User talk:Gscshoyru

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

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.

Edit warring

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

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

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)

• Unlike you, I have at least one more reversion before I cross into 3RR. 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. 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... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

←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)

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)

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

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)

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 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think that was the 4th revision... South Philly 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't -- the 4th one is at 21:16, this one is at 21:30... so it wasn't. So your reversion does count. Gscshoyru 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"But if you think I did, be my guest and report me." Okay. South Philly 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:216.95.17.12

I know this may sound like a ridiculous question, but do you happen to know if User:216.95.17.12 is some sort of reoccurring vandal going after you? I'm just curious why he chose to attack your user page so fast? See all the discussion at WP:AN. He's blocked anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Him? He's very recurring -- take a look at the histories of some of the pages he changes. This has been going on for quite a while.

His usual range seems to be 216.95.17.* and 216.95.15.* ...so actually, do you think you could range-block those two ranges, for a week or so? And we'll see if the vandalism stops, 'cause I think the other couple ip's are just flukes. Gscshoyru 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:The JPS

Yep. He looked like he had gone quiet, and about the time I delisted him, he struck again. Two more anon IPs have shown up; I've blocked both of those without giving a warning. Fool me once... —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think he may have been waiting for the warning, that's what set him off. The guy is a nuisance, I wish we could range-block him but it looks like we can't, as his range is too large. Pity. Gscshoyru 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Hopefully he just has the one target, and protecting that talk page will make him disappear. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He has one... usual target. But... he migrates when he's bored. Check my talk page and say Riana's, as well as other vandal-fighters' for ip's starting with 91.108. He's really, really persistent and obnoxious. Gscshoyru 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Will my edits remain?

I deleted the category of "hard rock" because I have NEVER been in the category of hard rock. I am goth/industrial/elctoronic/synthpop. Neither of my two record labels would have ever put me in that category because they don't even sign hard rock bands. I also deleted a link because the link contained yet more incorrect album credits. My frustration is because I don't believe it is right for someone to tag me as a vandal when they didn't even BOTHER to look at the credits clearly written on my albums. Will my edits remain for the category, links, and especially the info.? I'm frustrated because I thought I fixed all the completely wrong credit info. on my 3 albums this summer. Then tonight I see that it's all back from the dead, so I fix it all again only to see it get reverted and I'm called a vandal on top of it all. I wrote my 3 albums. I spent 10 years of my life writing songs and touring. How would you feel if you saw someone write that someone else wrote your songs because they didn't even bother to look at the album credits (and then they call you a vandal for fixing it TWICE!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H88569 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They're your albums? You may want to see WP:COI... Gscshoyru 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User edit

I noticed you recently reverted a edit at One Night Stand (2007). Can you look at this. Thanks, Davnel03 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest directing him to the talk page if he has a specific issue with the content... and keep the WP:3RR in mind, both for him and you. Gscshoyru 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, he has personally insulted me. That's why I directed you to the diff. In my view, he/her is removing sourced material. Davnel03 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He/she is. And personal attacks are also not allowed. He/she has been warned, both for removing content and for potential 3RR violation (which I think you violated too, by the way). So if he reverts again, don't revert, but report to the 3RR noticeboard. It is possible that he has a legitimate issue with the content, however, so you two should discuss rather than edit warring. Gscshoyru 15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert, but I cannot see what the user has a problem with. The article is very similar to December to Dismember (2006), SummerSlam (1993) and WrestleMania III. I don't know what the users problem is. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarity of articles has nothing to do with precedent... but he needs to discuss. And so do you, perhaps. Try starting a conversation in talk, then? Gscshoyru 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. They have left a comment on the WP:PW talkpage, so hopefully it'll be resolved. Davnel03 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks for the welcome! Yes, I did not check to see if there was other vandalism in the citing xources article. I just fixed the vandalism i found. Prussian-Hussar 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that -- that's why I directed to to where I did, because it's much better to revert their edits than to attempt to fix them. So now you know how. Gscshoyru 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy

Why have you attacked me rather than problem editor Dreamguy? Does this mean nothing?: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Dreamguy has been tyrannising over other editors for months and you attack his victims! No doubt you will now block me for standing up to wiki-bullies as admins usually do. Colin4C 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no attacking involved. Both of you were edit warring, so I warned both of you about the WP:3RR. And whether or not there has been an arbitration case against him, you cannot use that as an argument for or against the merits of his contributions. Stop edit warring and please discuss civilly on talk. Gscshoyru 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of the Jack the Ripper page you will see long, no doubt boring, discussions of the facts of the matter by me to which Dreamguy has not responded. Colin4C 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then do an RFC, or report him the the 3RR noticeboard after warning him about it. But don't violate it yourself, and don't edit war. Gscshoyru 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to state that I am actually interested in the subject of Jack the Ripper and have read many books about the subject. If you look at my edit history you will see the positive contribution I have made to the wikipedia. Dreamguy has already deleted your comment on his talk page, by the way, as is his wont. (I have never ever deleted any comments on my talk page - is that a merit?). Colin4C 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You've probably never been trolled before, then -- the history of my talk page is somewhat interesting, with all the anti-vandalism work I do I get a number of interesting comments that can only be removed. And you theoretically should archive, not remove -- but since it's always still visible in the history, it doesn't actually make any difference. Gscshoyru 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to say again that Dreamguy has made THREE reverts. I have made two. I have discussed the issues on the Talk page and he has not. I have obeyed wikipedia rules and he has flouted them. Does that count for nothing? Colin4C 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Looks like I was counting a vandalism revert as an edit-warring revert. So you theoretically have one revert left, but it would be much better to discuss it than to revert again. But he needs to actually partake in the discussion, here... hm. I need to take a closer look at this. Gscshoyru 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

October, 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits appeared to be constructive and has not been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

		The Special Barnstar
		Amazing job fighting vandalism, you could be one of the best out there! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! But why do I have a warning message, exactly? Gscshoyru 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Read it carefully. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, silly me. I see so many of those that I assume its meaning without reading it. Thanks again! Gscshoyru 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message. I am pretty new to contributing to wikipedia. Can you clarify what you wanted me to do? Thank you for being courteous and knowledgable. Robert cone 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, warn vandals when you revert them. One of the links I gave you should link to a list of all of the different warnings you can give. Start at level 1, and work up to level 4, except in the case of blatant vandalism, when you can skip steps. Past level 4, report them to WP:AIV. And twinkle makes doing this much, much easier, if you're gonna make a habit out of it. Gscshoyru 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you get/use twinkle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert cone (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link I gave you, and follow the instructions. And don't forget to sign your posts. Gscshoyru 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry i didnt scroll down. You are very helpful.Robert cone 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried. I am working on Safari. I am not that fluent in computer language and programing. You are not being too invesive, you are just trying to help someone that is not good with programing.Robert cone 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Programming ability has nothing to do with it; it's a simple enough process. But if you're not using firefox, then it may not work, as firefox is the mainly supported browser... but did you try hitting ctrl-f5, to do a hard refresh? (Oh and firefox is awesome.) Gscshoyru 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It did not work, it is probably just the browser i am using.Robert cone 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

please be nice

please be nice. Leadwind 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm so used to people adding their white-supremacist POV to the article that I overreacted when I saw a new, unsourced section. It's actually not at all bad, it just does need some sourcing for what you say, so I tagged it, (eventually...) rather than reverting it. Sorry about overreacting originally. The template is there, people will see and hopefully add refs -- but see WP:V for why everything in wiki should have them. And again, sorry. Gscshoyru 02:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for being reasonable. At first I thought you were an . . . jerk. Glad to have my expectations contradicted. Leadwind 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to be reasonable, and assume good faith, but dealing with vandalism I tend to forget that rule sometimes. It's (I think) my greatest failing here on wiki. So sorry for the inconvenience earlier, and glad I changed your first impressions. Gscshoyru 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropping by to say thanks for the revert on my talkpage. It's much appreciated. Keep up the great work :-) Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, no problem :) Gscshoyru 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou once again for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Many thanks, and happy editing! Lradrama 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama 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.

Thanks! And no problem, as always. Gscshoyru 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Protection level reduced to semi. Good job on the reporting! Dreadstar † 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually... check the history. That was edgarde that fixed it up nicely, not me. But I know much better how to make these now, if necessary. And thanks again! Gscshoyru 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, then..um..semi-good job..how's that?...;) Just joking, your efforts are well worth the compliment..you're a fantastic vandal-fighter and a most excellent editor. Dreadstar † 19:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol... and thanks for the compliments! Well... except for the editor part. I'm not really an editor... yet. I would like to be one, though. Eventually I will start improving things, instead of reverting to the way they were. Gscshoyru 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Compaq George

Watch out. Not all his edits were vandalism. I've since reverted you. Have a nice day, 72.139.97.176 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reverting them all that way for speed -- but they are all. however, unsourced and should be removed. Gscshoyru 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phone

You and User talk:ZHUMAS214 seem to be just reverting each other. In fact I think you hit the WP:3RR. Is there some way that this can be defused. His additions do have some references, although they are sparse for the amount of text added. Perhaps tag the section with a {{refimprovesect}} and give him a chance to find more stuff to back up what he says. Of course if what he has added is a copyvio, can this be shown?--NrDg 04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I did just hit the 3RR -- thanks for the warn, one more and I'll violate it -- but read the section, it's written like an essay. It's not factual content, but the writer's own interpretation backed up by sources as it would be in an essay. It's not that its unsourced, but that it's non-encyclopedic the way it is written, and would need a major re-write to be encyclopedic. At least that's my opinion; what do you think? Gscshoyru 04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It reads a bit like an essay, which is not a problem by itself if all of the facts and conclusions in it ARE backed up by the references. The two references are books so I can't verify whether or not everything he says is a paraphrase of the books or just his synthesis (original research) based on what he has read and his opinions. I'd recommend bringing up specific concerns on his page or the discussion page and asking for better, verifiable to us, references. The information looks correct based on what I have read and is, I think, a good add to the article. It is just missing good references. I think the edits are good faith by a newbie and the standard warnings aren't giving him much guidance. (I have your page on my watch list so no need to reply on my talk page). --NrDg 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, if he can back up what still looks to me like his own synthesis with references, then it'll be fine. I shall tell him so. Gscshoyru 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How's that? Gscshoyru 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. Good to add the welcome at the top too. You might consider removing the uw-npov3 as well or strike. The previous warnings are probably sufficient. Hopefully he will engage and work to make his additions acceptable. --NrDg 05:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...again :D

Thank you again for reverting vandalism off my user talkpage. It was, like always, very much appreciated AngelOfSadness talk 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sengunthar

Multiple academic citations have been deleted by user Saedirof who has replaced hevaily referenced sections with some tales of his own. This is not acceptable. As for the deletion tag it was not placed by an admin. Shakti 25 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, and afd notice doesn't have to be placed by an admin for it to be valid -- read WP:AFD. But, the page it references doesn't exist, so you can remove it. Sorry for accidentally reverting everything else as I did so... oops. My mistake. Gscshoyru 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How curious, a bunch of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) socks get blocked, and a new editor shows up making the exact same edits.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually look at the talk page history or anything... I don't know what's going on. Is this a sock?

Yes... it has to be a Mudaliar sock... User:Casper21 was making the exact same edits until that account was blocked. I've been watching this edit war for a while.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

[User:Feeder2|Feeder2] was making a point regarding my user page comment. It is still somewhat the truth but I am working to make it a better place. Anyway, keep up the good work! Spryde 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page, its much appreciated! Lloydpick 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As always, no problem! Gscshoyru 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, even better! Gscshoyru 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Wikipedia that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone.

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and correct.

It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring.

My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on Wikipedia.

Once again, please preserve the laborers page. 128.12.170.194 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Granite07 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Your own reasearch or knowledge is not a verifiable reference for knowledge. Nor do the refs you provide conform to WP:V or WP:RS. So it is removed for those reasons. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, it is an encyclopedia. As such, information must be cited by reliable, verifiable sources. Gscshoyru 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

about ronald

explain to me how ronald being a happy clown is not legit. isn't he not? And might i suggest you change your name because when ever i say it i have to form a big ball of phlem or mucus to pronouce it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermannnn21 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's g-s-c-shoyru. (letter, letter, letter, word). And the fact that he's happy is your own POV. Can you WP:CITE a verifiable, reliable source that says so? If not, you can't add it. Gscshoyru 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the world book encyclopedia 2003, it says, and you can verify it yourself, that "he is characterized with extreme happyness, which reverberates upon the children he encounters. . ." I left that epilipses there because it was not a end sentence. Please respond, I can site, and if this encylopedia is licit in any shape or form, I should be priviledged to provide that factotum.

Oh yeah, and this is not a new account, I am simpily with my accomplice and we happen to share very identical ideologys. Please don't make presumptions, fore its not an acedemically desired idiosyncrasie.

Really? In an encyclopedia? Shame on it. That still doesn't fit into the policies of WP:V and WP:RS, however -- we cite secondary sources, and that's a tertiary source. Perhaps you could use what the encyclopedia is sourcing to say that? Gscshoyru 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above argument

I just discerned and have been enticed by the above argument. However Gscshoyru, you should recognize his sourcing, and if that does not appease the requirments, then I shall look online until I find a citing that says Ronald Mcdonald is a happy clown (a secondary source of course). I would also like to point out that the accounts that he set up were probably on different IP addressess. Some people can easily circumvent ridiculous blocking like the kind you try to fruitlessly implement. I have absolutly no connection to the above stated, however I will, in his favor, find a secondary source that cites Ronald Mcdonald as a "very happy clown" and inevitably, you will have to accept it. If you try to accuse me of being the same person I will report. I did however just create this account to throw in my two cents.

Thanks for your laborious reading, for I know the compurgative language I use is over your head,

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by JunJawat (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RALMAO, I have just been to the mcdonalds offical website and they themselves have proclaimed ronald as "the hamburgur happy clown". It is now official, thank you very much, it will be up and cited shortly. . .

(jon turns and bows) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JunJawat (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're almost certainly the same user as the one above, based on account creation time. Please stop. You'll just keep getting yourself blocked. We're not stupid. And happiness is subjective -- therefore it really can't be included. And mcdonalds own site is not a verifiable, reliable source -- see WP:V and WP:RS Gscshoyru 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...

Unfortunately, it's the lot of the vandal-fighters ..take a gander at this, multiple sock accounts created in advance back on April 22nd...true advanced planning... Dreadstar † 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very entertaining..;) Dreadstar † 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if that bit of stupidity is true, technically, s/he lost. RM wasn't "blocked" it was only semi-protected. The purported "student" was actually the one blocked. Dreadstar † 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And really, what kind of bonehead bets on something like that, anyway...from either side. Dreadstar † 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Give up your frivioulous tactics!

You may not be stupid, but nor are you noted for your intelligence. I possess a major in computer sciences from USC and a minor in European Studies. What am i doing trying to cause trouble on wikipedia. I think you associates are full of your selfs and are extremely egotistical. Give up your frivoulous blocking, because I possess an illegal device that allows me to compile and create IP addressess to use for things other than this.

Give up your frivolous effort. Its useless.

I sincerely doubt you're doing anything than unplugging and replugging your modem. Or ipconfig release and renew. I'm doubling in math and CS, so I know a bit more than you think I know. And seriously, please stop. Gscshoyru 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Dear Sir

You seem to have taken this an entirely different direction. I am sorry if you disagree with the edits made to laborer. What do you suggest we do for a solution that you find acceptable. I have not placed my own research into the laborer page as it is only a way to relax between work. I am a researcher at Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Construction Engineering Management program and take my work very seriously. You are obviously much more knowledgeable about wikipedia protocol and etiquette so please provide some beneficial advice as to what you prefer as sources. I assume you are not opposed to the formatting changes only the content. Could you also be more specific as to which sources are not acceptable, most were from very respected institutions and researchers. Granite07 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What we prefer as sources? There are nice policy pages on them. WP:V and WP:RS explain what sources are and aren't accepted, I suggest you read those. Gscshoyru 02:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read those and as best anyone could tell the sources used on laborer conformed Granite07 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This source -- http://www.laborerslocal185.com/scope_of_work.htm -- is not third party, see WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V). Nor is this: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8302072. And you can't link to stuff on jstor, like this: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0515%28198003%2918%3A1%3C1%3ALUEOWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6, as since it costs money to access, we can't verify it. Gscshoyru 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have 6 more papers to grade tonight and with your help it has taken all day. I was only updating the laborers site between every couple papers as a break.

Can I please restore the laborers page and I will correct the deficiencies over the next few weeks. Interesting enough I created the page so it is all my opinions and thoughts. I do want your help understanding what the expectation is for sources, web sourced, trade union sourced, government sourced, and academically sourced, I used all four.

I also make edits to the heavy equipment page, it also does not conform, or any of the other construction pages. It does not seem realistic to delete the entire construction section of wikipedia. I understand my field is not the most academic but we do use a bit of math and CS.

Ok, I do have a proxy connection to jstor and other sites for my day job here. I will find other sources, the laborers union is almost third party. They are not selling anything.

Granite07 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ASCE is a recognized Journal, the most prestigious in my field in fact! Where else would I source from? It is what we all aspire to publish in. Granite07 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I know they aren't. But a source isn't verifiable if it isn't easily verifiable, so you can't use it.

If you want to improve the article properly, you can't leave it in the form it was, and slowly change it. That's just not proper. What you can instead do is make a subpage of your userspace and fix it up there. Put it, say, User:Granite07/PAGENAME, where PAGENAME is whatever you want, and no one will change it there. You can fix it up there till it conforms, and then be bold and replace the current page with it, ok? How does that sound?

And I think I may have been very wrong about ASCE. Oops. Sorry 'bout that, that source is fine. Gscshoyru 02:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you should look up kaizen, continuous improvement, it is a concept they teach here. I guess it is hard to reconform to different rules, but I can create large batches and update if you prefere rather than many small batches. Granite07 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your changes currently don't improve, because of source problems. Therefore, they shouldn't be added until they

do improve. I've shown you how to make your own personal workspace, have fun, and try updating the current article when your fixed-up one fits policy. Gscshoyru 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the revert! Dppowell 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart

		The Purple Barnstar
		For suffering the slings and arrows and pies and midget cars and squirt-guns and (you get the point) collateral damage from the Clown Wars. Dreadstar † 07:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (Defender of Clownage)

Hehe! Funny. And thanks!! Gscshoyru 12:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

88.87.6.72

I am 88.87.6.72 but I forgot to log in. I wanted to delete some of MY oppinions in Talk:Blaqk_Audio which I consider to be not on the topic or the page doesn't need them... Xr 1 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I didn't know that. Be my guest and remove 'em, then. Gscshoyru 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

F-22 Edit War

Perhaps you should also block the other parties involved in this "edit war" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.187.178 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And you're about to violate the WP:3RR, so I warned you about it. They have not, so they weren't warned. Please discuss on the talk, rather than reverting, seeing as consensus is fully against you. And please don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Gscshoyru 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced warn?

As per this: Gurch doesn't seem involved here; is the warning a mistake? Gscshoyru 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it's well-known that all Wikipedia's problems are in fact my fault – Gurch 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It was probably a mistake, though. Gscshoyru 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fathers' Rights Movement

Please stop in to the talk page related to Fathers' Rights Movement before making any additional edits. I am working to remove bias from the article and am providing credible citations. In addition, I am discussing changes on the talk page. If you have questions about the edits, please discuss them on the talk page rather than deleting changes. Rogerfgay 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked. But your stuff was uncited, and POV'd itself, and we do not talk on article pages -- saying "I'll expand later" visibly in article space is wrong. It's been reverted, by someone else now. And in fact the stuff in the talk pages shows what you are doing is against consensus, so please stop and discuss, first. Gscshoyru 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are people involved with a specific political agenda. There's nothing I can do about their opposition, just as fathers generally. Rogerfgay 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see WP:CONSENSUS. If consensus is against you, then you you must not keep doing what you're doing, which is going against consensus and about to violate the WP:3RR. Claiming that several unconnected editors all have a WP:COI without any proof or justification is not at all nice. Don't you think it's possible that they're reverting you because you're violating policy? Please discuss on the talk page rather than continually reverting, or you will be blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Gscshoyru 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

Nice editing man!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Alfred, award this barnstar to Gscshyru for his hard work against vandalism and on an extra note, thanks for the tip you gave me! :) Gunnerdevil4 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome... or you're welcome and thanks. In some order :) Gscshoyru 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ty and Yw

Shorthand for "Thanks for having my back, I have yours, lol". Good job! Ariel♥Gold 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'bout to say the same to you! Thanks and welcome to you too! Gscshoyru 12:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for preventing vandalism on Wikipedia pages. Very nice job! Keep up the good work! Ilyushka88 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey... thanks! Gscshoyru 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove material from talk page

I did not remove material from talk page that was "Beltran" and now I have to restore it. El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. See this diff. Gscshoyru 19:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Amazing you are accusing me of removing the material that I inserted. That is not logical. El Jigue208.65.188.149 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused as to what I mean -- you removed his comments from the talk page. That's what I was warning you about. I'm not talking about the actual article at all. Gscshoyru 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pontiac Montana removal of signature

In case you are curious, the script removal was due to User:Prckay1 trying to keep people from knowing he edits at User:99.224.49.238 (although him being autoblocked there makes it sort of obvious). It's going to be quite difficult to argue that they aren't the same person now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry.New4321 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. :) Acalamari 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Drake

I must respectfully disagree with your removal of my paragraph on the vast hoax surrounding Drake's will. I caefully cross-referenced this to the perpetrator, who has his own article in Wikipedia which discusses the matter in depth, and included another reference to an article discussing The New Yorker piece on this scam. Thus, it is clearly referenced two different ways. If these links are satisfactory please return it; it's an amazing example of public gullibility. Richard Weil 04:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your original link did not seem to be a WP:RS, nor did you WP:CITE it properly. But if the New Yorker had a piece on it, that is a reliable source, so add it back using that source as a reference, and WP:CITE it properly. Gscshoyru 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Get Conflict Issue

You have no right to remove the factually get conflict article from my edit unprotected page. You suggested you placed it on another page. This is not your right to touch my talk page. --Sagbliss 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest I put it on another page. I did put it on another page. It should not be on your talk page, that's far too confusing to users who wish to communicate with you. Instead, it's on a subpage of your userspace, where you can do, within reason, whatever you want with it, which is what you intended, ok? Gscshoyru 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's it...

...it's gotten to the point where I can't do RC patrol anymore because of you and DerHexer. You're also the reason WP:AIV is backlogged so often. There's only one way to remedy this... interested in running for admin? :D east.718 at 19:23, 10/28/2007

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gscshoyru. The reasoning I gave then still applies. Unfortunately, I still have yet to actually contribute to articles. I am interested in it, eventually. But I've only been active for four months, and I really should have some experience contributing to articles first. Plus, I have no experience with AFD's, which seems to be a necessary condition for adminship, as I have seen it others' RFA's. However, your message is quite gratifying. Seriously, you've made my day. I'm not the only person (besides DerHexer) that's keeping you from doing RC patrol, am I? Gscshoyru 20:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gaashooru, we are all so sorry that JJonz has bothered you so, he should be banned for life!!

Gaashoooo!!! I"m still around, I WILL always find a way back to pester you!!!--JJjonzagain 07:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)