User talk:Gsquaredxc

St. Joseph-Ogden High School moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, St. Joseph-Ogden High School does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Please see the school article guidelines which describes how the content of school articles should be organized, with the aim of providing general guidance to editors — stubs are to be avoided. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent bot scan at ARW
Hey. I's appreciate an assist. On 2 November, the Citation Bot scanned the American Revolutionary War, and made a number of elegant improvements that I recognized immediately.

The summary also noted that it "Removed proxy or dead URL that duplicated free-DOI or unique identifier. I'm not sure what the "free-DOI or unique indentifier" may be. Is the intent to delete all the Amazon url's -- that was done at the last scan -- then editors following up?

Are the deleted url's to be replaced with:

1. commercial-purchase (a) Google url's, (b) Publisher url's, or

2. free-access-online (c) Hathi Trust, Internet Archive, or (d) free Google url's?

Thanks in advance for your help. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The bot seems to prefer the wiki powered Special:BookSources over some links. The bot automatically removes Amazon links in favor of putting the ISBN or ASIN in its place. The code for the portion of the bot that does that is here. I went ahead and ran the bot again after the changes Gwillhickers made however it seems to be taking a while to go through all the references, however I'll take a look at the changes it made after it finishes. Gsquaredxc (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried to provide both: an isbn or asin, and online access to scan for snippets for their 'Further reading'. Yes, direct purchase is possible, but I did NOT intend the link provided for commercial promotion per se, only as an online reader access to 'Further reading' at the time of their reading into a footnote and its sourcing.
 * In the 550 notes-scan for errors, I supplied either missing titles or authors in a couple dozen footnotes at ARW. I accessed Hathi Trust or Internet Archive "search page" feature on a browser page, then entered the title or author that I did have. Usually the relevant title popped up in the first ten results related to the article section, place or person under discussion at the incomplete footnote. I've found classics in a given field of history into the 1950s.
 * Thanks again for pursuing this side-project with me. introduced me to the Hathi Trust and Internet Archive for access to classic histories on a collaborative project some ten years ago for Virginia colonial history. As Pauline Maier pointed out over her career as an American Revolution era scholar at MIT, research into the older 'great-man' histories, can provide good information and cogent analysis without the researcher swallowing whole either morally questionable coloring or some of the doctrinaire interpretations fashionable in the 19th and early 20th century scholarship. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * post-script - it took me a while, my head is in history for the most part over the course of my 70+ year lifetime, and my physics is long ago, now over 55 years past, but your handle is absolutely genius! G = acceleration of gravity; squared = the number times itself; x = multiplied by, c = the speed of light. Thank you! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of having links to Amazon, should the bot need overridden can be added to solve the issue. Relating to the article as a whole, and actually a significant amount of US History in this time period, the articles are very well developed and very informative. I have personally used the information written and the sources included in these articles to help with research papers I have written. Given the absolutely insane number of sources and the quality of information in articles like the American Revolutionary War, I believe that it goes to show that just because anyone can edit a page, doesn't mean that the information contained within that page is not reliable. In terms of my name, Gsquared just refers to my initials, GG. However, I do really like your interpretation and will definitely steal that explanation. Gsquaredxc (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are welcome to the idea. I also delight in parsing more than one interpretation out of vanity license plates as I ride along with my wife in traffic. She still laughs at my jokes. Good times in retirement. :) I like it. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

My Edits are not Vandalism
My edits are not "vandalism". Biden is NOT A PRESIDENT YET so its not appropriate YET to list him in a page that talks about the education of Presidents. I thought Wikipedia was about being factual, or do we bend the rules when it suits your bias? §
 * Again, WP:RS. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please Learn to Electoral College
I just saw your bias..erm... "edit" of the education of presidents. Until Trump concedes (he hasn't) or the electoral college meets (they haven't) then Biden is NOT the president elect. I know that hurts your feelings and doesn't cater to your bias, but if you want the fact to be factually correct Biden shouldn't be listed until one of those two things happens. As much as you dont like it, he is *****NOT***** the president elect yet. Deal with it.

Rollback granted
Hi Gsquaredxc. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGsquaredxc enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

revert
This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ooh_Saad

added that spurious entry
 * Ah ok, my mistake for reverting it. Thanks! Gsquaredxc (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WCW 2.03
Please ensure you are no longer using this revision of WPCleaner. this edit was inappropriate. --Izno (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may not be the specific version problem, so at least be on the lookout. --Izno (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why?
Hi, what's the meaning off all these changes? --Sb008 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the topic above is about the exact same edit. --Sb008 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:St. Joseph-Ogden High School
Hello, Gsquaredxc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:St. Joseph-Ogden High School, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:St. Joseph-Ogden High School


Hello, Gsquaredxc. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "St. Joseph-Ogden High School".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Christian media
I've been trying to improve the article in many ways, by using various points of view and references. When I started editing it, it had numerous issues including its lack of a neutral point of view, and the article was missing key topics for example it didn't even include any information on Christian music as a section. I would definitely like help in getting the article more up to par with the other multi-media genres such as Swashbuckler, Legal thriller, or Western (genre). 71.228.115.97 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for re-reverting, I figured that Book of Mormon edit was a bit of a stretch haha. So I absolutely agree with the removal of that. After the article is improved in other ways, it would probably be much more useful information as a section on Christian satire, so that way context could be better established. 71.228.115.97 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, looking at that revert I realized that it automatically reverted an excessive amount. I went through the rest of the edits and they all look good, except for the most recent one. That edit uses a questionable source at best, which also is in the opinion section. If you are looking for a good source, The Book of Mormon (musical) should have a few good ones relating to that play. As a side note, I would recommend getting an account as you seem to be fairly interested in editing wikipedia. Anyways, generally looks good! Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A7 for drafts
Hello Gsquaredxc -- Thanks for tagging an unsuitable draft for deletion. In future note, though, that A7 (and all the speedy criteria starting A) only apply to articles and not to drafts or material in any other space. It's not always clear what to do with drafts like the one you tagged which are clearly not suitable on notability grounds; taggers often use G11 (promotion), G2 (test page), or sometimes G10 (attack page, if the tone is negative). If the subject is over the age of majority and the material is not harmful you can also consider just leaving it be, as drafts are not seen by Google and are essentially automatically deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good to know G11 is used rather than A7, wasn't sure which one to go with when marking for speedy. After rereading CSD I realized I completely skimmed the part about A being for main space only. Anyways, thanks for binning that, and I'll keep that in mind. Gsquaredxc (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Date formats in references
Could you please stop removing disambiguation suffixes after years in references (e.g. changing 2000a to 2000, etc)? It's breaking the short footnote references in many of the articles that you're editing. If you haven't come across this before – short footnotes are a fairly niche aspect of the Wikipedia referencing system – you can see what I am talking about here. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad, I'll go back and see where I did that and fix it. Not entirely sure why it didn't click for me that WPCleaner was giving me bad advice on featured articles. 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Gsquaredxc (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I've got them all from the last hour, though it's worth double-checking – sorry about all the revert notifications!  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Troll
A user seems to have managed to make changes to several articles over the past two days - I see you've spotted some - User talk:2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:6CB5:494B:5978:CBC9 - and check out Jonathan King amongst others. I have no idea how to revert all these! Comprenez (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This guy is a bit of a mess, partially because some of his edits are legitimate and some are pedantic or incorrect. He also has multiple IP addresses and is editing via IPv4 and IPv6 accounts. Gsquaredxc (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, the associated IPs have been blocked after an ANI report. Gsquaredxc (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I Not Stupid Too (TV series)
Hi there, I finally figured out why the IP keep removing the accolades section of I Not Stupid Too (TV series). There is a film I not stupid and a TV adaption of it in 2002 (TV adaption has no article), I Not Stupid Too (TV series) is the second season of the original TV series in 2006. The accolades is actually for the first season of the TV series. I made the initial mistake, reverted and cleaned up the table. The IP editor subsequently keep removing it which is actually correct. However the IP editor keep insisting on Lee Jiaxun as the first for the cast for unknown reasons though. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the IP's edits have Lee Jiaxun being moved to first in the cast, feel free to pick a good revision if there is one. Thanks for explaining, that user has some additional questionable edits that would have probably sent them to AIV. Gsquaredxc (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)