User talk:GBYork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello GBYork! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Hi! GBYork 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Naughty boy! No commercial links in the articles! - BalthCat 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carmel River School

Good job cleaning this article up. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Waymer

You marked the article Dave Waymer for speedy deletion as a nn-bio. I wanted to let you know that professional athletes at the higher level in their sport (and this would include NFL players) are always considered notable. I removed the speedy and expanded the article. Please take a look at the article and make any improvements that seem appropriate. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stay off my talk pages and don't send me any of your welcoming notes

I see what you really are and don't want contact with you. GBYork 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? So what am I, go on, really? It's my job to leave a welcome message on people's talk page who haven't received one yet. Sheesh, it's called the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. So much for Wikipedia:Assume good faith! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like an answer please. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith on your part. Having contact with people around here is dangerous so I seek to avoid it, especially with administrators and I suspect you are one. But maybe you are different from the rest. So I will assume good faith for you. In fact, I'm surprised you answered me, as administrators usually don't, and I am surprised that you are interested in my opinion. GBYork 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all administrators are rouge. Anyway, I'm not an administrator. Just take a look at my user rights log. It's empty. An administrator has the following entry: "bureaucrat (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for user from (none) to (none) (=sysop)". There is no grand conspiracy to get you. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-pagan bigotry

Please stop tagging pagan articles claiming "biased" sources. Christian articles may use Christian sources, Islamic articles may use Islamic sources, and Pagan articles may use pagan sources. Unless you are going to start tagging all religious articles for using their own "biased" sources, you are merely showing your own biases here. -999 (Talk) 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, GB, but as of now, WP:V allows that use of self-published autobiographical sources in articles about the subject in question. But thanks for "helping." -999 (Talk) 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please show me exactly where WP:V says that; nobody else has been able to because it doesn't, it's simply your interpretation. -999 (Talk) 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. If it is, quote it. And WP:RS is simply a guideline, only WP:V is policy. If you can't quote exactly where it says what you claim, back off. -999 (Talk) 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Can you please stop spamming article talk pages to prove a point. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please, please slow down on this tagging of articles with {{verify}}. Your talkpage comments, such as at Talk:Janet Farrar, aren't very helpful in terms of what you are looking for, and it seems that you are conflating Wikipedia:External links with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which only adds to the confusion. It is probably true that many of these articles could be more verifiable through better referencing, but I strongly suspect that your approach is just going to alienate editors (such as the above), or confuse them (such as when you add a comment about external links to the talkpage of an article that has the subject's official homepage as the only external link). Please take the time to enter into discussion with other editors before doing any more mass template application. Jkelly 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We expect all of our articles to be verifiable, just like we expect them to follow our other core policies. It is often helpful to editors working on an article to get feedback on how well that article meets our standards. There is nothing wrong with applying {{verify}} to an article that seems to be problematic; it can be helpful to both other editors and to readers. What I am trying to suggest, however, is that this approach of going through a Category (I assume that is what you are doing) and tagging every article in it while leaving a link to Wikipedia:External links on the talk page is not going to wind up helping other editors fix any problems. Let's look at R. U. Sirius. That article contains the line "After a painful and litigious rejection by the Canadian performance juggernaut, Cirque du Soleil..." with no referencing! That is terrible, and needs to be fixed. But your talk page note said something about Wikipedia:External links, and the only external links in that article are to works of the subject available online or interviews, which are perfectly appropriate and are likely to be very helpful in referencing. My impression is that you are going through these too fast to identify the real problems, that your talk page comments are confusing, and the effect is that you are being perceived as behaving poorly instead of being helpful. Working well with other editors is more important than getting articles fixed right away. Jkelly 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to second the opinion that posting general references to Wikipedia policies that most editors are likely to be familiar with, without any criticism specific to the article, is not particularly helpful. In fact, it comes across as rather condescending. Nareek 21:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stay off my taljk page

No, I didn't attack anyone. I stated a behavioral pattern which was relevant to the nomination. Now, stay off my talk page. Goodbye. -999 (Talk) 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Know you're busy

But 999 keeps screwing around with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber page. He removed my comments at the end so I reverted the page so my comment was back in.

Now he has "fixed the formatting" and I'm not sure what he has done. If you would just check it out when you have the time, as you have a keener eye about what's going on. Thanks! GBYork 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the edit earlier and didn't see anything wrong. To be honest, you shouldn't have reverted Hanuman Das's removal of your comment on smalltalk from the AFD. You had already made your point and he had accepted it by removing the irrelevant comments from the AFD. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't you know how to use "user contributions"?

GBYork, don't you know how to use "user contributions"? Rosencomet hasn't created any new articles recently - for days, in fact. If you think otherwise, list them. —Hanuman Das 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there are three ways to tell the Rosencomet is simply working on improving the articles. In your watch list, a new article would be preceeded with a bold capital "N" for "new". Or, if you look at the history by clicking on the "History" tab, you would be able to see who created the article and when (if there is more than one page of history, click on "oldest" to see the first edit). Finally, to see all a user's contributions, go to their user page, and click on "User contributions" in the toolbox in the left-hand menu. Hope this helps. That was a rather undeserved message you left on Rosencomet's talk page. —Hanuman Das 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing that a book exists?

I don't want to blindside you; you may want to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citing that a book exists?. - Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It was 999 (Talk | contribs) who put that on my page

Thanks for the note as it encouraged me some after what 999 (Talk | contribs) did. I don't know the reason why. Dattat 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 999 continues to insult me on my talk page but says he will have me blocked if I respond

Is this a normal why for people to behave here. I was working on an article all afternoon and then I get a flurry of nastiness from 999. Apparently there is no recourse or protection from someone like him. I can't find one. Dattat 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppetry

I'm not sure quite what you're up to, but (as I informed Dattat) if you are operating multiple usernames (as it appears you are), please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and be advised that abuse of your editing privileges will lead to your being blocked. Regards — Dan | talk 21:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean edits

Hello, GBYork, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | Talk 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/b/y/User_talk%7EGBYork_2e8c.html"