User talk:Gyrostat

Welcome

 * }

François Asselineau
Take your disagreement to the article talk page. Do not try to discuss by using edit summaries and reverts. ~ GB fan 13:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... but why protecting the page on the version modified without discussion, even though French editors warned multiples times about activism targeting François Asselineau's pages accross wikimedia projects? Gyrostat (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd at least hope that the version of the article be reverted to pre-edit war condition. Asselineau is clearly a conspiracy theorist, as justified by sources (lede only needs to reflect content of the article body); that isn't in serious dispute. Mélencron (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I took admin action without making any determination which version is "correct", but everyone should realize that when a page is protected as the result of an edit war it is always on the The Wrong Version. ~ GB fan 15:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do understand you took admin action without looking for further details, but to be honest I wish you did. This page and its other languages versions are known for being targeted by political activism, and the edits by Mikiwafia are indeed activism, according to the duck test. Gyrostat (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If there had been some kind of talk page discussion rather than the back and forth reverting I might have done things differently. With no one talking and there wasn't a BLP violation in either version, it is locked where it is at when I do it.  Now it is a consensus building exercise.  ~ GB fan 15:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at François Asselineau. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ GB fan 22:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on! I took the time to explain the current issue on the talk page! I even wrote a few sentences for sysops so that you can have some context. The edits by Mikiwafia are clearly against the consensus of the talk-page, I did nothing but revert to the version we agreed on the talk page ("His views have also been described by many observers as conspiracy theories", consensus with and  as well as  up here, only Mikiwafia disagreed). My last edit was a revert of the deletion of a source from a French national public television, which is an acceptable source (sure, YouTube hosted, but produced by France 2... an Asselineau militant trying to get rid of a France 2 ref, that would sound ironic for any French editor!). Last time I checked, ref deletion was considered vandalism. I take note of my blocking this evening, I will not bother asking for an undeletion for a few hours, that would wastes everyone's time. Obviously, I will ask for a page protection to prevent further disorganisation by an editor who commited cross-wiki disruption. Gyrostat (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see consensus in the section started when I protected the page. The other editors that commented didn't like the formulation of the sentence but no one said the concept was wrong. Only Mikiwafia commented on the talk page about the new dispute. They gave a policy based reason for deleting it. That is by definition not vandalism. Any more reverts by either one of you will result in a longer block, not page protection.  If the two of you can not reach a consensus you can try dispute resolution. ~ GB fan 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Bayard Lock
Hi, I'm Boleyn. Gyrostat, thanks for creating Bayard Lock!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

why was this reverted
Revert by User:Gyrostat please tell what fair use policy or scope was broken. i just linked two wikipedia pages Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, my bad: I saw a poorly-displayed image underneath, and assumed it was this image. I was wrong, it was the portal poorly-displayed (fixed it). But the commonality between the Cupola and the Inspiration4 mission seems a little thin to have a link imo. Gyrostat (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of René Geuna for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article René Geuna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/René Geuna until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandals1 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2021 (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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Martin Burckhardt
I see you undid some of the work I did updating Martin Burckhardt's web page...what was the rationale so I can understand how to improve his page? Heideana (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)