User talk:Guyonthesubway/Archive3

User talk:Guyonthesubway/Archive2

Gdewilde

I'll let him know not to do that, thanks for the note. Prodego talk 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I am requesting cleanup of Oxyhydrogen#Automotive according to your previous established standard. Information should be dealt with in the corresponding article. I currently have a WP:COI inquiry pending on me by User:SteveBaker, which is restricting me from cleaning up the section according to the previous established standards associated with consensus. Also your opinion on WP:COI is appreciated regarding my most recent edits to Hydrogen fuel enhancement, which User:SteveBaker also claims a WP:COI. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge users to assume bad faith

User talk:Prodego

"I believe your were the admin who unblocked this user. Would you please take a moment to review his recent edits and reconsider that decision? Thanks!" [[1]]

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde

"Responce to comments on talkpage of puppet using puppeteer account. User_talk:HawkNo1 Only edits by puppet account are off topic rants, would guess that puppeteer attempting to protect primary account."[[2]]

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"An example of a particularly disuptive user is [user:gdewilde] who has alaready had several blocks under both his current and previous login, and may be sockpuppeting. In fact, I challenge you to find an edit by the user that wasn't objected to by several other editors." [[3]]

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user talk: Gdewilde

these edits are nonconstructive and theres quite a bit of personal abuse in there. Assuming bad intent, Gwilde is a griefer of the worst kind.[[4]] Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul pantone

"rollback griefer edits."[[5]]

Gdewilde (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example in which Gdewilde throws up a lot of information but doesn't clearly explain what he wants to be done with it. It is left to other users to interpret this information and give this information a context. Yes, Gdewilde, you are right Guyonthesubway is challenging your "good faith". What is your point with each of these headers?--OMCV (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more time he spends on my pages, the less time he spends other places. I'm fine with it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to show who is bothering who here. You seriously think that user was a sock puppet of mine? It looks more like another intentional attack at my address.
"The more time he spends on my pages, the less time he spends other places."
Not a very serious response. Gdewilde (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move my comment under different header

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=next&oldid=230746581

Gdewilde (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. It seemed like a different topic than the text above, and probably deserved its own header. I didnt want your request for a revert get lost, or mixed up. You're welcome. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brings up sock puppet accusation on article talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=231229433&oldid=230943669 Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General trolling

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OMCV&diff=prev&oldid=231250474 Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Meyer%27s_water_fuel_cell&diff=prev&oldid=230633799

Gdewilde (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets I have known and loved

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde

sock puppetry

Good work tracking down Gdewilde's alternate accounts, and filing the sockpuppetry/block evasion case that got Gdewilde/Go-here/Gabe_de_wilde (re)indef blocked. If you hadn't initiated this, Gdewilde would probably have eventually returned and resumed his disruptive editing, and we'd probably end up trying to convince admins to do the more subjective and time-consuming task of assessing his behavior and blocking him for incivility, edit warring, etc. The sockpuppetry thing side steps all that nicely. Thanks. Yilloslime (t) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, thanks a bunch for the good catch on the puppet. Things have been quiet since the retirement and subsequent block. Its nice.--OMCV (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need stronger evidence than just 2 sentences describing what they do. Provide edits to proof your point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.........

Regarding your change to Self-replicating machine, do you think the first sentence of your improved paragraph should be amended to say "In 1998 Charles Michael Collins received United States patent number 5,764,518 for the design of a self replicating machine"? It currently specifies machine, but of course he showed the patent people plans, not a machine. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. feel free. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost

I was restoring a much earlier lede which had correct grammar. Please check what the change actually is before you undo it! Xanthoxyl (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avsav

Why did you think this guy was that dude from Resonance project before? I bring it now because of this edit. The IP geolocates to Hawaii, though not the same island as where the resonance project HQ is at. Yilloslime (t) 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vavrek seemed a superficialy similar name to Avsav to me. Avsav is a rabid supporter of the resonance project, and seems like he's part of their circle. Vavrek is aware of wikipedia and an editor, and one of their IT folks. Thats all... pretty thin. Concolor has popped up just when Avsav has taken a little time off, I wish I could do a checkuser on both. If I was going to guess, I'd say that they're both working with the project and are possibly the same person. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya I thought Avsav and Concolor might be socks too, but in the edit Concolor reveals his IP address and it's different than Asvas's, plus it geolocates to Vancouver, so I don't know. It certainly doesn't rule out them being the same person. There's structural similarity between the usernames, too, but it could just be coincidence: the first 5 letters of each follow the same 12312 pattern. I don't think there's enough evidence yet to request a checkuser or take it to WP:SSP, but it does seem increasingly obvious that Avsav is affiliated with the RP. Yilloslime (t) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please don't archive and hide my talk page posts - thank you

Aeronbrau (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops sorry sockpuppet... Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

The recent edit you made to Talk:Ralph Merkle constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  – iridescent 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the contents of IP talk pages,

Please do not do so, as you did so here. Talk pages for the respective users, even if that IP is a sock of another user, need to stay at that location.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 08:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder why you'd spend the time restoring the soapbox rantings of a many time banned user. But I guess you spend your time how you see fit. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to explain to you again. I was quite clear above.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your ArbCom Vote

Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following:

  • Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008.
  • Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008.

According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on editor (me)

Feel free to bring your comments to a user RFC. It does not belong on the articles discussion page. --CyclePat (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editors (moved and continued)

I encourage everyone to read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing and form opinions of recent edits, both of the talkspace and the main page. Also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. We're well past good fait h at this point. Thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. For all the time and bytes being spent here, the article has not really changed substantially and there's nothing that needs changing to bring it into line with core policies (IMO or others who have weighed in from what I see). While all articles can be improved, the work that Cyclepat is doing here is not having that effect and I'm out of GF to assume.
While he claims and may very well think he is helping WP, the effect is quite the opposite: no real improvement here and wasting of time that could be spent working on other articles. Several times, CP has requested uninvolved-editors' input to improve the article or look at behavior here, and each time they noted that CP was being disruptive in various ways and that his claimed problems with the article were not problems. If there is still a problem here when I get back from my wikibreak, I'll be willing to work on more formal page- or topic-ban if necessary. DMacks (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CyclePat's edits fail a Reasonable_person test for any kind of good faith at this point. I have to consider him to be deliberately disruptive from this point on. You can form your own opinion. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I propose we (collectively) drop this discussion and focus instead on repairing any damage to the article itself, should it occur.Prebys (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


CyclePat your recent edits are contrary to the discussion you particpated it. You continue to be a deliberartely disruptive editor. Please stop. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat please don't remove others' talk page comments. Especially when they pertain to you. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 3RR

Might I inform you that you are reverting perfectly good edits. I would like to inform you that this edit has been reverted. Your edit had put back information which was not properly reference per WP:CITE. (ie. date: 1989). Also, you edit removed information which was quite relevant (ie.: date circa 1980s) to the article. Might I suggest you consider mediation prior to escalating this into a 3RR and having an administrator block you or both of us. --CyclePat (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have added unreferenced material 2 times to the article.
And you have removed content which is clearly relevant to the subject matter. Any further addition of the date 1989 (without proper reference), and removal of information, which is pertinent and well references, will be considered disruptive and will be reported respectfully to 3RR and the appropriate venue for regarding disruptive editing. --CyclePat (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
take it up on the talk page, no-one considers those edits good. There is no notability to any of his later work, and until a consensus the contrary is established on the talk page I will continue to revert. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. This is what Guyonthesubway does. He's an anti-intellectual, the sort of person that led Sanger to leave Wikipedia in the first place, so he trashes professors all the time. Look at what he did to Glenn McGee. He's a wikisleuth and that's no compliment; another guy who clearly believes that information's accuracy is FAR less important than trashing the idea of expertise in general. Sanger was right... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.191.81 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this anon IP has been associated with Mr McGee. Any suprise that its bashing me? Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Hit List" comment at WP:AN

While I have a lot of sympathy for your position, I don't feel that I'm being bullied. This issue has been aired, opinions have been provided, it's clear that there's no question of resignation being a serious proposition, and I've taken a path which should provoke no further drama from any reasonable person. Of course some people will insist on believing what they want to believe, no matter what, but since there is nothing I can do about that, I am not going to worry about it further. Thanks for your feedback. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?

The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caden

Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While I fully understand your sentiments, it's probably best not to taunt someone like Caden. It's not going to change his approach to things, and in fact only further justifies his world-view in his own mind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a nice gesture, and an appreciated one, to remove your comment from Caden's talk page. Just a well meant suggestion. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have already been removed, so its moot. I feel no need to go easy on Caden because he's difficult. However, if you think he's particulary delicate I'll take that into account should he return. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a fair way to describe Caden would be "high maintenance". It's best to just leave him be - as he said in the edit summary when he deleted your comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis of Water

Perhaps, since DC is more efficient, you could add to the initial paragraph, explaining that both AC and DC work, but one is more efficient and the other more dangerous? Just an idea. BingoDingo (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Money-bags.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Money-bags.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me asking... but

Did I just spawn your deletion request for cryptomechanics? :DKmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, people who edit some of the fringey articles I watch tend to edit other fringey articles that are interesting. Either that or a search to Beardon... It is a PROD, so feel free to remove it if you disagree. 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

info removal at Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle

Thanks for the changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campoftheamericas (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not Jimbo Wales

Dear Guyonthesubway,

This website was not created by you and its articles are not your rightful property. Therefore, I strongly suggest that you behave and stop "forting" articles such as poltergeist against any edits. Keep in mind that not every content articles consist of can be sourced, and while the goal of Wikipedia is to welcome new users, even those who did not join can sometimes make useful contributions.

Constrain yourself from letting your presumably good faith actions stop the project's development. If such behavior continues, I would be forced to submit the aforementioned article for anti-vandalism protection and report your actions to an administrator.

Have a good stay,

Shadiac (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please report my edits to whoever you like. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you seem to have a consistency about you. Foxmuldr (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City car

Thank you for the courtesy of notification concerning your proposed AFD for City car. I am including here an essay from my user page so that you may well understand my position concerning such proposals. Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Deletionists

Deletionists not only want to delete articles, now they want to hide the remnants of evidence of the inappropriateness of such deletions, as evidenced by their attempts to delete the article Deletionpedia (see Talk:Deletionpedia. I have little understanding of what motivates deletionists but I have seen indications of their personalities (masked in high mindedness) that are somewhat disturbing, and even often reflected in their self-important or threatening user names. My personal opinion is that they do it for the sport of it, not for any realistic sense of "improvement" to WP. If they were at all consistent they would go after the hundreds of Pokemon articles, but probably would not want to stir up that hornets' nest. Instead they pick on minor but difficult to substantiate articles such as Chinese copy method.

Buff (computer gaming)

Hey. I pulled the link out of today's AFD log for the above article you posted for AFD - at this point in the game, it was so far down the log that adding it now would have made the AFD go longer than necessary. Looking at City car, it looks like a misfired macro. I guess, worst case, you gotta do it the old fashioned way with the manual steps and all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thx! I looked for it after the macro went 'blooey' but couldn't find it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internal combusion engine

You have removed references to the Pivotal engine. The information removed is not promotional, but points out that there are internal combustion designs which do not have the same limitations in conventional designs. How can this information be conveyed on Wikipedia without it seeming to be promotional? Is Wikipedia limited only to data which appears in trade publications? Should it not include data that is also in existence, just not yet mainstream? Foxmuldr (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia guidlines already provided on your talk page, then follow them. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're an abuse of power.Foxmuldr (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reincarnation research

Guy, I'm trying to help. please don't be tendentious about this. all I want to do is stimulate some discussion on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you'd self-revert so that we can figure out what's going wrong with the debate. --Ludwigs2 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting what I think are good edits without even looking at them sure doesn't seem like 'helping'. Three edits with comments and discussion on the talk page seems ligit to me. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just hoping to cool things down (because I suspected that if someone didn't the reverts would just keep going on until the page got locked and people blocked). please don't get into questioning my motives, please do respect the BRD cycle, and please self-revert and discuss the changes. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Post

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposals

I have some new proposals that I think might help calm things down. Could you let me know your thoughts? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I get it.

You're the new hound, hunh? ok. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm suposed to say something about Civil here, right? Not me, thx. Call me whatever you like, just don't call me late for dinner. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say what you want; I don't happen to think the statement was uncivil. I just wanted to make sure that we both understand that we both understand the dimensions of the situation. I don't really mind your perspective, I just think you lose points for style.
however, as a piece of advice, if you're going to be running point on the baiting game, make sure that you log in: making edits as an IP can get you in trouble for sock-puppetry, even where it's just a mistake. And do try to pick better targets. I don't know how people came to the conclusion that I care that much about Cloudbuster and Orgone. They are topics that I know a good bit about, and I have a preference for accuracy where possible, but I don't have a great concern over them. Yet for some reason every time one of the wiki-skeptics gets mad at me, another one shows up to edit those pages. Trust me, that kind of pedantic label-pushing only goes so far on those topics. I suppose I should be thankful - it keeps people from annoying me on serious pages every time you all get your dander up - but still...
at any rate, nice to meet you. --Ludwigs2 20:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we just have similar interests? I also have Megalomania, and Paranoia on my watch list, do you? Please run a Checkuser, fishing expeditions are a great use of admin tools. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

I was wondering if you could weigh in on an unrelated article.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation

Multivocal means "having many interpretations". Why did you remove the entire sentence? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tour talk page has been semi-protected

Hello. I have semi=protected your talk page due to recent vandalism activity. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter request regarding CMC

Please see Talk:Self-replicating machine#Edit filter.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]