User talk:Govgovgov

Yo, Blair
Please remember to include reliable sources for any material you add to Wikipedia articles. --John (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but a claim like this needs a better source. Let's take this to Talk:Yo, Blair.--John (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey
Hello, I see you're fairly new at editing on Wikipedia. I wanted to swing by and inform you that each fact presented in the article must have a reliable source. The information you added is not in the reference provided. Adding information that you think is true or even know to be true must still be cited immediately after the statement. Otherwise, it may be considered original research, which is not allowed in articles. It includes your own personal analysis as well. You cannot assume that editors will read all other references and know that what you added is verified, because that's unreasonable and cause for removal.

A citation provided in articles can be used more than once, if it supports a statement of fact that you're adding, in this case I'm referring to your addition of what critics have claimed about Oprah's school in South Africa. If there is indeed a reference that can be used, please do so, otherwise the information cannot be used because it is not in keeping with properly sourcing biographies of living people. Also, for future reference, it is good practice to use the article talk page and discuss before undoing edits more than once when someone has given a decent explanation as to why they reverted your edits, to not edit war or cause disruption. Thanks. Teammm $talk email$ 03:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know. Govgovgov (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about the section heading. The sources aren't good enough for the section to say she brought LGBT stuff to the mainstream. There's only a mention of Oprah along with several other hosts of LGBT and presumably not all those hosts were known for L, G, B and T, just together they covered all those people. Where is the former discussion about this? Also, the heading was gays before, not LGBT so I don't understand how changing it to LGBT is because of previous discussions. Govgovgov (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. There was a discussion in the past and a consensus that the title would be 'gays', not LGBT or homosexuals or homosexuality. It's in the archives of the article talk page. Teammm  $talk email$ 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, not much point starting a new discussion then. Though I think that homosexuality encompasses more than gays. Your call anyway. Govgovgov (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GOProud
Be careful about editing identifying characteristics about groups like you did on CPAC's article. GOProud basically has the choice of what to call itself, and LGBT may be preferred over gay. Andrew327 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read through the entire article of GOProud before changing it and I didn't see any reference to LGBT. Just gay/lesbian. Govgovgov (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to sound like I was saying that you did anything wrong, just that there are editors who take such distinctions seriously. Upon closer examination, it looks like you made the right move.  I hope you stick around Wikipedia and continue contributing.  Andrew327 01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Govgovgov (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Nintendo medal"
The addition has been reverted per WP:BRD, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and reach a consensus before attempting to add the content again. Adding the content again maybe considered engaging in an edit war even if you have the best of intentions. Furthermore, further reverting reversions may lead you to the three reversions wall which may cause you to be blocked from editing for a brief period. To avoid this it is better to talk to others civilly about the matter and find out why others object to the content in the lead of the article, and other concerns that they may have.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Hello, I'm IRWolfie-. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. You are addressing a worldwide audience, please be aware that "retarded" is considered offensive and perhaps chose something different next time. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this edit summary.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, I'll avoid that next time. Govgovgov (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
I'm impressed with the methods used to discover that this account is a sock. What I'm less impressed by is the Butterbumps investigation. That's not my account and I was very surprised that it was declared my sock, based on such weak evidence. I just thought I should say that, as I don't like mistakes, even in a meaningless archive. Also, it seems to be quite a mean email and I think if some tools (like CheckUser) are available to discover its authorship then they should be used. Govgovgov (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)