User talk:Gpia7r

Re: Twitter
I added the impact of Twitter on the public health system and on education and backed it all up with sources. You reverted it with the justification "no substance. Not a link repository. Turn it into a section with actual information".

Since I consider my contribution as "actual information" I would like to know what you actually mean? I have done some literature research on http://isiknowledge.com and www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and found these articles which - if you ask me - provide incremental information. Is it the links you are having a problem with? If yes, it would be no problem to remove them. It is just that I thought it is a good thing to (1) back up information with sources and (2) to provide further information. Please tell me what you exactly mean with your statement - maybe I have overlooked something - you know, I am quite new as a Wikipedia contributor. It actually is quite frustrating to invest a lot of time in meaningful changes when they are reverted with one single click...

Looking forward to you answer, Borkert --Borkert (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking about how you placed it. You said that Twitter did something, but you didn't say what it did or give examples... but just added references. You should dig into those references and take out some of the actual information and influences that Twitter had made in those genres.  So, rather than say "Twitter influences Puppies.[1][2][3]", it should elaborate on the ways and reasons that it influences puppies :) Edit:  I want to be clear that I am in no way saying there's anything wrong with the addition, intention, or information.  Just the method, for the most part. Gpia7r (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, after looking at the changes I did, I think I understand what you mean. I will try it again. --Borkert (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, I have edited it again. What do you think? --Borkert (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that looks much better! Great and interesting examples of the use in education, and notable additions to the Twitter article. Thanks for rewriting it, and I should have been more clear back when I undid it. Gpia7r (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Whatsup90
The edit to Michael Scott (The Office) wasn't a joke. You shouldn't have changed it. --Whatsup90 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ruckersville
Thanks for the note. I agree that protection is needed, and it looks like someone beat me to it. Let me know if you need assistance with anything else.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Donovan
The edits that you are reverting on this page are not vandalism and should not be reverted using rollback; please revert in the normal way with a descriptive edit summary. Thank you (-: Stifle (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm joining the revert war a bit late, but it's my understanding that it is a copywrite image that should not be put on the page. Gpia7r (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has since been blocked. Is this sort of "vandalism" the type that should be undone, rather than quickly reverted? Is there a reason for one over the other? Gpia7r (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is tagged as free, from what I can see. WP:BITE, if nothing else, would suggest talking to the user rather than slapping her with warning templates. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the bite, in most cases. This one, though, the user was reverted plenty of times, no one else bothered to talk to them or warn them (aside from an earlier pair of warnings/notices on YouTube and External photobucket linking). User was told in the undo edit summaries to stop, they persisted. One person already put them up on the administrator intervention, I just cleaned up the report. If they had a perfectly clean slate, I would do exactly what you suggested and discuss it first. Gpia7r (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Using user warning templates
When adding a user warning to a user talk page, as with User talk:PrizerebelMan, please make sure to substitute the template to prevent future template edits from changing or erasing the intended message to the user. Thank you. (I've done that for you there, but please remember for the next time you use templates.) --an odd name 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll explain. Suppose you say something like "Sarah Palin needs more info on her hair" on that article's talk page, and I see it and I add   to your talk page.  That template gives:
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
 * Now suppose others decide to edit  so it has a different text or purpose—suppose they change it to:
 * Car maintenance describes the act of inspecting or testing the condition of car subsystems (e.g., engine) and servicing or replacing parts and fluids. Regular maintenance is critical to ensure the safety, reliability, drivability, comfort and longevity of a car. During preventive maintenance, a number of parts are replaced to avoid major damage or for safety reasons, e.g. timing belt replacement.
 * If you type  instead of  , the text on your talk page will change over time, into something I never meant to say!  With subst, the added text will always stay the same, like it looks at the top.  --an odd name 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Simlish is Not a Constructed language
Read the article to find out why. I've removed it from the list of conlangs. Simlish was designed to create the sounds and tones of conversation in no particular language; at least in the first version of The Sims, the voice actors weren't even given scripts but just told what the sims would be doing at that point. Simlish doesn't therefore have a vocabulary, grammar and syntax like Esperanto or Klingon. Paul S (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)