User talk:GoShow/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Archive 1   
All Pages:  1 -  ... (up to 100)


Yes--GoShow (...............) 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try responding at Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States. I wrote a reply there as well as replying on my talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Here are a few to get you started:

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. ' Gorlack36 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome

Hi GoShow, I don't want to leave the wrong impression. You are becoming autoconfirmed because four days have passed and you have made more than ten edits. I am just an editor like yourself and I did not make this happen. Welcome! Celestra (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop by the Teahouse and have a cup of tea!

Teahouse logo
Hello! GoShow, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! SarahStierch (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination of The Christmas Choir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Christmas Choir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Christmas Choir until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GoShow. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Message added 23:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 :- ) DCS 23:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre The Christmas Choir

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Christmas Choir will likely remain open for a few more days, though I expect it will be closed as a keep. Patience... the process must run its course. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Nominating Good Articles

Hi GoShow. I saw you had manually added Gray Wolf to the Good Article nomination queue. The bot responsible for maintaining the GA process has reverted that addition, but I've added a nomination template to Talk:Gray Wolf with your name and the time of your nomination, so it will be automatically added back into the queue quite soon. If you're nominating other articles for GAN, remember to just add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}} to the article's talk page, filling in the subtopic, and the rest will be taken care of automatically. Good luck with the article! GRAPPLE X 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty and the Beast (2009 film)

In that numerous sources are available with which to improve this article AND as improvments have actually commenced, might you consider withrawing your nomination? 00:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerate withdrawal over at the AFD for Beauty and the Beast (2009 film). If you come across such poor film stubs in the future, please feel welcome to ask for input over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. We'd be more than happy to share an extra set of eyes... and perhaps even avoid an AFD in the first place. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf

I posted a GA review for the wolf article. LittleJerry (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012


Book Sources for new edit on Haunted Places: New Edit for Egypt

  • Anthes, Rudolf (1961). "Mythology in Ancient Egypt". In Kramer, Samuel Noah (ed.). Mythologies of the Ancient World. Anchor Books.
  • Armour, Robert A (2001) [1986]. Gods and Myths of Ancient Egypt. The American University in Cairo Press. ISBN 9774246691.
  • Ions, Veronica (1982) [1968]. Egyptian Mythology. Peter Bedrick Books. ISBN 0-911745-07-6.
  • James, T. G. H (1971). Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt. Grosset & Dunlap. ISBN 0-448-00866-1.
  • Tyldesley, Joyce (2010). Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt. Allen Lanes. ISBN 1846143691.

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012


The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Image

Please see my reply to your identical message at the WP:CONSENT. You may get more responses at the media copyright board.--ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already confirmed it to them, thank you.--GoShow (...............) 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


re your post at the help desk

Regarding the image you uploaded. Please check your email and respond as soon as you can.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

A Royal Golden Medal Barnstar for you!

Thank you [sbharris] for your many efforts to your many contributions about the life of knowledge and mystery for science and believing the many quantities and phases of possibilities and discovery for ongoing science seekers, including me, --GoShow (...............) 05:58, 5 June 2012 |}

Why, thank you for that. 30,000 edits over 6 years, more than half in the sciences. And, yet, this may be my first barnstar ever on WP. And it must be a sincere one, free of vaseline or lipbalm, since I have absolutely nothing to do with wikipolitics. Ghosh! SBHarris 06:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Point Niemti (talk)

The point is most articles used the word immortality is the ability to live forever or be immune from death, doesn't mean you cannot die from anything, if you had enough common sense, then delete the rest of the subcategories, which were added or in main default, otherwise please stop edit warring.--GoShow (...............) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? As immortality in fiction says, the meaning of "immortal" tends to vary. (But I think everyone can agree that an immortal character is someone who just can not die. Just can't. Because is not mortal. Like The Nameless One.) In any case, "Category:Fictional immortals" not only does not explain what the criteria to qualify someone as "immortal", at all, but it's also being considered for deletion. And for a good reason, I guess. Also, Dante (Devil May Cry), for example, does not have "the ability to live forever or be immune from death". He will grow old and die, as he gre up from a newborn baby, and that if something won't kill him first (he's just difficult to kill, not invincible). And yes, fictional demons is a parent category to fictional half-demons, too. --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, we don't have to argue, let's work this together, and create edits about notable immortals on this site immortality in fiction to see who are truly immortal thank you--GoShow (...............) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's why you've got to add this category on the case-by-case judgement to the various characters, and not stamp it over entire other vast categories. (If it survives the nomination for deletion, that is. And when it gets defined, at all.) --Niemti (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

GoShow/Archive 1, Thank you from the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi GoShow/Archive 1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts


A Good Article Barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
Thank you for your many creations and tireless edits to allow the article Gray Wolf to become nominated as a Good Article! Work on Nominator!--50.122.54.84 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"¡Superb!"—GoShow(...............)

A Science Barnstar for you!

The Science Barnstar of Honor
Thank you for your many eloquent dedications about the knowledge and mystery about articles about Science and Chemistry, and believing the in the many theories and phases of possibilities and discoveries for ongoing magnanimous science seekers! --Mr.Goblins (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"¡Meritorious!"—GoShow(..............)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

SuggestBot request?

Hi, I noticed your username was added to User:SuggestBot/Requests, but by someone. Feel free to re-add your username while logged in and I'll get to it as soon as possible. Thanks, Nettrom (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (SuggestBot's caretaker)[reply]

Thanks--GoShow (...............) 00:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Aquarius (astrology)
Lithium bromide
Kaj Franck
Tibetan astrology
The Music Lesson
Lanthanum(III) chloride
From Enslavement to Obliteration
Algaecide
Ammonium nitrite
Mia Martina
Sutrayana
Beryllium monohydride
Professional mourning
Suppressor of cytokine signaling 1
Salima Ikram
Hemlock society (film)
Kozjak, Bilje
Stylophora
Calcium bromide
Cleanup
Uranium pentachloride
Fluoride
Koss Corporation
Merge
Water buffalo (zodiac)
Hair
Halal
Add Sources
Astrological sign
Water (Wu Xing)
Chinese astrology
Wikify
Linear dichroism
Johannus Orgelbouw
Sodium selenate
Expand
Period 2 element
Sodium
Period 3 element

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks for the reference. For dental caries a published review article or textbook would be better. References can be easily created using the tool in the top of the edit box and either the PMID or ISBN and page number. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

If you are there can I spare a minute with You, keep you in touch, thanks.--GoShow (...............) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure feel free to drop me a note anytime. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Archiving params

Hello GoShow, I noticed that you have setup auto archiving. Three recommendations:

  • Set the counter to 1 so that User talk:GoShow/Archive 1 will be created and not skip to 2
  • You may want to raise the maxarchivesize of 70K to something a bit higher (125K is more average)
  • You have minthreadsleft = 1 but that would only work correctly if you also add the parameter minthreadstoarchive = 1 as the default is to archive two threads. Otherwise, you would toggle between 1 and 3 threads and it would not react as you intended.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks trying to test this edit here--GoShow (...............) 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the best with these. The bot should come around in the next day or so and take care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks configured correctly and should work. This how to and this FAQ come in handy, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post archive note: Threads that do not have a trailing datestamp or where the datestamp is inside <div> or <span> tags will not be recognized by the bot. You can either manually archive these by cutting and pasting or you can place datestamps (even backdating) to get the bot to archive them. Signposts and barnstars are enclosed in div tags.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GoShow. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Misleading Edit summary

Can you please explain these Edit Summaries ? [1],[2][3],[4] and few more ?
You did not had access to use STiki at the time you made these edits and you have made these edits manually *Without* using WP:STiki but even then you have written "Using STiki". --DBigXray 20:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted them on a STiki javascript, but no worries, I said I caught on them I couldn't use the the buttons anyway--GoShow (...............) 04:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is a STiki javascript? Whatever it is, I didn't implement it and would be interested to see it. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I would rather call it a preview it's on the Wikipedia:STiki section called

Download
  • From your above comment I conclude that you had downloaded STiki(which is a Java executable (JAR) by the way, not javascript ), and tried to use the tool, You were shown the first diff (preview) but since you did not had access to STiki at that point of time and you could not make an edit from the stiki interface, so you opened the page and reverted it manually using the above edit summary. In any case you now have access to STiki, you can use it now, go ahead and let us know if you face any problem using the tool, cheers--DBigXray 05:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly appreciated.--GoShow (...............) 05:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was making sure about your intentions, as i felt it a bit weird. Have you tried using the tool ? You should be able to use the revert buttons on STiki now, check it.--DBigXray 05:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying, however, was trying a way to watchlist a few articles, as I am timestamping the madness of vandalism here, wow.--GoShow (...............) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure you revert only obvious vandalism cases as vandalism, read WP:STiki#Using_STiki for more, There is also a good faith revet button, for edits that although not vandalism are clearly unwanted. Also check out WP:NOTVANDALISM, WP:VANDALISM and WP:AGF--DBigXray 05:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki !

Hello, GoShow, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray 05:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I like your reverts. 24.146.225.229 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CVUA

 Hello, GoShow/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electric Catfish 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Drogo of Hauteville revert

Thanks for the feedback! You're right in that my minor edit didn't add anything to the article, but it did take away a factual error: The original text said that "He had a son, Richard, who joined the First Crusade. Richard's son Roger was later regent of the principality of Antioch." but that is not true. The Richard who joined the First Crusade was the son of William of the Principate, Drogo's brother. His son Roger did become Regent of Antioch but was not a grandson of Drogo. Drogo's real son was Richard of Hauteville who was not involved in the Crusade and (as far as we can tell) did not leave issue, vice-regal or otherwise. Hence, my edit restored the article to truthfulness, though admittedly I did not contribute info on the 'real' Richard. Sorry for the trouble I've given you :)

Accuracy probably doesn't matter anyway - this is wikipedia, after all!122.60.103.104 (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac

Please do not restore material to these articles without discussion on the talk page. Your edits have been reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war to restore unencyclopedic material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits have been reverted to the original sources, however I am leaving the countries out.--GoShow (...............) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not remove reliable sources, if you want to dispute please check WP:RSN otherwise you will also have a notification of edit warring yourself, those sources are reliable.--GoShow (...............) 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Chinese Zodiac.com" is in no respect a WP:RS, it's an online consumer guide. There are plenty of books on Chinese astrology, please do some research and find one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the other sources on those articles, I am not the one who used Chinese Zodiac.com consumer guide, I did use some book sources, thanks.--GoShow (...............) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am looking into more book sources right now thanks.--GoShow (...............) 17:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are books and there are books. A books which is a printed equivalent to ChineseZodiac.com, i.e. a consumer guide to chinese astrology, is going to be just as useless as that website is, because of WP:FRINGE (which I suggest you read). We're an encyclopedia, not a source for horoscopes, so what you need to be looking for are scholarly books or articles which discuss the history and methodology of Chinese astrology without subscribing to it as a method of divination. From that kind of source you can take information about the signs and how their supposed meanings came about, without ascribing factuality to those claims.

What that means is, basically, that most of the material in this articles is still unencyclopedic, and in violation of WP:FRINGE, and will eventually be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on WP:RSN and I agree, here's the deal I will delete the comment summaries, other than the calendars I will keep and the attributions, the summaries I will delete, they do seem unbias, however I'll let the people decide on other psudoscience webpages to check if they are those characteristics, other than that I agree, I'll delete the characteristics.--GoShow (...............) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy Rathore

Hi, I restored the deletion because the content was from another page entirely, and was part of some vandalism efforts yesterday. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem--GoShow (...............) 18:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Congratulations from STiki

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, GoShow! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Yaris678 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Ancient Egypt

Allow me to suggest you are being a bit of a jerk here. The image(which I realize you uploaded) is tiny, of what is presumably a large and detail-packed work, with no proper details or explanation given. What is it actually? It doesn't show reflection symmetry at all (even the central girls are different) unlike many other Ancient Egyptian object images on Commons, and there is anyway no mention of the subject in the article. It just doesn't justify inclusion, even if you like it, and the caption makes it WP:OR, and bad OR at that. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After, the way you edit, you seem a jerk as well, and yes the painting does show symmetry if you look at the center of the painting and not the rest of the inclusion.--GoShow (...............) 04:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shows some broad symmetry, but certainly not mirror symmetry. So what?? Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Your request for rollback

Hi GoShow. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Calmer Waters 05:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reiterate about taking it slow with Huggle. It is a very powerful tool to fight vandalism; however, if used badly can create a lot of issues. The biggest tip I can give you that separates a good user from a sloppy user is that it is not a race. I can't state that enough. It is not a race. It may feel like that sometimes, don't fall pray to it. It also differs from Stiki in that the most recent edits may appear in multiple editors' interfaces at the same time rather than just one user with Stiki (leading to the race mentality). Also there are many different choices for things that aren't necessarily vandalism, but may need reverted (with different edit summaries). If you have any questions please ask either myself or one of the experienced users you will see while working Huggle. ...and with that good luck. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--GoShow (...............) 13:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on your user page

Just a quick note to tell you I have reverted a large amount of vandalism off your user page (and he's just done mine as well :) ). Mdann52 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article -- rape

The case resolved, apparently, taking me to as another account from which is the same state, although, I do not know the user at all. --GoShow (...............) 04:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) 22:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, GoShow. I reverted you on this, per my statements in that edit summary. Why did you revert before that? Did your vandalism tool automatically identify it as vandalism or otherwise unconstructive? 118.142.35.126 (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope looks like you vandalised check the last revision;)--GoShow (...............) 15:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, you are referring to the vandalism the IP above committed after my edits as that IP to the EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article. And I state that because that IP's edits to the EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article were not vandalism. It is invalid to revert valid additions because the same IP vandalized a different article. And per what was stated at User talk:118.142.35.126, my reverting you was correct. And I did it again, per that discussion. I was not that IP when the IP vandalized an article after my edits to the EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article. Have you never seen what it says at the bottom of IP talk pages? It says: "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address."
So bottomline, I was correct to revert you and I did not vandalize any Wikipedia article. Ever. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need an extra reference and reliable sources according to WP:RS to apply the voluntary response source about the rape case otherwise it is WP:FRINGE. It is encyclopedic and appropriate to say coerced and not rape, it is a good revert edit, however clarify the rape GoShow (...............) 23:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need an extra source for anything and have reverted you yet again because I don't. We go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability here. The sources state that this storyline was considered rape! The Rape article defines this type of rape as rape! It is not a WP:FRINGE definition of rape, which is why it is in the lead of that article and sufficiently in the lower body of that article. In this case, it was only "voluntary" because the woman was forced to engage in sexual activity. Rape is about a person being forced to engage in sexual activity against his or her will. This was against her will. Do you think that rape only means "physical force"? It does not. And the Rape article makes this very clear. It is not "encyclopedic and appropriate to say coerced and not rape" when it is nothing but a less accurate way of saying "rape." You have no valid reason for reverting, and are only doing so because you have been proved wrong in this case. Revert again, and not only will I revert you again in turn, but report this to an appropriate noticeboard. For now, I am going to ask one of the editors of the Rape article to weigh in here because you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject, definition-wise or Wikipedia guideline/policy-wise. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please discuss on WP:Help desk otherwise it is ignorant for you to talk over a small edit which is wise to keep coerce other than rape of a simple disambigation, it is a good revert edit and should not be argued seriously over an edit between rape and coerced.--GoShow (...............) 03:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You apparently need to go to the WP:Help desk, since you don't know how to follow WP:Reliable sources or WP:Verifiability, or that there is more than one definition of rape. The only ignorance shown here has been yours, and I will now be reporting you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you don't know when to quit, thus, if you want to start warring with other confirmed users, with a simple edit it's not worth it--GoShow (...............) 03:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just doing my job edit instead of suggesting a word for the article, however there are many auto-confirmed users with different puppets which don't vandalize, and still keep their users, it's usually with vandalism of multiple accounts it is referring and no it wasn't my user, although, please read your talkpage about the end closings, and not to forget to halt deleting Islamophoia disambiguations from other articles as their sources, supposedly pertains to them.--GoShow (...............) 03:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go Show, please drop the stick, alright? I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this stuff differentiating between auto-confirmed editors and IP editors: clearly there are many registered, auto-confirmed accounts that cannot contribute positively, and many IP editors (some of whom I drink beers with on a regular basis) who can. So DROP it. Continuing to rehash those comments about a couple of vandal edits that may or may not have come from the same human being is also not productive. Water under the bridge. Move on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already, has thank you, just wanted to make a note of it, the user from the user's last talk on the Administrative board--GoShow (...............)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Message reply

I have seen your message to me. I think you may be talking about the wikisource: project. In addition to the English wikisource, I think they have one for all languages together. With regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--GoShow (...............) 04:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback and warnings

Apparently, the A. B. is with the IP, although, mistakes are mistakes and they need to move on, thus not I was not even talking about them as vandals, although, they have edit warred during their last revisions as well.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

--GoShow (............................) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your interactions with the anonymous editor at User talk:76.248.149.47‎ led me to start watching your talk page. I've noticed a troubling trend in your use of rollback rights and in your difficulties dealing with anonymous editors (especially in differentiating between vandals and constructive contributors). I urge you to slow down and pay close attention to what you're doing. Please review the following:

Absolutely do not issue any further warning templates unless you are certain the editor is clearly in the wrong. If you find you've made a mistake, immediately acknowledge your mistake and apologize.

What I'm asking you to do is the same stuff I expect of myself as an administrator and what's expected of all editors here, so it should not be hard if you slow down and take some care.

I appreciate your zeal in watching over our content but I hope you'll temper it some. Rollback privileges are a powerful and useful tool; I'd hate to have to revoke yours.

Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From--GoShow (............................) Please Read:*Read the paragraph from,

this user BencherliteTalk once was on my section called

Thomas Weinandy

Here, too, I'm not sure what your rationale was to rollback my edit [5], and to issue a vandalism warning [6]. An apparently COI account twice copied and pasted a curriculum vitae into the article, which is considered disruptive for several reasons, per WP:RESUME. I've again reverted to the non-resume version. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the IP on this one, for what it's worth. The CV version of the article was entirely inappropriate, the IP correctly removed it and you should not have restored the CV or warned the IP. Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do smell a rat who does want me out of Wikipedia less than a year eventually, bu I do value Wikipedia enough not to quit.

I'm just reviewing, but what I'm saying is I have had users back in the days who tried IP accounts to test myself and hopefully to be blocked from editing, and I hope there is some answer to protect my user page and any files to not come into conflict with many IP users who have probably do have a confirmed account, although won't say it, if not thanks anyway.--GoShow (............................) 21:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war

Hello GoShow. When I was reverting some vandalism I checked the other contributions of 2.29.139.189 and noticed his sole purpose seems to be to disrupt you. He has only made 11 edits, of which were 10 edits reverting you (vandalizing an article again). I've re-reverted the articles so they are okay again, but thought I'd warn you as well. EmilTyf (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving me--GoShow (............................) 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Why the revert?

Hello GoShow, Why were my changes to the page of Mikhail Barshchevsky were considered as an act of vandalism or didn't appear constructive? All of the information was important (one of the most popular Russian TV games and membership in Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is a great honour). Am I wrong? Thanks,Tatacolt

  • If you hadn't deleted the He from the "was" in the beginning of the sentence shown here it wouldn't become vandalism.--GoShow (............................) 16:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh no, that is entirely wrong. That edit was in no way vandalism: it was a good-faith effort to improve the article by adding facts to it. It was unverified and not well-written, but that doesn't make it vandalism. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleting He from a complete sentence is a good revert faith edit sounds like anarchy, know Wikipedia is full of anarchy anyway.--GoShow (............................) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I am an administrator and I am telling you that you are wrong--in other words, it's not an anarchy because there are people in charge. That was not vandalism, and if you continue to make such incorrect claims I will remove the rollback right from your account. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason to delete a He out of a complete sentence and to believe it was a good revert edit, I know the user made a mistake, however, putting useful information without a source is a good revert faith edit.--GoShow (............................) 16:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. That's grammar, at best, and your own grammar is far from flawless. They added information; they tried. A "good revert faith edit", I don't know what that is. Now, I looked through your recent slew of edits and they all seem to be OK, so I'm willing to chalk this down to user error and not pull your rollback (BTW, Kudpung would agree with rollback removal; I asked him), but you have to be more careful. A mistake is, by definition, not vandalism. I hope that's clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no worries.

P.S. I have this new report about Felix Baumgartner was on the section of WP:RSN about Felix Baumgartner may or may not dive in and I am hoping to add the report on 2012 archives, but it may become sensationalism or may become a world record in time, but I am hoping the efforts in for the additional information may be suitable in some way possible if it happens.--GoShow (............................) 17:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb I use when determining good vs bad faith: If there's ever any doubt about the "faith", then it's good faith until proven otherwise.
A second rule: Never ascribe to malice what can just as easily have resulted from incompetence or carelessness, or in Wikipedia's case, ignorance of:
  • Our hundreds of policies, guidelines and style guideline; here's a brief "summary": List of policies and guidelines
  • Our arcane editing interface and markup language
Vandalism is always about bad faith, not competence. If it's not bad faith, it's not vandalism.
I've been an admin for about 5 years and these guidelines have proven themselves right 99.7% of the time. Any effort trying to figure out which odd edits might be in that other 0.3% was never worth the effort or disruption.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'am, I read your message and clearly understandble and gladly respectfully to you ma'am, I understood the guidelines, and yes it was just a mistake from the IP, possibly the user might have edited back on the part He, or I might have put it back on to complete the sentence without using STiki, other than the situation ma'am no problem, and keep on the counter-vandalism ma'am.--GoShow (............................) 19:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, I can see there are issues about Millennial Generation and the so-called Millennial Generations of Generation X, Y, and Z. I would hope to explain some psuedoscience about the articles of these Generation X, Y, Z would be far fetched to reliable opinions instead of information pertaining to the actual example, in case it may be articles for deletion, since it is guess the outcomes of generations and their traits as comparing to someones future and genetic traits.--GoShow (............................) 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources in the astrology field

Alrighty then, thanks, I was just about to say this was noted on the WP:Help desk on section Astrology, and Marketdiamond reported some possible way to help out for qualifiations for mythology and folklore for Greek and Chinese heritage information, but you already, unless you change your suggestions for qualifications on mythology to keep those sections for mythological purpose, otherwise, thank you enough anyway for removing the unnecessary information.--GoShow (............................) 18:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSNFelix Baumgartner

@ Itsmejudith Thanks for your thoughts on the subject on WP:RSN. I did meant other sources such as a Daily Newspaper, or a book of Records, until the day comes.--GoShow (............................) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Please post again if you need more opinions on sources if the skydive is rescheduled. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Thanks

I'm most embarrassed that I forgot to thank you immediately for that barnstar :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Teahouse?

Hey, GoShow, just wondering: did you mean to post this to the Teahouse questions page? I don't see any question in there, and it looks kinda non-sequtur, so... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I thought it had contributed it, otherwise thanks.--GoShow (............................) 15:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

What's the problem ?

What's the problem? 124.253.56.123 (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinionated phrase of talk on Lajja has been reverted.--GoShow (............................) 17:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism or test?

Probably neither. Changing from American to UK spelling, as was done here, isn't vandalism, but most likely a misguided good-faith edit by a user unfamiliar with any other spelling variants than those of his/her own culture. Your revert was correct per WP:ENGVAR, but you shouldn't speak to newbies as if they were vandals. They're sensitive! Instead, please explain the problem in your edit summary (for instance, with a link to WP:ENGVAR). You, and not STiki, are responsible for what the edit summary says. Regards, Bishonen | talk 00:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I know the way of spelling of defense to defence, although, the we usually use the word defense mostly, but thanks for bringing it up!--GoShow (............................) 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Mahdi

Whilst this revert was undoubtedly correct I think the edit summary of vandalism wasn't. I don't know how STiki works so it may be a problem with that. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Congratulations from STiki!

The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, GoShow! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me was well! TheStrikeΣagle 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EFT

Why have you taken down the research from credible sources and kept your quotes of a review that offers nothing but negative opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.87 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I did not edit or take down your research; the person was User Yobol, an example here , whom you were edit warring on the article please check from your own contributions.GoShow (............................)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Joakim Nätterqvist

Hello, I did remove the scentence about Joakim Nätterquist starring as Achilles in Revenge of the Titans, becaus the source link indicates no such thing. The link is an interview with him, but it is mainly about fasion and no what so ever referance to Achilles or Revenge of the Titans. http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2Fpa-stan%2Fshopping%2Fjoakim-natterqvist-klader-som-konst%2F 24.56.113.200

(talk) 16:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for doing it and pointing it out.--GoShow (............................) 19:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoShow

Hello. Can you please comment on the above SPI that was opened? Thanks. --Rschen7754 06:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I use this to test edit counter vandalism, unit but this was the last one already, but this is the only honest user account I have at least two Checkmeleon and Goblins, respectivley are mine, as well as CVU and all the user for a little while but that was it, the rest I seriously don't know who they are from. I did have one along time ago back in 2005, but I turned that down, because I didn't want that user name, however I do live in a College area campus where they share at least two computers in a lobby, which they do use Wikipedia as a source. I know there were IPs which have stalked me on my user page and have vandalized Wikipedia around the campus address. I have been editing respectively, I wish still want edit as many other users try to help with additonal accounts but also test, I know my actions, and my mistakes counter testing, however I am trying to help on Wikipedia as you might see, and I hope to still keep this account to further help edit and counter vandalism.--GoShow (............................) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been using these alternate accounts always to counter vandalism. Sometimes you just create a new one when you do a new project. [7] This is stupid and dangerous. You're lucky not to have been indef blocked. Quit trying to run your own "stings" as a "private citizen" and you won't be mistaken for a common criminal. This is a too-common defense of real criminals, you know. Just stop this or risk being booted off for WP:STUPIDITY. SBHarris 18:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight for abusing multiple accounts, as  Confirmed by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoShow. The checkuser also confirmed that the underlying IP was not a college IP as you claimed. Because this is the first time, this is a temporary block, but if this happens in the future, it will be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GoShow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a college IP and yes multiple users have been used the labs multiple times, but remember there are confirmed users who do use multiple accounts some for the common good, some for test edit to vandalize, but if you wish to block this edit do so, as I did have a former adminship from over the last 8 years, while moving to another state, however I do respect for Reaper Eternal and SB Harris whom I have seen over the last five years, respectively admired by the user's performance for pointing it out as it had happened, but as of this moment this account will be finished, I do have older accounts such as User: NaiPiak and must go to my orignal account, there are administrative and confirmed users which have multiple accounts in any occasion though I will not say, but I respect the test vandalism used in this function, this will be the last edit for this account and wish the best for editing.

Decline reason:

I'm declining for three reasons. First, your story about being on a college IP seems to be false based on technical evidence. Second, you admitted to at least a few sockpuppets. And finally, you're saying you won't use this account anymore anyway, so there's no point in unblocking you. Just an FYI, if your intention is to edit using yet another account, think again, as you can see we've been able to catch you at it. -- Atama頭 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Um, the above appears to use English words, but I cannot parse it in such a way as to actually determine the overall meaning...it appears to say that you're not asking for unblock? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the IP you are editing from does not appear to be a college IP at all. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have decided to go ahead and make another sock, Going To The Outer Zones (talk · contribs), I have upped your block to indefinite. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoShow/Archive_1&oldid=1142537235"