Jump to content

User talk:Gscshoyru

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GlowValure (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 26 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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)[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]

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]

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)[reply]

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

Re: User page

Oh, that's nothing. I had an entire attack page created in mainspace entirely full of GIANT BOLD CAPITALS AND CHILDISH INSULTS. Rather flattering, really. shoy 12:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goody, vandalism again. Thanks for your hard work in cleaning up the mess. It's nice to have an extra pair of eyes watching out for ya. shoy 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toad

Hey Gscshoyru,

Sorry, we are new to wikipedia and are not familiar with all the rules. Could you explain to us why it is that Slippy Toad, who is a toad, was removed from the toad wikipedia article?

Thank you, looking forward to your reply! Slippy'sshipisunderrepair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippy'sshipisunderrepair (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, that addition is not notable enough for inclusion in the toad article. It belongs in the article on the character itself, not the article on toads. Gscshoyru 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gscshoyru,

I think I understand now. What makes someone notable enough for inclusion in the toad article?

Slippy'sshipisunderrepair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippy'sshipisunderrepair (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, information on toads -- you may want to do some reading of policy -- WP:TRIVA and WP:NOT pertain to your addition specifically, and the other links from the welcome template are useful reading as well. Gscshoyru 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gscshoyru,

You have been very helpful. I will remember this.

Slippy'sshipisunderrepair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slippy'sshipisunderrepair (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, AngelOfSadness, hereby present this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Gscshoyru in recognition of his speedy vandalism reverts on my userpages and his infinite anti vandalism efforts AngelOfSadness talk 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infinite? Heh. Not really. But thanks!! Gscshoyru 22:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's not exactly infinite, it's sure seems like it's close it :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flourochlorodixydoxymetraphysisychloridonium

Thanks for jumping in and helping with this guy. When I looked at the recent changes, saw his name, and the picture he had uploaded, I had a suspicion he was up to no good. That is, in my experience, the shortest time span between account creation, beginning to vandalize, and being blocked, I've ever seen. It's a pleasure to see such great teamwork. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got him to WP:AIV before things could get worse, thanks for helping out in the reversions anyway. The sunder king 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. it was pretty fast, was it not? Thanks, both of you. Gscshoyru 15:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it was my pleasure! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks. Pity others couldn't be as courteous as you. Do you realise that in a matter of seconds after you put up the speedy deletion notice someone deleted the article? How am I supposed to reply in time? Concernedcitizen102 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would have deleted it myself, had I the ability to do so -- but I am not an admin. WP:N may be of useful read, please stop re-creating the article. Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kreepy krawly

I ran across the bizarre series of discussions involving this fellow (I am assuming), and decided to see what a Google search might turn up, and found this: [[1]] It is now several months old, but if this blog post is accurate, it indicates that KK was behaving abusively for a long time before he was (they were?) caught and blocked. Still, I have to wonder what the point of all of it was... I got the impression that he was mentally ill. I suppose we will never know. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out -- I did the same search myself, wondering if there was any veracity to his claims of... whatever he was talking about, since he seemed to imply it was internet based. And I don't think he was mentally ill, I think he really though his policy idea is better than our current implementation, and when efforts to get people to change policy failed, he probably thought if he started acting with more authority, we'd listen. But as you can see, it had the opposite effect. Ah well. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Gscshoyru 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps you are correct. Mentally ill or just annoying, he is now gone. Though, I suspect he will return under a new name. I hope I am wrong. His edits here ([[2]]) indicate he was up to no good for a great long time, he'd simply never been caught, as far as I can tell. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa... he'd been at this game for a long time. Wow. Well, it's good that he's gone -- at least for now. And I hope you're wrong too -- but past experience with people like this makes that resolution doubtful -- and they get more irate each time they come back. At least that makes them easier to spot... but why to people get so pissed at us just because they don't get their own way? </rhetorical> Pity they are that way... I've always wondered what a long-term vandal is like in real life. Because no one acts like this in public. Gscshoyru 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one acts like this in public. I have to disagree with you on that point, sir. I once knew a man (who was legitimately mentally ill) who behaved, in public, much like this fellow did (does?) here on Wikipedia: he generally refered to himself in the third person (though not as a collective), was convinced of his mental/intellectual superiority to everyone around him, and was adamant that he had everyone's best interests at heart if we would only trust him. I came to refer to his "type" as the paranoid auto-didact. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this specific case, perhaps -- but I meant the more usual type of long-term vandal. Short term vandals I can understand, they do it for a laugh, get blocked, and chuckle with their friends. But long term abusive vandals have something wrong with them -- I mean, some of them have sleepers going back to April -- who puts such effort into such a destructive cause in real life? But in this specific case, yes, I suppose some people act like that. Though I'm not sure if any do that aren't mentally ill. Gscshoyru 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But long term abusive vandals have something wrong with them.... Man, do I ever agree with that. For the life of me, I cannot figure it out. At some point, I just stopped trying. Now, I just warn them until they run out of warnings, and then I report them to AiV. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I've added a reference. Give me the 30 seconds to add it next time; I was midedit when you reverted. :) Sсοττ5834talk 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I just didn't believe it -- and even with the ref, this looks more like triva than anything else, the recipe is not "central to the plot" since it's just in there as an easter egg. Also the ref is not a reliable source... but that's besides the point. You should probably think about refactoring the way you add it to the article -- a mere mention would suffice, writing out the whole recipe is giving far too much weight to mere triva. But I could be wrong, correct me if I am. And I suggest you refactor it before someone else removes it for the reasons I've stated. Gscshoyru 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources on video game easter eggs are tough to come by, but Planet Fortress is an IGN site devoted to Valve games. IGN is the predominant online gaming news site. The recipe isn't central to the plot, but the cake is. It's mentioned over and over, on screens throughout the game and actually spoken by Portal's final character. Sсοττ5834talk 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the cake is. But your wording: "Portal contains a cake recipe central to the game" implies the recipe is central, not the cake. And writing out the whole recipe is giving far, far too much weight to a piece of trivia that in my opinion, barely deserves mention in the article. If they want to find out more, they can visit the ref, and the whole concept is better integrated into some paragraph of the article, or something. Gscshoyru 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Cool! Thanks! But why do I have a warning message, exactly? Gscshoyru 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it carefully. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're welcome! Happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
How do you get/use twinkle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert cone (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, sorry i didnt scroll down. You are very helpful.Robert cone 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It did not work, it is probably just the browser i am using.Robert cone 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please be nice

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thankyou

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

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)[reply]

Protection

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
As always, no problem! Gscshoyru 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, even better! Gscshoyru 00:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very entertaining..;) Dreadstar † 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And really, what kind of bonehead bets on something like that, anyway...from either side. Dreadstar † 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Misplaced warn?

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

Not at all, it's well-known that all Wikipedia's problems are in fact my fault – Gurch 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It was probably a mistake, though. Gscshoyru 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Ty and Yw

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

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

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

Sucking up in an attempt to become an admin

I know you'd really, really like to be an admin some day... so your trying to suck up to Yamla with these edits in the hopes that one day he'll vote for you if you're ever put up for the position, but perhaps you should view this and this first where overwhelming consensus in the Wikipedia community is that the edits are constructive and the removal of them (as you're doing) is destructive to Wikipedia. Perhaps find another way to worm yourself into the position? - OnFireAgain 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive or not, it's policy to revert them -- I'm not sucking up at all. Gscshoyru 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your facade is easier to see through than a freshly cleaned window. Lets see a review of what you're doing shall we.... first of all, you're reverting stuff which as we can see on ANI and Wikiproject:Football, it has already been agreed that the edits were valuable contributions... you're about three hours behind everybody else on the event you've decided to stick your nose into.

A slice of some reverts you're making...

They're all like this. What is your purpose in these pathetic actions? Get a life or atleast contribute something good here instead of trying to slimeball your way into adminship. Of course you'll go to delete this message here, because I've Got You Sussed. - GotYouSussed 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 minute? 1 minute is all it all the time it took you to remove the revealed truth of you pretending to be removing vandalism, but you're actually just reinstate it. Well done! a cookie for you! You can't delete the history of this page although, so the world can still see what you're doing at Queen's Park F.C., Canzone Napoletana, Enzo and all the other articles is a sham. Well we see, I have some things to do, but I will return at a later time to see if you've started leaving my (community concensus aproved) edits alone, or if you're still playing the part of a pseudo-vandaler fighter with your Robin costume and all. Good day!
(PS - I'd vote for you if you were nominated)- 1MinuteFraud 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still trolling eh-dipshit? I find it very hillarious looking at the history that you cover up all negative feedback that you get - AKA - the truth on your actions. Atleast try to get out and lose your virginity.

Also the claims in which you are hiding behind policy on in WP:BAN says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban", this says nothing about nor backs up the removal of content edits which are considered contructive or valuable that were added BEFORE the ban, that Yamla removed incorrectly after a ban - which itself is still in contention (the community condemed his action as "destructive")[6][7] I didn't sign up for a "Wikipedia:Right to vanish" requesting that my edits be removed, so mouthbreathers like you do not have any policy behind you to remove such things. You're plain and simply trolling, knowingly deleting valueable contents, you will prove your utter undoubted cowardise by covering up the truth here by deleting this... get a life you sad, trolling cunt. - GlowValure 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gscshoyru&oldid=167276411"