User talk:Gscshoyru

Welcome

Hello Gscshoyru and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Re. User:Jimbo Wales

Every edit that isn't a reversion isn't vandalism. Mind explaining how my edits were? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)}

Thanks. Do check next time, though. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Thanks for catching that; I didn't realise that there was any vandalism until I checked my watchlist and saw that you'd fixed it. Nyttend 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

re: hidden palms

First off, don't threaten me. Secondly, I have never been warned. Thirdly, I didn't "vandalise" any page.MMAfan2007 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing above your "warning block" is not a warning. It was about a petition that I found. Until an ADMINISTRATOR with full proof of status can tell me that I am not allowed to insert a section about fan support then I will continue to do so.MMAfan2007 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. I added a petition the first time, but not the second. Like I said, until an ADMINISTRATOR with full proof of status can tell me that I am not allowed to insert a section about fan support and where to write a complaint then I will continue to INFORM those. MMAfan2007 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just YOUR opinion. I don't see an administrator telling me this isn't allowed. MMAfan2007 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm in what was added though. It is simply informing fans that continue to support the show as to where they can complain. MMAfan2007 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=128641 and http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=128545 and http://lounge.cwtv.com/showthread.php?t=127820 are good sources enough. MMAfan2007 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know newspaper articles were more reliable than the fans' mouths themselves. Hmm. MMAfan2007 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that primary sources aren't enough? I don't quite understand. MMAfan2007 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: José Calderón

Thanks for the message, but I didn't actually delete any content, I simply REDIRECTED it so that both José Calderóns (the musician and the basketball player) would appear when someone searched the name. I will create the dis ambiguity page again, if you have a better solution please let me know or simply go ahead and edit it. This is not the first time that this happened, and all I've done is provide wikipedia users with both entries, and when people delete the dis ambiguity page is when the encyclopedia's content gets lost (not deleted, since it is still available, but the article becomes virtually unsearchable). mikeysarian 15:09, 5 July 2007 (EST)

Cheers

Thanks for the talk page revert.Dust Filter 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User User:Tjnewell

I don't know who to complain to about this so I figure that as you reported him the last time. He keeps deleting comments on my user area as well as his, and I saw him editing the Wiki page with an abusive song about me. (Yesterday ~1.40 UTC) Please help! Jamee999 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is Tjnewell. I offer my full aplogy to Mr. Jameee. I thought he would take it has a joke and he obviously has not . Itherfore aplogise. I delated his talk pages beacuse I felt guilty. I apoliges and hope you will not block me and I wil lget back to my antivandal hunt on the aeroplane sites. Sorry Tjnewell 09:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Please don't do that, it's unnecessary. After all, our average editor doesn't know what AIV is. Besides, it goes against the spirit of WP:DENY and WP:DIV. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's OK :) If other editors are doing it, they shouldn't be! Anyway, keep up the good work :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro hoax

I don't know if I am going about this right, but please help me fix the Barbaro hoax. Please advise thank you"BFR"

Barton Town Old Boys F.C.

stop vandalisng the article fool.-- SalvoCalcio 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that was my mistake... sorry, I misunderstood what you were doing. Gscshoyru 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

Sorry about that, it was an honest mistake because I was just trying to add the info about the new record-high that it set, but I edited it properly now. Rodrigue 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep no problem. You're forgiven. ;) Gscshoyru 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

About your revert to Talk:Primary boycott ... you realize that the bot went and tagged every article that coin image as part of the stub template? Also, someone already fixed FU Rationale on the coins? I wouldn't be so quick to call someone a vandal. --evrik ^(talk) 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just got your message. No problem. --evrik ^(talk) 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Help! Have I done the right thing

Sir, you seem to be an experinced wikipedian. I came accros an inapproprite message on the Talk:Orlando International Airport page. Have I dealt with this in the right way ( I have also left a message on the guys talk page) Tjnewell 10:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

wtf

I didnt vandalise. Say sorry for excusing me of stuff I didnt do. --Jaasmeimer Eoosteraatz 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe replacing page content with "FUCKING JERK" as shown here: [1] counts as vandalism. Gscshoyru 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

nope that wasnt me --Jaasmeimer Eoosteraatz 15:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... then either someone else logged into your account or you're lying, because the change is marked as made by you. Gscshoyru 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you're enthusiastic in what you do, but don't revert my changes without a legitimate reason, it is NOT vandalism. I stated what I intended to do,EVERY SINGLE CHANGE on the talk page of the article before I did it. Im going to revert it back to how it was one more time, If you change it again I won't be the one that's vandalizing the article. Anon 003 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize you posted what you were going to do on the talk page. However, a consensus had not been reached, and since it was reverted, you should probably reach a consensus before changing it again. However, I know little about the subject, so I'll let someone else who knows more revert it and discuss it instead. P.S. be careful of the three revert rule... you're very close to violating it. Gscshoyru 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stay out of my business

OOOhhhh!!!! you're scaring me. Help me Dave!!!!--JJonz 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For that small revert at Steel's page, that was my mistake. --No.13 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just one of the many mistakes you have done in this days.... Each one can judge on his own!--Giovanni Giove 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: July 2007

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User:Duff, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Gscshoyru 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Personal attack"? It's a statement of fact, nothing more. If you're going to go after someone for personal attacks, how about those who support banning him in the first place? – Gurch 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I saw your latest comment on Gurch´s talk page; and I think that you may wish to take a look here; Gurch did the same with another user which was not banned. ♠TomasBat 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I´m not very sure on what to do right now. Gurch´s addition of block templates to users who were not blocked was discussed here, and the result was not blocking him, at that time. ♠TomasBat 16:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is banned. Please see their most recent contributions, for example here – Gurch 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see what you're doing. You're pointing out a flaw in the way Wikipedia and another program interact, in a way that has effectively blocked Duff, though his username itself is not blocked. I apologize for jumping to conclusions, though you must admit from my standpoint it was pretty damning... and I still think there should be a better way to protest this. But I apologize for being so harsh. Gscshoyru 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a flaw in the way Wikipedia interacts with anything. There are no technical issues here. The problem is an idiotic policy that was not decided on by the community and which goes completely against Wikipedia's philosophy of openness and pseudonymity. There are better ways to protest it, but none of those work either. As a result, constructive contributors are being banned, not to mention checkusered in violation of the privacy policy. This "policy" prohibits 20% of the world's population from editing the "enyclopedia that anyone can edit". The excuses given are that it cuts down on vandalism (so what? schools vandalize for more, but we only block anonymous users in such cases) and that there is a chance people might use it to have multiple administrator accounts at once (despite repeated reiteration of this "problem", there is absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened or is likely to happen, and with or without this "policy" there's nothing to stop it happening anyway).

"The free enyclopedia that anyone can edit" is more "the free encyclopedia that you can edit if SlimVirgin approves of it". Sad. – Gurch 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Something to remember is that there's a difference between banning and blocking.
Some editors really are effectively banned, solely for desiring privacy. While although adding the templates are obvious wp:points, they certainly aren't malicious, and are, rather, a way to force people to accept that editors are becoming victims of policy. It's not something I'd personally prefer to do, if only because it uses the same template as a 'real ban/block', but is still a genuine attempt to improve the project by protecting editors.
(I know you didn't ask, but just in case you don't see why hiding IP's matters...) I primarily edit at school, in my office. Anyone with checkuser (or who can get an ip from a checkuser), and nslookup could very easily determine not only my school, but the precise office I edit from. It would then be a trivial matter to learn my personal identity (just ask the secretary). The other two IPs I edit from would detail my travels across the border (US/Canada), and would essentially allow a person to know precisely who I was, where I go, what I do for a 'living'... pretty much far more information than the average person wants available. If I had, for example, a crazy ex-wife or something, then she could very easily use my IP to track me down. These are serious concerns, and anonymous editing isn't malicious in and of itself. Banning people for wanting to protect themselves may be the only option, but it should be a public and transparent option. Wanting people to see these victims of policy certainly shouldn't be sufficient reason to block gurch.
(Incidentally, so you don't think I'm trying to justify my own use of proxies or something: I don't use them. Anybody could find out a great amount of information on me, and even track me down, but I'm not personally paranoid enough to care about that. However, several people really do have to worry about that sort of thing, whether it be ex-spouses, stalkers, etc., and they shouldn't have to choose between safety and being able to participate in projects) Bladestorm 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, policy rather than techincal issue... that's what I meant. 20% of the world? Ew...

Yeah... I understand now. I totally misunderstood what the intention was of the edits. I apologize for well... not assuming good faith. Which I perhaps should have. I'm not going to take sides on this issue, because I don't know enough as of yet, but it's a viable issue and Gurch's edits were a form of protest, so to speak. It would be good if there was a way to have both anonymity and the ability to block ip vandals, but this seems to be difficult, if not impossible. So no hard feelings, right? Gscshoyru 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not difficult. Tor IPs can be blocked anonymous-only, with account creation disabled, just like any other IPs. No anonymous vandalism would be possible; potential vandals would have to create an account elsewhere first, which we would then block directly. We've been doing this for years with school IP ranges and it works perfectly. Yet the FUD over "anonymity" and also "admin sockpuppets" (again, something for which there is no evidence, at all, of even a single isolated incident, let alone a persistent problem) appears to be working – Gurch 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I still don't think it's an entirely good method of protesting. :) Anyways, there is a possible solution, though I don't know how likely it is to be adopted. Admins can continue editing even if their IPs are blocked. I can't remember precisely how they explained it, but they're basically ipblock-exempt. At least one user has applied for adminship primarily to get that exemption, but that doesn't tend to make as strong (or at least, as focused) of an RfA. The solution would be to allow people to apply for ipblock exemptions-just a single bit, much like the sysop bit. Anyone who wants one can get one, but first vandalism and yer out. Wouldn't take long to weed out who's abusing them, and who isn't. Bladestorm 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean a category, ... like ip-blockless, in addition to admin? That'd work perfectly. Why don't we implement it? Gscshoyru 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You really think we didn't already think of that? Nope, no chance. As a result of this, existing administrators can edit via open proxies in violation of policy whenever they like, with no consequences – but nobody else can – Gurch 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok... that's just stupid. Why not? What was their reasoning? Users wouldn't gain any additional powers, just the ability to edit. They'd need usernames to do so, so they'd be traceable. What more do you need? Gscshoyru 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't state, with certainty, the reason, but I have a guess: Lack of organization on behalf of people who want to allow this. Personally, I am intensely in favour of it, but... I haven't done anything about it. I wouldn't know where. Or how. Bladestorm 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You could always post a message on Jimbo Wales' talk page... if he doesn't already know about it. That'll get attention to it. Gscshoyru 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He is already aware of – and opposed to – this policy:

I do not know if I have changed my mind from this time. But I don't think so. I still support generally blocking anonymous proxies, but I support using soft blocks rather than hard blocks.--Jimbo Wales 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite "not changing his mind", he disagrees with the policy in its current form. When he made that February 2004 mailing list post, it was not possible to "soft block" IP addresses (block only unregistered users). Now that it is, he, like most of us, would like to see Tor "soft blocked" – Gurch 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What do I do to complain about wikipedia editor Gregalton´s very detrimental attitude?

To all editors:

Wikipedia editor Gregalton´s attitude and behaviour is very detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia.

It can be verified quiet easisly in the history section of the Historical Cost article that he does not allow people eminently more qualified than him to add to the article. He reverts their entries and then studies the references and summarises the entries with his own often incorrect entries. He thus proclaims that he is the final referee and contributor to this article. Anyone can verify this in the history file.

He does not come to a concensus in the discussion page. He makes arbitrary decisions.

I propose that Gregalton be banned as a Wikipedia editor for some time till he changes his very detrimental attitude.

Can anyone advise me how I go about to get this done? I would appreciate that. It is very easy to prove from the history file what I am saying.

In the case of the Historical Cost article I can prove this in the history file. The proofs and time line are all there on the history file. Very easy to prove.

D´Artgnan 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. It is much appreciated. Keep up the good work! :-) Lradrama 11:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yes they can do some daft things that make you smile those vandals don't they? Did you recieve the barnstar like that, or how I'd sent it? I bet you had a shock if it were the former... ;-) Lradrama 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to fix an article, being told I'm vandalising

Why are you accusing me of vandalism on the St Laurence School page? I'm the one reversing the vandalism that has already been carried out on the page. It's true I may have removed 90% of the text but this was only talking about fictitious organisations and personal comments being made about the teachers. What's more, any information about the school has been lifted verbatim from the school prospectus. I'm trying to clean the page up and make it into a proper article here. SJH 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look at your changes... oops. I was completely wrong. The content you removed was pretty POV'd, and sourceless. Sorry... I see a lot of deleted content, with no immediately identifiable reason and no reason in the edit summary, and I revert, and go on to find the next vandal. If you put an edit summary in, this sort of misunderstanding is much less likely to happen. But, I shouldn't have reverted your changes, it seems, and I apologize. Thanks for pointing that out. Gscshoyru 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Perhaps I should have used an edit summary - I'll make sure I do this in the future :-) SJH 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

user:68.92.55.94

is a sock of Mariam83 (talk · contribs). She is on a spree and any similar vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV immediately. See also WP:ANI#Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page by User talk:164.156.231.55 twice and for updating the vandalism count. Angel Of Sadness 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Your 3RR report was not complete and therefore may be ignored by the reviewing admins. Please consider going back and finishing the report. A set of instructions are included at the bottom of the WP:AN3 page. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Live Earth

i was simply CORRECTING the line "East Rutherford near New York" to "East Rutherford in New Jersey". Nothing wrong with my corrrection.

Take a look at the diff, here: [2]. You deleted content. However... there is some bug that erases lines in some browser, I think... though I'm not sure which, so it may not have been your fault. Gscshoyru 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: July 2007 - Ha Ha

Sorry about that. A kid in the room got hold of my keyboard for a moment. I guess I'll have to log out every time I leave the laptop even momentarily now ... Jmath666 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your anti vandal diligence during the last days and the revert on my userpage. Oxymoron83 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

International Churches of Christ

Gscshoyru - please discontinue your arbitrary reverting of my edits. You are merely keeping an article from being factual and historically accurate for some reason.

If your edits were in good faith, I'm sorry... but you deleted swaths of information without discussion on the talk page or explaining in your edit summary... and such edits are considered vandalism. I gave you warning, but you didn't listen, and continued deleting things. When you get unblocked, in 24 hours, you can discuss the changes you wish to make on the talk page there, and come to a consensus. Gscshoyru 02:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War?

May I remind you that you also are guilty of the 3 revert rule as well in your efforts to undo my edits. You can also be blocked for this as well. --CrystalB4 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)