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 216.95.17.228 (talk) at 00:13, 12 October 2007 (→‎Opel). 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:

Good luck!

smile

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.

Reverting non-vandalism

Hey, just wanted to point out to you that your recent edit to Shadow-X reverted a positive contribution to that page. I realize it was an easy mistake to make, because that editor had been making a bunch of edits that were vandalism, but I'm just letting you know so that you are more careful in the future. That editor was immature, but you might want to check out what he posted in his talk page about your revert. Have a good day!!! 144.92.58.224 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity of your ip addresses leads me to believe you're probably the same person... but so far I have no proof and won't act on it. And whether or not you are -- if there's a user who's vandalizing, and has done so as a blocked sock, they have no right to edit wikipedia and every edit they make is supposed to be reverted. Besides -- if they're making tons of vandalism edits, how am I supposed to know whether or not their edit was good, especially to a topic I know nothing about? Sometimes being heavy-handed for speed reasons is better than studying every edit a user makes carefully -- otherwise, we'd be slowed down. There's no way we can deal with this sort of thing effectively, otherwise, and the number of useful edits a vandal makes are usually none. I agree with you in principle -- but in practice, there's nothing else we can do. Gscshoyru 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The similarity of your ip addresses leads me to believe you're probably the same person... but so far I have no proof and won't act on it." That's kind of insulting. Similarity of IP address means nothing. Maybe stop looking for excuses and actually heed advice when given. I was trying to be nice/positive, and I don't appreciate your mean response. 144.92.58.224 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a little odd that you both have the same first 16 bits -- there's a very small chance of that -- and the fact that you're also somehow aware of this is also a bit damning. But that's hardly evidence to convict you of anything, and I said as such. I was just mentioning how I felt. And in any case, I explained my reasoning, whether you are the same person or not. If you're still the same user "playing games" as the blocking admin put it, then my response is adequate. And if not, then I apologize for offending, and accusing, but I have explained my reasoning for why I did what I did, and why there's not much else that I can do. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the only part of my response that was offending was the first line. The rest should have been fine. If not, by all means tell me. Gscshoyru 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the first part was the only offensive part. But I think you missed the main point of my response. I wasn't trying to point out a fault in you or anything, I was just trying to give a helpful suggestion to be more careful in reverting edits. And yes, I do agree that it is a weird coincidence that we have similar IP addresses (something I was unaware of until you pointed it out), and it's not hard to see what he did. I noticed his vandalism on a page (when checking the page history) and I was curious to see if he had any vandalism that was not fixed, and that lead me to your 'correction' of his positive contribution and to his talk page. Sorry if I gave you the wrong idea or anything; I was just trying to offer some positive advice for the future. 144.92.58.224 14:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok then. I understood the point -- I was just explaining why I really have no alternative to doing what I do, the way I do it. There's no speedy way to filter the good from the bad like that -- and if the user is operating like that, then playing games like that is just nasty. So thanks for your suggestion -- but I really cannot act on it. You picked it up anyway, you fixed it. Odd that the blocking admin didn't fix it. And sorry for accusing you, I guess. Gscshoyru 15:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. Sorry that I came down a bit hard on you as well. 144.92.58.224 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Cell and Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Edits

Thank you for reverting my blunder in adding a NEW and legitimate reference to recent fuel cell news to the Fuel Cell references. I spent an hour trying to figure out how to add a reference correctly, and obviously failed.

However, the reference is still valid, and important, so when I do figure out how to do it right, please don't revert it.

In regards to your reversion of the External Reference on the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell that I added correctly, that was a valid, and extremely useful reference to the predominant source of hydrocarbon membranes. Hydrocarbon membranes are supplanting Nafion for DMFCs, and they are totally under-represented in this Wiki article. I may fix that some day soon, but in the mean time, Wiki users deserve to be pointed at this reference, as much as the other external references in the list.

TIA. HighConcept 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. It looks very, very much to be advertising for a specific company, which is a violation of policy. WP:LINKSPAM explains it best. Please don't add it. See WP:V and WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source... and WP:CITE for how to cite things, while you're at it. If you have reliable sources, then you can add content, citing those sources. Otherwise, please don't add links to commercial sites in a general topic article. Gscshoyru 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's be consistent. In the DMFC article, remove the two external links "Startup taking big steps to launching this technology" which goes directly to a manufacturer's site, and "World's smallest DMFC", which goes to Toshiba. Let's not have selective enforcement.
In regards to the citation I tried to add to the fuel cell article, the story ran in at least a half-dozen publications online. I had a choice of several links to use, and decided, based upon similar examples in that same long list of citations where the ORIGINAL source document (i.e., Press Release) was cited several times, to chose the link that had the least probability of going dead -- that of the original release. Again, the very Wiki I was editing provided a precedent for what I was doing.
Finally, I understand the issues about "advertising" for a specific company. But the line gets fuzzy on the bleeding edge of technology, where there might only be one company that is even referenceable, and is, in fact, the center of competence (and information) for that entire field or segment. What do you do? Pretend they don't exist, and deny users the information they could learn from the technical material provided by that company? Thanks. HighConcept 21:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a newspaper article, then cite the newspaper article. Not the original source. Secondary sources are much more reliable than primary sources, so secondary sources are what we use -- see WP:RS. And as for selective enforcement -- please, remove the links -- they don't belong, for the same reason yours does not. And if there's a company on the "bleeding edge" then there should be some sort of secondary source about this -- a newspaper article or something -- that you can reference. Online articles usually have links to the company, so the reader can easily make their way to the page. But we don't usually directly link to a company, when the article is about a general topic. Or shouldn't anyway -- this rule isn't well enforced, as you have seen with the other links on the page. Be my guest and remove them -- and when adding information from the news, cite the newspaper article. Ok? Gscshoyru 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z transform

This post is in regards to the edit in the Z transform page deletion that was reverted, that was an incorrect metaphor, and since it is nonsense, and you do not know what a Z transform is, it should be deleted. So I will delete again, and you will not revert it. Thank you for your time, which I know is valuable because you are spending a Friday morning editing wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbehrns (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I screwed up. Your first edit made me think badly of you, and when your second edit removed content without explaining why, I assumed you were just doing the same sort of thing again. Sorry. I need to assume a little more good faith. You may want to read WP:CIVIL, by the way. Gscshoyru 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishrat-ul-Ibad Khan

I have semi-protected the page for a month. Usually I wouldn't do this with such a level of vandalism, but as it's the same user IP-hopping, I've no problem with it. ELIMINATORJR 15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back to scientific racism

I have the feeling it is going to need more moderation. I have added a request for comments to the talk section to try to develop consesus on whether or not ancient authors should be included as "early examples of scientific racism," or if they are simply early examples of ethnocentrism as I believe, and do not belong on the page, sourced or not.

Even if consensus is built to determine that ancient authors belong listed here, there are certain outrageous statements being made which must remain deleted. One in particular, which you restored a few days ago, actually states that:

"Europeans thus have by nature a strong, courageous character and "endurance in body and soul" due to living in rigorous, cold, wintry climates. This theory is known nowadays in genetics, race-realist and anthropological circles as the "cold winter theory of intelligence"

This offensive, absolutely false pseudo-science has no place in the article. Brando130 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because the information was cited -- but another look at the wording shows that the information is improperly presented. It's a quote, or a belief of someone, but it is not really presented that way -- and the overall tone of the segment you removed is written slightly like an essay, not an encyclopedic article -- so in other words, this section probably needs to be re-written, not necessarily just removed. Your major problem is probably in the way it is presented -- in that that specific statement you mention is not exactly presented as a someone else's views, as it should be. Also, I'm not sure about whether or not the "ethnocentrism" is that or what. However, the content you added in place of it is uncited... I'm not entirely sure how to resolve this, but neither revision is proper. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll keep an eye on this and comment, if necessary, as things transpire. Gscshoyru 17:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well I can see now that my reversion may sit in the middle of a dispute between users who are hotly contesting each others edits across multiple articles. I would like to stay mostly clear of that, still, as to the issue of science, one can not simply grab their Erich von Däniken book and start seriously disrupting Egyptology articles on Wikipedia, saying that "scientists" believe that this early culture was influenced by people from other planets. This will be reverted because a broad consensus of published scientists reject it. Likewise, you can't just grab your Julius Evola book and disrupt science articles and say "so this is known in anthropological circles," that this or that ethnic group is stronger, or smarter, or better etc. Broad consensus in published anthropology rejects ethnocentrism. (just one quick citation Haviland, William A. "Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge" (2005, Wadsworth ISBN 0-534-62497-9)
Thanks again for your attention. (I restored some sourced material.) Brando130 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on the Erotica article. 151.197.111.178 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring. The content is not notable. I'm about to comment on the talk page as well, but consensus is against you. The fact that it may be notable one day doesn't mean it will be notable now. Gscshoyru 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I can change my IP 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. Keep in mind the article will be semi-protected if you use multiple ip's and even though you may be editing from another ip, your edits still violate the 3RR. Gscshoyru 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protection requests

Done. Academic Challenger 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I don't know why some people seem to think things like 1/0 is a number... but they do. Thanks for dealing with this. Gscshoyru 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chill out

hey man i was targeting nobody in particular if anybody has a problem with me my email is on my profile just drop me a line or get very nasty i have a vampirefreaks.com morbid_angel66623 drop me a line there

Hail Satan 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's called "defamation not specifically directed." You were attacking a type of people in general, which is against policy just as personal attacks are. Please don't, and you may want to read WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chill out

ahh, yes quite i understand now thank you


Hail Satan 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Revert

Thanks for the revert on my bots reports page! :) Lloydpick 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, not a problem! Gscshoyru 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Little Church article

I removed the text per WP:V and WP:BLP as there was no sourcing for this. IMO, the editor should stay blocked though until they retract that legal threat.--Isotope23 talk 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reason for your removal makes sense. And I'm not entirely sure what the policy on legal threats is, but I'm pretty sure he should be blocked for at least some duration for them -- especially since I warned him about it. Thanks for letting me know what you're doing. Gscshoyru 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That account is blocked indefinitely until they rescind the legal threat. While they content wasn't verifiable from what I could see, they have no reason to edit here if they are intent on pursuing a legal remedy.--Isotope23 talk 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that. Thanks for following up and getting him indef blocked. Gscshoyru 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal reference

"When you're done dealing with another vandal's piece of fun"...

I hope that you are not referring to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I wasn't. I was talking about the Grawp-sock vandal, actually. He was reverting the havok the sock had wreaked, which was quite a bit. I needed an admin, saw he was around, and said, when you're done dealing with that, could you deal with this? I wasn't talking about you -- why would I be? Gscshoyru 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have been mistaken. You see my changes have erroneously been referred to as vandalism so I just assumed that was the case. I apologize for the misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M5891 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, both today, and the last vandalism a couple of weeks ago, it seems i have a guardian angel watching over me(or a least my user page haha). I'm still trying to work out how i upset today's since that was their only edit, very odd. Anyway, cheers --Jac16888 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, not a problem. The ip is probably someone you pissed off before, and his ip changed, or the ip of a user that you pissed off. Or something. Gscshoyru 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

An emergency shut-off switch is on my talk page in the event there is a problem with this bot. --TakwerbotX 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. You're a human -- not a bot. Please stop vandalizing or you will be blocked. Gscshoyru 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page reverting

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) I have reported the human to the admins. Cheers! Domthedude001 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, no problem. He was already blocked when you reported him, though -- not that it matters. Confused me too, but something didn't smell right, so when I looked at some of what he did, I realized his purpose. Gscshoyru 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again :) -Domthedude001 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say

Thank you so much for always having my "back" so to speak, for keeping an eye on my talk page when I'm not around. Honestly, I appreciate it so much, and you're just such an awesome editor and vandal fighter, I can't count how many times you've "beaten me" to the revert, lol. I just want you to know how much you are appreciated, and how much good you do. You rock! Ariel♥Gold 21:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No problem. Ignoring of course the giant mistake I made just now, I'm usually pretty good at it. I watch my watchlist somewhat more often than the recent changes, so I tend to pick up on vandalized user-pages a bit more often than most. Thanks for the complements! Gscshoyru 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talk page so you don't have to copy/paste, lol. Ariel♥Gold 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Opel

Okay man, in the disscussion, why do you keep undoing it? It's not vandalism. Please respond, bitch.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gscshoyru&oldid=163933521"