Jump to content

User talk:GoShow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 218.108.168.130 (talk) at 02:04, 20 September 2012 (→EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article -- rape: nope.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


STiki Talkback

Hello, GoShow. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:STiki.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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]
"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]


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

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]
  • 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]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoShow&oldid=513625846"