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 172.164.16.207 (talk) at 03:18, 28 December 2007 (Undid revision 180543779 by Gscshoyru (talk)). 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.

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:21, 11/4/2007

RFA?

Hello Gscshoyru. I've been witnessing your superb work here on Wikipedia and wonder if you would be interested in becoming an administrator. If you are, and if you need a nominator, I hereby offer myself for the task. Best regards, Húsönd 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Wait about a month or so. I haven't been active the last month 'cause of exams, and I have yet to actually improve articles, which in my opinion is the most important thing you can do, since that's what wiki is all about. But exams are over and it's winter break, so I plan to fix up some math articles. Once I've done that, and gotten back in the vandal-fighting groove once more, then you can nom me. Gscshoyru (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hurries. :-) Just let me know as soon as you're ready. Best regards, Húsönd 01:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting my userpage! Keep up the good work! :) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Review Of My Work Please

Hello Gscshoyru, you have helped edit some of my work when I first started out on Wikipedia, and was hoping you could review my latest article I have added on the Toloy Foundation Charity. Im looking for guidence and suggestions on how I could improve the article and my editing skills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuloy_Foundation. Your advice would be appreciated, kindest regards.Susanbryce (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I'm not too good at that sort of thing, to be honest. I was more dealing with biased content and POV of a certain someone that dealing with layout and content and whatnot. It looks fine to me, though, but WP:MOS is the resource if you want to know the generally accepted layouts and style and that sort of thing. Sorry I can't be more of a help, though... Gscshoyru (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gscshoyru, appreciate that, due to some earlier difficulties I had on articles, Im actively trying to seek out several experienced Editors who can review my work in the future and offer some guidence. If you can think of anyone that can be of help in reviewing some of my work, pls let me know, kindest regards.Susanbryce (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

First of all I did not use Twinkle. Second of all you should try reading my reasons for editing: "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources" and that is what that userbox is doing. That userbox has already been deleted in the past (see Template:User evol-4). 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Twinkle; not you. That's what that means. And it's a user page. And the template was restored immediately after. That's the sort of thing you need to take up with the user; if it's not a blatant violation of some policy, discuss with them first. Also, what the heck are you doing in all your other edits? Please, stop. It's vandalism. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm then why is the template deleted right now? Look:
  • 22:23, 28 October 2007 Jc37 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" ‎ (indef blocked user evading block)
  • 20:10, 8 October 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" ‎ (content was: 'Template:Deleteduserbox')
  • 22:38, 10 May 2006 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" ‎ (t1)
  • 23:24, 5 March 2006 Guanaco (Talk | contribs) restored "Template:User evol-4" ‎
  • 17:06, 18 February 2006 Physchim62 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" ‎ (content was: '{{db-divisive}}<div style="border:1px solid #222; margin: 1px;float:left;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #006400;color:#fff;"...')
  • 11:04, 3 January 2006 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) restored "Template:User evol-4" ‎
  • 09:43, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:User evol-4" ‎ (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)

It should be deleted. As for a couple of my other edits why would you transclude a userbox with parameters if one without parameters already exists? And why would you keep a barely used template? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of my edits are vandalizm so please stop reverting them? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are now becoming the vandal sir! For instance User:Woohookitty/User is a page meant to categorize all templates. I took off 13 templates that were categorized. Why would you put them back on? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Soft-drink-stub does not belong in that category so I took it out. Template:Userbox sample compact, all templates must be categorized. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the general decision, of the link you told me. That was keep. As for the rest... barley used is not the same as not used, and you're screwing up templates. Please, stop. And as for the user page, that seems to be maintained by the user, and there's no listing of what it is anywhere. Please don't edit user pages without permission. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ahhh huh that still doesn't explain why the userbox is still deleted does it?
Do you even know the protocol for barely used templates? Do you know what you do with them? You either subst: them or replace them with a better template, and that is what I was doing, the complete opposite of vandalizm. I am not screwing up templates I am fixing them. And user pages have to be edited when they contain malicious content. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like vandalizm to me. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not blatant, discuss it with them. That's what you're supposed to do.
Additionally, you appear to be a sock of an indef banned user, based on your edits. Which is another reason to revert them.
And that last bit was twinkle screwing up, which if you look at the history, I fixed afterward, before you told me. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually told you before you corrected it but there was an edit conflict.
I am merely doing what is right. I am doing what any other Wikipedia user would want me to do. I am cleaning up templates, categorizing them, contributing to the project. Please stop reverting my edits.
172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is not clean up. It's a total change. And you seem to have tried this before, by your edits, and were reverted then, as a sock of an indef blocked user, and the same will happen now. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is how it is supposed to be mate. Those are the same colors as Template:User blank-5, so it only makes sense to change them as other users can misinterpret someone -0 as being -5.
Oh and your comment about "blatant" Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes says different. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then create a new template. Otherwise the name is confusing. And where in that link is policy that shows that evolution support is a violation? Gscshoyru (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm by create a new template what do you mean? Along with what do you mean when you say the name is confusing?
Oops wrong link... I will edit this with a section link in a second but I said "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources" for Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions. Let me look it up. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you make a template that has to do with language stuff, then make the name have to do with language. Otherwise the name doesn't reflect what the template is.
And, ok. I'll give you the template formatting stuff. You are an indef blocked user, you should not be editing, according to policy in WP:BLOCK somewhere, I believe, and so that may have been a bit of an overreaction. As for the evolution userbox, however, it isn't propaganda or anything. It's simply stating belief. Otherwise the "I am a Christian" userboxes could be removed too. Gscshoyru (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you make a template that has to do with language stuff, then make the name have to do with language. Otherwise the name doesn't reflect what the template is."
...What? That is horrible grammar, and please what should the name be?
Cmon man I gave you a link and everything to Content restrictions, you can't find the right link to WP:BLOCK?
You forget two things about the evolution box:
  1. THE REASONING IS RIGHT THERE. It is the third line in content restrictions.
  2. Is "I am a Christian" deleted? No. Is evol-4 deleted? Yes.
You keep calling me an indef block user... you don't even bother to say the name of the accused? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Johnpseudo, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Why do you bother using these run of the mill templates? I just edited again and gave my reasons on his user page. But also why should I stop editing? I thought you were going to get me blocked because I am an indef block user??? Isn't that right???
Step down from your pedestal, feeling high and mighty when I have combated you and won everything you have thrown at me. You feel too superior and think you have automatically won because you clean up vandalism. Wow I did that too when I was a Wikipedian. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Face it, you are wrong, and I am right. 172.165.79.155 (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was cleared again, huh, you gonna try a third time? 172.165.79.155 (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP user quacks rather clearly to be User:PatPeter evading a block. I've blocked the IP accordingly. Per rules on block/ban evasion, please feel free to revert all the IPs edits. - jc37 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

How is it vandalism? 172.164.199.13 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop replacing your comments -- they're removed as the comments of an indef blocked user -- I know you're the same person as above. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well why do they have to be removed? Can you prove your alligations? 172.164.199.13 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're removed for the same reasons they were before, which I've already stated. And there's no other reason for you to replace them. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but those reasons were not told to me. 172.164.199.13 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're the edits of a indef blocked user. That means you can't edit. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where in Wikipedia policy does it say that about my edits? Also would you stop with the annoying subst: ed templates? You are going to block me either way aren't you? 172.164.199.13 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EVADE Gscshoyru (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't vandalism

And you know that damn well, get your head out of your ass. Step down from your pedestal and stop vandalizing Wikipedia. 172.166.222.171 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was. And please keep WP:CIVIL Gscshoyru (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It wasn't. Cmon cite how it is vandalism, I am still waiting. And I don't have to keep to WP:CIVIL, besides I am only speaking the truth. You think you are high and mighty because you stop IP addesses on wikipedia, not stopping to judge the one who challenges you as good.
Cmon, do it. Prove me wrong. Cite where in Wikipedia policy it says I am vandalizing wikipedia, because I can already tell you how you are. 172.166.222.171 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're editing another user's user subpages, for no reason other than you think the page is a certain something. The user has already noticed what's going on, and basically stated that they prefer the current version. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyy

do you use templates that don't apply to me at all? I am doing nothing wrong, only annoying you because you won't get your way. 172.164.16.207 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about this, you know like you have been putting off. What am I doing wrong? 172.164.16.207 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gscshoyru&oldid=180543818"