User talk:Gsmgm/Archive 1

Help
I attempted to sign on reference desk/language, but the signbot came up and signed my message twice and marked it as unsigned. Please help, I'm viewing it as insulting. Look at this! Gsmgm 21:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Gsmgm, you did try to sign, but you didn't get it quite right - to make the signature work, just type ~ at the end of your post. Please don't feel insulted - lots of us sometimes make little slips like that, and sinebot just tried to keep things tidy! I do hope this helps, but do ask again if I haven't explained it very well. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * eehhm, four tides was the exact number I typed, I think also I overreacted(I usaually do), and tagged it insulting. So I wonder why it happens. Gsmgm 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That hopelessly proved it, I used 4 tildes on sinebots sandbox, and it signed it! The second time! Gsmgm 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In which case, all I can say is - most peculiar! Maybe try the Help Desk (there is a link in the welcom box above). DuncanHill (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've solved it! Lesson of the day: Never, ever use raw signatures without typing in the box, Thanks, problem solved Gsmgm (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK cool - and as I said, any other problems, then do please ask, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Very much appreciate your sincere attempts at keeping discourse on a collaborative and civil spirit. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructing a new article in userspace
You can work on a new article in userspace very easily. Just type User:Gsmgm/nameofnewarticle in the search box, and click "go". This will take you to a new page, which you can create and edit just like a new page in article space. To get you started, just follow this redlink (when you start editing it, it will turn blue) User:Gsmgm/sandbox. Hope that helps! DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much, I need a review of the prototype in about two months, can you help? Gsmgm (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, just a reminder that userspace is still subject to policies, see WP:USER for more info. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan411
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan411. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''I saw there was a link, but it was not a valid URL. WP:BLP applies here; let's be careful to keep things within policy.'' Frank  |  talk  12:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you dont understand that the review section was deplorable and the whole article was done by two red names,
the reception out is fine for me

some of the reviews from real film critics would be nice

but you honestly think i have the time, patience, or need to go cite a bunch of references on the page of a movie that nobody will ever see?

wikipedia is not a lifestyle and it is not a substitute for friends, family, occupation, and a social life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.14.240 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

there is no need for dispute resolution
i realized citations necessary would appear all the over place

i was not trying to rewrite the article.. i was trying to draw attention to how far it crossed over into advertising and lies..

i have done this before.. i alter a really bad section the other way.. maybe not in the most neutral fashion.. then when the correcting starts i come back a few days later and the article is more neutral.

as long as the reception is out of the page i am happy.. i couldnt find one of those reviews when i googled and even if they were real, which i highly highly doubt considering there would be some kind of record, they were clearly cherry picked by someone with an interest in promoting the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.14.240 (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pagani Zonda
Please carefully re-read the edit history of this page. Methinks you sent the warning to the wrong person.Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to us all. Cheers!Monkey Bounce (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation Bordering WP:NPA
This message is for Gsmgm. Hello, I am new to editing but I know when something is a subjective article with opinion and without citation. For reason I do not know, your overzealous patrolling has ironically continued to allowed propaganda to be subverted in Wikipedia articles. You even cited me as a vandal who is trying to correct the article by attempting to remove opinions without citation from the article on Taiwan. For starters READ the article you are patrolling, then you would know that in the Taiwan article, the first 1/4 article are without ANY citations, and are all pure subjective political opinions. Please educated yourself on some history before accusing people of vandalizing. The article on Taiwan is full of inaccuracies and subjective political views. Whoever edited the Taiwan article before actually cites a source with a link directly to Chinese Communist Government website as a source for facts. I understand you are only a teenager but please for goodness sakes what you are doing is misguided, and you are actually hurting the objective contribution that is needed for Wikipedia. The dead give away that the article on Taiwan has been skewed is when the previous editor quoted himself only by saying "Taiwan is a flawed democracy". I try to do my best to remove the subtle propaganda and subjective political views until you came along and labeled me as a vandal? I didn't even know how to respond to you directly without using this public format. I will remove this after you have confirmed that you have read it, and I hope you will remove my username completely from the vandal list. I am losing faith with Wikipedia 5901df (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009

April 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gsmgm (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning yourself ? Now that's unusual ... Equendil Talk 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Institution Sainte Jeanne-Antide
I provided a translation for your request on the Language Reference Desk. Equendil Talk 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Warnings on User talk:86.171.224.204
The message that had been left by me on User talk:86.171.224.204 was left by Huggle. Unfortunately, it does not check to see if there had been any previous messages that had been removed. Thanks for the message, and I will do my best to conceive of how to deal with the problem. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tilläggspension
Hi, thanks for the message. I will have a look at the article soon (am a bit busy for a day or two), and do what I can to help. I feel sure it should meet the standards for notability, but we may need to find a few extra sources. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:213.218.242.73, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Hi Gsmgm. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete OPTRONET, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G12 because of the following concern: no URL/source given. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards feydey (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

feydey (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit War: The deletion of figures from audited annual reports includng references
Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces The page contains ranks and the number of persons in each rank as reported by the Swedish Armed Forces including references, for example, the number of persons with the rank Kapten(s). Some are upset (presumably officers themselves) about the officer vs troops ratio, which has been reported as 18,676 officers vs 770 troops. No one has found any errors. Despite this, all the numbers from annual reports have been deleted many times w/o motivation. This is a pure conflict of interests since officers want the numbers of troops to be much greater relative officers to assure that they are looked upon as officers and not merely as soldiers or anything else. The numbers from the Swedish Armed Forces annual report are 100% accurate and if I am hindered from publishing them on wiki, wiki will loose all of its credibility. Consider the hypothetical situation when management of a company tries to stop the published of their public audited financial statements, size, capital, personnel, ratios women/men on an wiki article about the company under their management. I request those numbers to be restored immediately! Regards, --Malin Lindquist (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Gsmgm, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
I have restored my appropriate edits to Post-evangelical along with the maintenance templates. I only removed those briefly. Sorry about that, but I wasn't finished with the page. 69.86.59.28 (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Louis Darquier de Pellepoix
My edit was constructive. Mr Darquier de Pellepoix was a person who gave an interview denying the holocaust. Hence, he should be in the "Holocaust deniers" category rather than "Holocaust denial". Please read and understand what you revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.138.28 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your use of Huggle
Please do not revert additions (especially correct additions) to the encyclopedia without any comment using WP:HUGGLE as you did here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Continuing to do so is damaging to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)