User talk:Gscshoyru/Archive 3

A newbie
Hey Gscshoyru, I have a small concern. You know I admire your antivandal work and appreciate all you do. But I noticed something and I thought I'd let you know about it because I appreciate when people come to me with stuff. You reverted this and left a level three warning - I think it was a newbie mistake, and it hurt the new user's feelings that you reacted sternly. Maybe next time leave them a personal note explaining where to leave messages? You probably just saw that they were blanking the user's page and didn't notice the content of the message, totally understandable for vandal fighting, so definitely no big deal. But I thought I'd bring it up, since they brought it up to me. Thanks again for your hard work! Peace, delldot   talk  22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow... oops. That was a bit harsh, and wrongly placed, was it not? I screwed up; misread the situation by reading it too quickly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be more careful next time, it should not happen again. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, that's what I thought, that it was just an accident. :) Thanks for being so receptive to my comments! Keep up your good work.  Peace,  delldot   talk  02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year! - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: About this edit...
I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I discussed it with her personally. It's not a big deal - I had it under control. --Dan Leveille TALK 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again
I'm sorry to bother you, but I seem to have encountered another relentless recurrent vandal/deliberate liar in User:Darrell37, at Powers and abilities of the Hulk. Possibly User:JJonz again, given his use of multiple Ip numbers/sockpuppets to make the same completely made-up edits over and over, but it's harder to tell since he's taking care to keep quiet (maybe he noticed that reasonably observant people noticed matching similar writing styles, and thought patterns?) Help to care care of him for good would be very appreciated, if it's not too much of a bother.

Beyond this there is also some problems with User:Manssiere (and to a lesser extent User:TheBalance) who keeps edit-warring at Power Cosmic, Galactus and Odin (Marvel Comics) without making a case, to either, respectively, push wild speculation, extremely selective and loose-grounded hyperbole (while a horde of more reliable sources are ignored), alternately edit out explicit matter-of-fact references, and using an unbelievably snooty attitude rather than replying to the points I made at the Talk. I'm not sure what to do about him, as very taxing experience with extremely similar people here at Wikipedia has left my patience and civility at a low. I made a thorough efforts to outline major discrepancies at the Talk (which admittedly can tend to turn very dense when trying to openly discuss a horde of points at once), and initially hoped for a reasonable dialogue, but it has availed to nothing, and it seems utterly pointless to engage in a simultaneous edit-war shouting-match, which my interest/staying power for is very limited regarding compared to a personal pet-project/extremely POV point-pushing user. Big thanks for any help in the matter. Dave (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
No problem. The process is still new and under development, and I think 10 minutes is a bit silly for all but the stingiest perfectionist. Good luck and happy editing! --Merovingian (T, C) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war / 3 R rule on feminism and child support
Make your complaints to User:DanielEng, as this is entity (probably an enraged female) who is an admitted Marxist and objects to overt mentions of the connections between Marxism and Feminism. It is precisely to AVOID an edit war that I marked the page NPOV, which DanielEng has repeatedly removed (despite the fact that the talk page ALSO shows evidence of repeated concern that the page is VERY POV-slanted). Interesting how the SAME person is making accusations that all edits which aren't pro-feminist orthodoxy constitute vandalism. Akulkis (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest discussing your edits on the talk page... a number of your additions are unsourced paragraphs, and your additions also push a specific POV, whereas the current version is not POV'd. You're about to violate the 3RR, even if you aren't the ip as well, so reign yourself in and discuss this rather than attacking other editors, as you're doing right here. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since this user seems to be on a personal attack war against me specifically tonight and has complained about me to about 6 different editors; I thought I'd jump in here. Several different editors, not just me, have reverted and left this user Level 1 notes on NPOV and unsourced edits on various contributions, which he responded to by vandalizing my UserPage and engaging in this campaign. I'm not sure why I'm the editor being targeted here (and the news that I'm a woman and a Marxist is a revelation to me, I will say...I wasn't either when I woke up this morning), but I do have an open ANI report on this. DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's just attacking you 'cause you're the first person who got in his way. It happens. His points may be valid, but if he persists in this beligerent behavior, and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk, he'll be blocked for personal attacks and POV pushing. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. That's true, I did leave the first message on his page. The ironic thing is that the article he's griping about most isn't even one I have any editing history with at all; I just happened to see the changes he made after reverting something else of his. This is the first time I've run into a user behaving this way toward me (ie, with a strong personal grudge), but c'est la vie. Back to IP patrolling for me now. Thanks for the sound words here! Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...really? The first time? How much vandal-patrolling do you do then? You're either lucky or haven't done much. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Luck, I guess. I've had a bunch of people leave me silly "hey, you really suck" type notes on my Talk Page and such when they've been angry about reverts, but they usually vent and then go away. I can't say I've ever run into anyone that's gone on this type of full-out campaign before. DanielEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an extremely long edit history, both under my login name, and under my IP address (because the damn system keeps doing silent log-outs) which EASILY demonstrate that I don't go around vandalizing entries, and in fact, correct them when I see them. As for the edit to DanielEng's user page... what I inserted was the truth: DanielEng opposes violence ONLY towards women, but not men, and that *is* sexist, as it is blatantly anti-men. Typical Marxist though...freaks out whenever the truth is written or spoken. Akulkis (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not supposed to edit other people's user pages. He only listed that he is opposed to violence against women. He probably omitted against men because there's no userbox for that one. You believing that omission means he isn't against it is an example common fallacy... I forget what it's called though. So don't use it in arguments. And you persist in personal attacks, which you will be warned a final time for, now, before being blocked. Stop accusing him of being a Marxist, and accusing him of the supposed behavior of such, which is also stereotyping, and a bad one, since I've never heard it. Gscshoyru (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Special?
I noticed that you (repeatedly) tagged the article on the group Special Teamz for deletion, on the grounds that they didn't meet inclusion criteria. I disagree, seeing as how they've been signed with a label and have at least one member who's independently notable. If you still feel they don't meet inclusion criteria, could you explain your reasoning? Thank you. DS (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I tagged it 'cause it was deleted before, which usually means it was bad in the first place, and 'cause the user who put it back put it back with a not-so-nice comment, as he did this time too, (which was probably a bit of not assuming good faith on my part), and because at a cursory glance I agreed with the criteria... and I repeatedly tagged it 'cause I was reverting his removal, since you're not supposed to remove speedy tags from your own newly-created article. But, you are probably a much better judge than I, and that's why normal users don't have delete privileges, and leave the deleting up to the admin's discretion. So if you think it's notable, then it stays. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks on China
Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou

Don't warn. Just block. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I can't block. And I have no history on this; or at least don't remember it. But, I'll report directly to AIV next time, or do a level-4 warn then report. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning! Please Read...
Sorry if this is the wrong place for such a post but I should tell you:

Watch out for this shady charecter who currently goes by the username of "Treelo". This person hasn't done anything that breaks any rules that I know of, HOWEVER, they don't like me because of an opinion I had on a powerpuff girls article. They corrected me the first time and I am greatful for that. Although, when I asked them why they did that they called me a crybaby to which I just kept going about my buisness while leaving a note that I was just going to write more.

Now Treelo watches out for any new information I write on the Powerpuff girls article and deletes it no matter how accurate the information is. Treelo deleted my entire three paragraph summeries just because Treelo saw fit that the episode didn't need that much emphasis. (It was a full detailed summery.)

It's become quite clear that Treelo does this all now from spite and not for the better of the article.

I'm asking you because I already got your attention before, well I've gotten better since then. Beyond being confronted on such shallow charges. Please watch out. ThegreatWakkorati (talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The major problem with what you're doing -- unsourced additions. I reverted your latest addition to The Powerpuff Girls because it was unsourced, POV, and speculation -- please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:POV, and WP:NOT. Follow the policies, and your edits won't be reverted for violating them.
 * Also, I See no evidence whatsoever of spite or malice. I can only find a couple places where he reverted you, and all of them were because of policy, and he should have reverted you. I also can't see where he called you a crybaby; could you give me a diff of where he does, please.
 * Finally... stuff like is incredibly nasty, and violates a number of polices including WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And because he deleted a test article? Talk:Create a new Article is not a name for whatever you were trying to put on that page. He was doing nothing wrong in marking it for deletion.
 * So read the policies to see where you're going wrong, and that should improve the quality of your contributions, and they won't be reverted for violating policies. Also, when arguing with others, stay civil, 'cause personal attacks and threats like those will get you blocked or banned. Understand? Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing a page
I need to know why you are flagging my edits to an existing post. The "neutral point of view policy" explains nothing and neither do you. What gives? Not only that, how am I not being neutral? It's an energy drink for god's sake, not world peace negotiations. Clairewillis (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I screwed up. Though there's still some POV left, you're decreasing it, not increasing it, so I put your version back. I don't know how I mixed it up, I must have been a bit confused at the time. I'm sorry for that, thanks for making me take another look and realize that I screwed up.
 * Second of all, all articles in wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV, even those on energy drinks. But you improved the article in that respect, so thank you very much for fixing it up.
 * Sorry about the screw-up, and happy editing! Gscshoyru (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message
No problem. The checkuser has been done, and the underlying IP blocked. Not sure where I got "Whitematian Jr." from, though - I could have sworn I'd seen that as one of the usernames being used... GBT/C 08:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article on Death of one of the World's Greatest Hopes for a Brighter Future
Check out the article James R. Mullen, to read about the heroic deed that cost him his life.Igotnukes (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the talk page is not appropriate for an article -- please put articles you wish to create in the article-space, not the talk-space from now on. That is, articles should not start with "Talk:"


 * Second of all, your article was unsourced -- and having sources for info in articles is one of wikipedia's most important polices -- please source any articles you create, as per WP:V and WP:RS, and make sure your sources follow the guidelines there.


 * Because of these reasons, I've marked the page for speedy deletion -- so it will be deleted shortly if it has not already been. Next time you make an article, if you follow these guidelines, and the others listed at Your_first_article, then your next article will most likely be a useful and welcomed addition to Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing. Gscshoyru (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

wtf? I did not have any sources. James R. Mullen was my friend. I was there when the whole thing happened.Igotnukes (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't. That's why the page was marked for deletion. Articles need sources, as per WP:V and WP:RS. And personal experience is not a valid source, either. See WP:RS. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's really hard to find a source when THERE ARE NO ARTICLES OR INFORMATION OF ANY TYPE IN EXISTNCE.Igotnukes (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then such an article should not exist. If you can't find sources for something, it's almost certainly not notable (see WP:N) enough to be made a wikipedia article. Sorry! Gscshoyru (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the revert on my user talk page. I guess another RFCU on JJonz will be in order to try and block yet another IP...! GBT/C 14:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City
An article that you have been involved in editing, Human trafficking in Angeles City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City. Thank you.Susanbryce (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Dear Gscshoyru,

this is just to point out to you, that contrary to your warning delivered to me on 26 July 2007, I did NOT vandalise the Portugal page. In fact, I never had anything to do with it !

--Joe Gatt (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm? When did I give you a warning? I don't see it in your history. I could have given it to the IP you're using though... which back on the 26th of July was used by someone else. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is entirely possible that there have been other users with the same IP, as I sometimes do not work from a standalone computer, but from a network :)

--Joe Gatt (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Sensitivity redirect
Hi, I was thinking of changing chemical sensitivity so that it redirects to multiple chemical sensitivity instead of to food intolerance. However, I noticed that you reverted the last attempt to do that. I submit two pieces of evidence that "chemical sensitivity" may be in fact be more related to multiple chemical sensitivity than to food intolerance: 1) The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation exists to educate people about multiple chemical sensitivity, 2) Chemical Sensitivity By William J. Rea seems to be referring to multiple chemical sensitivity (see his defintion of "chemical sensitivity" on page 7).

I can think of three ways to proceed: 1) I could turn the chemical sensitivity page into a disambiguation page so that it can lead to both multiple chemical sensitivity and to food intolerance. 2) I could have the chemical sensitivity page redirect only to multiple chemical sensitivity. 3) I could start a discussion about this in the talk page for chemical sensitivity (but who's going to think to look for it if it's in a redirected page?)

Please respond below so we can keep the thread together. Thanks, Riick (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was one of several POVed edits of a specific used I was reverting... I don't know much about the subject myself. It was during vandal-fighting that it was reverted. You bring up some valid points, though, so I think number 1 is probably the best way to go. If you get reverted, don't revert back, but discuss -- see WP:BRD.
 * I'm not currently involved all that much in wikipedia anymore... schoolwork has sort of worn away the habit. So if a discussion does get started, don't expect to hear much from me -- I'm not really around anymore. But it sounds to me like what you propose for number 1 should not be opposed anyways; it's a valid proposal. Go ahead and do it. Gscshoyru (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful advice; I have gone ahead and changed chemical sensitivity into a disambiguation page. Good luck with your studies! Riick (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

request for advice
I am a new wikipedia user, and I was hoping you could give me some advice for customizing my userpage and also for editing.Maolain (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities of the Hulk merger into the main page
There is a discussion about the decision to merge "Powers and Abilities of the Hulk" into the main article. Given your past help with the page I'd appreciate if you'd like to chip in. I'm extremely short on time and energy nowadays. Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Limerick
A flea and a fly in a flue

Were caught, so what could they do?

Said the fly, "Let us flee."

"Let us fly," said the flea.

So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

by anonymous Simon311A (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tōru Sakai
An article that you have been involved in editing, Tōru Sakai, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andyzweb (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Volley
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed in quite a while, and don't plan to anytime soon -- life and all that. Plus most of what I did was vandal fighting. Sorry -- you'll need to find someone else to help. Thanks for the offer, though.

About User_talk:88.77.157.152
This is a shared IP address. But you’re lying through your teeth like a politician. “Everyone is welcome to contribute”… IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH THAT INFORMS ME THAT MY CONTRIBUTION IS CENSORED! You know as well as I, that I’m only “welcome”, as long as I’m ”contributing” exactly in agreement to your personal view of the world. If not, then “something” is “found” to censor it. And because you live in the delusion that your personal point of view is absolute and global, or that there is such a absolute and global “truth” (which is silly bullshit as everyone knows who knows even a bit about physics and how the human mind works), you don’t even notice it, or see how much of a failure that is. Just as I stated in my censored but factually correct comment on Vinnypatel’s page. You fail so hard, it’s not even funny anymore. Seriously, I can’t laugh about this. You’re establishing a big propaganda site for your delusional reality, and like a trooper about how it’s the exact opposite of what it actually is. And I will end it. Even if it’s the last thing I’ll ever do! — 88.77.157.152 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, all the words in that message you got from me came from a standard, automated template that came from me reverting your changes when I came across them recent changes patrolling; the words are not exactly my own, I just picked the template the best I could.
 * I didn't censor anything -- your changes are still visible in the history of the page -- and I only undid the one edit that was overtly not WP:CIVIL; your other message is still there on his talk page.
 * You're perfectly welcome to edit whatever you like -- but if your additions are not constructive, they will be removed. I hope you future edits are constructive, as every productive edit improves the encyclopedia. Although you don't seem to want that... if you don't like wikipedia, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you don't have to come here if you don't want to. And I am certainly not personally responsible for what you don't like -- the policies of this encyclopedia are formed by a consensus of wikipedians, not by any single person, and certainly not me. If you feel that something should be different, say so civily on the talk pages of whatever policies you want to change. If you argue your case well enough, you may get enough consensus to change the policies. Good luck! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

About Eiffel Tower
Actually, I just removed "&nspb" which was in between a word. How was the vandalism? --Aidan MacLean (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_Tower&diff=prev&oldid=421659800 . That was not all that was changed, though your other changes may have been unintentional. Sorry if they were -- I just saw the weird symbols and hit the revert button. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright. How did that happen? XD 'm new to wikipedia, how long have you been here? --Aidan MacLean (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how that happened. Somethings things mess up. I fixed it the way you wanted it, anyways. As for me, been here on and off for a while -- years. Usually I do vandal fighting -- which is how we ended up here. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.
You just edited a whole load of changes I made to the translation of relics page. I'm a PhD student in medieval literature and I know what I'm on about. Put the changes back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.133.221 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- I just saw the most recent edit, which was the removal of a whole section, and assumed vandalism. My bad. In the future, use the "Show preview" button so you don't have to make incremental changes. My bad. Gscshoyru (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Warwick University Real Ale Society
Can you please explain why you have taken off my factual account of my starting the Warwick University Real Ale Society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonecoboy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, no original research is allowed -- see WP:OR for the relevant policy page. Your edit added content that was pure original research, and as such was removed. I hope this doesn't discourage you from future editing -- we'd love you have you, and every little edit helps -- so long as they conform to wikipedia policies. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The psychological significance of reversed maps
I recently posted some information on a series of published social psychology studies concerning reversed maps that I co-authored with several colleagues (Meier, Moller, Chen, and Riemer-Peltz, 2011). Several days after adding the content the lead author on the paper was contacted by a PhD student in geography from the University of Cal Berkeley asking for a copy of the article -- a development that helped reinforce my confidence that the content I posted was indeed relevant to the entry for "Reversed Map."

I later made two additional edits. Edit #2 added a link to a "Rotatable Map Tool" -- an addition/edit that also seemed very relevant, yet for entirely different reasons than the above add/edit concerning the Meier et al (2011) article. Edit #3 added a link to a Forum Thread encouraging Google to return the free "Rotating Maps" tool to Google Maps, another topic which I would think many, many people interested in the utility of the "reversed map" concept might appreciate knowing about; again, this was a reason entirely independent of the reasons for making edit #1 and edit #2. Each time, I documented with a sentence or two a description of the edits I made.

Then on April 1st, you essentially deleted all 3 of my entries in one fell swoop, and without any explanation beyond "Reverted edits by Arlenmoller to last version by Ashmoo (GLOO)". There was also a note on my Talk page, but without any elaboration on your rationale for reverting the edits. I realize that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contributing, but I consider myself a community member with something to offer, and this kind of sweeping revision without explanation is very amotivating for my future participation. I think each of the 3 edits I made were relevant, and each for distinct reasons. At the very least, I would like the opportunity to dialogue with you about this further before this matter is settled.

I'd also like to note that the Meier et al. (2011) article included a study that literally involved "reversing" the orientation of a map to see the psychological effect on participants. How can this not be relevant to a Wikipedia entry titled "Reversed Map"? Arlenmoller (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for reverting the whole of your contribution -- the bit at the end caught my eye, and it was because of that that the whole of your changes were reverted. There's nothing wrong with the first paragraph -- but your second paragraph and the links you added seem to be an attempt to canvas support for something, which is not what Wikipedia articles are for -- see WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI for the related policies. I've restored the first paragraph, since it was a good edit and improved the encyclopedia.
 * Also, sorry for the lack of explanation -- the tool that I'm currently using to fight vandalism (that's what the GLOO link was) doesn't allow you to pick a warning template the tool I used to use did, and so the template you received (the level 1 anti-vandalism template) didn't exactly pertain to why I reverted your edits. Plus, when I am fighting vandalism, I don't always take the time to notice anything beyond the obvious rules offense, which is why I missed the fact that the rest of what you added was good. I hope that this doesn't discourage you from future editing -- we'd love to have you, and every little edit helps -- so long as it doesn't violate policy, of course. Again, sorry for the revert of the good edit, and the lack of clarification when I reverted all your changes. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and thank you for the explanation. I can see from your Talk page that you are a dedicated member of this community, and hence was confused by what happened.  I see your point about the policy forbidding canvasing support for something (even a cause relevant to the entry).  Arlenmoller (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Second city of the united kingdom
I edit this article continuously to improve it, I reference my material well and present facts. It is common knowledge that Leeds is considered as a possible second city location, so why do you keep deleting my edits? Furthermore, a while back there was another instance of "vandalism" on this page in which extreme and unfounded bias was seen towards Glasgow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtrump (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only edits of yours on that page that I have reverted are this one where you remove half of the content of the page, and this one where you blank the entire page. I haven't been able to find a diff of an edit you made to that page that did anything other than remove a large amount of content -- so I don't know what you mean when you say you reference your material well -- but I may have missed something, so if I'm wrong, please show me a diff where you did something else.
 * If you think the content of the page is incorrect and biased, it is ok to remove it, or even better change it to be more accurate and WP:NPOV -- but only once -- see WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted, which is already has been, you should try to discuss on the talk page of the wiki article, and only change it again once consensus has been reached. In the future, I would also suggest an edit summary so people know why you're removing the content, otherwise they may simply assume, as I and everyone else who reverted your edits did, that it was vandalism. Ok? Gscshoyru (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice Job!

 * Thank you! Seen you beat me a few times too, today -- keep up the good work yourself. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

STOP!
This is rediculous! I'm updating our government organization page, which hasn't been touched in over a year! There is no advertising on the page. I am simply taking off the information that has not been approved for public release. Please allow me to finish my job!KellyHeyn (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)KellyHeyn


 * The entire "Who we are" section that you're adding is written in the first person, as opposed to the third person -- and as such sounds very much like advertising -- and also sounds like you copied it directly off of the website's page... which you did, if I look at http://peoc3t.army.mil/c3t/who-we-are.php . This is a violation of WP:COPYVIO in addition to WP:ADVERT, so please rewrite the things you're trying to add so that they're not copied directly off of the site, and have a WP:NPOV, before re-adding them. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is publically approved material. The site I am taking it from is an official government site. If I reword it any other way it needs to be restaffed for release. Please tell me what I can say? Does "About PEOC3T" work? You keep taking away full edits without even reading it. What is curretnly on the site is wrong. It has to come from that website because that's the wording that has been approved for release. I'm trying my hardest to follow your "rules" but you don't exactly say what is allowed and what is not. You just take it down! Is there a number I can call to prevent this from happening. Do you have some sort of help desk? If this isn't the case, I will have to remove all of this material off of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyHeyn (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certainly reading your edits. They're not my rules -- they're Wikipedia's rules. You're not allowed to copy/paste content from other pages unless the content is available under a specific creative commons license or something compatible -- see WP:COPYVIO and WP:C. Even if they are available under those licenses, you really shouldn't copy/paste from other places anyways -- see WP:COPYPASTE. Content should be written in your own words -- for an analogy, if you put the content you're adding in a paper for a college class, then a professor should not be able to accuse you of plagiarism -- if she can, then you're copying, which you're not supposed to do. Additionally, articles should be written in third person, not first person, so they sound more encyclopedic -- see WP:TONE. Finally... your "restaffed for release" line makes me think... are you a member of this organization in any way? If so, that's a conflict of interest -- see WP:COI -- and you really shouldn't be editing the article anyways. Does all of this make sense to you? I really think your edits have all been in good faith, and don't want to see you blocked because of all this. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again!
I just noticed an unruly user vandalized my main page. Thanks for the protection. Well done  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

help
hi I have been asked by the Principle of Weeden Heights Primary school to make changes I am not vandlising the website. I am trying to put correct details in. How can I change or edit with permission? Weeden1168 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, replacing content with "Please see Weeden Heights Primary school website for more information" not encyclopedic, which is why I reverted the change. It sort of falls under a violation of wikipedia's advertising policy -- see WP:ADVERT -- but it certainly doesn't look good in an encyclopedia entry -- and wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also, if you want to make changes to wikipedia, please try not to remove content, and if you are, please provide an edit summary as to why.
 * Second -- if you've been asked by an administrator of the school to make changes to the page, that's a conflict of interest -- see WP:COI, and you really shouldn't be editing a page you have a vested interest in. Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view, and editing with a vested interest makes it very difficult to stay neutral. You should follow the WP:COI policies for editing in this case if you want to proceed.
 * I hope all this helps! Please let me know if you want/need anything further. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advise and it has been very helpful. Is it ok to take out names of teachers? Also how do I provide an edit summary as to why I would like to make a change? Weeden1168 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea if it's ok to take out the names of teachers -- it makes sense from a privacy standpoint, but do keep in mind they will always be there in history of the page... I might suggest asking for help on the Reference_desk, since the people there will get back to you quickly and will certainly have a better understanding of this than I do.
 * As for edit summaries -- there's a box just above the "save page" button for you to put an edit summary in when you edit a page. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Like lightning
Thanks. Man, you're fast ! Bishonen | talk 13:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Thanks :) I do my best. The tools I use really help. Gscshoyru (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Your guts were right, you should have filed that SPI report ;). Something was bothering me so I looked it up and I have commented there. Thanks! -- Luk  talk 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I once was good at this (vandal-fighting), but I went on a long hiatus (3 years or so), and only recently came back. I'm still a little rusty when it comes to certain aspects of policy and whatnot. Thanks again! Gscshoyru (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm almost as rusty as you are, I'm mostly retired since a year and a half now :) -- Luk  talk 14:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

GODZILLA 1998 IS NOT A GODZILLA MOVIE, AND YOU REVERTED THE MY DELETION OF IT FROM THE PAGE
Please, Godzilla 1998 was a crappy sequal. "It is not a Godzilla movie". I am not attempting vandalisim, and please rid the Godzilla Movie category from the page. (I AM NOT TRYING TO VANDALIZE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.26.219 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't WP:SHOUT. And even if you don't like it, that doesn't keep it from being a Godzilla movie. Please don't remove the category again. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help on my talk page. Someone was having a pretty bad day, I think.  Wikipelli Talk   19:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to help. And yes, seems that way. Ah well. Gscshoyru (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You also have my thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. ConconJondor talk contribs 19:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) Gscshoyru (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Raines HS
Watch those reverts -- you're restoring a completely unreferenced promotional section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry. Apparently I need to slow down a little. Thanks for letting me know. Gscshoyru (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush
Hello, I see you were handling some sockpuppet vandalism there, but please restore the talk page as it existed prior to this spate of vandalism. Abrazame (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused... according to this diff, all the changes by the sock were reverted, and a cursory glance at the page seems to show that everything is in order... what was missed?
 * And as a general rule, if you find something wrong on wikipedia, and think it should be fixed... be WP:BOLD and fix it! If you need help with reverting, see WP:REVERT for how. If you do revert it yourself, please tell me -- I'd like to know what exactly was missed. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused too—I found a blanked page; of course as an editor here for several years, I did try to restore the version prior to the vandalism, and when I clicked to save it seemed to be restored, yet back in my watchlist, my edit had not registered. Clicking on the page again, I found it blank again.  Repeating the process with the same result, I wrote you, the last editor there.  Now when I click on the page, I see it is fine.  I've heard people talk about emptying your browser cache, but never found that a problem...maybe that's what was bringing up a blank page for me.  Sorry, and thanks for your response.  Abrazame (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hanna Hilton
Actually the edit you reverted was constructive. I didn't remove the reference but simply replaced the needless repetition of it by ref name="booble"/ (in between ). I also corrected some spelling mistakes.78.133.52.235 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad. "bobble" looks like "boobie" if you're not paying enough attention, like I was, so when I saw that I assumed vandalism. I've reverted my own revert to the page to restore your changes. Sorry again! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
I don't know who this persistant vandalizer is, but thanks.


 * Always glad to help. Thanks for the barnstar! Gscshoyru (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions about reverts to social identity entry
Hello! I was wondering if you could provide more information on the past two reverts done to the SI updates. Jfwang and I have been modifying the article as part of a course project aimed at improving Wikipedia entries related to organization communication. Our professor requested that we remove the entry for Historical background of social identity theory, as it seems to put too much detail into the entry. Is there any way we can get the change to stick without the automatic reverts? I'm not sure if the bot automatically changes it back or if you just get ping-ed whenever possible vandalism occurs. If it's something that you think should definitely be there, we'll update our instructor. Wikipedia's a community effort :-) Tabularasasm (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The reverts are mine, not a bot's -- but they were reverts because you're removing a lot of well-sourced, well written content, without providing a reason for its removal in the edit summary. And I'm not entirely sure what "puts too much detail into the entry" means. The section seems to be to be a valid, informative section, and I don't really think it should be removed, but I don't actually know much about the subject, and could be wrong.
 * In any case -- you should probably read up a bit on wikipedia policy with regards to what content is notable and not -- see WP:N -- and what wikipedia's policy is with regards to reverts, see WP:BRD specifically for this case. To be more specific -- after your change has been reverted, you should discuss on the article talk until consensus is reached, and then change the article to match consensus.
 * I'm always a little wary of improving wikipedia as a school project... we are of course glad of new, constructive editors, but sometimes the often the students in the class have no idea how to write for the encyclopedia and source things properly and whatnot, and end up doing more harm than good. And we would much rather turn the well-meaning, harmful users into well-meaning, constructive users. I would suggest to your professor that for the first week or two of whatever this class is, that he go over the pertinent wikipedia policies with the students -- take a look at the five pillars -- WP:5P -- and the appropriate subarticles for what's most important.
 * If you need any more help, WP:HELP is a great place to look -- and there are links there to noticeboards where you can ask questions. Or of course, you can always ask me, but the folks there tend to be more noticeable than I am. In any case, thanks for the effort, please keep at it -- I do very much hope this project continues in a constructive manner -- every little edit helps, and a horde of them helps even more. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a second... you go to Carnegie Mellon? That's my alma mater... which professor is doing this? Which department? Gscshoyru (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, CMU. Dr. Kraut (HCI) is doing it for his Organization Communication course, so instead of writing a term paper that only he reads, we can help get some articles up to (hopefully) GA status.  And, we had the basics of Wikipedia and such in the class prior to modifying anything.  I just messaged you since I wasn't sure what was going on with GLOO being listed.  Plus, it seems like no one pays attention to the discussion page for the article; we posted information earlier in the course for comments and received none. Just seemed like it'd be more time efficient to contact you directly.  :-)  I'll add a section to the discussion page regarding it, though, and see if anyone else monitoring it has feelings either way.
 * As for the edits, that particular section is definitely well written/cited, I agree. Our prof suggested removing it since the material itself doesn't deal with SI; it just gives a lot of information about the state of social psychology prior to its development.  It was suggested to simply sum up the content in one line and prepend to the start of the next section concerned with development.  That way, the background is more similar to what would be listed in an actual encyclopedia entry on the topic. Tabularasasm (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did some digging by looking through your contribs. Looks like this is actually well thought through and well done, unlike previous wikipedia class projects I've seen, so no problems there.
 * No one does seem to pay attention to talk pages to most articles, no. I've noticed that too. Only the ones for contentious articles, sadly. People do, however, pay attention to edit summaries -- see WP:ES, please. Your edits are much less likely to be assumed as vandalism by people like me if you give an edit summary that explains your reason why you're doing what you're doing.
 * igloo -- see WP:GLOO -- is a vandalism-fighting tool, used by users. It's mostly automated, but no actions occur without the user initiating them. There was a link in the edit summary, right? Right?
 * I really have no idea about what to do with the section. If you think it doesn't really belong there, put a note in the talk, as you said, and wait a bit -- then delete it and see what happens. Or, rather than deleting it you can try branching it off into a new article, and put a "for more information see ___" template at the top of said section on the current article. See WP:SPLIT for the relevant policies and instructions, I think. I have no idea how that will go over, though -- the section on it's own may not be notable enough for its own article. Maybe you could branch it off and fix it up for extra credit? But I'm usually loath to have well-written and sourced content removed from the encyclopedia altogether.
 * In any case, I wish you good luck with all this, and your grade ;) And I hope you all stay on as contributors after this assignment -- we'd love to have you. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) I'll pass your comments along to my partner regarding edit summaries and regarding the section itself to our professor. As someone that's unfamiliar with the topic, if you like the section, it  might be best to leave it in.  And I agree.  Not a fan of placing it in a new article.  The information has been specifically tailored to inform people of how Tajfel and Turner's introduction of SI clashed with prior theories.  Thanks again! Tabularasasm (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so what you're saying is that it's a non-neutral point of view in some way? See WP:NPOV for the neutral point of view policy -- one of the most important ones on wikipedia. If this is in violation of that policy (read the policy page first to be sure, please), then by all means, fix it up so that it becomes NPOV, or remove it if necessary. And don't forget to explain that in the edit summary. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's definitely neutral. Basically, it's like having a section in an article discussing the US talk about the formation of it.  It would mention England and clashes with colonists, but it wouldn't have to hit everything in history.  For instance, it probably wouldn't have need to bring up British poets or something.  The info is presented to get across to readers that social psychology at the time focused on identity as formed by the individual and his/her traits, which contrasts with Tajfel's theory in that he was returning to collectivism and this idea that who we know and associate with shapes who we are. Tabularasasm (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misunderstood you earlier then. I do understand your analogy, though. So it's back to my original suggestion. Talk page, wait, then change it if no one comments (and probably, no one will). Gscshoyru (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Black hole information paradox
You wouldn't mind argumenting your revert to Black hole information paradox, would you? --AaronEmi (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? I have no idea what you just said. Specifically, I'm not sure what "argumenting" means here.
 * In any case, your edit was reverted because it was commentary, and wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic. If you think that part should be changed or removed for whatever reason, say so on the talk page of the article. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh?? Any argument about being "non-intuitive" does fit any discussion about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics contracdicts intuitive ways of thinking about our surrourdings in any number of ways. Therefore: Quantum mechanis is by no means appropriate to talk about anything being a disadvantage just because classifiying it as "non-intuitive", since quantum mechanics is non-intuitive quasi "by design". Therefore I would sincerely suggest to keep my remarks in the artcle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronEmi (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're talking about. But what you're adding is commentary, and non neutral, so to speak -- see WP:NPOV. If you think the bullet point should be removed because it makes little sense, that would be the right sort of thing to do -- and I kind of agree with you. But a comment like that is an opinion, and not the sort of thing you'd see in a paper encyclopedia, and thus isn't the sort of thing we want in Wikipedia. Understand? Gscshoyru (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done as discussed. --AaronEmi (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Goody. Of course now the parallel structure of the article is off, and I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say what might be a different disadvantage of that theory. If you know, I'd ask that you add one -- if not, then leave it as-is. I'm sure someone who understands enough will come around and fix it up. Thanks for understanding! Gscshoyru (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense meant and none taken! Best regards, AaronEmi (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the cleanup. Our friend has been indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam. Keep up the good work. 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Always glad to help :) Gscshoyru (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana
Hi Ian, I rollbacked the fake information introduced once again in the article by the same editor of the new Annuario. Could you please patrol? Many thanks.


 * Ian? I'm not Ian. You seem to be removing lots of content, that's why your edits were reverted. If you have a reason why the information should be removed, discuss on the talk page of the article. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * very funny! I am not the editor of the Annuario. I am not the owner  of this book, but certainly the anonymous troll is a fake Duke, very well "famous": this fake Duke isn't published in the Annuario, of course ! --Contebragheonte (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity
I'll study the pages you recommend and try again. I'd be very grateful if you could guide me through this. It's my first attempt at editing an entry in Wikipedia. AbelBergaigne (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not as good at this as other people are -- but I would certainly be willing to help. However, I'm about to be out of the country on vacation for two weeks starting Wendsday, and as such will be away from Wikipedia mostly. If you want to find another user to mentor you, you could try the WP:ADOPT a user program. If not -- I'll be back around the 3rd of May, and I would certainly be willing to help then, if you want to wait. Ok? Gscshoyru (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It'll take me some time to work on the entry and I'm not in a hurry.  I'll wait for your return if I may.  It's a very kind offer.  The more I look into Wikipedia, the more intriguing it is.  Have a great trip.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbelBergaigne (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well ok then, I'll wait for your message when I get back. If you want you can make a subpage of your own user page, like User:AbelBergaigne/Celebrity, copy the wiki-code to that page, and mess around there if you want. Just don't copy all your changes back -- someone else may have changed the page in the interim, and you don't want to ignore their changes. Make sense? Gscshoyru (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Um, thanks! Wow that was... 4 years ago. I had to do some digging to remember exactly what you were talking about... how exactly did you come across it? Gscshoyru (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was reading an article that said South Philly had proposed this for deletion a few years ago, I clicked on his name and read about it and saw your civility. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)