User talk:Gscshoyru: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:03, 17 October 2007

Welcome

Hello Gscshoyru and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

smile

AngelOfSadness talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

chill out

hey man i was targeting nobody in particular if anybody has a problem with me my email is on my profile just drop me a line or get very nasty i have a vampirefreaks.com morbid_angel66623 drop me a line there

Hail Satan 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's called "defamation not specifically directed." You were attacking a type of people in general, which is against policy just as personal attacks are. Please don't, and you may want to read WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chill out

ahh, yes quite i understand now thank you

Hail Satan 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Revert

Thanks for the revert on my bots reports page! :) Lloydpick 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, not a problem! Gscshoyru 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Little Church article

I removed the text per WP:V and WP:BLP as there was no sourcing for this. IMO, the editor should stay blocked though until they retract that legal threat.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reason for your removal makes sense. And I'm not entirely sure what the policy on legal threats is, but I'm pretty sure he should be blocked for at least some duration for them -- especially since I warned him about it. Thanks for letting me know what you're doing. Gscshoyru 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That account is blocked indefinitely until they rescind the legal threat. While they content wasn't verifiable from what I could see, they have no reason to edit here if they are intent on pursuing a legal remedy.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that. Thanks for following up and getting him indef blocked. Gscshoyru 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal reference

"When you're done dealing with another vandal's piece of fun"...

I hope that you are not referring to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I wasn't. I was talking about the Grawp-sock vandal, actually. He was reverting the havok the sock had wreaked, which was quite a bit. I needed an admin, saw he was around, and said, when you're done dealing with that, could you deal with this? I wasn't talking about you -- why would I be? Gscshoyru 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have been mistaken. You see my changes have erroneously been referred to as vandalism so I just assumed that was the case. I apologize for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, both today, and the last vandalism a couple of weeks ago, it seems i have a guardian angel watching over me(or a least my user page haha). I'm still trying to work out how i upset today's since that was their only edit, very odd. Anyway, cheers --Jac16888 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, not a problem. The ip is probably someone you pissed off before, and his ip changed, or the ip of a user that you pissed off. Or something. Gscshoyru 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

An emergency shut-off switch is on my talk page in the event there is a problem with this bot. --TakwerbotX 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. You're a human -- not a bot. Please stop vandalizing or you will be blocked. Gscshoyru 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page reverting

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) I have reported the human to the admins. Cheers! Domthedude001 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, no problem. He was already blocked when you reported him, though -- not that it matters. Confused me too, but something didn't smell right, so when I looked at some of what he did, I realized his purpose. Gscshoyru 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again :) -Domthedude001 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say

Thank you so much for always having my "back" so to speak, for keeping an eye on my talk page when I'm not around. Honestly, I appreciate it so much, and you're just such an awesome editor and vandal fighter, I can't count how many times you've "beaten me" to the revert, lol. I just want you to know how much you are appreciated, and how much good you do. You rock! Ariel♥Gold 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No problem. Ignoring of course the giant mistake I made just now, I'm usually pretty good at it. I watch my watchlist somewhat more often than the recent changes, so I tend to pick up on vandalized user-pages a bit more often than most. Thanks for the complements! Gscshoyru 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page so you don't have to copy/paste, lol. Ariel♥Gold 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry

Sorry ill be calm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.17.164 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandal

Wow, that would mean I was either exceptionally bendy, or very well-endowed. Either way, it's a theoretical compliment. Crazy kids... - CobaltBlueTony 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for catching that! - CobaltBlueTony 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That it would. And as always, no problem. Gscshoyru 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from userpage

I moved this from your userpage for you: "The HMer attacked me. Advise the user to stay put rather than post out of ignorance.SLY111SLY111" . Woodym555 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter

How can I add her quotes so they come across as more neutral - she made them lol :P

Fable1984 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should. You're trying to push your own personal view of her when doing so, and they aren't suitable for the article in general -- no article about a person has a random list of quotes. Put them on wikiquote if you must, but don't put them in the article, ok? Gscshoyru 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry. In future any wikipedia edits I make will be far more subtle and unbiased. I'm over the tantrum thing now.... thank you :p Fable1984 05:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert to my bots report page, its much appreciated :) Lloydpick 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help pls

hi! im new here... was trying to add info for airsoft and i dont really know how to add a reference since i dont have one... coz these are all from my experiences as a player... pls help me out... thanks Obakpogi 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a reliable source you can't add it -- see WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on verifiable information, and you're not a reliable source. So unless you can find one, you can't add it. Sorry! Gscshoyru 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

awww mannn... :) thats ok.... thanks for the help anyways :) 203.167.97.51 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello right back

I've seen you around, and I noticed that. I started using this username when I was... 13? I just haven't bothered to change it, it's the handle too many people know me by. Thanks for the compliments. :) shoy 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started using mine around there myself, and... well haven't bothered to change it either. Odd, that. See 'ya around. Gscshoyru 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Painesville train wreck

Thanks for reverting the Painesville, Ohio train wreck again. Look at my talk page to see what the IP had to say about it...I must say, a unique response. Nyttend 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a particularly interesting response -- it was that comment on your talk page that tipped me off about it, by the way. Gscshoyru 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the cleanup on my userpage. Kreepy krawly reposted on my talkpage. All fine now. LessHeard vanU 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalized Vandalism, a newly recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia

Our group has now recognized 2 Institutional Vandals, and this is a message to tell you that you are the second identified, and all actions by this user are being databased for trend identification. It is unfortunate you would choose to sideline such an important issue, but there are other ways this issue will be brought back to the main forum. It will amuse us to observe what we call an IV Admin use Admin tools to bury embarassing topics. This just proves our point, and the world will soon discover that Wikipedia, as important as it is, can no longer function as it was intended, or as it should, because of the shortsighted and illogical actions of a few entrenched users with unique controls. Such is life. Kreepy krawly 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not buried. it's been moved so it doesn't dominate the page, but the conversation just exists in the subpage. It's not vandalism, and I'm not a vandal. Also, I'm not an admin -- I have no more power than you do. Your accusations are unfounded, please calm down and stay WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. The recent actions of this user are not appreciated and are becoming distracting. Please cease interaction. NEVER is it the place of another user to accuse Kreepy krawly of a need to calm down, as no such calming down is necessary or will occur. It is suggested that is user offer constructive contributions to the Process rather than focus energy on the benevolent, if upsetting, actions of Kreepy krawly. It's not worth it. Think about it. Think. And we are not obliged to discuss and divulge explanations to identified IV's. We thank our esteemed colleagues in advance for their careful understanding and useful future contributions. Kreepy krawly 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? And "X" manual? I have no clue what you're talking about, and if you continue to be uncivil and make unconstructive edits, I will continue to warn you and revert them, ok? Please stop. Gscshoyru 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user will not become privy to the meaning of "X" manual, as that indication is for the non-Wikipedians, or "X's," who are following the developments of acrimony related to the original string: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. Please stay away from the Kreepy krawly talk page. This needs to be the end of this. Kreepy krawly 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it. I'm taking this to WP:ANI, since I'm not really sure what to do about it. You're welcome to make your comments there, once I post. Gscshoyru 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kreepy krawly has no intention of joining into intentionally distracting discussions regarding acrimony, as Kreepy krawly is on Wikipedia for constructive information theory dialogues, which unfortunately, as in real life, have become riddled with acrimony, as expected. Kreepy krawly does everything to restrain civil behaviour, and to act according to policy, and natural human positive values. There should be no expectation of a contribution by Kreepy krawly any further with this string of acrimony. Thank you for any and all positive contributions to the Human Knowledge Metarepository. Kreepy krawly 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I would like to see proof of it. This is not an "attack on an editor". I just want an explanation.Lairtnogaw 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Liartnogaw[reply]

Take a look at your contributions page, the link on the left. Every edit you've made so far is vandalism, and if you persist you will be blocked. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I have been on for not even 5 minutes. My brother was probably using my account again.Lairtnogaw 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw[reply]

this is a list of your contribs. Click diff on each to see the changes. If your brother was using your account I would suggest not telling him your password and/or logging out when you're not there. Otherwise you'll be blocked for vandalism, if it continues. Gscshoyru 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to stop my brother when he's a professional hacker. Nothing stops him from figuring out all of my passwords. He uses a Java C++ password randomizing program to figure out my password, and no, he does not live in the same house as me.Lairtnogaw 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw[reply]

Really? I don't actually belive you. If you get a password wrong you have to pass a CAPTCHA, and computers can't do that. Besides, how does he know what account you're using? And your password should take a while to guess. And your account would be blocked anyway as compromised. Gscshoyru 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how he does everything, but my brother can do just about anything wih computers. He once changed my uncle's security questions for his e-mail as a prank.Klonky 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) I was just wondering, are you that 15-year-old guy with the 2 Phd's from Harvard Medical?Klonky 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw[reply]

Um... no. I'm not. Gscshoyru 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok nvm then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I just created an extra protection program on my computer that needs an 8-digit code, 6 passwords, and 10 correctly answered security questions to be overridden, and terminates any Java programs. keyloggers won't work anymore, and this problem will be taken care of once and for all.Lairtnogaw 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thanks and WOW

Thank you for reverting vandalism off my userpage and wow are you popular today (judging by the last two discussions on your talkpage) AngelOfSadness talk 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and no kidding. You should see what Kreepy is up to, though -- he's... interesting. Let's just put it that way. Gscshoyru 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's very very interesting by the looks of it. But I'm not going to comment on his talkpage as I've seen the reaction he has had on friendly comments or should I say they? AngelOfSadness talk 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Either he's royalty, has multiple personalities, or something else. It's slightly off-putting. Gscshoyru 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think he has multiple-heads and the actual person refuses to speak while the other five heads speak for him? It might be an explaination. AngelOfSadness talk 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now your the Vangel Thanks :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for filing that report. He was accusing other people of making personal attacks when they weren't and was trying to sign them with my signature. And I was too busy reverting his edits to file a report. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, of course. He was being evil to me too, in case you hadn't noticed. And I don't buy his story about his brother... what he explains is not possible. Gscshoyru 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that he attacked you, I reverted his attack, warned him then he told me the brother story again. And proceeded to do what I said in the last comment. He's been blocked indef(Phillipe realises now that the 48 hours block was a mistake and said he would change it). Anyway, that guy and "his brother" has me worn out so I'm going to bed. 'Till tomorrow and I wish you happy editing between now and then :D AngelOfSadness talk 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney

I didn't vandalize the Disney Channel. The user that did caused Cluebot to reverted it to an already vandalized state. Sorry for the mixup :PFractions 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem -- I was confused too. It should be fixed now. Gscshoyru 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert it about 5 edits down. No worries :)Fractions 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary

Just to note, the editing situation on Mary (mother of Jesus) has involved the cooperative editing of 3 suspected sockpuppets (along with 1 anonymous user with a similar editing history) persistently towards the same end. The user(s?) edit to varying degrees, but most commonly want to change "relations" to "sex", for whatever reason. This is pointless, because both terms are general and essentially interchangeable- and as none of these sockpuppets have ever provided an edit summary, or posted on a talk page, it doesn't seem like this editor cares much to express reason. My main objection here to the "sex" word change is that it's entirely unnecessary, and unsupported. Not to mention, entirely redundant, as the "Ancient Non-Christian Sources" section already details the exact same thing with specificity.

Take a look at the edit histories:

With this in mind, I'm very skeptical of anything these suspected puppets tries to add (one should note that the puppeteer is currently banned indefinitely), and considering the fact that the edits seem unproductive anyway, I'll continue to oppose these changes with a discerning eye. I'd like to make a sockpuppet report, but I'm a little green in that area (I feel as if the evidence is sufficient for a checkout, but I could be wrong).--C.Logan 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a checkuser will even be required - though if the socks are indef blocked (are they?) then a sock report will be a bit unproductive, but if some aren't, then make the report -- the evidence is more than sufficient. Gscshoyru 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.

Sorry about that. 70.112.86.215 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.shelbysupercars.com/press.php // Here you have it, asshole. 70.112.86.215 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all -- please keep WP:CIVIL -- second of all -- that site isn't exactly reliable -- see WP:V and WP:RS it'd be much better if you found the same statement on the world record site itself and WP:CITEed that, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Grow up, kid. The Veyron is the fastest anymore. 70.112.86.215 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less whether it is or isn't -- I'm just saying that you need to have a cite from a reliable source, so you should cite a statement that is on the world record's site and not the site you cite. Also, please see WP:CITE for how to cite things, and say second fastest instead of no longer the fastest, as the former is more encyclopedic, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_production_car

This article, dedicated to covering the issure cites those two sites. Take it up with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.86.215 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Odd. I may be wrong, then. Point taken. Use that cite, then. Look how they're doing it and do it the same way. And say second fastest, please. Gscshoyru 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Odd. Second fastest seems to be what I wrote. Read before typing, please. "ok? Thanks!" 70.112.86.215 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I read your message before I saw your change. And I fixed the cite for you. Gscshoyru 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really mature, kid. 70.112.86.215 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? What did I do that you find immature? Gscshoyru 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making yourself look bad. The Captain Returns 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the fact that I made a mistake? Or what? I do in fact make mistakes, it happens. We all do. Gscshoyru 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to, Captain? Gscshoyru seems like the reasonable person in this discussion, and the anonymous user had resorted to extreme personal attacks and name-calling almost immediately. There's some irony in the mention of "maturity" by this anon.--C.Logan 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Fortunate are you Unique are you Creative are you Kind are you

Objective are you Friendly are you Forthright are you

Wonderous are you Ardent are you Neighbourly are you Knowlegeable are you Equitable are you Resonable are you

Thank you Gscshoyru, for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.210.85 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop your edit warring on erotica and work towards consensus. South Philly 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are driving an edit war. Please stop. South Philly 01:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to work toward consensus. Simply saying "the section belongs" doesn't make it notable. Student erotica is not a notable type of Erotica, so please stop adding it unless you can explain on the talk page why it is notable, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I have at least one more reversion before I cross into 3RR. South Philly 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Canvassing is a guideline, and it was not violated in any manner. Once again you go and show your limited knowledge. Its okay to let people who may have expertise on a subject know what is going on so that they may weigh in. Student erotica 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two users

Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got here and haven't checked anything, the timing alone would suggest puppetry of some sort. South Philly is the editor who originally entered this information. / edg ☺ ★ 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog on SP reports, but hopefully this will be quite obvious. Neither editor has an existing SP or CheckUser report.

Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg ☺ ★ 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / edg ☺ ★ 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. here. Tell me if I'm missing anything. Gscshoyru 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm editing that a little. Can you also collect the diffs of both user's reversions? That's hard for me to do because I'm on a slow machine. / edg ☺ ★ 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Sorry to overwrite so much. I had that written and was just waiting for some diffs to come in. I have them now, but my computer crashed twice collecting them, to it took a while. SP reports without diffs tend to get ignored. Hopefully, we've not already been passed over. Can you check to see the changes I made work for you? If so, it would be helpful for you to add a note that I was helping with the report, so the examining Admin doesn't interpret the edit history as funny business.

Thanks for your help with this. / edg ☺ ★ 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. South Philly 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I didn't already know, but thanks for the warning. The same applies to you. Gscshoyru 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please dont go on your reverting spree. We can see you are excited by few bitmap images with your name and a start however it would be nice if you paid a closer attention to edits rather rendering them vandalism. NangOnamos 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Thank you all for helping out. Becuase I (probably) suffered the most from that IP address, I,Goodshoped35110s, give you all the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! (yay.) :) --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 04:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the IP ending in 157. --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually tell me anything. 1/255 ip's end in 157. Be a bit more specific, please. I deal with way too many ip's. Gscshoyru 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one called User talk:68.49.67.157 --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, him... yeah ok. Thanks again!! Gscshoyru 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!! --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Mafia page

you said 'Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted.' Can I ask you based on what did you determind that it wasn't contructive? My edits of disinformation werent constructive or didnt "appeare" constructive yet distructive disinformation about an ethnic group is allowed and reverted back? NangOnamos 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That much blanking without discussion needs do be discussed, long term, on the talk page first, ok? Period. You simply removed the whole article! Please explain your reasoning on the talk page and come to consensus with other editors before removing quite so much content. Thanks! Gscshoyru 12:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Period. The original author of the article has been defaced and has not replied back. Please suggest what should be our next step in regards disinformation on that page (whote page) on wiki about my ethnic group? Since you are the pesudeo cyber scholar of the WikiPedia of facts, I need your suggestion on how to deal with it since your administrators have admitted that they are hopless in such matters and encouraged me to take matters in my own hands. NangOnamos 03:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what's wrong with the article on the talk page. Then wait for people to comment. And I'm not a pseudo-scholar, I just am trying to keep users to policy whilst explaining what it is to them. And I'm pretty sure defaced is not the word you wanted to use (it means vandalized, basically). And if you're a part of the group, then you have a WP:COI, so you really should not edit the article if opposed. Gscshoyru 03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks once again for reverting vandalism to User:CounterVandalismBot/Report, its much appreciated, so to show the appreciation, here's a nice barn star :) Lloydpick 13:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Just doing what I usually do, but thanks just the same. Gscshoyru 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You're quite right: I should've examined the edit more carefully. I'm aware editors can remove vandalism warnings -- if I recall, it's to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the warning. It just struck me that judging by the rubbish the editor was adding to articles, he was one of those vandals likely to end up being blocked, and restoring the warnings was just a convenience for the blocking admin. Thanks! --Rrburke^(talk) 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 265: / Line 265: @@
 ::I ''am'' attempting to work toward consensus. Simply saying "the section belongs" doesn't make it notable. Student erotica is not a notable type of Erotica, so please stop adding it unless you can explain on the talk page ''why'' it is notable, ok? Thanks! [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 *Unlike you, I have at least one more reversion before I cross into 3RR. [[User:South Philly|South Philly]] 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
+*[[Wikipedia:Canvassing]] is a guideline, and it was not violated in any manner. Once again you go and show your limited knowledge. Its okay to let people who may have expertise on a subject know what is going on so that they may weigh in. [[User:Student erotica|Student erotica]] 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 ===Two users===
 :Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)