User talk:GcSwRhIc

Request to move article Jonathan Plowman Jr. incomplete

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

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

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

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

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

Futa Helu

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

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

Tim Robbins's Birth Year

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

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

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

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

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

Cleland Boyd McAfee

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

Rollback or Reviewer Permissions

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

Barnstar award

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

168.215.131.150

Greets:

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

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

Thanks...

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

Double warnings?

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

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

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

Iona Skye

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

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

David Fairchild

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

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

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

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

User:141.70.82.221 - Saraikistan Movement

Hi GcSwRhIc,

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

March 10, 2011

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

March 15 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced

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

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

Kris Humphries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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