User talk:Gscshoyru/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

A newbie

Hey Gscshoyru, I have a small concern. You know I admire your antivandal work and appreciate all you do. But I noticed something and I thought I'd let you know about it because I appreciate when people come to me with stuff. You reverted this and left a level three warning - I think it was a newbie mistake, and it hurt the new user's feelings that you reacted sternly. Maybe next time leave them a personal note explaining where to leave messages? You probably just saw that they were blanking the user's page and didn't notice the content of the message, totally understandable for vandal fighting, so definitely no big deal. But I thought I'd bring it up, since they brought it up to me. Thanks again for your hard work! Peace, delldot talk 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow... oops. That was a bit harsh, and wrongly placed, was it not? I screwed up; misread the situation by reading it too quickly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be more careful next time, it should not happen again. Gscshoyru (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that's what I thought, that it was just an accident. :) Thanks for being so receptive to my comments! Keep up your good work. Peace, delldot talk 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Re: About this edit...

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I discussed it with her personally. It's not a big deal - I had it under control. --Dan LeveilleTALK 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

I'm sorry to bother you, but I seem to have encountered another relentless recurrent vandal/deliberate liar in User:Darrell37, at Powers and abilities of the Hulk. Possibly User:JJonz again, given his use of multiple Ip numbers/sockpuppets to make the same completely made-up edits over and over, but it's harder to tell since he's taking care to keep quiet (maybe he noticed that reasonably observant people noticed matching similar writing styles, and thought patterns?) Help to care care of him for good would be very appreciated, if it's not too much of a bother.

Beyond this there is also some problems with User:Manssiere (and to a lesser extent User:TheBalance) who keeps edit-warring at Power Cosmic, Galactus and Odin (Marvel Comics) without making a case, to either, respectively, push wild speculation, extremely selective and loose-grounded hyperbole (while a horde of more reliable sources are ignored), alternately edit out explicit matter-of-fact references, and using an unbelievably snooty attitude rather than replying to the points I made at the Talk. I'm not sure what to do about him, as very taxing experience with extremely similar people here at Wikipedia has left my patience and civility at a low. I made a thorough efforts to outline major discrepancies at the Talk (which admittedly can tend to turn very dense when trying to openly discuss a horde of points at once), and initially hoped for a reasonable dialogue, but it has availed to nothing, and it seems utterly pointless to engage in a simultaneous edit-war shouting-match, which my interest/staying power for is very limited regarding compared to a personal pet-project/extremely POV point-pushing user. Big thanks for any help in the matter. Dave (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

No problem. The process is still new and under development, and I think 10 minutes is a bit silly for all but the stingiest perfectionist. Good luck and happy editing! --Merovingian (T, C) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war / 3 R rule on feminism and child support

Make your complaints to User:DanielEng, as this is entity (probably an enraged female) who is an admitted Marxist and objects to overt mentions of the connections between Marxism and Feminism. It is precisely to AVOID an edit war that I marked the page NPOV, which DanielEng has repeatedly removed (despite the fact that the talk page ALSO shows evidence of repeated concern that the page is VERY POV-slanted). Interesting how the SAME person is making accusations that all edits which aren't pro-feminist orthodoxy constitute vandalism. Akulkis (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest discussing your edits on the talk page... a number of your additions are unsourced paragraphs, and your additions also push a specific POV, whereas the current version is not POV'd. You're about to violate the 3RR, even if you aren't the ip as well, so reign yourself in and discuss this rather than attacking other editors, as you're doing right here. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Since this user seems to be on a personal attack war against me specifically tonight and has complained about me to about 6 different editors; I thought I'd jump in here. Several different editors, not just me, have reverted and left this user Level 1 notes on NPOV and unsourced edits on various contributions, which he responded to by vandalizing my UserPage and engaging in this campaign. I'm not sure why I'm the editor being targeted here (and the news that I'm a woman and a Marxist is a revelation to me, I will say...I wasn't either when I woke up this morning), but I do have an open ANI report on this. DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He's just attacking you 'cause you're the first person who got in his way. It happens. His points may be valid, but if he persists in this beligerent behavior, and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk, he'll be blocked for personal attacks and POV pushing. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. That's true, I did leave the first message on his page. The ironic thing is that the article he's griping about most isn't even one I have any editing history with at all; I just happened to see the changes he made after reverting something else of his. This is the first time I've run into a user behaving this way toward me (ie, with a strong personal grudge), but c'est la vie. Back to IP patrolling for me now. Thanks for the sound words here! Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
...really? The first time? How much vandal-patrolling do you do then? You're either lucky or haven't done much. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Luck, I guess. I've had a bunch of people leave me silly "hey, you really suck" type notes on my Talk Page and such when they've been angry about reverts, but they usually vent and then go away. I can't say I've ever run into anyone that's gone on this type of full-out campaign before. DanielEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an extremely long edit history, both under my login name, and under my IP address (because the damn system keeps doing silent log-outs) which EASILY demonstrate that I don't go around vandalizing entries, and in fact, correct them when I see them. As for the edit to DanielEng's user page... what I inserted was the truth: DanielEng opposes violence ONLY towards women, but not men, and that *is* sexist, as it is blatantly anti-men. Typical Marxist though...freaks out whenever the truth is written or spoken. Akulkis (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit other people's user pages. He only listed that he is opposed to violence against women. He probably omitted against men because there's no userbox for that one. You believing that omission means he isn't against it is an example common fallacy... I forget what it's called though. So don't use it in arguments. And you persist in personal attacks, which you will be warned a final time for, now, before being blocked. Stop accusing him of being a Marxist, and accusing him of the supposed behavior of such, which is also stereotyping, and a bad one, since I've never heard it. Gscshoyru (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Special?

I noticed that you (repeatedly) tagged the article on the group Special Teamz for deletion, on the grounds that they didn't meet inclusion criteria. I disagree, seeing as how they've been signed with a label and have at least one member who's independently notable. If you still feel they don't meet inclusion criteria, could you explain your reasoning? Thank you. DS (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it 'cause it was deleted before, which usually means it was bad in the first place, and 'cause the user who put it back put it back with a not-so-nice comment, as he did this time too, (which was probably a bit of not assuming good faith on my part), and because at a cursory glance I agreed with the criteria... and I repeatedly tagged it 'cause I was reverting his removal, since you're not supposed to remove speedy tags from your own newly-created article. But, you are probably a much better judge than I, and that's why normal users don't have delete privileges, and leave the deleting up to the admin's discretion. So if you think it's notable, then it stays. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks on China

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou

Don't warn. Just block. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I can't block. And I have no history on this; or at least don't remember it. But, I'll report directly to AIV next time, or do a level-4 warn then report. Gscshoyru (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning! Please Read...

Sorry if this is the wrong place for such a post but I should tell you:

Watch out for this shady charecter who currently goes by the username of "Treelo". This person hasn't done anything that breaks any rules that I know of, HOWEVER, they don't like me because of an opinion I had on a powerpuff girls article. They corrected me the first time and I am greatful for that. Although, when I asked them why they did that they called me a crybaby to which I just kept going about my buisness while leaving a note that I was just going to write more.

Now Treelo watches out for any new information I write on the Powerpuff girls article and deletes it no matter how accurate the information is. Treelo deleted my entire three paragraph summeries just because Treelo saw fit that the episode didn't need that much emphasis. (It was a full detailed summery.)

It's become quite clear that Treelo does this all now from spite and not for the better of the article.

I'm asking you because I already got your attention before, well I've gotten better since then. Beyond being confronted on such shallow charges. Please watch out. ThegreatWakkorati (talk • contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The major problem with what you're doing -- unsourced additions. I reverted your latest addition to The Powerpuff Girls because it was unsourced, POV, and speculation -- please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:POV, and WP:NOT. Follow the policies, and your edits won't be reverted for violating them.
Also, I See no evidence whatsoever of spite or malice. I can only find a couple places where he reverted you, and all of them were because of policy, and he should have reverted you. I also can't see where he called you a crybaby; could you give me a diff of where he does, please.
Finally... stuff like [1] is incredibly nasty, and violates a number of polices including WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. And because he deleted a test article? Talk:Create a new Article is not a name for whatever you were trying to put on that page. He was doing nothing wrong in marking it for deletion.
So read the policies to see where you're going wrong, and that should improve the quality of your contributions, and they won't be reverted for violating policies. Also, when arguing with others, stay civil, 'cause personal attacks and threats like those will get you blocked or banned. Understand? Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing a page

I need to know why you are flagging my edits to an existing post. The "neutral point of view policy" explains nothing and neither do you. What gives? Not only that, how am I not being neutral? It's an energy drink for god's sake, not world peace negotiations. Clairewillis (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I screwed up. Though there's still some POV left, you're decreasing it, not increasing it, so I put your version back. I don't know how I mixed it up, I must have been a bit confused at the time. I'm sorry for that, thanks for making me take another look and realize that I screwed up.
Second of all, all articles in wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV, even those on energy drinks. But you improved the article in that respect, so thank you very much for fixing it up.
Sorry about the screw-up, and happy editing! Gscshoyru (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message

No problem. The checkuser has been done, and the underlying IP blocked. Not sure where I got "Whitematian Jr." from, though - I could have sworn I'd seen that as one of the usernames being used... GBT/C 08:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article on Death of one of the World's Greatest Hopes for a Brighter Future

Check out the article James R. Mullen, to read about the heroic deed that cost him his life.Igotnukes (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the talk page is not appropriate for an article -- please put articles you wish to create in the article-space, not the talk-space from now on. That is, articles should not start with "Talk:"
Second of all, your article was unsourced -- and having sources for info in articles is one of wikipedia's most important polices -- please source any articles you create, as per WP:V and WP:RS, and make sure your sources follow the guidelines there.
Because of these reasons, I've marked the page for speedy deletion -- so it will be deleted shortly if it has not already been. Next time you make an article, if you follow these guidelines, and the others listed at Wikipedia:Your_first_article, then your next article will most likely be a useful and welcomed addition to Wikipedia. Thanks, and happy editing. Gscshoyru (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

wtf? I did not have any sources. James R. Mullen was my friend. I was there when the whole thing happened.Igotnukes (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't. That's why the page was marked for deletion. Articles need sources, as per WP:V and WP:RS. And personal experience is not a valid source, either. See WP:RS#Wikipedia_does_not_publish_original_research. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's really hard to find a source when THERE ARE NO ARTICLES OR INFORMATION OF ANY TYPE IN EXISTNCE.Igotnukes (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then such an article should not exist. If you can't find sources for something, it's almost certainly not notable (see WP:N) enough to be made a wikipedia article. Sorry! Gscshoyru (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my user talk page. I guess another RFCU on JJonz will be in order to try and block yet another IP...! GBT/C 14:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City

An article that you have been involved in editing, Human trafficking in Angeles City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City. Thank you.Susanbryce (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Gscshoyru,

this is just to point out to you, that contrary to your warning delivered to me on 26 July 2007, I did NOT vandalise the Portugal page. In fact, I never had anything to do with it !

--Joe Gatt (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm? When did I give you a warning? I don't see it in your history. I could have given it to the IP you're using though... which back on the 26th of July was used by someone else. Gscshoyru (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


It is entirely possible that there have been other users with the same IP, as I sometimes do not work from a standalone computer, but from a network :)

--Joe Gatt (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)