South Philly (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
::::::I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|★]]</small> 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
::::::I'll be going slow on reverts. South Philly will probably bring in a third account when Student erotica hits 3, so no point in trying to time him out. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|★]]</small> 03:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/South_Philly|here]]. Tell me if I'm missing anything. [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::Yeah, maybe so. Though that would probably prove our point most certainly... in any case the report is posted. [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/South_Philly|here]]. Tell me if I'm missing anything. [[User:Gscshoyru|Gscshoyru]] 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== October 2007 == |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Erotica|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Erotica]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:South Philly|South Philly]] 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:24, 16 October 2007
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!
smile
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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Apology accepted. Sorry that I came down a bit hard on you as well. 144.92.58.224 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Semi-protection requests
Done. Academic Challenger 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
chill out
ahh, yes quite i understand now thank you
Hail Satan 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for Revert
Thanks for the revert on my bots reports page! :) Lloydpick 23:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- As always, not a problem! Gscshoyru 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah, I understand that. Thanks for following up and getting him indef blocked. Gscshoyru 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- Cute. You're a human -- not a bot. Please stop vandalizing or you will be blocked. Gscshoyru 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Thanks again :) -Domthedude001 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Okay sorry
Sorry ill be calm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.95.17.164 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
vandal
Wow, that would mean I was either exceptionally bendy, or very well-endowed. Either way, it's a theoretical compliment. Crazy kids... - CobaltBlueTony 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Thanks for catching that! - CobaltBlueTony 16:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- LOL. That it would. And as always, no problem. Gscshoyru 16:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from userpage
I moved this from your userpage for you: "The HMer attacked me. Advise the user to stay put rather than post out of ignorance.SLY111SLY111" . Woodym555 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ann Coulter
How can I add her quotes so they come across as more neutral - she made them lol :P
Fable1984 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you should. You're trying to push your own personal view of her when doing so, and they aren't suitable for the article in general -- no article about a person has a random list of quotes. Put them on wikiquote if you must, but don't put them in the article, ok? Gscshoyru 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. In future any wikipedia edits I make will be far more subtle and unbiased. I'm over the tantrum thing now.... thank you :p Fable1984 05:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert to my bots report page, its much appreciated :) Lloydpick 10:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
help pls
hi! im new here... was trying to add info for airsoft and i dont really know how to add a reference since i dont have one... coz these are all from my experiences as a player... pls help me out... thanks Obakpogi 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't have a reliable source you can't add it -- see WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on verifiable information, and you're not a reliable source. So unless you can find one, you can't add it. Sorry! Gscshoyru 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
awww mannn... :) thats ok.... thanks for the help anyways :) 203.167.97.51 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello right back
I've seen you around, and I noticed that. I started using this username when I was... 13? I just haven't bothered to change it, it's the handle too many people know me by. Thanks for the compliments. :) shoy 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I started using mine around there myself, and... well haven't bothered to change it either. Odd, that. See 'ya around. Gscshoyru 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Painesville train wreck
Thanks for reverting the Painesville, Ohio train wreck again. Look at my talk page to see what the IP had to say about it...I must say, a unique response. Nyttend 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is a particularly interesting response -- it was that comment on your talk page that tipped me off about it, by the way. Gscshoyru 12:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the cleanup on my userpage. Kreepy krawly reposted on my talkpage. All fine now. LessHeard vanU 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Institutionalized Vandalism, a newly recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia
Our group has now recognized 2 Institutional Vandals, and this is a message to tell you that you are the second identified, and all actions by this user are being databased for trend identification. It is unfortunate you would choose to sideline such an important issue, but there are other ways this issue will be brought back to the main forum. It will amuse us to observe what we call an IV Admin use Admin tools to bury embarassing topics. This just proves our point, and the world will soon discover that Wikipedia, as important as it is, can no longer function as it was intended, or as it should, because of the shortsighted and illogical actions of a few entrenched users with unique controls. Such is life. Kreepy krawly 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not buried. it's been moved so it doesn't dominate the page, but the conversation just exists in the subpage. It's not vandalism, and I'm not a vandal. Also, I'm not an admin -- I have no more power than you do. Your accusations are unfounded, please calm down and stay WP:CIVIL. Thanks! Gscshoyru 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could not be privy to the future policies of Wikipedia as described in the "X" manual. The recent actions of this user are not appreciated and are becoming distracting. Please cease interaction. NEVER is it the place of another user to accuse Kreepy krawly of a need to calm down, as no such calming down is necessary or will occur. It is suggested that is user offer constructive contributions to the Process rather than focus energy on the benevolent, if upsetting, actions of Kreepy krawly. It's not worth it. Think about it. Think. And we are not obliged to discuss and divulge explanations to identified IV's. We thank our esteemed colleagues in advance for their careful understanding and useful future contributions. Kreepy krawly 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? And "X" manual? I have no clue what you're talking about, and if you continue to be uncivil and make unconstructive edits, I will continue to warn you and revert them, ok? Please stop. Gscshoyru 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This user will not become privy to the meaning of "X" manual, as that indication is for the non-Wikipedians, or "X's," who are following the developments of acrimony related to the original string: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. Please stay away from the Kreepy krawly talk page. This needs to be the end of this. Kreepy krawly 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that's it. I'm taking this to WP:ANI, since I'm not really sure what to do about it. You're welcome to make your comments there, once I post. Gscshoyru 21:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kreepy krawly has no intention of joining into intentionally distracting discussions regarding acrimony, as Kreepy krawly is on Wikipedia for constructive information theory dialogues, which unfortunately, as in real life, have become riddled with acrimony, as expected. Kreepy krawly does everything to restrain civil behaviour, and to act according to policy, and natural human positive values. There should be no expectation of a contribution by Kreepy krawly any further with this string of acrimony. Thank you for any and all positive contributions to the Human Knowledge Metarepository. Kreepy krawly 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism?
I would like to see proof of it. This is not an "attack on an editor". I just want an explanation.Lairtnogaw 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Liartnogaw
- Take a look at your contributions page, the link on the left. Every edit you've made so far is vandalism, and if you persist you will be blocked. Please, stop. Gscshoyru 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I have been on for not even 5 minutes. My brother was probably using my account again.Lairtnogaw 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
- this is a list of your contribs. Click diff on each to see the changes. If your brother was using your account I would suggest not telling him your password and/or logging out when you're not there. Otherwise you'll be blocked for vandalism, if it continues. Gscshoyru 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's really hard to stop my brother when he's a professional hacker. Nothing stops him from figuring out all of my passwords. He uses a Java C++ password randomizing program to figure out my password, and no, he does not live in the same house as me.Lairtnogaw 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
- Really? I don't actually belive you. If you get a password wrong you have to pass a CAPTCHA, and computers can't do that. Besides, how does he know what account you're using? And your password should take a while to guess. And your account would be blocked anyway as compromised. Gscshoyru 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how he does everything, but my brother can do just about anything wih computers. He once changed my uncle's security questions for his e-mail as a prank.Klonky 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) I was just wondering, are you that 15-year-old guy with the 2 Phd's from Harvard Medical?Klonky 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw
- Um... no. I'm not. Gscshoyru 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
ok nvm then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I just created an extra protection program on my computer that needs an 8-digit code, 6 passwords, and 10 correctly answered security questions to be overridden, and terminates any Java programs. keyloggers won't work anymore, and this problem will be taken care of once and for all.Lairtnogaw 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Lairtnogaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairtnogaw (talk • contribs)
Thanks and WOW
Thank you for reverting vandalism off my userpage and wow are you popular today (judging by the last two discussions on your talkpage) AngelOfSadness talk 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, and no kidding. You should see what Kreepy is up to, though -- he's... interesting. Let's just put it that way. Gscshoyru 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- He's very very interesting by the looks of it. But I'm not going to comment on his talkpage as I've seen the reaction he has had on friendly comments or should I say they? AngelOfSadness talk 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Either he's royalty, has multiple personalities, or something else. It's slightly off-putting. Gscshoyru 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think he has multiple-heads and the actual person refuses to speak while the other five heads speak for him? It might be an explaination. AngelOfSadness talk 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- And now your the Vangel Thanks :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for filing that report. He was accusing other people of making personal attacks when they weren't and was trying to sign them with my signature. And I was too busy reverting his edits to file a report. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, of course. He was being evil to me too, in case you hadn't noticed. And I don't buy his story about his brother... what he explains is not possible. Gscshoyru 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know that he attacked you, I reverted his attack, warned him then he told me the brother story again. And proceeded to do what I said in the last comment. He's been blocked indef(Phillipe realises now that the 48 hours block was a mistake and said he would change it). Anyway, that guy and "his brother" has me worn out so I'm going to bed. 'Till tomorrow and I wish you happy editing between now and then :D AngelOfSadness talk 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, of course. He was being evil to me too, in case you hadn't noticed. And I don't buy his story about his brother... what he explains is not possible. Gscshoyru 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for filing that report. He was accusing other people of making personal attacks when they weren't and was trying to sign them with my signature. And I was too busy reverting his edits to file a report. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- And now your the Vangel Thanks :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think he has multiple-heads and the actual person refuses to speak while the other five heads speak for him? It might be an explaination. AngelOfSadness talk 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Either he's royalty, has multiple personalities, or something else. It's slightly off-putting. Gscshoyru 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- He's very very interesting by the looks of it. But I'm not going to comment on his talkpage as I've seen the reaction he has had on friendly comments or should I say they? AngelOfSadness talk 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Disney
I didn't vandalize the Disney Channel. The user that did caused Cluebot to reverted it to an already vandalized state. Sorry for the mixup :PFractions 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah no problem -- I was confused too. It should be fixed now. Gscshoyru 22:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had to revert it about 5 edits down. No worries :)Fractions 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mary
Just to note, the editing situation on Mary (mother of Jesus) has involved the cooperative editing of 3 suspected sockpuppets (along with 1 anonymous user with a similar editing history) persistently towards the same end. The user(s?) edit to varying degrees, but most commonly want to change "relations" to "sex", for whatever reason. This is pointless, because both terms are general and essentially interchangeable- and as none of these sockpuppets have ever provided an edit summary, or posted on a talk page, it doesn't seem like this editor cares much to express reason. My main objection here to the "sex" word change is that it's entirely unnecessary, and unsupported. Not to mention, entirely redundant, as the "Ancient Non-Christian Sources" section already details the exact same thing with specificity.
Take a look at the edit histories:
- Laughing Joker (puppeteer): Intelligent design, Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
- Joker828: Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
- CptHowdy: Intelligent design, Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
- JokersWild1: Intelligent design, Mary (mother of Jesus)
- 97.82.225.246: Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
With this in mind, I'm very skeptical of anything these suspected puppets tries to add (one should note that the puppeteer is currently banned indefinitely), and considering the fact that the edits seem unproductive anyway, I'll continue to oppose these changes with a discerning eye. I'd like to make a sockpuppet report, but I'm a little green in that area (I feel as if the evidence is sufficient for a checkout, but I could be wrong).--C.Logan 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think a checkuser will even be required - though if the socks are indef blocked (are they?) then a sock report will be a bit unproductive, but if some aren't, then make the report -- the evidence is more than sufficient. Gscshoyru 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops.
Sorry about that. 70.112.86.215 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.shelbysupercars.com/press.php // Here you have it, asshole. 70.112.86.215 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- First of all -- please keep WP:CIVIL -- second of all -- that site isn't exactly reliable -- see WP:V and WP:RS it'd be much better if you found the same statement on the world record site itself and WP:CITEed that, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 02:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Grow up, kid. The Veyron is the fastest anymore. 70.112.86.215 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I could care less whether it is or isn't -- I'm just saying that you need to have a cite from a reliable source, so you should cite a statement that is on the world record's site and not the site you cite. Also, please see WP:CITE for how to cite things, and say second fastest instead of no longer the fastest, as the former is more encyclopedic, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_production_car
- This article, dedicated to covering the issure cites those two sites. Take it up with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.86.215 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Odd. I may be wrong, then. Point taken. Use that cite, then. Look how they're doing it and do it the same way. And say second fastest, please. Gscshoyru 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Odd. Second fastest seems to be what I wrote. Read before typing, please. "ok? Thanks!" 70.112.86.215 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I read your message before I saw your change. And I fixed the cite for you. Gscshoyru 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really mature, kid. 70.112.86.215 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm? What did I do that you find immature? Gscshoyru 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're making yourself look bad. The Captain Returns 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the fact that I made a mistake? Or what? I do in fact make mistakes, it happens. We all do. Gscshoyru 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to, Captain? Gscshoyru seems like the reasonable person in this discussion, and the anonymous user had resorted to extreme personal attacks and name-calling almost immediately. There's some irony in the mention of "maturity" by this anon.--C.Logan 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're making yourself look bad. The Captain Returns 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm? What did I do that you find immature? Gscshoyru 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really mature, kid. 70.112.86.215 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I read your message before I saw your change. And I fixed the cite for you. Gscshoyru 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Odd. Second fastest seems to be what I wrote. Read before typing, please. "ok? Thanks!" 70.112.86.215 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. Odd. I may be wrong, then. Point taken. Use that cite, then. Look how they're doing it and do it the same way. And say second fastest, please. Gscshoyru 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank You!
Fortunate are you Unique are you Creative are you Kind are you
Objective are you Friendly are you Forthright are you
Wonderous are you Ardent are you Neighbourly are you Knowlegeable are you Equitable are you Resonable are you
Thank you Gscshoyru, for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.210.85 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop your edit warring on erotica and work towards consensus. South Philly 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are driving an edit war. Please stop. South Philly 01:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am attempting to work toward consensus. Simply saying "the section belongs" doesn't make it notable. Student erotica is not a notable type of Erotica, so please stop adding it unless you can explain on the talk page why it is notable, ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Two users
- Thanks for the recent revert -- I'd hit 3 reverts and was wondering what to do. Do you think the two users are socks? I'm not sure... Gscshoyru 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just got here and haven't checked anything, the timing alone would suggest puppetry of some sort. South Philly is the editor who originally entered this information. / edg ☺ ★ 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok then... should someone file a sock report, then? Because it looks like this is being user to circumvent the 3RR -- note that South Philly stopped when he hit three and Student Erotica started. Also, from Student Erotica's name and what he;s doing, it looks to be a single purpose account... oh and he reverted again... Gscshoyru 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is a backlog on SP reports, but hopefully this will be quite obvious. Neither editor has an existing SP or CheckUser report.
- Tonite I'm on an unstable machine with a slow connection and could use some help. Could you help me by collecting today's diffs and I'll write up the report? / edg ☺ ★ 03:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I shall do so. Could you re-revert Student Erotica, though -- I'm at three reverts, and he's reverted again. Gscshoyru 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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. South Philly 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)