User talk:GcSwRhIc

Request to move article Jonathan Plowman Jr. incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Jonathan Plowman Jr. to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent reverts you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. When you go along just reverting vandalism, the failure to place a warning on their talk page does nothing to get them blocked. Thank you. Edison (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futa Helu

Maybe you check first the existing references on a page before deciding that something is vandalism? Otherwise you are the vandal. --Tauʻolunga (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC) http://atenisi.edu.to/latest/latest.html#mate[reply]

You didn't cite a reference on the page, that's the whole point. Removing unsourced death information from the biography of a living person is not vandalism. See WP:GRAPEVINE. I find it strange that you add a specific link on my talk page, but you can't be bothered to cite the same link in the article.--GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Robbins's Birth Year

Hi, I reverted your source change for the birth year and pointed you to a discussion about using ancestry.com. Not only is it not reliable, many users, of course, can't really use it without paying money. Also, although I couldn't fit it in to the explanation, look at other cited sources in the article that question whether the birth year is 1958 or 1959. I agree with you that it should remain 1958, but you'd have to find a better source for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the discussion of Ancestry as a reliable source. The discussion centers around using the generic home page as a source or user generated content. I referenced a specific database at Ancestry. While it's true that Ancestry is a pay service, It is available for free to millions at their public libraries. The California Birth Index itself is an extremely reliable source. GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, GcSwRhIc! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleland Boyd McAfee

Outstanding edits on "Cleland Boyd McAfee." RoBoTam^ice 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback or Reviewer Permissions

Looking at your edits, you should consider applying for rollback or reviewer permissions here. They would definitely help. Creation7689 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar award

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your quick response in repairing vandalism on the Baltimore page. Folklore1 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

168.215.131.150

Greets:

I noticed your edit on the discussion page for 168.215.131.150. Please see my request just above it for a prem block for that IP address. Not sure what the procedure is but most if not all the edits in the past made have been vandalism and there's no way to prevent this unless we require for to have accounts. Not sure what the procedure is for that but I;ve noticed it elsewhere done for troublsome ip addresses. I;m assuming your discussion edit is a copy and paste and you didn;t noticed the very long page about the previous problems.

Thanks for your time, -drmike http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:168.215.131.150&redirect=no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your reverting of possible vandalism in Mantra-Rock Dance. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double warnings?

Hi! I am curious about this edit. Why did you give the anon an additional warning when they had not made any edits since your previous warning? Perhaps I missed something? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I usually do and was not intentional. I usually patrol using WP CVN, and I open about 50 tabs in succession. In this case I didn't realize that the Medieval Times edit occurred after the Dwayne Johnson edit. GcSwRhIc (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've made the same mistake myself... sometimes these semi-automated tools let our fingers move faster than our eyes! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iona Skye

I am curious as to why you undid the LGBT parents category I had added to this page, saying that this information was not referenced in the text. It clearly is. See references 7 and 12 and please revert your alteration if satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.61.79.254 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of of living person. Source 7 is of extremely dubious reliability and does not even state that Skye is a lesbian only that after her divorce she had a relationship with another woman. Find me a reliable source that states Skye is a lesbian and I'll revert it. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Fairchild

Sir - You recently added Public Welfare Medal with a citation to this article. Then you added Category:National Academy of Sciences laureates. Does the Public Welfare Medal imply being a laureate of the National Academy of Sciences? I looked through their website and found no mention of Fairchild.GroveGuy (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. if you go directly to cited link for the Public Welfare Medal and scroll down you'll see:

David Fairchild (1933) For his exceptional accomplishments in the development and promotion of plant exploration and the introduction of new plants, shrubs, and trees into the United States.

The Public Welfare Medal is the most prestigious medal awarded by the academy.GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:141.70.82.221 - Saraikistan Movement

Hi GcSwRhIc,

As you have had involvement with this IP address: User talk:141.70.82.221 over the past few days, I am hoping that you might review what I see as the latest piece of annoying vandalism. I am a little cagey about reverting because of my work on this article that came up on the Special Pages today – possible NPOV on my part. The article is Saraikistan Movement, a stub with a ref that I thought might be worth a helping hand. I had to copy/edit hone down and add cats, stubs and links, but I think its worth developing. User:141.70.82.221’s hit and run took off information that was verified in the cite. I would have normally shrugged this one off but I see that this user IP has been vandalising other articles. Is it time to put a stop? – I’ll leave it up to your good judgement. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 10, 2011

Hello. You have a new message at 96.232.126.111's talk page.

March 15 2011

Thanks for your opinion on my edit re; 2011 Sendai Earthquake, although I did specifically state, in face of the unusual request, allegedly by Japan, and reiterated by the UN spokeswoman that "only a handful" of rescue teams from specific nations were requested by Japan, in what may be considered a denial, or I should say, lack of awareness to the seriousness of the disastrous situation. I think all users are aware how Japan can in fact use all the help it can get under the actual circumstances. 66.214.170.230 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to maintain "Japan's specific request", as odd and unusual as it is, in the "International response" section of the 2011 Sendai earthquake article, but it simply is not an "International response", but a domestic one, and will therefore be removed from this section. Thanks for you understanding and passion to police this article for edits you may not agree with.66.214.170.230 (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're requesting aid from other nations, then yes that is part of the international response. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this is Wikipedia, "free speech" medium, please maintain logic in regards to what is "International response". Japan's request for something is merely Japan's governmental response to the impeding crisis. For Australia, China, South Korea, etc, to commit manpower and relief supplies, is considered international response. 66.214.170.230 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request by Japan define some of the international response that will occur which is why it is relevant. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in - I followed the trail from a recent edit by 66.24.170.230. I have to agree with GcSwRhIc here. Requesting international assistance leads to receiving international assistance which is part of the international response. Also, 66.24.170.230 seems a bit worked up over this passage. It's just a few words. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well, followed the same trail, the wording was fine and we have consensus to keep it. If 66.24.170.230 doesn't like it, 66.24.170.230 can bring it up on the talk page instead of reverting several different people repeatedly. –flodded ☃ (gripe) 15:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully 66.24.170.230 will bring it to the talk page, though I'm not sure 66.24.170.230 will agree with consensus.GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Absolutely wrong, so I got rid of your erroneous warning on my talk page. See my edit summary on the view history page for Kevin O'Connell. 68.109.238.244 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary doesn't mention a source and more importantly the edit you made has no source. Also disambiguation pages shouldn't contain that sort of info see isambiguation dos and don'ts. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Humphries

How is what I am doing vandalism? I suspect that some of the editors whose work I edited are sockpuppets of user -Ril-, who has been banned indefinitely for being the user CheeseDreams reincarnate - and in one case I am more than convinced of this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my book adding "he was trash" to an article is vandalism. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run a checkuser on user Zagalejo and you will see what I am talking about. I have not looked at all edits on the article "Kris Humphries" and other articles with which this user has been involved, but I believe that he started editing right around the time that user -Ril- was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First my concern is not with Zagalejo, it's with the edit you made. Zagalejo has made 45,000 edits and has rollback and reviewer rights. I doubt very much if he/she is a sock puppet. Oh and please comments go at the bottom of someone's user page and sign your name with four tildes. It's all part of being a good wikipedian. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under arbitration cases, you will see that there are a number of adminstrators who have been sanctioned for abusive sockpuppetry or other inappropriate actions, and I strongly suspect that Zagalejo may be among them because of his writing style - which is suspiciously like that of the blocked user -Ril-. --DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once more that's not the issue your edit was the issue which still have not explained. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain the edit by saying that the article would not be considered neutral without the information that I reinserted into it. --DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing that someone is trash is not neutral. It's defamatory. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the context in which I inserted the information. --DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone trash in any context is clearly defamatory.—Chris!_c/t 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Port of Southampton

Your response was a wee bit precipitate and also inaccurate. You made an assumption without first inquiring as to the facts. You ASSUMED original research, which it is NOT. That comment was culled from local newspapers of recent times, and is widely accepted as truthful by Southampton people. Including those like myself from who's front door can see the school referred to, and is not a half-mile from where Titanic sailed. I'll inquire about the precise location of the newspaper reference. Meanwhile, a less confrontational and a more co-operative tone is recommended. 86.162.56.164 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if was not original research, the edit was still unsourced and a source is needed. Verifiability is an essential cornerstone of Wikipedia. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is Titanic Voices by Donald Hyslop et al. Published by Southampton City Council, 1994. I take it you have no objection to reinstatement. 86.162.56.164 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No certainly. A page number or numbers would help to avoid another editor from adding a page number missing tag. A quick search shows the ISBN number(ISBN 0 7509 1436 X) which should also be included. Template:Cite book would be good. Insert inside

<ref>{{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref>

GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasaryova

Your editing manners are no doubt pretty rude. As I have still been working on building the article of the leading slovak actress (see template Under Construction), you may rather contribute to Wikipedia by creating your own articles than changing the ones of which language you don't likely understand. If I am wrong, then plz help by adding new relevant sources. If all you were asking for was to make people leave you alone, then I can do you the favor. Uzerakount (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out a particular edit that you didn't like. Under construction means everyone can help. The version before my edits contained a lot of peacock words. There were also grammatical errors. I also made changes which made the article better conform to other biographies. It's great that you are working on the article but everyone can contribute. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I know the awards should be listed in Awards section, just was not in the mood yesterday to summarize them all. I am almost done with the article as I need to work on my book. Might will add just a few more bio details to make it so-so "balanced". Btw, I don't mind about those templates nominated for deletion. When I have a time, I will make a template only for Vasaryova herself in addition. Be well. Uzerakount (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Engle

I submitted an edit to Margarita Engle article on 4/1/11 at the request of Engle herself -- Just realized this morning that the updated article was reverted (I think by you) back to the old one.
Can I submit the edit again? Some of the items on the old article are no longer current (like the poetseers site or the CalPoly info). What do I need to do to make sure that the new update stays?
Thanks... Mrianto (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)mrianto[reply]

I know it was you first edit. I looked at the changes for several minutes before reverting. Try one edit a time rather than one edit at once. Start with the lead. Don't remove other occupations like botanist if she has been one. Don't put the before Cuban-American as she is one of a group. Then move to a biography section. Then update the Bibliography section. Remember to preview your edits and please use the edit summary box. Good luck. GcSwRhIc (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submit few more edits, one at a time, per section -- as you suggested, and put comments on the edit summary box. Thanks for the guide. Hopefully I sort of did it somewhat right this time. Thanks... Mrianto (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal IP (99.233.12.200)

Hi. You warned the above IP, whose entire edit history is one of mischief, bad faith edits and vandalism, that he/she would be blocked if they continued the same abusive editing after Ruth Hussey. Two more edits were made after this (both reversed, albeit by editors who thought they were good faith edits). Just to let you know. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those edits actually came before my level 4 warning which was issued at 20:07, 4 April 2011, but don't worry I have my eye on 99.233.12.200. GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge

Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge, a page that you may have interest in (as you participated in deletion discussions on a template related to this page), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Blumberg

Sadly died today in front of many people, and the edits made to his page are tragically correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.248.230 (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies at Wikipedia concerning the biographies of living persons. Even their deaths need to be sourced. This helps protect all living people as I'm sure you understand. Please do not add again without a reliable source. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Included citation to first obituary online. --Motorbikematt (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Carrel

In regards to your undo and comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbgoodman):

It is detailed in depth in the sources at the bottom of the article and further sources are given for this in the text in specific sections. You will also notice that his Nobel Prize in Physiology has no citation in the summary section, as it is detailed below in its own section in the main text. For good measure, I found two additional sources and put them after the sentence, though it looks odd to have now three citations to follow this broad summary sentence.

Rather than deleting my addition, it would have been just as easy for you to read the article to see that there were several references to his collaborationism and eugenics work for Vichy France in the main text that were all properly cited. This is a major part of his legacy, and thus I felt that it was important that it be mentioned in his introductory blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbgoodman (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect the were no mentions of collaboration with the Vichy Government or the Nazis until you introduced them. Collaboration is a very weighted word. The article discusses his sympathy to Nazi eugenic ideas, but that's a lot different than collaboration. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Derzi

Hi my English is not so good how can i add the following information to the article of David Derzi... worked from 2005 to 2008 with Hanania Baer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.7.126 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it but the article has notability problems. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) or he:ויקיפדיה:עקרונות וקווים מנחים ליצירת ערכי אישים but especially WP:ARTIST. GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChasePuglisi

Hello, GcSwRhIc. You have new messages at BMRR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmy Rossum

I reverted the page back. I have a feeling that you are taking an interest in my posts. I am not malicious, but like some people are interested in cars, boats, and such I am interested in making sure Jewish people are properly identified. This is not a crime nor is it in violation of wiki rules. Background of people is important and I make sure that it is known, at least for this particular group. I am doing a service.

As to Rossum, she is Jewish. If you yourself are not Jewish then I would have you ask your Jewish friends (if you have any) to confirm that the only requirement, for sure, to be a Jew is a Jewish mother. Whether she practices or not is not the question; or even self identifies. In Jewish culture she would have to forever renounce her Jew and excommunicate herself from her people. Jews as a group can excommunicate individuals but this is very, very rare. The most notable example in Western eyes would be Spinoza. So my point is YOU would have to CITE or REFERENCE that event, the event of her renunciation. It is your burden, not mine. I simply "enhanced" her page with the already included fact that her mother was a Jew and therefore she is a Jew.GegenIsrael (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]