User talk:Gschadow

Welcome!
Hi fellow Wikipedian, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: (~&#126;). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =) BorgQueen 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Your edits to the talk page of Talk:Anti-Brahmanism express an intent to vandalize and disrupt. If you persist then action will be necessary.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I touched a hot iron. I am not vandalizing: I have made edits with comments in Talk, you have reverted them wholesale with some spurious allegations. I am confident in the record showing the truth plainly. Gschadow 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The record only shows your violation of wikipedia policies.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one? Gschadow 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. You expressed the desire to edit-war and disrupt wikipedia to make your point. That is illegal here. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you just violated WP:3RR. I did not express a desire to edit-war, I expressed the resolve to protect my edits from your baseless reversions. And since I am adhering to policy, I will not revert your 3rd reversal for today until 24 hours from now. But, I will consider following up. Gschadow 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, your edits are apologetic of the violent actions of Christian missionaries who are spreading communalism in India. Please try to keep edits non-partisan otherwise your edits are tendentious in nature.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no apologetics of violent actions. I am detached from this whole issue. Quite interesting what is going on here. I pray for peace. Gschadow 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not wikipedia's concern. Wikipedia's concern is WP:Reliable Sources, and you have provided none to support your disruptive edits. Please learn to do research, and stop being vandalistic in your edits.Rumpelstiltskin223 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you discuss this on the article's Talk page itself. I do not know what I have added that requires such reference. Since 80% of my edits was to soften material which had been previously given without any reference, I am not sure what you think I have added that requires reference. Please point that out in detail. Thanks. Gschadow 05:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And no I did not violate 3RR since I did not make 4 reverts.I will report your intent to game 3RR as you have stated above also. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. You're right, it's not more than 3 reversions. So I just made number 3 and final for today. Again, I am not the vandal, I made a good faith attempt. The record shows that. Besides I checked WP:POINT it doesn't seem to apply here. Have a peaceful day. Gschadow 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a personal note, quite a few years after these events. All users who had provoked this edit war had eventually been indefinitely blocked. The above is a good example of the tricks such people use. I learned from this to stay calm and not fight back rapidly. Gschadow (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for Welcome
Hi BorgQueen, thanks for your warm welcome yesterday. I got myself right into the middle of a battle over an edit in Anti-Brahmanism and would appreciate your advice. I have made a good faith attempt at establishing NPOV and my edits were reverted wholesale with some weird accusation in the Edit Summary. I decided to revert back (since the other user did nothing but reverting, nothing was lost.) I resolved to stay in this silly rv-war until something else happens. That same reverting user accuses me of "vandalism". I don't think that there is reasonable cause for this accusation. But having watched related articles, I am prepared for some trouble. Please advise if you can on how I should proceed. Should I just give up? This is quite an exciting excercise in cyber-democracy. Wow. Thanks for any advice you can give. Gschadow 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when other editors disagree with your edits it is usually not a good idea to resort to edit warring. Can you try to discuss with them on the talk page of the article? At least you should give them your reason why you are doing it, clear and loud. If the discussion helps nothing, then you will need to appeal to the third parties. --BorgQueen 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, that is what I did. Of course that got me blamed as "disruptive" because I stated my motif. I did put a rationale for my edits into the talk page and no actual discussion had been offered by the reverting user other than some quite offensive accusations. I hate burning lots of other people's time on this. I'll see what happens next. Your advice always welcome. If you can recommend another 3rd party than yourself, please advise. Thanks. Gschadow 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another point you should remember is that your claim must be based on a verifiable reference, not your own original research. I know this might be difficult in Hinduism-related articles, because their sources are often obscure and ancient. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia policy states you have to have a reference, especially when the factuality of a claim is debated. Try to speak to them citing references, and if it does not work out, try here: WP:RFC --BorgQueen 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The thing is, I don't think I have added a statement which has not been there before without reference. I mostly put POV material which was stated as fact but without reference into quotes (e.g., "it is alleged" rather than "it is"). The only new material I added (re. Bengali Renaissance) I have amply cross-linked with the respective Wikipedia pages. Is a link to Wikipedia considered a reference? My main concern is to resolve an NPOV issue with this article. I guess the wiser thing might have been to just leave this mess to its own devices. Gschadow 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Is a link to Wikipedia considered a reference?": No, you can't use Wikipedia articles as references in Wikipedia. If you are concerned with POV issues and you believe you have a just cause backed by a verifiable reference, then you can file a request for comments. Click the link I have provided for you in my previous reply. --BorgQueen 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will keep that in mind. Again, my main point was to soften the POV. I read there that I should first attempt to discuss the issue. I am still attempting, hoping that the reverting user will speak up about details of what he does not agree with, but so far all he did was revert and accuse of vandalism and propaganda. I hope he will discuss the issues. If he fails to discuss, I will RfC. Thanks. Gschadow 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please avoid edit warring, that is repeated reverting. Note that WP:3RR doesn't say you are entitled to 3 reverts. Use the talk page to discuss differences. In the end, it's better for your health.--CSTAR 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the lovely advice.And good to know I am not alone here..I've acted within the boundaries of wikipedia and I strongly believe of my innocence.Also ,I'd like to see the positive side of this..Before he came from no where and started to make false accusations against me, I wasn't aware of the on going debates regarding the "Buddhism in India". I feel bounded to lend my hand to Indian Buddhist friends who fight tirelessly to keep the articles neutral..Let me know if you need any help regarding this.Thanks again --Iwazaki 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there, thanks for dropping by my page. I see from your discussion page you've run into the usual suspects. Theres a whole group of these fanatics that coordinate their attacks offwiki. They will also get you in trouble by provoking you and trying to get you to do 3RR. Then theres the intimidation. They will use extreme language, blame you for something, doesn't have to be true, just to put you on the defensive and try to have you secondguess yourself. Its funny they all use the same language and technique, sometimes I wonder if its the same person. Its pretty sad you have this going on in wikipedia, these troublemakers besmirch its good name. Theres noting wrong with you putting the "fact" behind a disputed unsourced comments, as I had been doing. These people just want to play games. Well you probably know all this, but just wanted say it just in case. Don't hesitate to draw a administrator in if its getting ridiculous, especially when you have to deal with these sorts, one whos neutral and fair, like User:Dbachmann. Try to stay calm, and do not let them provoke or initimidate you. Stay within the rules also. Take it easy and don't hesitate if you need any advice or help. --Kathanar 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gschadow,

If you wish to contact me, I've enabled the email feature on my user page, don't hesitate to contact me by email, as sometimes I'm not watching my talk page, visit my page anytime.--Kathanar 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paulianist


The article Paulianist has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PDCook (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''-- Cailil  talk 19:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed this edit pursuant to the MRM probation sanctions. Consider this a warning. If you make another comment like the one I removed, you risk being sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? What did I say that was not right? I supported the user to stay calm. I thanked him from protecting relevant information from vandalism. Can you explain the policies on which you are deleting such communication to talk pages and are threatening me? Gschadow (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your allegations of vandalism were baseless. Similarly, your accusations of "obvious agenda" were unfounded. The MRM articles is not a battleground, and any attempt to turn it into one will be met with appropriate sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which supposedly "defamatory content" have I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschadow (talk • contribs)
 * You know perfectly well - article talkpages are not repositories for rumors or innuendo of criminal conduct which have no basis in fact. If this recurs you will be blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your latest post to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which made accusatory claims about living persons without being backed by multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, all claims about living persons must be supported by such sources.  Original research does not count as a reliable source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also note that the subject falls under the arbitration committee's discretionary sanction regime for biographies of living persons. Acroterion   (talk)   14:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you have decided to hide my information that I posted that declares this article to be heavily biased and that the article is missing the substance of what the allegations are and on what they are based. I presented 7 points with public information, which summarize the salient points of the theory, which your article fail to present. All you present are strawmen and pseudo debunking articles, and you yourself make accusations that are unfounded with innuendo. But then, you have the right to do so. However, you decided to (a) hide text that I have posted, which is not making any actual accusation or innuendo, and (b) you accuse me for something that I have not done, while hiding the proof. Grok that, I don't care to convince you. Look up "Vandal" in my talk page, and see how that case panned out. I was right. Wikipedia administration and arbitration and whatever does not get to the truth as much as you might think you are the arbitrators or right or wrong. Good bye. Gschadow (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't like how this project and its policies work, that's fine, and you are welcome to leave it. Understand that if you continue to edit in a way that violates our policies on original research or biography of living persons, you will be blocked and lose the privilege of contributing entirely. I JethroBT drop me a line 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I have done no such thing. You are Wiki Lawyering me in order to protect your POV. I have been here enough time I know these games people play, which is why I referred you to the "Vandal" issue above. If you have a valid case against me, you can prove it. Some Kafkaesque accusation "you know where well what we are accusing you of" is just surreal. Anyone who passes by this case should take a deep long look in the mirror and ask themselves on what side of the slippery slope into censorship and distortion of truth to serve the mighty rich and powerful they want to be. The time to be some "crowdsourcing" loving techie dreamer is over. Gschadow (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WIkipedia is not a platform for you to make accusations of criminal conspiracy against other people based on Internet rumor. If you persist in such behavior your editing privileges for this encyclopedia project will be revoked. Such behavior is a plain violation of Wikipedia policy. Is that clear enough? There are other places on the Internet that encourage such behavior - Wikipedia is not one of them.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was just another threat. Look, I am not saying that you are threatening to kill me. I am saying that you are threatening to block me based on an issue you are taking with material I wrote, which you hide. So you are accusing me of something without showing the evidence. And you keep threatening me with blocking me if I do not shut up. That is the issue.
 * Nothing is settled about the original issue that I brought up. Nothing of substance has been debunked. I gave the concise list of substance of the pizza gate issue, 7 points, that are public verifiable information, and none of that has been debunked by anyone. You and your biased "reliable sources" (LOL) are doing nothing but spewing ridicule and fighting strawmen while hiding the real issues. Gschadow (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)