opinion that all of your are behaving badly over a trivial matter. You've all violated the three revert rule so far as I can tell. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Please leave it alone for the moment. Thanks Dina 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the music type, I've just been trying to revert vandalism by a sockpuppet, who has been repeatedly changing this on multiple articles, under multiple ips and usernames. This has been backed up by admins, see the report I gave you, for instance. I've also thought that putting a report on AIV was a much faster way of dealing with socks of people like this and user:Mariam83 than a slow sockpuppetry report, which tends not to be dealt with for a while. But, if that's improper, I won't do it any more. Thanks. Gscshoyru 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, people change genres of music all the time. They are reading an article, get all appalled "Avril's not post-punk! She's a pop singer!" and immediately log in to change it, totally unaware that there's like 6 archived talk pages and ten edit wars on the subject. I look at this particular users history and I see no edits that fulfill the basic vandal criterion "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Reporting you to AIV after you reported him was cheeky, but all this person has received is warnings since they created their account. A new user might suppose that this is the standard way to engage with Wikipedia. If the checkuser comes back positive for this user, sure, let's block him. But have you tried putting a note on their talk page? Or the talk page of the article's in question? Have you tried asking him why he changes it, or to source his changes? I'm a cranky person, and assuming good faith can be difficult, but take another look at the user's edit history, with fresh eyes. Sometimes dealing with sockpuppets can make anyone paranoid (there have been moments when I found myself believing there was only one vandal on Wikipedia, with like, a million accounts ;)). Cheers Dina 12:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. If you look way, way, way back, on other accounts, I was asking for why the user was doing it. But it got pointless (so it felt) and I stopped, because it was obvious (to me) that it was the same user again. And though probably is... I should definitly be Assuming more Good Faith... I'm a little bit overzealous at times... thanks for the warning. (Actually... come to think of it... this sock sparks edit wars by doing what he's doing... so I've fallen into the trap, haven't I...) But thanks for reigning me in. Gscshoyru 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put a fairly nice note on his talk page about changing genres. I'm going give him the exact same message with every account he creates. And if it's the same edits over and over again I'll create another sockpuppet report. But that's all I'm going to do as I've decided I'm not going to revert any more of his edits as it just leads to more trouble. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 13:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that CheckUser worked faster than expected so User:Rise Against All-138, and the IP he was using yesterday, has been blocked indefinately for sockpuppetry. Some of the articles he worked on have been semi-protected also. Again thanks for your help with him. Happy Editing Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me he's back again. Don't worry I got you covered. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry all I'm going to do is give him a very nice note about changing the genres of bands. Nothing else. Also I'm sorry about the whole thing and the accusations afterwards. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's there to be sorry about? It's not your fault. But thanks :) Gscshoyru 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I guess we both got sucked in by that guys evil ways yesterday, but I feel the not I left him is sufficent as it's not an attack or a warning. You can see for yourself here:[5].Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw. It's fine. He's not actually vandalizing per-se, so the sock report will come back and he'll be banned again, and the admins'll take care of it... it's a pity we're not allowed to trust ourselves, but if you think about it, bad things could happen if we do. Gscshoyru 12:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true but I think it's best not fighting with him. If he starts personally attacking editors he'll get banned that way because looking at the messages he left on the talk pages, he isn't far off personally attacking editors who are being civil to him.It's really strange he's actually using the talk pages now. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, best not to fight. Also... not that amazing that he's using the talk page... Papa Roach is protected. Gscshoyru 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that but he is using the talk page for Alesana. I wonder how long it will take him to realise when the page protection up. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Divider

This guy#1 just blanked the talk page of this guy#2 who, as you know, is a suspected sockpuppet of AFI-PUNK. He is making the same edits of the suspected sockpuppet. But this guy#3 told me that he is this guy#2 but made the account before he got blocked. He is also trying to get me to join his side of a genre edit war. But hasn't talked since when I refused. Coincidence or the same person? This also proves it.Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a sock, would be my guess/bet. Do a sock report on 'im. Gscshoyru 17:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would but when I said I would not go into an edit war, he said that I did it with the same article a day earlier so I definately think he's on to me. If he finds the report in my contribution history, more s*** will hit the fan and it will not be pretty. That's why I had to delete the duplicate of my last message because he keeps pestering me about changing the genre because he is blocked from doing it. He even went hostile when another newbie, who I'm trying to help, left a meesage on his talk page saying he's not allowed to be swearing on my talk page. I'm telling you, I'm regreting the day I came across the guy. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 19:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If he reverts your sock-contribs, then he'll be banned faster for reverting them. Make the report, etc, if you haven't already done so. Nothing to be afraid of. Gscshoyru 20:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your right, I'm scared over nothing. You know in the sockpuppet report, will I say AFI-PUNK or Minutes to Rise as the sock puppet master. Or will I go by he current username? Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... I guess Minutes To Rise, or AFI-PUNK. They're the originals. Gscshoyru 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll use the links I sent to you earlier in the report as well as links from Minutes to Rise as they trolled over the same articles. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The report is made, but I'm still scared when Melodic Maker/AFI-PUNK logs in and sees it. What will I do then? Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

He's very very angry as you can see here. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So? He's a sock of a disruptive user... what are you so afraid of, exactly? Gscshoyru 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't know but the anger in them hits like a brick wall. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anger? Anger that they can't keep messing up wikipedia? Admittedly, this guy is a little different from the rest... but he's still not really listening to reason, is he? He's still trying to invoke a revert war... Gscshoyru 21:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anger as in he's very angry with me. It makes me glad that I never put my e-mail address on my Userpage. If I did I would be changing my e-mail address right about now. I forgot that he's not really listening. After I told him he needs sources for the genres, he put a message on the Papa Roach talk page. Then kept trying to get me to put in the genres without waiting for someone to comment on the talk page. He was then trying to get me to put messages on the Usertalk pages of the main people who run the article, just to back him up. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

Since you seem to be looking at removing POV. Can you look at the article Rani Mukherjee and the discussion there as I am involved in a debate where I feel there is a lot of POV on the article and a fan of the actress keeps putting it back. Haphar 12:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been warned off of something by an admin, I'm not gonna do anything controversial for a while. You're on your own, man. Gscshoyru 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I wanted you to do anything controversial But Best of luck with your editing :-) Haphar 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Socialdemocrats

Best of luck trying to get anywhere with this guy. A few of us have tried for a while now, but it's a lost cause - I don't think Socialdemocrats means to be disruptive, he's just unbelievably arrogant. Full marks for effort though; maybe you can convince him to read WP policy ;) EyeSerene^TALK 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... they un-protected his page to talk to him (he's blocked) and three guesses what happened... ah well. He does it again and I'll request page protection... it's a pity. Gscshoyru 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one guess needed - you can have the other two back. In some ways it's the most frustrating form of disruption to deal with, because I genuinely believe he thinks he's improving WP. Good faith does only go so far though ;) Watching this over the months, it seems to me there's a grey area in WP policy as to how to deal with editors who absolutely refuse to adhere to community consensus and ignore all attempts at communication. Eventually they get themselves blocked, but it takes much longer and causes much more disruption than simple vandalism. As you say, a pity - his kind of enthusiasm could be very beneficial if applied in the right manner. EyeSerene^TALK 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that grey area. Specifically, currently, with user:JJonz and user:CrystalB4. You probably have a lot more experience than I... but they both seem to edit things and ignore the idea of consensus, reverting and reverting and reverting. Also... I get the vague feeling the two are sockpuppets, though I'm not sure it warrants a checkuser, yet. Even though one reverted the other's edits, I think that was just coverup when I pointed it out to both. I admit that I've been going about it the wrong way with them anyways... can you advise? Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a good look at the contribs of both editors and the articles themselves. From the user logs, both accounts were created within 3 days of each other, and the articles edited are remarkably similar (down to comments on the same user page from both accounts on the same date). Editing seems to pretty much alternate between accounts until very recently, when CrystalB4 violated 3RR here, and then JJonz took on the reverts. Added to the business about disruption, ignoring community consensus and edit-warring to maintain a similar POV, I'd say you have a very good case for suspecting either sock- or meat-puppetry. Sockpuppets needn't be a problem per se (I've run across a few excellent editors that have sock accounts, though per wikiquette they explicitly state their alternative account names on their user pages), but when they're used to disrupt WP...

However, before going straight for a checkuser request, I'd make a report on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets first. If other editors agree with your suspicions (as I do), action will follow.

I'd also agree that you could possibly have avoided getting drawn into the Wonder Woman revert war, although you did bow out before crossing the 3RR threshold ;) It's extremely difficult to stay detached when so much of your stuff is continually being reverted by the same POV'ed editors: I set myself a rule that I will never do more than one revert per day... but then I've never had the same degree of provocation that you've had to deal with! You deserve credit for remaining civil. For a real edit-war, check out this article and its associated talk page (this was one I started copyediting before it all blew up on me). It even made the news!

Bit of a long response, but I hope it helps! EyeSerene^TALK 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Patronus

You're right, I just looked it up in the Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and it does not mention anything about the shape of Lupin's Patronous, but it also doesn't say anything about patronuses always being animals. Malinaccier 16:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

True... but I think it's assumed, and it should stay as animals. Hermionie's is an Otter, for instance (book 5).Note that Prongs didn't necessarily have a stag as a patronus... he just was a stag animagi. Same with the rest of them. Gscshoyru 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that discredits the 'animal' patronous is the fact that Nymphadora Tonks' patronous changed into a werewolf (Lupin), and depending on your point of view (whether 'half breeds' are human or not, and whether werewolves should have equal rights with humans), Tonks' patonous was either human or beast. . . . Malinaccier 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... werewolf in werewolf form, right? Um... I have no clue how that's considered. Gscshoyru 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We could just say: an object important to the caster. This includes animals, as well as anything else that could be considered non-animal. Malinaccier 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... do that. Makes the most sense, I guess. Gscshoyru 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adobe Acrobat

Hi Gscshoyru. You just reverted my edit on Adobe Acrobat giving "useless and misplaced" as a reason. Useless ? Knowing how a software has been developed is really important, it is like knowing how the Taj Mahal has been built, concrete or stone. Misplaced ? There are 3 sections in the article: header, history, criticism. The latter two sections can not be considered, I am left with the header, because I don't want to create an entire new section for just this simple sentence. I guess you will agree on the second point, but you will need to elaborate on the first one. Cheers, Nicolas1981 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Yeah... Um... not sure what I was thinking. Not useless. Is misplaced though... there's probably a better spot that the summary, since it really doesn't belong there. But I was being stupid... Gscshoyru 17:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed I agree with you, this piece of information does not belong to the summary, it should be in a section, the problem is that there is no appropriate section right now... but that could be changed. In my opinion, the "History" section is far too large (90% of the article). We should create a sort of a technical section that would talk about what the current product actually is, instead of enumerating every small change between each version. That's not an easy task because right now everything is stuffed in the history. If you want to re-structure it, I would be happy to let you do so, because actually... I don't use Adobe Acrobat, I am a Ubuntu Linux user and it comes with evince, which is quite good and much faster than Adobe Reader :-) Good luck ! Nicolas1981 20:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:reversion

No problemo Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism of Jo O'Meara page

Hi, I noticed that you have warned user joeinpz who constantly deletes large chunks out of the Jo O'Meara article and that he is on a final warning from you. After your warning, he continued to vandalise the page - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joeinpz - it is very frustrating to keep having to revert the information - is there anything you can do?Breed3011 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep... report to WP:AIV I'll do it, show you how. Gscshoyru 17:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR F****** PROBLEM???

I'M not a f****** sockpuppet!!!!!! why are you doing this?? User:Melodic Horror

Your edits are very much alike... the evidence is damning. But prove your case in the report, and you won't be blocked. Gscshoyru 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

LOOK

He changed every emo or post-hardcore band style and here did it more times! i DON'T CHANGED EVERY SINGEL BAND THAT HE CHANGED!!!!! do I'm not a sockpuppet of him! so don't block please! Melodic Horror

The report has been made. Admins will look at the evidence, and decide the truth. It's out of my hands.

And please, please, please, stop making new headings for each comment you make. Gscshoyru 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ok but don't make you funny about me or don't bully me! it'S not funny because this admin guy could block me: ( Melodic Horror

You can also say to the people who wants to block me that i'm not from Nurnberg ,Germany! thats ridiculous man Melodic Horror

Thanks

thanks for reverting Jimfbleak 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gscshoyru 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would like to thank you for reverting. Out of curiosity, how did you happen across this vandalism of my userpage? Thanks! bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The guy vandalized another user's page, which was on my watchlist for some reason, (I think I reverted vandalism there before) which I saw and reverted. It was kinda blatant, so I kept a tab open to watch on his contributions (standard procedure for me). And... he vandalized yours. Which I reverted. Gscshoyru 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is the current thanks section...so I'll just add my name to the bottom. Thanks for the quick revert on my user page. --OnoremDil 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gscshoyru 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And thanks a few more times a couple weeks later. Looks like I made a couple kids angry this morning. --Onorem♠Dil 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for blocking Benhunjan1. Xn4 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mario characters

I notived you reverted my edits and wondered why. I believe Mario is just as much a baby as he is a baseball or a soccer player. He appears as a baby in about 9 (?) games and has an entire section of his article devoted to Baby Mario. So what is wrong with categorising him as one? Coop41 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look, I sorta see what you're saying. Most people don't really think of him as a baby, though. I make mistakes, and this was one of them. Sorry. Gscshoyru 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jimf

Come on though, didn't you think that was even a little funny? Backstory: this guy routinely blocks users after reverting ONE entry. I thought maybe I would help him develop a sense of humor, and also alert him to what people from Singapore may understand when he says his main interest is birds.

Qweasd1234 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Context: [6]) Um... no? Not funny. If you have an issue with the admin, take it up on WP:ANI Gscshoyru 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will : ) Have an awesome day.

Isaac just made one... please don't tell me you're a sock, this is an odd coincidence. It is just a coincidence, right? Gscshoyru 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentry

You might want to call in a moderator instead of pointlessly edit-warring. 24.136.11.242 12:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is... probably true. But he's been blocked -- again. And it's been discussed on the talk pages. And he's the only one that thinks the way he does. So... I feel that my reversions of his edits are correct. But next time -- I'll bring in a moderator. Thanks for giving me the heads up. Gscshoyru 12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem! :) 24.136.11.242 00:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting, using Talk page, incremental editing

Please use Talk page to make changes to the article Jew. Don't just revert. That is the first blow of edit warring. Please don't initiate edit warring. Furthermore, making incremental changes communicates what you are trying to say; reverting in totality does not. Communication also happens to be what the Talk page is for. Reverting is the least useful thing one can do, in my opinion. Thank you. Bus stop 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, true. I messed up a little here, I do that. I though I was reverting vandalism of a sort, and was wrong, I'm a bit hasty when I see changes that seem to detract from encyclopedic content, as yours kinda does. And... I do disagree. I'm Jewish, and I'm an atheist. Religion isn't all of Jewish identity, and it seems to me you did just make that change without any consensus. There was a discussion, which you seem to have gotten fed up with, and changed it anyway. But, I'm gonna leave it alone... sorry for almost starting an edit war. Gscshoyru 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No one said religion is "all of Jewish identity". I didn't say that. Where are you getting that from?

Please try to make incremental edits. From incremental edits one can deduce what another person disagrees with and what position they hold on the issue at hand. This can productively spill over into discussions on the Talk page. Reverting engenders bad feelings. Would you like your efforts shot down in totality? The atmosphere is sullied and no communication transpires -- those are the virtues of reverting. Bus stop 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I said "all" when you said "primarily" [7]. Fine. It still isn't primarily about religion. It's a combination of the two, but whatever. I thought I was reverting vandalism, and I wasn't, that's why it was reverted in totality. You're welcome to put it back and I won't touch it, though I'd suggest coming to consensus on the talk page first... Gscshoyru 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But that is why incremental edits are called for. You could have modified my implication of "primarily." Bus stop 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism so I reverted. I was wrong. So sorry, I know make mistakes when vandal-fighting. No need to continue on about this. I was reverting what I thought were POV'd changes. That's why I reverted. Not anything against you. Gscshoyru 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam or Resource? Jumping to Conclusions Versus Adding Useful Content

There appears to be an issue with spam accusations. I've just updated two memory articles to be more accurate and included a link to a website that is the real deal resource directly related to memory. Why then is it being flagged as spam? A website that is on the exact same topic as the article should be a listed resource. I'm not aware of any unwritten formatting that may be generally expected, but this is content that is of benefit to the entire community. Talk to me. What's up with this?

Your edits are spam, they are advertisements for a book to help you improve memory. It isn't a source the way you presented it, it's a glowing review, which is not WP:NPOV and counts as spam. However, it is possible you do not understand this, so I'm not going to give you the next level warning unless you do it again. Please read WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:V for a better undestanding of this and how to cite sources. Thank you. Gscshoyru 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are ignorant. This is a fact. You are inattentive. This too is a fact. You have no control over your emotions. This too you will most likely prove to be a fact. You are quick to label a resource as "spam" without examining it as necessary. What you label a "glowing review" is merely fact. If I am being blunt, it is only to be clear. You choose not to edit posts. You choose to eliminate them entirely. Is that what wikipedia is all about? A limitation of who contributes? If you so believe me to be mistaken as to the exact verbiage I use to depict the facts about memory, I invite you to examine the details as thoroughly as you know how and then find someone to tell you where you missed a spot, check again, and then if you still believe that it is in fact spam, then please, don't hesitate to remove it. Until then however, I suggest you get your facts straight, being how you struggle to comprehend, let alone be capable of spelling a word as simple as understanding.--Mark9946 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A review, by definition, is an opinion. Not a fact. You are advertising this book, and such a thing has no place in an encyclopedia. You're not presenting facts about memory. You're presenting your ideas about the content of the book. Such a thing is in fact spam.

And if you think a single spelling mistake is bad... well... see some of the other vandalism on my talk page. Gscshoyru 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

After having thoroughly reviewed the resources you mentioned, your words are rather shallow. You are incapable of realizing the meaning of how this website operates, and in your infinite intelligent thinking ability, or rather, the lack thereof, you have robbed the community of valuable information that otherwise they would not know about. You follow the path of ignorance, and you are exactly the type of person who spends on this world, but never gives. If you truly valued the people who read information on this website, you would first consider the quality of information, and only after thoroughly thinking that through would you consider you next move in editing content. Your current actions are a disservice. I can only hope that you understand even a fraction of what I just said.--Mark9946 02:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Suppressing the truth on the premise of your own lack of understanding does nobody any good--Mark9946 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's pretend for a second that we both know what we're talking about - that we're both rational, free-thinking people. You know, for instance, that these contended edits have very little to do with "shining a beacon of truth" into the deluded minds of wikipedia-reading sheep. You're not a prophet... get over it. Therefore, there's really no point in continuing this discussion. If you're smart enough to insult other peoples' intelligence, you should be smart enough to figure out where I'm coming from.

As for robbing the community of valuable, privately-owned, corporate-driven information - how about all the time I've wasted changing your errors and debating senseless points of fact with you? You can quibble and equivocate all you like - but you're wrong and you know it, so let's just move along. Making useful edits to wikipedia is great - that's what the site is for - but it's not for personal soapboxes and promotions. Gscshoyru 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this: You just flamed me. I also know you're full of the the steamy stuff that comes out of a horse's rear end. Get over yourself already. The government isn't out to get you. As for the content of the edits, they're not spam. If you had stopped acting offended and started examining the content, you will have found that what I added is not about being right or wrong. It has nothing to do with opinion either. It is fact, as by definition fact is that which is in and of itself true, and under the condition of being in synchrony with the real-world attempts to verify it, it holds true. Go back and show me where it's a promotion. Be sure to speak up when you do.--Mark9946 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah... I just flamed you. And I shouldn't have. I let your childish, unfounded, and irrelevant attacks on my intelligence get to me, and I shouldn't have. Facts you want, and facts you'll get:

"It's the most thorough and reliable manual published as of July 2007. The editors of this site appear to be incapable of realizing real resources..."

Ignoring the obvious attack in the second sentence, "the most thorough and reliable" ? According to whom? And no matter who thinks that, it still isn't encyclopedic content, because it's an opinion any way you think of it.

"Explode Your Memory Ebook - The most thorough manual anywhere on memory. Explains in detail how memory works, where things go wrong, what affects your memory, and everything there is to know about improving your memory. Not just theories - only real-world practical methods and know-how that anyone can use."

There's that "most thorough" again. "everything there is to know" Everything? I'm willing to bet that there's something that's not in that book that you can know... but that might just be me. Maybe your book does in fact include every little factoid about memory, discovered or not. This is exaggerated, advertisement-like language.

"anyone can use" -- opinion, advertisement-like language again.

This: [8] Whole edit has an unencyclopedic tone, directed at "you." The whole thing is exaggerated ("If you want to find out how to develop your memory, the ONLY place on the net where you can learn how to do this is through www.ExplodeYourMemory.com") and is an obvious advertisement for this book. And even assuming that everything said is true, it still doesn't belong. If you were to cite portions of the book, explaining ways to improve your memory, as described there, your edits might possibly be welcomed. But simply stating that this book improves memory adds nothing to the article -- the only way they'll get the "tantalizing" information you advertise is by "investing in themselves," as the site puts it.

Feel free to contest any of my points, they might be a little shaky toward the end. Oh, and one other thing. The next time you decide to disparage my thinking ability or liken me to horseshit, I will report you for personal attacks, kay? I admit my attack won't look good, because I let my anger take hold of me, but your attacks should have gotten you banned by the second comment. Gscshoyru 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Now there's something to work with. Try this for size:

Memory is a skill that can be developed

Just like any other skill or action, it is necessary to have an understanding of memory in order to work with it efficiently. Though biological explanation for human memory systems have been traced to neural networks which make up the brain and other communication systems within the body, this is not particularly useful to an individual wishing to improve their memory. Sometime in May 2007, an ebook called "Explode Your Memory" was released which depicts the "software" (analogy to computers) aspect of memory; mainly the part of memory which is within the scope of a person's observation abilities and can be dealt with on an individual level. This stems from the concept of a person always being the cause of his/her own thoughts, and therefore being capable of working with them. The following is based on information from the book:

The reason why some people appear to be "gifted" in terms of memory is because on a subconscious level, they learned very early on how memory works and automatically incorporated that knowledge into their everyday thought processes, thereby improving memory. However, this is not something out of reach for any person who tries, being that memory functions in exactly the same way in every human being. Therefore, assuming reasonable health, it can be developed just the same regardless of the individual in question. In "Explode Your Memory", the author covers how memory works, the process every individual memory (referring to single event) goes through, and intensive coverage of how this can be improved upon, in a way that's natural to anyone who tries. It is natural because the brain functions in essentially the same way from person to person, and the primary factor in strength of memory is in the person's understanding of how to use memory, which is learned subconsciously at an early age, or consciously through education or personal observations.

Most people already have "photographic memory". Think of a red apple. Stop and really think of a red apple. Does it have a leaf? Can you spin it around in your mind? Consider this for a moment. If there were an apple, and it was spinning around, what would it look like? The experience you just went through in your mind most likely included an image popping into your head. This was an example of your photographic memory abilities. The only problem is the level of details falls below satisfactory levels, so the general assumption is therefore that the skill does not exist. The ability is there, but it needs to be developed to improve the level of detail, which in most cases is the primary criterion of memory strength.

This is of course based on what I read in the book, with permission from the author to add it in. I'm not sure how to reference to books, so if you know how, maybe you can write it correctly. Here's the specs:

Book Title="Explode Your Memory - A Total Manual To Memory Mastery" Author=Duke Xenner Publish Date=May 2007 Web Address="www.explodeyourmemory.com"

I see your point on the 3rd person POV, and I could see where "anyone can use" can need some clarification. So "most" implies opinion? Okay, how then do you express that it covers more useful material (quantity is a scientific concept) than any other available resource? I have researched this, and that's the very reason why I bought this book in the first place. I just think that other people have the right to know it's out there, and it is possible that you're right in that it should be in the form of a reference instead of a direct statement. How do you suggest it be done?--66.3.224.17 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Closer to true... but still an advertisement. I don't have time to talk this second... but I will in a half hour or so. Also... please log-in when you talk, if you have an account (which you do). Otherwise it's hard to keep things straight. I'm gonna reply on the ip and your username, just to be sure. Gscshoyru 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you... what I though would be short ended up taking a long, long time... but here I am now.

Look, I could continue on about this, how each little bit is POV'd and spammy... but that's not the point. Your piece simply reads like an ad... because it is one. If you opened your encyclopedia, and saw something like this, what would you think? Would you actually think that this is viable material? Unbiased information about memory? Because what you propose isn't about memory directly at all. It's about the book. And even in an improving your memory section, one cites methods -- not books. And though encyclopedias may give an overview of methods, it certainly doesn't give a walkthrough of them. And they certainly don't tell the reader what to do, as your second and third paragraphs do. And as for your specific questions... "most" isn't so much opinion is exaggeration -- it may be true, but can you prove it? Have you gone through every single other available resource in existence? Can you prove that you have? And is this fact listed in a verifiable source? I really don't think so.

And as for how it should be done... it really shouldn't be done at all. I'm not sure that this book counts as a verifiable source (please see WP:V). However, if it does in fact count as a verifiable source, then what you can do is add methods to the improving your memory section. However, it should be more of a list format than a cookbook -- and the book should not be mentioned at all in your edits. It should be cited (WP:CITE) properly, so that the little links next your methods lead to a link to the book at the bottom of the page. The book is simply not notable enough (yet?) for inclusion in the article. If it does in fact completely revolutionize the idea of memory, and becomes required reading for students, etc, all over the country, then you can add it as a notable book. But as of now, the book itself is simply not notable enough for inclusion, and therefore nearly any direct mentions would be spammy. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Sorry to put you down, I'm sure the book is wonderful, but I don't think it truly has a prominent in this or any other encyclopedia, yet. (P.S. If you really want to... you can make a new article directly on the book. Be careful to keep it neutral, though, because if you don't, plenty of others will have it deleted in a flash.) Gscshoyru 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kimbo

First off, get your facts straight, I never vandalised anything and second off just because a website said it was an exhibition does not mean anything. MMAfan2007 21:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

According to what I read, exhibition matches do not count toward their record. You are the only one who thinks otherwise, so please stop changing the article against consensus. And be careful of WP:3RR... Gscshoyru 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

0.999...

Every edit that isn't a reversion isn't vandalism. Mind explaining how my edits were? 72.230.90.190 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

First time it was a joke, fine, and you were warned. Second time, you did it after warning, which constitutes vandalism. Gscshoyru 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:MisterMonkey

The comment you left on this talk page was removed by me because it will encourage vandalism please do not do this.--Southern Texas 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What... I can't warn him and laugh at the same time? No... I probably shouldn't... that'll encourage to continue, as you said. Thanks for the heads up. Gscshoyru 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I probably should lighten up a bit.--Southern Texas 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe O'Reilly

I would respectfully ask you not to redirect Joe O'Reilly to John Joe O'Reilly. I discovered while creating entry to Members of 23rd Seanad that there was no entry for Joe O'Reilly but that the page was re directed to John Joe O'Reilly a person who died some years ago and was coincicently also a politician. Joe O'Reilly is alive and well and merits an article as a serving national politician. John Joe O'Reilly who had a different albeit similar name can no longer take the page for Joe O'Reilly in my opinion. Rigger30 12:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh... oops. My fault. I figured you were changing the re-direct as vandalism, which is completely wrong. My fault, I'm sorry. However, since the redirect was legit, a disamb page is probably in order. Or something to that effect. But I should not have reverted your edits, for which I apologize. Gscshoyru 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise! I suspect you had't time to read all the article. You meant well! Rigger30 12:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could creat disamb page it would be great. Relatively new to this and not sure how to do it! Rigger30 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes two of us... I'm not that good at content-adding. But, the reference is here: WP:D So try that. And thanks for understanding. Gscshoyru 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edits from Electronic Signatures

Can you please explain why you've removed my addtions on the drawbacks of electornic sigantures and the how to choose guide? Ramel.levin 12:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it looks like it's an advertisement for something, and was probably copied directly from somewhere, and is totally uncited. Also, wikipedia is not a guide or walkthrough. Also... please login when making edits, don't edit under an IP and then talk from an account -- though it was probably accidental. Gscshoyru 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I copied it from my own site (arx.com) and since I didn't want to link to us as a vendor, I didn't cite the source. I wrote the original text ;) I thought this would be useful, but I see your point and left it. I did roll back to adding the drawbacks of electronic signatures which does seem appropriate. Let me know if you think otherwise. Ramel.levin 07:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it... but I really don't think it is. It's still written in an uncyclopedic tone, still slightly POV'd, still uncited... plus, since you work for this company, it's a WP:COI so be careful. Change it so it isn't a direct copy, cite it, and make it more encyclopedic, and it should be good. Gscshoyru 15:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Twin paradox

No problem. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning and he has stopped reverting the page. Now he's using the talk page to discuss the matter with other editors.Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is the way it should be. Thanks. Gscshoyru 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again no problem. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whooops

Hello Gscshoyru.

I've tried to block User:George Elokobi 12 but caught you. :'( I'm so sorry! I don't know how to make this good. I feel ashamed and hope there will be one time you won't mind it. :( I should do quite another matter. -.- Greetings and again sorry, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See the message already on your page... Not a problem. If there was some way to erase that it'd be nice... but... if not, it's ok. Gscshoyru 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally not—you might ask a developer to remove it. … But I wrote that's just a mistake. :( I've even blocked myself one day. ;) I was scared why I was not able to edit something. -.- Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a hassle then who cares? It's kinda funny when you think about it. You blocked yourself? That's hilarious. There should be safeguards against that or something. No worries. Just as long as their aren't any exclusive clubs that require ne'er been blocked-ness to join ;) Gscshoyru 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic the Gathering

Name some magic cards that are valuable because of their art work?

You'll notice that I left that part in, i.e. I put it back. There probably are some, but I don't have the information to contest it. Gscshoyru 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So in the first place you changed it back from what I had done just because it was that way before, you odviously didnt do it becasue what I had written was wrong and the previous was correct.

See this: [9] diff, you added it back in, not I. I just misspoke. Gscshoyru 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

my user page

Thank you for moving so fast to revert the work of our little friend.

I wonder what made him think that it was I who started the article gay. But then I've found that youngsters have strange (if somehow predictable) imaginations.

No need to bother to reply. -- Hoary 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Replying, here, anyway: No problem. Gscshoyru 16:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Well, the little chap seems to be tired and emotional. He needs to sleep it off, so I've given him some time for this. -- Hoary 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... unfortunately, chances are, he'll be back with a vengeance. But with luck, he'll be bored like any other child, and go on to something more entertaining. Gscshoyru 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another. -- Hoary 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's like they have nothing better to do... if only they'd channel their energy into something constructive... like making wiki better, rather than worse. Oh well. Gscshoyru 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

JW

Please be sure to go through the history of the JW page before throwing accusations of vandalism or POV. The edits that I removed were of poor (and very POV) quality and almost completely lacked references. In addition, the references that I added had been a part of the article for some time and had recently been deleted by other editors with no explanation. In each case, the initial reference deletion was performed by editors with one or few edits to their name: the deletion of the reference in question. So I ask you: who is the vandal and who is the caretaker?

Additionally, you may not like the POV nature of some references on the other pages, however, the articles as previously written show how JW's originally believed one thing and then another. JW's do not provide their own references on teachings that had been changed, so showing both sides of the coin requires going to references that may not show JW's in a favorable light. This may seem POV, however, there is ample precedent for doing so (the JW page itself is an example.) The Abaddon edit you favor as being more NPOV is actually _more_ POV ('despite the absence', etc.)

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Please be sure to know the history of the articles before passing judgment. I will be undoing your edits per the rationale explained above. Additionally, I would caution that the use of the term 'vandalism' should be reserved for clear cases of such and not for edits done in good faith. Don't be so cavalier about dropping the V-bomb. 66.177.5.252 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong to call you a vandal the first time. But whether or not the stuff had been there a long time before is no good reason to leave it in. And whether or not a user only has made a few edits has no bearing on the quality of their edits. I could care less about the history of an article -- the only thing that matters is its current content. If a user made one good edit and then vandalised the rest of wiki, should that one good edit be reverted? No.

The references you add are despicable -- they remind me of "Jew watch" sites, and none of these sites have any place as a verifiable source. And if the only sites that discuss these changes in teachings are hate sites, no one else has ever written anything about it... then have you thought such statements may be lies? There's never any good reason to use those sites... if you have proof that it's true, then use that source, not the ones you currently use. I'm reverting your edits, please discuss this stuff on the talk page with those who understand better than I before making any more changes to the article. Your edits may be good, but the sources are not -- and the article's history is hardly a useful argument for the way its content should be. Gscshoyru 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the Abaddon Apollyon pages. I have been single handedly defending these articles from POV anti JW edits for quite some time. I have tried without success to have discussion on the talk pages. I have removed mention of Jehovah's witnesses completely only to see it reverted with "despicable" references. Thank you for the mention of the "jew watch" sites as a reflection of the anti JW sites. The fact that Jehovahs Witnesses once believed as the rest of the scholars do that Abaddon is a demonic personage is not a secret being garded by the organization. legitimate statements of belief (ie: from their own literature) are available and should be used for sourcing. Thanks again Wonderpet 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)\

No problem... though you both are in an edit war and should calm it down a bit... 'cause you both have probably violated the WP:3RR at some point, I bet... so be careful. If he persists, report it as a 3RR violation, but be careful not to break it yourself. Gscshoyru 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AIV

I can't see evidence of obvious vandalism (intentionally damaging Wikipedia) in the edits of Frightner that I reviewed. This seems to be a (rather heated) content dispute, and a dispute about which sources are acceptable. However, I have blocked Frightner for edit warring. Please report similar incidents (violations of the three-revert rule) to the three-revert rule board in the future instead of accusing legitimate editors of vandalism. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I'm sorry. I saw the history of the page, saw the user's edit summaries, and misunderstood what it was. I thought it was vandalism when it was not, based on the user's actions... I'll be a bit more careful next time. Thanks for the heads up! Gscshoyru 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Dave 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.

Hey... thanks! Gscshoyru 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know IP 75.176.32.12 is definitely JJonz trying to get around his 72 hour ban. He previously didn't notice that he auto-logged out and briefly continues with his dialogue/crude insults under his actual IP, before he recovered. As seen here: [10] (11:37, 9 July 2007) and here: [11] (10:56, 9 July 20) and (11:49, 9 July 2007) Or simply here: [12] if you prefer an easier view. Dave 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule Reminder

You have made several reverts to St. Faiths School. Just giving you a heads up about the Three Revert Rule. Tiddly Tom 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken... it's not obvious vandalism so 3RR still applies. It is being vandalized, though. But I shall stop till tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up. Gscshoyru 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I woundant call speculation vandalism... Tiddly Tom 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, also true. I tend to get annoyed when they don't listen to reason, though... This: [13] on the other hand is vandalism. Gscshoyru 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to know the editor in real life and have spoken to him, as he is quite new to editing. I have explained that what he did is not allowed on wikipedia, and hopefully he will be editing it again tomorow without 'speculation' being mentioned, only fact. By the way, is St. Faiths on your watch list, or you just caught sight of it on recent changed? Tiddly Tom 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's on my watch list only because I saw it recent changes a while ago, and reverted stuff, and Twinkle adds everything I revert to my watchlist. And thanks for explaining it to the user. Gscshoyru 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just board on Wikipedia, and was thinking of trying to fight some vandalism! Do you just look at the recent changes, or do you do something else? Thanks, Tiddly Tom 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I watch recent changes. I also use twinkle, which makes reverting stuff so much easier. Good luck! Gscshoyru 20:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your suggestion, I have used it once and I like it :) Is there anyway I can get to warn users and stuff? (If I am becomming annoying, feel free to tell me to go away :p) Tiddly Tom 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I forgot about that... take a look at the top of the page... see that thing that says "warn?" Click it. Twinkle is awesome. ARV is for those who pass the fourth level warning, that reports them to the admins. Gscshoyru 21:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help, but there is no way to automatical put a message on their talk page saying what you have done? Thanks! Tiddly Tom 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... there is. Twinkle... well, it gives them the warning, at least... the fact that you reverted it is implied, I guess. What exactly are you looking for? Gimme an example. Gscshoyru 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I am looking throw new pages. I am tagging some for speedy deletion. I was woundering wether it would notify the user of what I have done to their article. Thanks! Tiddly Tom 21:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD tab tags the page, and depending on the tag, opens the user's talk in a new window where you can warn them about creating inappropriate pages. Gscshoyru 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recomending Twinkle! I love it :) I just proded a page, and it automaticly informed the user. I woundered if I could set it to do this for speedy deletes? Thanks! Tiddly Tom 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

proded? And define automatically? It doesn't usually give totally automatic warnings, because it's up to the human to determine the level of warn. And the csd tags (the appropriate ones) open the user-page so you can warn them. What specifically do you need? Gscshoyru 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deleted. Deffinaly automatic. It just informed them, not an offical 'warning'. I woundered IF I could set it to automatily inform the user that I had nomonated their articl for speedy deletion, and explain what to do. Thanks! Tiddly Tom 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That's what the menu item for "creating inappropriate pages" is for in the warn box... the lower-level warns include that info, I believe. Otherwise... I have no clue, take it up on the talk page for twinkle and see what the developer says. Gscshoyru 18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias

Thanks for reverting his rantings off my talk page. --Golbez 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gscshoyru 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EAR

_{== Person using Twinkle reverts article every time it is updated ==}

Please help. I have no idea how to address this, but user Gscshoyru has activated a program called Twinkle that simply reverts an article every time it is changed. This person has done this consistently and to several people who have tried to post. The posting is to the page for the Analytic Hierarchy Process. There is no contact information about how to get in touch with this person.

Thank you,

John Saaty

Ok, I'll leave a message for the editor, however please could you stop the revert battle? Addhoc 21:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a revert battle, Gschoyru has left a message on the users talk page about copy-vio problems on Analytic Hierarchy Process. i shall post this text to both editors talk pages. Mike33 - t@lk 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note Mike33 - t@lk 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

UPCI page

Thanks for your input. However, I am not in a revert war, I am attempting to stop one. Look at the history page. I have repeatedly asked user Mikkirose to engage the discussion page, but this user ignored me and continues to revert back to edits that are unnaceptable. I have asked 4 times. I'm not a novice to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help, perhaps there is something you could do. Dcmcgov 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know and understand the WP:3RR then report the user when it is violated, and don't violate it yourself. That's about as much as I can help you with. And I know the feeling of someone not listening... but to be fair I put the message on both your pages. Gscshoyru 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. This is a long-standing vandalism problem that appears to involve two UPCI pastors (self-identified as such) repeatedly removing anything remotely negative about the UPCI from the page. If you look at the discussion page, you will see that attempts have been made to discuss this, but they just say stuff like, "There are critics of every denomination. We do not need to have them on this page." Several warnings against vandalism have been issued to two of them, and even one final warning, but so far they have gone unheeded. If you have suggestions about how to better deal with this, please let me know. Mikkirose 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the suggestion. Stop reverting and talk on the talk page. Just leave the page and discuss. Stop reverting, or you'll both be blocked for WP:3RR violation, ok? Gscshoyru 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already done so per your first suggestion. I am sorry if I'm being difficult. It was just a little confusing because several admins had already issued warnings and final warnings calling the removal of the text vandalism, and it was my understanding that reverting vandalism was an exception to the three-revert rule. But if I was mistaken, I apologize. We'll try to work things out. Mikkirose 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Magic the gathering

hey learn eanglish, when you mention fantasy creatures and not any others??? that suggest they aint there, Alos, as stated repeeadly, which you ahve ssmeed to ignore, check the WIKI RULES on the use of "one or more of" then change it back to "one or more of" as stated in the rules on Wiki, if you dont like the Wiki rules dont ignore them!--203.87.127.18 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidentially, you seem to misunderstand that rule, even though it has been explained to you already multiple times. "One or more of" is a replacement for "and/or," and is not to be used in every list, especially if it makes the sentence very awkward.

Second of all, when you eat, you use a knife, don't you? You also use a fork, but the sentence "you use a knife to eat" is true, is it not? Likewise, using fantastical creatures in a deck is true, even if not all of them are. And I don't really care, but if you're going to tell people to learn English, it might not look so good that your comments are misspelled and improper English themselves. Gscshoyru 11:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

for the cookie...Dina 15:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

In [14], summarised as "reverting vandalism", you removed sourced material, and context involving Estonia, Latvia, and Japan. Please explain. Digwuren 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Standards

Why is it that the article Potter's House Christian Fellowship is allowed to be hijacked and have ALL links deleted with the approval of Admin and yet if I do the same on the CoC page it is instantly reverted? I think there is a double standard here. Only a month ago the Potter's House page had many links to other churches in various nations, and yet now it is reduced to only negative opinions. 124.184.131.250 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No clue about the other article. But there's no reason to destroy other articles to make it the same as another. Please don't do this, take up the issue on the talk page of the other article, and stop disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Gscshoyru 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically it is cyber bullying. Lets face it, every other church group is allowed liberties to have certain links and even regional pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_of_Australia) except the Potter's House. That is wrong. So what you are saying is that you could care less about religious discrimination and double standards on wiki? 124.184.131.250 14:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that I have no idea about the other article -- I don't know the history, etc. You do. If you know there's an issue with an article, and your changes to make the article better are being reverted, take it up on that article's talk page. Do not, on the other hand, try to do the same thing to other articles to make a WP:POINT because doing so will only get you blocked, and then there will be no one to fix the issue. I don't know anything about what happened to the other article, but I do know that what you're doing currently to these articles is vandalism. So please heed my advice, because if you have good intentions, I'd hate to see you blocked -- and you're on the edge of it right now. Gscshoyru 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - My user page

Thanks for dealing with that one... Phew! I panicked for a second because I forgot all the vandalism tags. Thanks friend! Scarian^Talk 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I somehow think he's gonna be tough to deal with... his IP's are all over the place. Gscshoyru 15:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

True, which is strange. Btw, I think I made a mistake on his [It could've been his or a friend's] other I.P. discussion page. I told him off for being 'racist' to another user... He made some comment's to User:DerHexer about him being German. I told this I.P. to stop being 'racist'. Is that incorrect? Or is there another word for someone making attacks on people of other nationalities? Scarian^Talk 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... I honestly have no idea. I saw the comments, I know what you mean. But... I don't know what the term might be. It doesn't matter, he's still being a massive troll. Gscshoyru 15:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I shall keep my eyes open... Well, that won't be hard if he/she fills my user page with synonym's for masturbation etc. Thanks again! Scarian^Talk 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I don't know how to do any but the last one he made!

Huh? In the history, there's a little "undo" thing next to his edits. The top four are the ones you need to revert, I think I reverted the others myself already. Just revert them all one at a time, it actually removes it from the article properly without affecting the other edits. Gscshoyru 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get that you can do more than one with intermediate edits, but I see now. I used up mine, so I'm fixing the rest by hand Therequiembellishere 18:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...Actually, all you are doing now counts as a single revert -- you're only changing it once, though you're reverting multiple edits. Plus it counts as a revert whether you change it by hand or by tool. So it doesn't matter. And thanks for fixing. Gscshoyru 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Thank God you told me before I broke the rule somewhere else! Therequiembellishere 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. And an admin can't really do anything, yet... but if you defend it once or twice more, then he'll be in violation of the 3RR, and we can report him. Or, he could try talking to us. That would be the much better solution. Gscshoyru 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The unnamed user

I know who is is. He was banned under user:potters house, than he vandelised my home page more than 20 times in june as an IP address and now he has a registered username User:Sapienz. He is a major pain in the neck and has been dificult to deal with. Plz let me know if this IP guy gives you any more trouble, so we can take the appropriate action. All the best on your edits.Darrenss 08:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish I knew which anon. user you're talking about, but I don't. Which one are you talking about? Gscshoyru 09:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IP - 124.184.131.250 that complained about the Potter's House article. I reported him anyway because he's a trouble maker.Darrenss 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

SSP report on Sapienz

Gscshoyru,

In light of this discussion you may find this SSP report of interest. Daniel Case 05:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

What's this ([15]) about? --Dweller 09:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

See the rest of his edits. He was undoing my changes one at a time... including un-fixing the spacing which I had just fixed. He'd already been banned for doing so, but that one was missed, so I reverted it back. "Vandalism" too harsh, I guess, even though the user had malicious intent? Gscshoyru 10:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatah-Hamas conflict

Not sure how I deleted that huge chunk. Oops :P Remy B 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've killed the tag for you, too, after I reverted. Gscshoyru 13:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tag on 71.59.125.63

Yeah, sorry. RC patrol is kinda stressful, esp if you're doing it old school like me. Of course, the guy could've done with some edit summaries... no prob. —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Jehovah's Witnesses Page

I just wanted to ask about your edits to the Jehovah's Witnesses page. Why would you remove Apocalypse Delayed by M.J. Penton which is the only work on the history of JWs published by a University Press in print? The other item which I had restored (which had been on the page for nearly two years until it was removed last month with no edit summary) is an important work by a former member of the Witnesses' Governing Body.

I did post a query on talk on the propriety of inserting a theological interpretation of the Witnesses history into the main section of the article. Should an encyclopedia suggest that the Witnesses as a movement have been around since Biblical times? That is their theological view (and as such could fit into the Beliefs and Practices section), but there are no secular sources which identify the Jehovah's Witness movement before the days of Russell and Barbour in the 1870s.

I also do not understand the comparison to "jew watch" in your edit summary. These sites can not be compared to anti-semitic propaganda. Should not the article present all viewpoints, including critical ones, in the other sites section? Or, are only positive sites permitted?

The other links edit is not as important to me as the idea that Wikipedia should present the JW theological interpretation of their history as fact and the removal of standard sources on the JWs such as Apocaylpse Delayed and Crisis of Conscience. Dtbrown 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was overzealous a bit... I've had to deal with some serious POV vandalism on this page, and "adding back links" sorta alerted me that it might be the same thing again. It is, too, at least to some degree... no matter how you put it, sites such as this: [16] does not belong. These sites are certainly analogous to "jew watch" sites. Why? Because it's discussing the religion as an evil cult, and discusses how to convert them away from the evil teachings... etc. As already stated by others on your talk page, these are not reliable sources (WP:RI), and do not belong as a source on wikipedia. I'd really suggest you actually talk to people who understand this better than I before making changes, ok? Thanks. Gscshoyru 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll differ with you on the "other links" section, but I'll not make a point of it for now. If you check [17] and the logs for long before that, you'll see that Professor Penton's book Apocalypse Delayed and Crisis of Conscience were on the page then and for long before then. They were removed in the past couple of months with no edit summary or discussion on the Talk Page. If you check my user contributions you will see that I used to be heavily involved with editing the page until about May and I took a breather until recently. I see no reason why Penton and Franz' works should not be recognized for their importance to studies on the JWs. Can I restore those? Dtbrown 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what they are, but I hope they aren't anything like the websites. Also, page history has nothing to do with whether page information is good or not, and should have no bearing on any decisions of page content... but I digress. If it's a legit academic paper, be my guest. Gscshoyru 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have restored them. Dtbrown 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I would, however, mention this on the talk page and discuss this with those who know better than I, because I really am not sure if what you're doing is right or not. Ok? Gscshoyru 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I added that and again wanted to thank you for your work on protecting the page from vandalism. Dtbrown 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pushing company POV

Are you a flunkie or what? Because your revisions sure make you out to be one.

That walmart entry is continuously changed to push the company's POV. If you don't believe me then look at the external links - every single one of them is a company website - INCLUDING the company's spin site titled "walmart facts" which is nothing more than the company's attempt to twist information and redirect attention away from the truth.

I would ask that you either re-add the link to the news archive site, or remove the "walmart facts" link.

69.95.240.230 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The site you tried to add has "walmart sucks" in the URL. Without even looking I can tell this site has an inherent bias, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia as a reliable source (WP:RS). Gscshoyru 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Go look at it yourself. Check the damned files area. BIASED - HA! YET YOU DUMB JERKS THINK "WALMART FACTS ISN"T BIASED AND LEAVE IT UP!

69.95.240.230 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure their own timeline isn't a lie... kinda hard to bias when things happen. I can understand a little bit your problem with this one... but I disagree completely.

The other two are un-affiliated news articles. I see no problems with them.

And please, refrain from personal attacks, and keep it WP:CIVIL Gscshoyru 17:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So because the site is owned by the company, it's ok if it's biased??? Two words - BULLSH**! You're about 30 seconds away from being labeled a walmart flunkie. And I'll be civil when you quit trying to blow smoke up my ass. If I go back and see you've re-added walmart facts, You'll wind up coming under attack - I am NOT the type to let push their POV.

69.95.240.230 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the whole site -- just the specific page. And please be civil or you will end up blocked for personal attacks. Gscshoyru 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I consider it an attack when someone tries pulling double standards on me - and that is EXACTLY what's being done when the link to the files area is deleted while the link to "walmart facts" is allowed to remain.

I have taken the liberty of deleting it, and compiling a list of those who've pushed the walmart POV. Whether your username is added to that list depends on whether you restore the "walmart facts" link.

69.95.240.230 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a link to the company's own site. In an external links category, a link to the company's site on which the article is written is perfectly fine. Gscshoyru 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By pushing the facts page, while attempting to hide news on the company by various newspapers, you have shown yourself to be an enemy of freedom.

However, since you want to keep pushing biased information, I will simply post the information I have uncovered about you - INCLUDING your name address & phone number - on multiple sites for all to see, which will of course bring you a good deal of negative attention. :D

Have a good day, fore it will most likely be your LAST good day.

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for reverting vandalism off of my user page many times and thank you for the huge amount of anti-vandalism work you do in general. Trusilver 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gee thanks! :D Gscshoyru 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Some mistakes on my part

Since you're online, could you please help me fix a few troubles induced by my occasionally overactive content filter. It seems like it auto-edited away a few words when I undid the reversions made by JJonz on Sentry (Robert Reynolds), as well as a personal attempts at improvement on the Professor X page. Thanks a lot. Dave 17:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Btw: Link to those barnstars on your userpage. I think they look nice. :)

Fixed sentry... what do I need to fix on Prof. X? And you really need to turn off that content filter... 'cause that's just odd. Gscshoyru 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on my workplace at the moment, so I'm not able to turn it off. I don't have that problem at home. The Professor X page was auto-edited from the phrase: "making the police believe they have..."

Thanks for the help. Dave 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... not sure what you're doing, so I'm just gonna undo your two latest edits, ok? Fix it when you get home. Alright? Gscshoyru 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm home now. Dave 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

what is your problem?

why do you insist on replacing well documented information with information that even the philippine government knows is a hoax? susanbryce is a complete nut case. there is no truth to her stories what-so-ever. do some serious research into it before reverting and deleting the correct info. when a Senator from the Philippines tells someone to point out where this is happening and they cant its obvious the hoax has been exposed once again. the entire human trafficking in angeles article is a work of fiction.

as far as consensus, if you are still arguing that point i can tell you have not gone over the discussion page to actually see what the consensus is. the consensus is that susanbryce is a lunatic. the "problem" of human trafficking, pedophiles prowling the streets, children being sold by parents, etc. doesnt exist. RodentofDeath 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... it seems to me that have misunderstood the talk page, somewhat. It's more of an argument between two people than many against one. However, the fact that moderate person on the talk page has reverted your edits and the fact that you are not being WP:CIVIL and using personal attacks against other editors (i.e. calling her a lunatic) led me to believe you were a POV-pushing troll, which may be less true than I thought. However, I did a little bit of research and I still think you're somewhat in the wrong here. I suggest you shape up your attitude somewhat and be civil in order to make yourself believable, and have a reasoned discussion rather than the kind that you're having. If you do that, people will listen to you more, rather than disregarding you. believe it or not, shouting actually makes people ignore your message on wikipedia, it doesn't make people listen to it better. Ok? Gscshoyru 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem Solving

Just wanted to thank you for all the efort you put into answering my questions. I'm very grateful! 172.188.191.126 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I'm glad to help out! Gscshoyru 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Hi there. I just semi-protected your userpage as it's been the subject of intense levels of vandalism. Hope you don't mind :) - Alison ☺ 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm planning on making one for myself, by the way... eventually. Hopefully soon. Just after I deal with this one other thing... ;) Gscshoyru 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: August 2007

Oops... sorry. There's only so much you can see from the diffs, and I evidentially have no clue what dube means. I make mistakes when I do this, sometimes, tell me directly so I know. Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, I ment to type "Dup" but my fingers are moving faster than my brain at the moment. No hard feelings here :-) Fosnez 12:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk main page now

Please don't remove the troll's comments, just answer his question. It'll save a lot of conspiracy theories on his behalf. --Monotonehell

I have answered. On his talk page. And I answered it there, first, but someone else removed it, so I was just following suit. Gscshoyru 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough. I've found it's just easier to let trolls comments stand and answer them civilly, that way they look more the fool. Edit wars with anons take more effort. ;) --Monotonehell 13:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate warning tag

Hi Gsc., I believe the I.P. vandalised the G-Unit article once more after you reverted it, and another user reverted it. Did you know that? Or does one warning count for all of the users' vandalism on a page? Just thought I would check. Sorry if I did put it there by mistake. Scarian^Talk 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as the user has only one contribution... but if he had done it again, you should have put it there. Also, I think the user is vandalizing from multiple ips, so that also may be part of the confusion. Gscshoyru 14:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right! :-) You know what, when looking at the I.P. address I only looked at the first four numbers (Which are the same as his other one) thinking it was the same I.P.. My apologies, eye sight must be going! Scarian^Talk 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath Attacks against me

I posted the following on Edgardes page as he has been involved in the human trafficking in ageles article for some time, you are also now involved so I thought id post this here too. Rodent has posted in his talk page that im a lunetic, prostititute, etc. Enough is enough please. He has been using wikipedia for months to conduct verbal degrading attacks against me, he is also attempting to identify me through wikipedia and he is placing my life in danger here through current and previous posts. I kindly request that action be finally taken here to stop this once and for all, kind regards. Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me. Rodent has been attacking me for several months and it is obvious that he is using wikipedia as nothing more then a vehicle to launch vile, degrading and personal attacks against me. He has no interest in contributing to wikipedia, his sole purpose is one of degrading me including having called me a prostititute, pedophile, lunitic, idiot, and so forth. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts like this over the last several months. I should also mention Rodent has previosly posted my street address and identified friends I associate with as part of an attempt to finger me. Please help me here as I dont know where to file a complaint to stop this once and for all. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 14:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

as much as i hate to have this argument spread in many different areas of wikipedia i feel its necessary to defend myself against the delusions printed here. my sole purpose is not to degrade you. i dont care about you. my purpose is to correct the lies and distortions you are trying to insert into wikipedia (such as 150,000 of Angeles's 280,000 residents are prostitutes). you now seem to have imagined that i have posted your street address and am trying to "finger" you. trust me, i want my fingers no place near any part of you. so before we go on with any of your other accusations why not just start with the most serious one. please show us where i have posted your street address (as if i even know what it is).

also, if you were seriously interested in helping the 14,400 victims you claim are raped or murdered in Angeles every single day i dont see why you simply won't tell us exactly where this is happening. the police have requested you disclose where it is happening since they dont know and cant find any evidence of it actually happening. the Senate has requested you disclose the location of these atrocities since they cant find where it is happening either. please disclose this information so we can save thousands and thousands of victims. i dont understand your reluctance and hesitance to do so. RodentofDeath 00:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but i just noticed this little tidbit above: "Just to update this Rodent has printed two articles that use my name, and are attack articles against me." the "attack article" is none other than a press release from the Senate of the Philippines itself. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2007/0726_revilla1.asp i hope i dont need to clarify any more accusations or take up any more of your time, Gscshoyru. sorry for the wasted space on your page for something you really arent involved in. RodentofDeath 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: what is your problem?

I give. It seems to be pointless to reason with you, you persist in your personal attacks and refuse to participate in WP:CIVIL discussion. Whatever. Though what you say may be true, unless you actually try to give your words some weight by not attacking other authors or wikipedia with them, then no one will listen to you. Gscshoyru 02:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — To RodentofDeath [18]

Just to save you some time, it is pointless to reason with RodentofDeath. His goal is to be so generally disruptive and time-consuming that sensible-but-disinterested editors give up (as several have), so he can WP:OWN these articles. He has nothing but time for this activity, and his edits are entirely in bad faith (sue me) so appeals to good sense and decency will be completely ignored until he is at risk, and then gamed with.

My involvement is mostly fixing Rodent's edits. A ban on this account will not be sufficient because this editor appears to create accounts spanning various class A address ranges. The next step would be to develop a complex vandalism case, and obtain some kind of community ban. I'm completely inexperienced with such, and have not time this week for it. Hopefully it will be a lot of fun.

Any opinion on the articles he is currently linking, and his weird offer to videotape? Haven't looked into any of it yet. / edg ☺ ★ 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles he links as defense for his own side are mostly based on the government's statements, which he uses as fact. He also tries to say that susanbryce's statements about the rate of death are much too high to make sense. I really have no clue as to whether or not any of what he says is right or not, I'm just attempting to make a legit editor out of him. Seems I'm failing.

Blocking the account and semi-protecting the page may work, it'll force him on to the talk page only, anyway. I have no idea about the videotaping thing, I haven't seen that offer. Additionally... he is kinda right about the WP:COI that susanbryce has, but I'm willing to bet he has a conflict of interest as well, or he wouldn't be quite this persistent. Gscshoyru 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

amazing what you can find by using the search feature, huh? perhaps it would be easier to ask me some of the questions you have instead of trying to guess at the answers. i really am an honest guy and have no problem giving honest answers.

let's start with my goal. my goal is not to be disruptive. my goal is to have the truth about the city i live in portrayed accurately on wikipedia. right now there is a completely absurd article degrading the city i live in. i must admit i am a little frustrated with the editors here as they seem to somehow wish angeles was really full of pedophiles and child prostitutes.

the problem with reasoning with me is that you are generally trying to tell me something exists while i can see with my own eyes it doesnt. you might as well be trying to convince me that angeles city is full of gnomes that steal your underpants while you are sleeping. no matter how many obscure articles and outrageous estimates you come up with on the number of gnomes here i can see that its a lie.

the whole "creating accounts" thing is bull. i have one account. its the only account i have ever had. i login in almost exclusively from the same IP address although i think i logged in from an airport in japan one time. this IP address is most likely shared with the other tenants of my building as we are given free internet access here but i doubt to many other people in my building would be aware of this article nevermind bother to edit it. i dont hide. i dont need to. i use one computer and i'm always logged in.

i find the part about me using government statements really funny. i forgot that in order for this outrageous story to be true there must be a government conspiracy. (no proof though, right?). just for your info the senator calling for susan to put up or shut up is very anti-pornography. he has even introduced a law that makes it illegal to send or receive a pornographic image on the internet even from the privacy of your own home.

i dont have a conflict of interest. i'm in my early 40s and retired. i have a small business on clark airbase to keep me slightly busy but not too much. the business deals with electronics and has nothing to do with any prostitutes or pedophiles. so Edg was right about me having nothing but time but i'm really not that interested in being here all the time. before i came back a few days ago i think it was about a month since i logged in here. i would much rather spend my time scuba diving or traveling.

about the video-tape offer...

if the real goal of other editors is to help victims then lets help the victims. i realize this wont make it into the wikipedia article. so lets help the victims. all we need to do is find out where they are, right? i cant find them. the police cant find them. the government cant find them. other concerned citizens cant find them. it seems the only person with any knowledge of where these thousands and thousands of people are is susan. so lets get her to tell us so we can rescue them. RodentofDeath 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

if you dont like me using the name Susan Bryce in the article why would you not just take out the name instead of reverting to incorrect information (again)??

it's not my fault that Susan Bryce is running a smear campaign against the philippines.... including writing this article... and the senator has told her to put up or shut up. she has done neither. RodentofDeath 17:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Lights 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! Cheers, Lights 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Gscshoyru 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I used {{subst:User:Lights/Smile}}. Cheers, Lights 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Phooey. I want me one of those. Yours looks much nicer than the usual one, but it has your name on it, so I can't use it. Gscshoyru 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You can use it. If you like, you can copy it into your userspace. Cheers, Lights 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a function to it so you can use {{subst:User:Lights/Smile|username=Gscshoyru}}, Cheers, Lights 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking of making one myself; just stealing yours and changing the name, as you said, but your idea works too :) Thanks!! Gscshoyru 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

State of Franklin

The histories of this articles should remain intact, as this article was originally written and expanded under this name. It was moved by some yahoo. I just moved it back. Iamvered 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize you moved it back... but you didn't use the "move" feature to do so. Because of this, the page's history is on the redirect page, which needs to be fixed. I marked the page so an admin would come around and fix it, and I also posted a message explaining not to use cut and paste moves. If a page has been previously moved, it can in fact be moved back as long as there is still the re-direct on the page, so you could have just moved it. Ok? Gscshoyru 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm a yahoo too. Sorry if I've damaged the article. Iamvered 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not permanently! Nothing to worry about. Gscshoyru 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Twin paradox anon

I would politely suggest that the time for reasoning with this particular user is past, and that we should present a united front in regard to such soapboxing. Otherwise what he will learn--and probably has learned already--is that if he keeps re-posting rubbish, eventually someone new respond and the argument will resume, and his comments will stay up. I'm not criticizing you in particular--in fact, I've seen it happen repeatedly already--but I do think it's time to just revert and be done with it. (I'm happy to discuss if you disagree.) -- SCZenz 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I see your point. It'd be so much better if the user would actually listen and attempt to understand... but it seems to have reached the "I'm right and you're wrong, no matter what you say" stage. So, we'll deal with it that way. Meh.

Oh well. From watching this I was actually gaining a bit more of an understanding of this topic... Gscshoyru 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrg... I so desperatly want to respond... point out his errors... sigh. Should I clear or should you? Gscshoyru 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know the feeling, but it never helps. If you see something that needs to be cleared, you should definitely do it—I'm not around reliably. -- SCZenz 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will. Someone else already did it, though. Gscshoyru 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aramean people

Please get involved. Some child out of nowhere wants to create an ethnicity. The page Aramaean people was always redicected to Aramaeans. All of a sudden this teenager comes and claims these people actually exist. Where anyone with common knowledge of this topic knows its a utterly joke. Chaldean 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved, I don't know anything about the subject. All I'm doing is telling you both to stop. Or you'll both be blocked for a cool-down period, for violating the WP:3RR. That's all. Gscshoyru 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CrystarB4 edits

He is rightly suspected of being a sock-puppet for JJonz, including that he uses JJonz 'Gaashooru' when addressing Gschoyru, but he didn't vandalise Powers and abilities of Superman or Sentry (Robert Reynolds). He's currently either blatantly trying to bait both you and User: J Greb with harmless and completely pointless, non-vandalism, edits, while feigning 'harmless pacifist' comments, or is simply some unrelated guy doing semi-stupid but harmless edits. Please keep track of whether he does reverts or just adds an 'and' or similar here and there, or he'll lure both you and J Greb into a pitfall/ban. Ridding you of much credibility with the admins with JJonz getting an open market to do whatever he wants/act silly petty tyrant again. Dave 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll note I've stopped, a while ago, for that reason. I realized. I explained what's going on on AIV, so as soon as a blocking admin gets around to it, he'll be blocked. Then I'll explain myself on the sock report. Gscshoyru 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry if I came across as patronising. Dave 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you very much for reverting bizarre vandalism to my user talk page. It was appreciated! Jdcooper 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Gscshoyru 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

guitar3000, trying not to get off on the wrong foot!,peace offering!

what's the story? Firstly, could I say that the purpose of this message is not at all to argue with you or your decision, just to communicate! I know some of my edits were over the top and not from a neutral point of view as is wikipedia's policy, and I accept that.

However, maybe if you had read some of my edits on Ireland, you may have found that some of them were merely giving a gaelic translation of Anglisised words, in order for people to realise were these seemingly English words came from, and other points did not constitute propaganda, which is defined as changing facts to support point of view. Fair enough, I did go a bit overboard, and I admit that, but maybe if you had read all my edits more closely you would have realised that some of them at least, were from a neutral point of view!

Well good luck, and I hope you will not perceive this message as being at all confrontational, as that is not my intent, nor is it in my nature, please reply guitar3000@hotmail.com

guitar3000Guitar3000 13:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No way I give away my e-mail... I'll respond, as I should, through the message system here.

The single edit you made with the translation I didn't revert -- someone else did. I don't disagree with that one. The other times it was reverted was because it was mixed in with the rest... so go put it back if you like. Gscshoyru 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, sound as a pound!

Yeah, I didn't expect you to give out your email, I'm only after realising that I'm after giving out my email publicly on the web,silly me

Couple of things, to help you later on -- don't make a new section for each time you talk to someone -- there's an edit button next to the section header, click it!

Use colons to indent as you post, one more per each level of conversation -- see the source of this page to understand what I mean.

And don't forget to use four tildes to sign your posts, like this: ~~~~

Happy editing! Gscshoyru 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For anti-vandalism work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For tireless efforts against vandals and trolls. Dave (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey... thanks! :) Gscshoyru 15:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chcfea07

Ugh. I've had to deal with this guy all night long, as you can see from the page histories he's been editing. Wheel editing to the extreme here. Thanks for reporting him, I had listed him last night and then took it off because he stopped editing for a while, but he definitely needs to banned. GlassCobra 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To be totally honest, he just needs to calm down and listen to reason. He's trying to do good, but won't listen when we explain it's against policy. Hopefully, a short block will help calm him down, and understand a bit better. Or not. We'll see. Gscshoyru 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Well apparently he was due for a bit more than that. GlassCobra 17:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for my assessment of reality. Ah well. Gscshoyru 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed. I have no idea what to do. GlassCobra 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the second section that's messing it up... try deleting that or something. Gscshoyru 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The second section? How do you figure? GlassCobra 17:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the first section-link works, the second link goes to the third section. Gscshoyru 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you're absolutely right. Upon further investigation, it seems like the author of the second section included some unnecessary code. Bug fixed. Thanks for all your help. GlassCobra 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Marsmanhu reply

Sir, would you please stop harrassing me and reverting my edits. Is this what you do on these pages, revert anyone that makes even the slighest changes to these articles simply because you don't agree with it? Please stop vandalizing my edits.--Marsmanhu 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that three changes to the articles still stand, one of them slightly controversial, but I'll leave it for now -- the edits I reverted were violations of policy, the ones I left were not. Also... you're most likely a sock of user:JJonz, based on your edits and other socks. If not, I apologize... but the evidence is pretty damning. Gscshoyru 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Marsmanhu again

I'm sorry sir, I don't mean to bother, but I am new at this. I'm still in High School and I've just recently began to edit on some of my favorite comics characters. I'm not sure what these POV or sockpuppets are. I'll do my best not to get in your way.--Marsmanhu 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message to User talk:86.142.12.239

just to let you know this ip address is an internet cafe--86.142.12.239 13:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Block

(Sorry for the late response). I reverted my block because Marsmanhu had not vandalized, and the sockpuppetry is suspected, not confirmed. If you are 100% sure that he is a sock, then feel free to re-add him to AIV. · AndonicO ^Talk 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... you have a point. I'm about 95% sure or so... I'll add him to the sock report that's been sitting there for a week, as another sock, and wait for the block. He's being somewhat disruptive, but as you said, I don't have absolute proof, so I'll let the admins decide. I will keep an eye on him though... Gscshoyru 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Let me know if you need anything else. · AndonicO ^Talk 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mets article

That was not vandalism at all. I'm a little offended you would think so. There is a very well known book on the 1986 Mets titled "The Bad Guys Won." It just seemed a clearer title for the era.

Mahalo,

-S.

It's still not a proper title for the section -- as it seems top show bias to those who know nothing about the book. That's what it looked like to me, and that's what it'll look like to everyone. So it's not proper. I didn't realize it was a good-faith edit, but it seemed like you (?) were adding POV to the article. Gscshoyru 21:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to my userpage

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Bearian 02:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Gscshoyru 02:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scripts

Ah, I tried using a script, then they upgraded it to think for me, and it was pretty much a disaster. I'm a technical ignoramous, and the less like pure typing it is, the more likely I am to delete a major page or something, but thank you for pointing it out to me, as the script I used was handy until it was "improved." I try to avoid having to nominate socks and the like as much as possible. KP Botany 03:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page yesterday. Bucketheader 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gscshoyru 17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war and a discussion

Hello. Thanks for notifying me. I made this: Talk:Soprano_crime_family#Why_a_list_of_the_bosses_is_redundant, do you have comments to add there? -cun 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't really have anything to add... I was just warning you both that if you revert again, you'll be in violation of the WP:3RR and I'll have to report you... you guys should discuss, instead of simply reverting. Gscshoyru 01:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to keep a form of debate in the edit summaries at first, but the other guy never wrote anything in them. That made me guess he wouldn't write anything sensible in the discussion page either. But now it's up and running, thanks for kicking me in the butt so I finally made it -cun 06:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

3rr

In reguards to your revert of my edit on User:Jimbo_Wales, please read WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you persist in reverting my edits, it will be you who violates the rule, not me. --Afed 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I count 2 reverts for me, not three... so I needed another 2 to violate it. You had three. Also... after a couple reverts, you really should go to the talk page, rather than continuing to revert. Finally... your version was nowhere near as nice as the original, and your version, in my opinion, invited trolling, rather than dissuading it, so I reverted it, and asked for a talk-page discussion. At no point did I assume bad faith... no clue what makes you think that -- please point it out. Gscshoyru 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you harrassing me??

What's going on with you, why do you repeatedly revert my edits? Do you own these articles or something like that. Please stop being un-civil to me and stop harrassing me or I will report your behavior to an administrator.--Marsmanhu 03:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why am I reverting your POV'd edits? In addition to the fact they are POV, and should not be in wikipedia becasue of this... please see WP:NPOV, I believe you're a sock of user:JJonz, perhaps you should see the report, here. That's why. So I'm keeping an eye on you, and reverting your edits that don't belong in the encyclopedia. Gscshoyru 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets??

You seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against this JJons or Crysb4 or whoever they are. Do me a favor and leave me out of it, okay?? I don't know you and I don't go around vandalizing these articles. I am simply trying to make some good faith edits on some of these pages. Please stop reverting my edits because you seem to think I'm someone else.--Marsmanhu 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your edits because I think you're someone else. That has nothing to do with my decision. The fact that I think you're someone else makes me watch your edits, I only revert them because they are POV or otherwise disruptive, the edits that you make that are good, I leave. Whether you're a sock or not is besides the point -- you're still making POV'd edits to this articles, and I'd advise you to stop. Gscshoyru 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy now seems to be as much about trolling you ... I've noticed some of his other socks doing the same thing. Sorry about the template ... that's the way it's written. I would use {{sockblock}}, but that should be reserved for proven cases. Daniel Case 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Methinks someone should make a better template... which template is the first one? Gscshoyru 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know ... if you have the time and the skills, feel free to create a version of {{sspblock}} for a registered account.

I decided to use sockblock on his page instead, and went back to JJonz and extended the original block to six months. I'm not optimistic that that will stop him. But seeing as I extended the block last time, my patience only goes so far and I indicated the next one is indefinite. Daniel Case 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go try my hand at it tomorrow or something. Shouldn't be too hard to set up, I think.

And I doubt he even checks his original account anymore... or cares that it'll be indefinite, as I think he'll just use others. I wish someone would get to my very stale sock report on him, though, too... Gscshoyru 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisions on Highly Sensitive People: Take Two

Why didn't you want people to see how helpful you were?Cool ray man 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly? Because it was a trolling target, either by you (and if not, sorry for assuming bad faith), or by some other person. The stuff is in my history, anyway, so it doesn't matter. Gscshoyru 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I was accused of vandalism on a page called Buckfast Wine (or something similar) but I am not the culprit. I have now opened an account to enure you or anyone else does not make the same mistake again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambridgeboyy (talk • contribs) 07:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

No problem at all... someone used your ip... then you used it. Making an account will clear that up fully. Oh... and a minor note -- please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks! Gscshoyru 10:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Awwww

Big meanie! I wanted to ask the guy where my paycheck was, as it looks like Jimnbo owes me since March :-) - Alison ☺ 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yep! Wal-mart still owes me plenty (user:Psycho Samurai)... wonder where my paycheck is ;) Gscshoyru 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

you have frank stewart listed under liberian, but when you click on the name it has information about an austalian. please make the correction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oldroad (talk • contribs) 03:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

Gscshoyru, I just wanted to say thank you for my successful RfA, which passed 89/2/5. I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of support that I received and I am more than a little bit humbled at the kind words yourself and many others had to say about me. I wanted to personally say how much it is appreciated. Trusilver 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

about 3RR

user Vonones who is in a pure anti-turkic personality attack the "turkic history" pages of wikipedia, (see the Huns page), he is an armenian user and hate all the turkish people(he always edit with no written source). he uses 3RR rule throug to his nationalist and racist ideals. how can i stop him? thanks.--hakozen 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well... I have no clue how you can use the 3RR to do what you say he's doing. If he's violating it, report him... but I would suggest discussing rather than reverting -- get the page protected if there's a revert war, and talk on the talk page. Gscshoyru 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Irqirq

This is not an editor who wishes to be productive. If you wish to bring an RFC/U, I will support it. THF 15:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just reverting removed content on recent pages patrol... and it looks a bit more like a content dispute to me, but I could be wrong. I don't know enough about his habits to make one... but if you do, then make one yourself. Gscshoyru 15:08, 25 August

2007 (UTC)

Dude

The information I removed was irrelevant, incorrect, or not substantiated. Unless you saw the show like I did, please do not edit the article again. 209.247.22.161 19:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

All I needed was an explanation... you should probably provide an edit summary when you edit so that this doesn't happen. Ok? Gscshoyru 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

reverting

I have stated in the talk page for Arab jews why those headlines was removed. Irqirq 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have done so, but there is hardly consensus in your favor. Continue to discuss until there is consensus, don't keep reverting, please! Gscshoyru 20:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your help, I am kinda new on this, I may ask you for guidance if i face diffculties, if thats ok with you offcourse?. Irqirq 20:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Gscshoyru 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandlsim to my talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandlism :) (You talk page is huge, you might like to archive ;) )Tiddly-Tom 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And yeah... you have a point. But I'm lazy... so I'll probably find a bot that does it... Gscshoyru 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot III what I use ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop warning users who I revert! (Jokes ;) ) Tiddly-Tom 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for beating me twice in reverting the vandalism to my user page :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No problem. Gscshoyru 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT???????

i received this message from you

"Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Massimo Donati, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Massimo Donati, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)"

"promotional material"

i edited a page which referred to something in the future tense ie "donati will wear the number 18 shirt" to "donati now wears the number 18 shirt". Swapped a semi colon for a comma and changed a spelling error. What is wrong with that?

Ok, I evidentially didn't read the template I put on your page. Here's the deal -- you make it say celtic FC every three words or so, which is unnecessary and counts as promotion... so please stop. The advertising template evidentially doesn't quite work in this circumstance, sorry for the confusion. Gscshoyru 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

can i assume its ok to use the "undo" function on the edit page to revert back then without getting in trouble or can i leave that to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longkeys (talk • contribs) 22:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Revert back to what, exactly? I just used the wrong template -- what you're doing is still wrong, and still should have been reverted. If you mean revert back to something other than the over-celticed version, then do so, and let me see. Gscshoyru 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

take a look now. I didn't honestly know that it was wrong to create links under words for existing pages multiple times in one page. Now that i know that you should only link it once or twice i'll know better for next time. I was just trying to help! Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longkeys (talk • contribs) 23:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Basic policy is to have one for the first time it appears, and that's it. Otherwise it just looks ugly. Ok? But much better. Gscshoyru 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I was looking for confirmation, couldn't find it. I thought archiving was the only way round it. Thanks for letting me know. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pants

Hello! I understand you're doing your job. I didn't mean to be a vandal, I went to wiki to see what was written about "Pants" and "Pant" and was surpirsed to see nothing about the usage of "Pant." So I added some information. If I rephrase it, without references to commercial outlets, will this observation of a cultural phenomenon be acceptable by wiki standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.131.233 (talk) 12:19, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't phrase it like a question, and make it seem encyclopedic, that would be excellent. By all means, do so. Gscshoyru 12:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated! --Kbdank71 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Page

The page i created "blue at blue" was a redirect (i may of made a mistake while making it) i made it because the turm blue on blue "which derives from military exercises where NATO forces were identified by blue pennants, hence blue" could be mistyped or interprated this way as the turm means firing at friendlys and i thought it could be usefull --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

Oh. Really? Ok. It seemed like a sort of vandal thing to do... you should probably make a hangon and explain yourself on the talk page. And the explation marks in your edit summaries really doesn't help me properly evaluate you, and looks kinda childish... so you should probably stop that. But that's just my opinion. Sorry for the mis-tagging of the page! Gscshoyru 21:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you check my contributions your see I haven’t made any attempt at vandalism, and although my redirect isn’t essential I think it should be left until other users with a strong interest or knowledge in this area of military article deems it unnecessary --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

Warnings

Could I please remind you that vandals should, according to wiki policy, be given a cascading series of warnings before being blocked? Granted that vicious, obscene or threatening vandal edits can be immediately blocked, the merely stupid ones should ideally receive four warnings in total before an admin blocks them. I, and I know many others, are unhappy at being asked to block after only a single, or perhaps two warnings. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So I can't skip steps based on whether they're purposefully vandalizing or not? Ok. Four warnings, in order it is then. Thanks for the heads up. Gscshoyru 22:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I have no wish to criticise, and your identification of vandalism edits leaves nothing to be desired. Nor do I wish to restrict your activity. But essentially, this is so. All vandalisms are intentional - if not, they are just mistakes. But yes, stupid, misguided or ignorant vandalisms really should get the cascaded series. As I say, nasty ones I am happy to block immediately, and for these you skip steps as you think fit. Quite a lot of merely stupid vandals go on to be productive editors after a telling-off. And the ones who don't, get blocked, yes. To be fair, this is not my personal policy, it is official wiki policy. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So just to be sure -- misguided, stupid (i.e. non-full page blanking, minor NPOV, unsourced, etc) editors get the full set, seriously offensive ones I can skip steps on, if it's really necessary? Gscshoyru 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if it is an uncertain or bordcerline case, I personally would tend to err on the side of early deletion rather than of tolerance. It's a judgement thing. If you follow my advice I will back you in case of dispute. Promise. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for your guidance! Gscshoyru 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied...

on my talk page. You might recruit Oxymoron83‎ (talk · contribs) & Gogo Dodo‎ (talk · contribs) (they were dealing with him/her quite a bit) to help if you want to bring it up on WP:ANI. I appreciate your participation. Unfortunately, my editing day is done so I can't help much more. I'm all for anything that will nail this idiot. — Scientizzle 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the reverting of that particular vandal. He's rather persistent, though not very creative. -- Gogo Dodo 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I sent the abuse@orange.co.uk address an email about this particular customer. Not sure it will help all that much, but we shall see. -- Gogo Dodo 00:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but...

Thank you for reverting the unwanted additions to my Talk page. On reflection, I feel it may be better to let the offending IP address have their say, in the hope that this will indeed be "the last I hear from them" on the matter. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I read this.--88.82.32.78 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

link added isn't spam

i tried adding a link to Hilary Duff's page but it was removed because it was thought that its spam. it is a link to her live appearance at muchmusic, in toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albearto (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for it -- you might as well add all of her performances. External links are for external pages directly about the subject, this page is not. See WP:EL for a general idea of what an external link should be. Gscshoyru 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But its an interview, in video format. it also contains past interviews and her music videos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albearto (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I supposed I see your point. My fault, put it back then. Gscshoyru 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, just a heads up i'm planning on adding links to other artist pages with a similar link that takes the user to the artists videos/interviews. thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albearto (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

re James Beckford vandalism

I have blocked the ip reported to AIV for 3 hours only. I am not convinced that the edits were blatant vandalism, but the editor was edit warring without discussing the changes. I suggested, in my block notice, that they discuss the proposed changes at the article talkpage when the block expires. For the record, and I do not mean to sound condescending here, I do not think the text you have replaced the vandalism with is of the best quality. If the ip does open a discussion I believe that you could join in to get a good resolution to the wording. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look, this specific article isn't POV, but if you look at the article's history, and other edits he's made, he has been POV pushing from tons and tons of IP's, and occasionally has been trolling on User talk:AngelOfSadness. Three hours is fine, though -- he's already moved on to another ip. Gscshoyru 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for removing the trolling comment from my talkpage. AngelOfSadness talk 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid

I know i deleted some parts of the article, but i think is too detailed. Please watch another football team articles.you'll see that they're not so detailed. Please re-edit Real Madrid article, and make it looks like a Featured one (like Arsenal F.C. article, for example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Too detailed? I'm confused... why is this a bad thing? Gscshoyru 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid = Featured article

Yes, it's a bad thing because is not neccesary to include all seasons in Real Madrid article. Think about this: After 5-6 years, the article will be very long (pre-season 2007,2008,... + seasons 2007-2008,....). I suggest to include these details in another articles.

I also think that the club history must be structured in periods (like "Real Madrid 1950-1970" for example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

REAL MADRID

WE MUST COMPRESS REAL MADRID ARTICLE!!! PLS HELP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for this. At all. You didn't even try logging out and doing it, you just trolled my talk page under your own username, for no reason at all. I was about to suggest things you could do, but now I'm a little more wary of your intentions. I'll still suggest them, though...

Template:Split might be useful. And don't simply delete content -- actually state what you're doing when you remove content, and move the content into the new article immediately I'd suggest putting the template on the page, explaining your intentions and reasoning on the talk page, and if no one complains after a day or so, split the article yourself. Ok? And don't ever troll someone's talk page again -- it'll get you blocked. Stop spamming my page -- it slows me down from answering you; it doesn't make me respond faster. You've asked me something, wait for the response, instead of doing what you're doing. And stop putting each new comment under a different header. Use : to indent and put it all under the same header. Finally, sign your posts, with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ please. Gscshoyru 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

read the article

If u look carefully, is a section in Real Madrid article called "Quinta del Buitre Years" which contains 30 years of history in few rows. The whole article should be like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

11 September attacks

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, you will be blocked for vandalism. You may change your own comments, but stop removing the comments of others. Thanks! Gscshoyru 15:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

What comment are you refering to?

Well... a bunch of them. For instance:

You do understand that Wikipedia has thousands of articles about highly controversial topics? That's not a sufficient reason for deletion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That one is removed,

(edit conflict, but pretty much agrees with above) The fourth reference is known as a secondary source, which is the kind of sources that wikipedia tries to cite. We take as little as possible from primary sources, and instead use secondary sources, verifiable secondary sources in fact. Google video is not a secondary source, nor is it a verifiable source, so any evidence gleaned from people's postings there is not permissible as evidence. Unless you can find any verifiable evidence that supports your reasoning, I'm gonna call on Occam's razor and say that the more simple explanation that fits the facts is true. Please stop trolling this page unless you have cold, hard, verifiable facts that support your thesis, as any further rants will be removed as trolling. Thank you. Gscshoyru 19:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That one is modified,

This is trolling. Can we please close this, since it is obvious that Gaby de wilde is either unintrested in accepting that the majority don't buy his/her conspiricy theory, or he/she is trolling. Either way, this is pointless. If he/she thinks this page has any hope of being deleted... I must provide a phone number to a local mental hospital. --Tarage 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That one is removed, and there are a bunch of others. So when you compress your own comments, please don't remove or change other people's, ok? Gscshoyru 15:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And how is this a valid reason to delete my post?

I'm sorry for thinking your comment was addressed at me. What use is it to anyone else?

I honestly ask you: Did you even read it before you hit delete? I removed some postings that contained only accusations of trolling. Everything I wrote so far in wikipedia has been deleted!

THANK YOU EVERYONE!

So far I have not figured out what to do about this. If you read the post you deleted then you would know there is no link between Osama and 911.

Which means Officially there are no Muslim terrorists.

I'm not going to edit one more letter you see. I've been reverted into nothing more then enough now. All I want to know now is why you insist upon having lies like that on the wikipedia page.

You like the news media quoted as an authority over the FBI right?

At least share me your thoughts on the topic.

That's all I asked.

As you've deleted the option for everyone else to comment on my words you should at least answer the question yourself?

Or explain why it's unreasonable to ask?

Thanks.....(Gaby de wilde 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

And how is this a valid reason to delete my post?

I honestly ask you: Did you even read it before you hit delete? I removed some postings that contained only accusations of trolling. Everything I wrote so far in wikipedia has been deleted!

THANK YOU EVERYONE!

So far I have not figured out what to do about this. If you read the post you deleted then you would know there is no link between Osama and 911.

Which means Officially there are no Muslim terrorists.

I'm not going to edit one more letter you see. I've been reverted into nothing more then enough now. All I want to know now is why you insist upon having lies like that on the wikipedia page.

You like the news media quoted as an authority over the FBI right?

At least share me your thoughts on the topic.

That's all I asked.

As you've deleted the option for everyone else to comment on my words you should at least answer the question yourself?

Or explain why it's unreasonable to ask?

Thanks.....(Gaby de wilde 16:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

First of all, new comments go at the bottom of the page, not the top, so please stop putting new comments at the top of my page, put it in the bottom, in the already existing section.

Second of all, you're not actually listening to what I'm saying: compressing your own posts is fine, but please don't remove other people's posts when you do so. That's why I'm currently reverting your changes -- you'll note that I put your other comment back afterward, but it was impossible to put all those other comments and keep your compression at the same time, so I reverted it. Understand? Gscshoyru 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted 1 posting now:

""I must provide a phone number to a local mental hospital.""

Are you in agreement with the deletion? As you can see it doesn't address my content suggestion for the article? Being the FBI claiming there is no relationship between 911 and Osama. The mental hospital comment is nonsense IMHO. If you can give me a good reason to keep it please let me hear.

I don't find this talk page an appropriate place to slander other posters. You should at least agree with that? no?

Please explain if it's not a nonsense comment. Also address the FBI topic as this is the main gist of my concern, please don't whirl around it.

Thank you. (Gaby de wilde 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Please, please, please put your comments at the bottom of my talk page. I keep having to more them and its really annoying.

That post it makes sense to remove -- it is a personal attack, and you're not supposed to attack other editors. The rest, however, should not be changed. Gscshoyru 17:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the talk page revert. GDonato (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too, Thanks! I don't quite get why he didn't like me.... Tiddly-Tom 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be me writing this as he is probably a student at the school, and it made it look worse :P Thanks Again Tiddly-Tom 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Marcus, Iowa

Thanks for doing the explanation. It's not normal for a question on my talk page to be answered without my doing anything about it :-) Nyttend 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- not sure why I did it, either... but I felt like it, so I did. Figured you wouldn't mind. Gscshoyru 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Not so. This article is a featured article. In my view, the repeated attempts to revert part of it are vandalism. Reversion of vandalism edits does not fall within 3RR, and is allowed without limit. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're agreeing with me here, though I'm not actually sure. I'm just trying to point out that what the offending user is doing is vandalism, whereas the comment you put on the user's page implies a content dispute, which would imply that Oli Filth would be at fault if he reverted again, which isn't true. I'm basically defending him, since he did what I would have done, but he just had faster clicking skills. Ok? Gscshoyru 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We are agreeing. User:Oli Filth is not breaking 3RR rules, because he is reverting vandalism. You can revert vandalism ad infinitum and never fall foul of 3RR. The other user is in breach, and I have warned him. I did not block him, after six reversions, only because an initial warning is mandatory. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see how the 3RR can be one sided now. Makes sense. What I don't see is how, if you've labeled the user's edit's vandalism yourself, and he or she has vandalized past a final warning, and was reported to AIV, that only an initial warning is mandatory, rather than a short-term block. Gscshoyru 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The reversion itself is not vandalism, except for its recurrent reposting. Like, once or twice might be reverted but would not be vandalism, because the edit in question is pefectly sensible and logical. Just wrong. It only becomes vandalism under 3RR rules, and for a block a 3RR warning must be given first. His last edit timed 09.43, my warning timed 09.47. Therefore, within the 3RR framework, he has not vandalised past his final warning. Yet. Does not qualify as blockable under WP:AIV, for reasons I explain above. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So it only counts as vandalism by virtue of the fact that he's violating the 3RR? And because it's completely wrong, Oli Filth can revert as many times as he likes? In other words, the only reason why Oli Filth isn't in violation himself is because he's reverting edits that are well meaning (assuming good faith, here) but wrong, and the user would be in violation under normal 3RR rules? I think I get it, just tell me if I'm right. Gscshoyru 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now look, this is only my interpretation, OK? My view is that a well-meaning and non-objectionable edit which is to the point of the article will not normally be vandalism. Repeated edits can be vandalism under 3RR, but a block is only permissable after a 3RR warning. When you come to apply for WP:RfA you will find out how tricky this can sometimes be! Yes, user:Oli Filth can revert vandalism edits as much as he likes, given that they can clearly be defined as vandalism. In an edit war, where the edits of both editors can be held to be sound, both can be 3RR blocked.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit tricky... so thanks for the guidance. I pretty much get it now. And my RfA'll be a ways off -- I'll need to make plenty of useful contributions to the encyclopedia first, rather than just doing what I do. Thanks! Gscshoyru 23:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just did one when other postings crossed, but I think I'm covered under the obvious-vandalism exception at this point. Regardless, I'm going with what you said! Thanks for the dedication and good editing. Geez, what a dick that guy is...! --Tenebrae 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: my talk page

I probably should semi-protect, but I am sort of curious if I can figure out what's going on.

I don't want to put a bunch of other admins / editors through an evening of reverting again and again, though, so I won't let it go THAT long.

Thanks for your help. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks for reverting, I'm actually taking a turn weeding out socks, it's rather fun. Maxim_(talk) 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is fun. I get a very peculiar high from reverting vandals and watching them get blocked. You should probably semi your talk page though... you caught the vandal you protected against. Gscshoyru 02:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gaby de wilde

If I were you, I would just leave them alone for now. (That's what I'm trying to do now anyway.) WP:RBI and WP:DFT come to mind. If they want to contribute constructively after the block expires they are more than welcome to do so. If they would rather not contribute, I don't think I'd be bothered and if they plan to contribute non-constructively, then a longer term solution might be needed, but that can be dealt with as it unfolds. Mr.Z-man 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... you have a point. I will bet you that he'll do the exact same thing when he comes back, though. But I'll shut up and ignore him. Stupid twinkle putting everything on my watchlist ;) Gscshoyru 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that IP sock, I've blocked it and extended Gaby's block (after clicking the wrong link and accidentally blocking you for a few seconds). If you notice any more attempts to circumvent the block or they continue POV pushing/trolling after the block expires (1 week), report it to me please. The usertalk page is protected until the block expires, so it should be quiet for a while. Mr.Z-man 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind those last couple things. - [19] Mr.Z-man 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Gscshoyru! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bandidos

I keep fixing Bandidos page it it keeps reverting it back. The infor was vadals and I fix it and reverts back to the original vadal stuff with-in 20 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandidoperv (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bandidoperv is a new user and a member of the Bandidos. He has a good point about the article - it's full of innuendo and half-truths. Though I applaud your efforts at preventing vandalism, I believe you have been a bit heavy-handed in your dealings with him. I have written him a welcoming note, encouraging him to discuss his ideas on the talk page.

Also, I am actively involved in maintaining this article and would ask for a bit of leeway when dealing with him. I will work closely with him to ensure that WP:V is followed. Thanks! Mmoyer 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- I screwed up when dealing with him. I apologized, though, and let him fix what needed to be fixed. Sorry about the trouble.

P.S. -- you may want to warn him about WP:COI... though that will only matter if someone complains, and no one (but me, and incorrectly) has yet. Gscshoyru 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I have already explained it on his talk page, but I will add the WP:COI link (I didn't know there was a policy). Well, no harm - no foul. Thanks for your understanding! Mmoyer 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

iuchewie

please explain to me how a link to the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 on the tobacco packaging page is spam - while the article resides on my site is CERTAINLY not spam based on the spam definition, nor did i have the name of my site in the external link. i can certainly understand that you're trying to keep spam out of wiki, but you are depriving people of good information here. Iuchewie 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL -- what you're linking to is not directly about the content of the article, but instead something related. If the act is mentioned in the article, then it should be WP:CITEed, and the site should not be your site, but the official one, one without a POV. But it's not closely related enough to be included as an external link. Gscshoyru 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hentai Corporation

Hi, i deleted it because you said it was inapropriate...still i received a warning message from you, i dont understand it whats wrong... Kukmukkuk 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You blanked the page -- I thought it was vandalism, since page blanking usually is. Just because you blank the page doesn't mean it gets deleted, though -- so you should leave the pink box so the admins can find and delete it. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Gscshoyru 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hey, thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page, i have been having problems with that user for a while now. He has been blocked, thanks agian. Tiptoety 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, always glad to help! Gscshoyru 02:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

67.55.3.44

User:67.55.3.44 is way past 3RR on Scientology... however, I'm not sure how the 3RR noticeboard works. wikipediatrix 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an example at the bottom, with fields to fill in. Copy/paste and fill in what it tells you to fill in. Shouldn't he just be banned for POV and vandalizing your talk page, though? Gscshoyru 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alison Lawton Page

Hi Gscshoyru, I recently got a message from you saying that I am vandalizing Alison Lawton's Wikipedia page. I work for Lawton and I have her permission to edit the page. Please help me out here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindsetmedia (talk • contribs) 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have permission, that in no way validates what you're doing. In fact, if you work for her, you editing the article is a WP:COI. In any case, you are removing content and categories, which is vandalism. Gscshoyru 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to your posting.

Gscshoyru, you are completely wrong in your understanding of this dispute. I added NO link on "a page about a person". The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzan_Ryu. This is a martial arts style not a person. Please respond. User5802 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- the picture threw me off. Nonetheless, nowhere on that site is this style mentioned, so it's still indirectly related. Gscshoyru 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kodenkan Danzan-ryu was originally the name of the style Danzan-ryu. Kodenkan was the school's name in Hawaii, similarly to the Kodokan was the primary school of Judo in Japan. Jujitsu America is a major organization for Danzan-ryu, Kodenkan Danzan-ryu, Okazaki's style, The Hawaiian Style, or whatever you want to call it. They deserve a link in the wikipedia article about Danzan-ryu Jujitsu, the style they train in! Similarly the International Judo Federation has a link in the wikipedia article about Judo.

Gscshoyru, here is a small listing of where on the site "Danzan-ryu" is specifically mentioned.

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/JUNE2004/JAToday0604.pdf

www.jujitsuamerica.org/links.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/MikeLynch_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/events.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/Winter2006/JAtoday4.pdf

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/ScottMerrill_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/RonJennings_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/BIO/JoeSouza_bio.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/pastevents.php

www.jujitsuamerica.org/JATODAY/OCTOBER02/JATodayOctober02.pdf User5802 00:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You've made your point about them being the same already. Prove that it is in fact, the largest organization of it's kind, and you can up it up there, ok? Gscshoyru 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru, the best proof I can offer to speak for the associations size is by looking on it's black belt listing.

http://www.jujitsuamerica.org/blackbelts.php

There are over 340 black belts listed there (I counted them.)

Another major organization for Danzan-ryu in the world is www.ajjf.org

They have just under 340 black belts and are probably the second biggest Danzan-ryu association in the world.

You can see their listing here:

http://www.ajjf.org/blackbelts.html

The ajjf probably also deserves an external link in the bottom of the Danzan-ryu article, but I just hadn't dared say anything about that until this point since I was getting so much trouble for just posting one legitimate link on the article.

This should be plenty of proof to back up the statements I've been making. I'm a knowledgeable and fair individual on the Martial Arts and could probably help settle any controversies regarding similar situations to this in the future. User5802 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Their own website is not a WP:Verifable source. You, personally, are also not really a verifiable source. Please read WP:V and WP:RS as to what sources you can and cannot include. If you want to include this, you need to have a verifiable source that explains why the organization is WP:NOTEable in terms of the subject of the article. Otherwise, the link doesn't belong. If you find one, though, then show me and put the link back up. Gscshoyru 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru, I understand I'm not a reliable source, I was just saying I can help if there are similar issues in the future, although you may not particularly like me right now. I'm fair, and get a bit passionate about the arts sometimes.

Question: Can I use an already notable site as a verifiable source? I believe this is possible according to WP:RS.User5802 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru here are links from the already notable website http://www.danzan.com which speak of major individuals in Danzan-ryu and their involvement in the organization Jujitsu America. The notable site http://www.danzan.com is linked in the article Danzan-ryu under external links.

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/wally.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/eichelb.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/jennings.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/j_wheat.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/kpanker.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/stevesingleton.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/ikemoto.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/mikebrown.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/westfall.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/aguilar.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/boydston.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/okamoto.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/beaver.html

http://www.danzan.com/HTML/PEOPLE/sjenning.html

User5802 01:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if the site is a reliable source. There are notable sites that publish false information, so the policy you mentioned doesn't exist... Also, it's not that I don't like, I think you're fine. I just think you don't know everything about wiki policy yet. This is fine, and hardly surprising, as you're new.

(After the edit confict): That's a verifiable source, though I'm not sure how that implies the organization is notable... but I think you've made your point. Put it back. Gscshoyru 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thx, Gscshoyru I'll put the link up. If I wish to add further external links in the future, or have questions on Wikipedia policy can I run them by you first? What is your ranking/responsibilities in the Wikipedia community? User5802 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Me? Officially, I'm just a regular user, like 99.9% of people. Unofficially, I'm a respected vandal-fighter. That's me. Gscshoyru 02:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Just a quick note to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

VP problems

Argh. Thanks for asking, some editors have gotten a bit upset when they've seen that erroneous message from VP, thinking that they have been accused of vandalism...VP users have had to make a lot of apologies and explanations..! The problem is described here, and has been reported as a bug. The edit you just noticed was me testing to see if it had been 'partially fixed', as the bug report indicates...apparently, the rollback "edits by" message is not what was partially fixed... D'oh! Hopefully they'll fully fix it soon, it really is inhibiting my vandal-fighting..! Dreadstar † 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

i didnt vandalize the emma nelson page

i was only trying to edit the image and for some reason it didnt show up.

i found a much better image and i would really like to put it on that page

Did you upload the image to wiki? Images displayed in wiki must be uploaded to the servers. There's a link in the sidebar that says "upload file." Gscshoyru 22:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

yes i uploaded the image to wiki and then i copied and pasted it on the emma page.

i'll try it again in the sandbox and see if i did something wrong

According to your contribs, you've never uploaded anything. You need to try again. Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Gscshoyru 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

oops i didn't realize that it didnt upload its uploaded now. sorry for deleting it before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewy17 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User page strangeness

Thanks for that revert, friend! :-) Scarian^Talk 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, always glad to help... Now why exactly is he requesting to be blocked? I do not understand these vandals sometimes. Gscshoyru 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, it would be best, if someone were to grant his request? :-D Scarian^Talk 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It would, and someone has. Still... why would anyone ask that? Very, very odd. Gscshoyru 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Put it down to attention seeking? Or the satisfaction of being thought of as a badass who gets himself blocked on Wikipedia?! Scarian^Talk 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

71.107.191.119

This is why he's reported to WP:AIV and counted a Vandal. °≈§→ Robomaeyhem ←§≈° 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC) It's not a Misunderstanding, he's trying to put it in Wikipedia's Bias, an example is this:

The Sun (not capitalized in American English) (Latin: Sol) is the star at the center of the Solar System Please don't change "the" to "our" - the term "Solar System" refers to our solar system; for Wikipedia's purposes, it only means our solar system, not others

His edits to me look very much like those of a new, good faith editor, who got pissed off because someone was reverting his edits. It's a block for a WP:3RR violation, and it should be. There is only one solar system (that's what he's calling biased) but he misunderstands, and he doesn't understand the manual of style. It wasn't vandalism, but misunderstanding. Gscshoyru 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Unblock denial

Y Unblocked —[[Animum | talk]] 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talkpage. It was very much appreciated AngelOfSadness talk 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Please kindly look carefully at what changes i have made. these i have given you clear evidence for each and every change. it is to also make article smaller and not with all this padded out fake controversy his friends are clearly making up. also he is from more than once country by origin which i have clearly shown. this is truly wicked and anti pakistani if i am not mistakenIdontwantaccount2 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're removing content for no good reason, removing only negative info from the article. You're not adhering to a neutral point of view, and I'm gonna go with Elonka in that it looks like you have a COI. That's why your changes were reverted, ok? I 'ought not to have used the vandalism template, though, and for that I apologize -- the POV one was better suited. Gscshoyru 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

my colleague i will not add fuel further but elonka and all these people are inventing negative content. i am puzzled as the only reason i can see is that it makes your page bigger and so benefits Aladin. look closely and you will see from the orginal articles they are twisting to make something negative. is it not very strange to you? why? for me as a pakistani i see that this man also is described as partly pakistani in one of the links your colleagues have put. then it is strange they ignore its contents. i have put all these arguments. Idontwantaccount2 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Idontwantaccount2 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The stuff that you're removing is cited. Plus I don't understand half of what you're saying -- I don't have a clue about what you're talking about with the pakistani stuff... I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. Gscshoyru 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

dear sir we pakistanis do not get a good hand here. this link is on the article already http://www.lsx.org.uk/whatwedo/aladinclimatechange_page3031.aspx which makes it clear his origins. then you have an article on his father abul fateh which is proven by national geographic on the abul fateh page and discussion. the two together prove Aladin is pakistani, indian and bangladeshi not just one origin. his mother according to national geographic and the abul fateh article is clearly indian. also the links from the http://www.lsx.org.uk/whatwedo/aladinclimatechange_page3031.aspx also prove Aladin himself considers himself to be of more than one origin. it is only wikipedia editors who seem to want to show him up as bangadeshi. also referring to him as son of a 'bengali ambassador' is wrong it is like calling one 'jewish ambassaror' or 'hispanic ambassador'; correctly it is 'Bangladesh ambsassador' as that is the country. national geographic summary is flawed only in that aspect as the world can see that the adjective is 'Bangladeshi' derived from 'Bangladesh' rather than adjective 'bengali' which latter refers to a language spoken as much in east of india [Kolkata] as it is in Bangladesh. Idontwantaccount2 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make a note that i had my account idontwantaccount of before disempowered soon after i came to this article. then i had to make a new account like this idontwantaccount2Idontwantaccount2 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I reverted vandalism on four user talk pages today. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 22:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And on mine. :) The JPS^{talk to me} 09:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you!  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the most awesome templates I have seen... thanks for making me realize it exists! Oh, and no problem. Gscshoyru 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I got fed up with typing lots of thank you messages, so I made it. Feel free to use it when you need to! As an aside, I see you like mathematical induction - as you like inductive thinking, have you ever heard of Zendo? (oh, and I'll see replies here, no need to copy to my talk page)  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty nice template. No, I've never heard of the game, and I'd like to look more into it, and keep up the conversation... but I have class right now :-P So I kinda have to go. See you around, though! Gscshoyru 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Burning Mountain Article

I see that you reverted the edits I made to the article on the novel "The Burning Mountain". I'm not sure if you read my explanation for the edits on the talk page or not, but I think if you would compare the old article to most encyclopedia entries on books, you will see that it seriously needed pruning. This is not a significant book in any way and does not need a 12000 byte book report describing scenes in obsessive detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.76.41 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I see. Sorry 'bout that. I mistook what you were doing, I sorta skim when I vandal-fight, and I thought you were just removing lots of content. You're welcome to fix it. Gscshoyru 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to User:Bylandl

Hey, I totally agree with you. But consider that Bylandl is one of my best friends, I figured it wasn't a problem, just keeping an eye out for her. :) In any other situation, of course, I would have spoken to the user on their talk page. Cheers, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Good friends? Well then, I had nothing to worry about. Sorry then -- you should probably change it back. Sorry for being troublesome. Gscshoyru 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, you were completely right, you were not being troublesome. I wasn't sure how to make the edit summary personal, so as to acknowledge I wasn't just making the person's decisions for them. I decided to just leave it as it was, hoping no one would notice, but thanks for doing the right thing. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Thankyou once again for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Lradrama 08:57, 13 September 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.

Arthur Rubin's childish Loose Change edit war and Gaming the system

I agree with WP:NPOV. Adding the fact of the existance of prominent proponents of the claims made within the film, and then providing the necessary citations to demonstrate and prove that such people do exist, cannot in any rationale way be considered a "point of view". This is merely a statement of fact. However, Arthur Rubin's continual childish edit war and abuse of his status, in clear and constant violation of the 3RR, can only be considered an attempt to censor these facts and create an article with heavy bias that omits those details which he'd rather censor. It appears that he is Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Knowledge Enabler 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Thank you for welcoming me with that template, but I am actually an administrator and I'm familiar with policy. I re-added the sentence with a citation. If you still disagree, please discuss it with me on my talk page or the article talk page before removing it. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. You may want to add it back, with evidence to the reliability article -- because I removed it from there, for the same reasons. I'm a little overzealous, perhaps when watching recent changes, and looked at a from a certain viewpoint it could look like someone annoyed with wikipedia over this, and adding it to multiple articles because they were pissed. Obviously, this is not the case. Part of the problems with doing this all the time is I assume a little less good faith than I should... Gscshoyru 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's totally fine, I've been there myself-- 9 times out of 10 someone like me probably is someone who is pissed off at wikipedia. Happy editing! AdamBiswanger1 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Here we go again...

Oh yes, good times. I've learned a lot from the last time so now I'm tryimg to remember what I've learned :D. I was just thinking about himself a few days back because somehow I sensed he was returning. I'll check out the IP's for contributions/whereabouts in the world. If they're from Nuernberg Germany then we know for definate he's back and write up another sockpuppet report. Just checked the whereabouts and one is from nuernburg and the other is from Germamy but it doesn't know where. But I'll try to assume good faith as the contributions aren't exactly like melodic horrors, just some of them. (MH main ones were "To be loved", "Aslena", "Paramore Sessions" and "Papa Roach". But he is using the talkpages at least so you have to say he has learned a little from the last time or four(There was so many IP addresses). Thanks for telling me about it. I'll add MH main target articles to my watchlist and see what happens. I'm hoping that this doesn't turn bad like last time. AngelOfSadness talk 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this one seems more like MH. And a few of other admins have seemed to pick up on it when blocking them. AngelOfSadness talk 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note the first two numbers of the range ip. (87.167) Compare with the others. With the fact that he's editing the same articles, I'd say they're all the same person. The ip's in the sockpuppets of AFI-PUNK category start with 87.167 as well. Gscshoyru 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

MH started off as AFI-PUNK so that's why all of the sockpuppet reports have AFI-PUNK as the master puppet. The third report of sockpuppetry was filed,completed and closed in the last few days. You'd think after, what, 5 months(AFI-PUNK was blocked in May) the guy would get bored and find something else to do. I now wonder what was he doing all of August as I haven't found any IP's in that range editing those articles. At least were not the only ones who have a problem with this guy as User:Seraphim Whipp and User:MastCell dealt with a lot of the recent MH edits. At least all of his target articles have been protected after the recent events. And if he wants to edit the articles he'll have to request an account which I'm hoping won't be accepted. But I'm watching the articles anyway. AngelOfSadness talk 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

wtf

WTf u sent me a message saying i vandalized when all i did was comment where she said we could —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asndk.fjasd;kfj;qkjd (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I messed up a bit. Overreacted. But in any case, it says on here page to comment on her talk page, if you want to talk to her. Not her user page. Sorry for overreacting a bit.

And wiki isn't censored for the same reason that most encyclopedias aren't. You can find tits in encyclopedias, too. Gscshoyru 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominated

Hello please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gscshoyru. I have nominated you for adminship due to your 3 year experience on wikipedia, please decline or accept the nomination. The sunder king 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline: Though my account's been around for 3 years, It's only really been active for 3 months -- see this. Also, all I've ever really done is revert vandalism, and I'd like to really contribute to the encyclopedia first. Currently, question 2 would look a little empty.

I appreciate it, though. Wait another 3 months or so, if you'd like, when I have a much better grasp on the policies, and have made some substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, to nominate me. But I'd like to be very, very sure that I'd pass the RfA before I'll accept any nomination. And I'm pretty sure that as of yet, it won't pass. But thanks -- you made my day. Gscshoyru 01:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the first ever vandalism on my user page. The vandal knew my age, so he apparently read up on me. I'm not sure whether to be frightened or flattered. --Asclepius ^{Quid fit?} 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I extend my gratitude to you

I extend my gratitude to your for cleaning up some vandalism on my talk page. Thank you very much,
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

This is not vandalism! Have you met the people in those photos? Do you know what their gender identity is? Probably not. Please stop making assumptions about people. Please revert your changes. Having female "plumbing", as you put it, does not mean the person is "a woman". They are biologically female, female being one of the sexes, but it means nothing of gender. Most people's gender and sex match, but not everyone's. See transwoman, these people are women but do not have female plumbing. Transman; people can be born with female plumbing but identify and live as men. We do not know how those people in the photos identify so it's really not fair to call them "women". Photouploaded 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so it's not vandalism per-se. But the little note currently at the top of the page takes care of any and all possible misinterpretations, and you seem to be disruptive just to make a WP:POINT. Your edits are against consensus, and you've violated the WP:3RR past a warning. You've been reported to the 3RR noticeboard, and I suggest you discuss these edits with people, since everyone seems to be against them. If consensus is against you, you're not supposed to edit more than once against consensus. Gscshoyru 19:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

You removed a valid {bv} blatant vandal warning from a talk page of a vandal who has since been blocked indefinitely as a "vandal only" account. Please be more careful next time and review all edit histories. That user had already rm'd 2 previous vandalism warning from his talk page. Mistakes happen. As a logged user, I had over 20000 Wiki edits. After I rejected my user account for the "purity" of being an anonymous editor... I have amassed another 20000+ edits. And I know somewhere along the way I too have made mistakes. I think the last one was in July 2005 :D . Have a nice day and take care! 156.34.221.39 21:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I seem to have totally misread this one. Plus I look at edit histories and things, and it just looked to me like the user had made a mistake, and that you were spazzing out and putting a whole bunch of warnings on his page. It looked to me like both of you were acting in good faith, but I managed to misread it totally. Thanks for letting me know.

Oh, and there's no way you've been perfect for two years ;) Gscshoyru 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... I may be exaggerating a little bit ;)... I did have a spelling mistake last month :D . Take care! 156.34.221.39 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Usertalk: Cameron Dicksen

I deleted most of that cause I don't like having my name availible on a site like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.113.153 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The name will always be available in the history, so it doesn't matter. And you don't remove other people's talk page comments, unless they are on your own talk page... and even then you really shouldn't, except in some circumstances. Gscshoyru 16:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad

I removed it and I found out you put it there! It was just a joke! Sheesh! A template like that ought to be used on Assume Bad Faith. --Angel David 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in it existing... I'm not sure why you made it. Joke in terms of what? It's an empty, pointless template that should be deleted for that reason. Gscshoyru 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell do I care? Excuse my french! And don't messages I put here on my talk page!--Angel David 16:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... not sure caring comes into it. It should be marked for deletion -- and if you keep removing the tags you'll end up blocked. If you really think it should stay add a {{hangon}} template to it. You seem to be a perfectly fine editor otherwise, but please stop removing the tag. Thanks! Gscshoyru 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need this, moron! But I'll put the hangon. Stupid!--Angel David 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline on Template:Remove the empty one

The template is currently empty, has always been empty, and was meant as some sort of joke. Is there a better speedy template I should have used? Or because it's been around for more than a little while, should I have done the long-term votes for deletion, instead of a speedy? Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is not an empty article. Your use of the tag was inappropriate. Please send to WP:TFD or find a more appropriate speedy deletion criteria. If I could have thought of one off-hand I would have deleted it anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured, even though it wasn't an article, that since no general criteria or template criteria for speedy deletion fit, that the only one that made sense was no content, even though it wasn't an article. But I suppose it is inappropriate, as it isn't an article. Is there really no criteria for speedy deletion of empty or useless templates? There should be. Either that or no content should be part of general criteria, not just article. But thanks for explaining. I'll put it up at TFD instead. Gscshoyru 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gschoyru, you're an idiot

I dispise you! You are terrible Wikipedian. If you do anything to me like that again I will have you blocked and report you to admin. It would best if you take a long wikibreak until 2099. You are horrible!--Angel David 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean put your empty template up for deletion? What's wrong with that? If people agree that it should be deleted, then it will. If people don't agree, then it won't. All I did was bring attention to it. What exactly is your problem with it? Gscshoyru 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop putting messages I sent you on my talk page. You should read the template above! Duh! And there is something wrong. It is just a joke. You can't take a joke? You're boring! Why not that darn speedy crap on Assume Bad Faith?--Angel David 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just used to doing it that way. Force of habit. And as for Assume Bad Faith -- well, it's a joke with content. And it has been nominated for deletion before -- and the result was keep, the talk page of the "article." So, all I'm doing is nominating your template -- and if the general consensus is to keep, then it will be kept. This is a regular wikipedia process. If you really want that template to exist so much, and the decision is delete, then host it on your own userspace, rather than the general wiki-space. Ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I that?--Angel David 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Make a page in the normal way, but put it User:USERNAME/NAME_OF_PAGE there, ok? Gscshoyru 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Gscshoyru, I've been keeping track thanks to some of Angel David's edit summaries from earlier. It was kind of hard to ignore them from the RC. :D AngelOfSadness talk 19:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh,Yeah! Actually, I made 3 pages under my namespaces. User:Angel David/my userboxes, User:Angel David/my gallery and also the one that matches the template,User:Angel David/Empty Page. I've been too hard on you and I'm sowawwas. Pardon me, I meant Soreeeeeeeeeeeee. Oh dear, I meant Sowneyeawee. Excuse me, I meant... I'm sorry! I have been stubborn, mean and hateful. I am deeply remorseful! I apologize! --Angel David 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No worries.

Oh, and if you really and truly think that WP:ABF should be deleted, you can do as I did and list it at WP:MFD. But I'm willing to be that the result will be keep. Gscshoyru 20:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my user page. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too --Rumping 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Wow, you've been busy! delldot talk 22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping me handle that vandal. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 21:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Source backup

I was trying to backup a source, an online essay I read, which doesn’t seem to be what WikiSource is for. Maybe such supporting documents could be in Wikipedia: pages or in the history of the article itself. I suppose I should mention this idea somewhere. It’s a good one. Without backup of updatable pages, you might not be able to get a copy of a source.--Chuck Marean 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Portugal

Thanks for removing that insane Maddie section on this article. I had removed it minutes before, but apparently I accidently reintroduced it while editing the article from a previous version. Thanks for your good work. Regards, Húsönd 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I read it and thought... what the hell? And based on the massive ip vandalism before, figured it was mistake. So no problem. Gscshoyru 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For your excellent work fighting vandals

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your excellent work in fighting vandalism and watching the backs of other vandal-fighters, I, FastLizard4, hereby award you this barnstar for making the Wiki a better place. FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks! :D Gscshoyru 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for the multiple reverts on my user and talk page. I will make accumulative thanks in the future to not permanently let the usermessage bar interrupt you when doing that brilliant work ;) --Oxymoron⁸³ 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Barbados

Your edit to Barbados reverted good faith and correct edits. Please be more careful! Viewfinder 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: although this edit was neither appriopriate nor encyclopaedic, it was not vandalism, read the vandalism link carefully and see also WP:NEWBIES. Viewfinder 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I really screwed up on the Barbados one. From the first edit I reverted, I figured that the user wasn't editing in good faith -- and he changed information to something totally different, so I figured it was purposeful error insertion. Obviously I was wrong.

But as for the other edit -- doesn't it fall under "silly vandalism" on WP:VAND? What else would you call it, then, if not vandalism? Gscshoyru 11:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-personal attack

You keep reverting an edit on my page that I am trying to stop you reverting. Could you please explain how you can justify how the statement "Please do not attack other editors, which you did here" when i'm neither making a personal attack or aiming the sentence at someone else? 194.74.230.119 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Usually when someone changes the templated warns to something like that, they're aimed at the warning editor. But Re-reading, it seems that you were in fact talking about yourself -- but it does look like someone else said it, which is not the case. If you really want to tell the world what you smell like, do it through your own mouth, not someone else's, ok? So it was the wrong warn, but you should have been warned nonetheless. Gscshoyru 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are going around wikipedia reverting changes without actually reading the message itself? Does that not go rather against the policy of this great website? Perhaps it is you, and not I, who needs the warn about one's behaviour. 194.74.230.119 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Further investigation of your page reveals you did similar with barbados. i suggest you calm down and take slightly longer when reverting pages. It is not a race. 194.74.230.119 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the message alright. Otherwise, how would I know to revert it. But try reading it like this, though the diff. Kinda hard to tell what's going on through all the code. but in any case, I work fast, and I can't look at everything in detail -- and it should have been reverted anyway. Gscshoyru 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can look at things in detail. There are enough people working away on wikipedia that you can take your time. You don't need to rush around trying to fix the entire website in one day. It is people like you who just revert things because you don't like the look of them that compromises the concept of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.230.119 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm not gonna get into a debate about this. Obviously I can't fix it in a day. In fact, it's very hard just to keep up. I, and everyone else who does this, makes mistakes. Most of the reverts I make aren't mistakes, however. But the ones on my talk page are the ones you see, and when I don't mistakes, no one (other than possibly the vandal, who gets reverted) comments on them. So if you base your conclusions of me on my talk-page contents... well, it's hardly a random sample. A very biased sample, in fact. Try your hand at this, and you'll see what I mean. Gscshoyru 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact was, that when 194.74.230.119 made the comment (the supposedly attack, which was not properly called what it was, ) Gscshoyru (section) was too forthright in correcting it (though the terms of the correction were not appropriate... 172.159.143.81 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that few people notice the unnecessary reverts you make. its not always possible to keep an eye on one's edits on a daily basis. And by the time you get around to checking what edits have been added to your edits, it can be hard to establish whether your content was kept in place or removed. This makes the whole process more tedious.194.74.230.119 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

When I make a mistake, the person who I wronged notices, the person who I wronged reverts my mistake, tells me, and I apologize. 99% of what I do is correct. But no one is perfect, and there's no way I will ever be. So please stop bothering me about it, ok? Gscshoyru 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree noone is perfect but some people don't use Wikipedia to demonstrate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.230.119 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ~

Oh look, you're interfering with my userpage again. It's almost like you think you have a right to edit what other people say but I don't 194.74.230.119 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F Gscshoyru 17:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

George Michael

The story is apparently authentic[20]. However, the editor's verbatim quotation of the entire story is a copyvio. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Is there anyway to fix up the discussion page at Pythagoras so that all discussions fit under the signpost? Also, you deleted my contribution to the talk page.across the synapse 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fit under the signpost? I don't have the slightest clue as to what you mean.

Sorry, I reverted all your edits -- I'll revert it back to the way it was before you removed stuff.

I also undid your edits to the page itself, as you added some really odd stuff to the page, like an odd link in the middle of a word, just so you know. Gscshoyru 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am rather in hot water now, since a user just added a new discussion there that argues against my deletion in the actual Pythagoras article (the last introductory paragraph). I created the discussion that you reverted with an eye to defending that deletion of the last introductory paragraph of the actual article. I am not aware of making any linking mistakes, though. Apologies 2x. across the synapse 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush

It was a mistake, using Twinkle, Tried to revert it myself. AJUK ^Talk!! 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at it[21], made me laugh! AJUK ^Talk!! 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- always glad to help. Gscshoyru 22:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)