User talk:GIOSCali

Hello, GIOSCali, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pebble Beach Golf Links may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 06}}</ref> it hugs the rugged coastline and has wide open views of [[Carmel Bay]], opening to the [[Pacific Ocean] on the south side of the [[Monterey Peninsula]]. In 2001 it became the first public

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please do not delete any references in foreign (non-English) languages. Per WP:NONENG, the usage of non-English sources is perfectly acceptable on the English Wikipedia if English-language sources of equal or better quality are not available. Many of Wikipedia's good articles and featured articles on topics such as German footballers and international scientists extensively use non-English references.

Second, if a link is dead, it should not be removed, as it may still be salvageable through the use of web archives. These dead links should be restored using an archival service such as WebCite or Wayback Machine using the "archiveurl" parameter of {{cite web}}. WP:LINKROT covers more information on this. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for responding. Not sure if you saw my earlier comment, but I am actually a bit new to Wikipedia, created an account to try to balance this article out a bit and tone down some of the language in places, try to keep things academic, etc ;) anyway, hoping to post some information and changes on the talk page, which I guess is the standard practice, before making anymore edits.

Your help in making changes would be great! GIOSCali (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Providence (religious movement). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sam ^Sing! 10:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam,

apologies for the source, I reposted the edit with more reliable sources!( including a direct link to the Korean Government website). If you don't mind, rather than just deleting the information, can you just cite a source that is more compatible with Wikipedia guidelines? I think this would save everyone a lot of time ;) As I have mentioned, I am new to Wikipedia so any help would be appreciated!

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Providence (religious movement), you may be blocked from editing. Sam ^Sing! 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sam, If you have any concerns about the edit, that it is disruptive or inappropriate, please discuss it in detail on the talk page! ;) I think that the idea is for all of us to work together on Wikipedia, so lets do our best to make this article the best it can be

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Providence (religious movement) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Providence (religious movement) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Providence (religious movement) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Providence (religious movement). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Drmies (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A good place to ask for help is at the wp:Teahouse. Remember to use secondary sources in your citations. Primary sources should be avoided. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, much appreciated.GIOSCali (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GIOSCali. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please indent your discussions such as on Talk:Providence (religious movement) per wp:talk page guidelines. It makes reading the discussions easier to follow. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should redact your comments by striking them out after someone else adds a reply to them. In this situation I personally don't care, but in the future you should do so. Please see WP:REDACTED Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! GIOSCali (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Providence (religious movement), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached regarding the information that you deleted just now and was restored by Iam thomson. You are well aware of the consensus on this and well aware that such a change must be discussed first on talk:Providence (religious movement). Another such edit will result in a discussion being started on wp:ani. Be aware that repeatedly starting the same discussion without significant new information is frowned upon. See wp:Tendentious editing Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GIOSCali. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GIOSCali All of this what about this reference, what about that reference... is wp:tendentious editing. Please read and understand it. If you are unable to ascertain what constitutes a wp:reliable source, you should stop asking on Wikipedia and find some other outlet. Providence (religious movement) is a rarely visited article which occupies an inordinate amount of my time and other's time. Continue this, and you will end up on WP:ANI Jim1138 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not asking if the sources are reliable -- I am providing new sources that support the information already provided, so that a proper discussion can take place as to how to present the info in the article. We all have our own responsibilities, so if you do not have time to discuss new sources, then you shouldn't be reverting changes to the main article.

So, why are you not participating in discussions on the talk page? GIOSCali (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are dumping one ref after another onto the talk page and article which are not RS. You should know better. It's a waste of time for other editors to vet your sources. Do not add obviously non-RS sources asking others to vet them for you. Vetting is your job, not others. Stop your WP:tendentious editing. Jim1138 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: For the record please be aware that I share Jim1138's views. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Talk:Providence (religious movement), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history.

Please also provide an edit summary in the future. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Providence (religious movement) § Follow up on Book on Salvation

 – As requested. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the title, Book on Salvation? Or is it Salvation Book? What is the title in Hangungmal?

On March 3, you wrote on Talk:Providence (religious movement) that Drawing from the Christian Gospel Mission website god21.net as well as Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation, I was able to put together ....

On March 4, PeterDaley72 asked you how you had obtained a copy of the book. You did not answer.

I followed up on March 9, suggesting you answered the question. And so did Jim1138. Again you did not exactly answer the question in your next posting on March 10, but wrote Jeong Myeong Seok's book on salvation is publicly available, with an official ISBN--its not difficult to come by online if you speak Korean, Chinese, or Japanese.

Peter asked you on March 14, what the ISBN number is, as he's in South Korea and can obtain a copy. You did not answer.

Please provide the ISBN number. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move discussions to the talk page, and we can go from there. GIOSCali (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Could we now have a reply without further ado? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you, that the information requested for almost half a year from you by multiple editors, has now been found, and your reply on the talk page is no longer necessary. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Providence (religious movement). That's the third time in nine days you add this apologetic snip to the article. In that period you have engaged in no discussion about it on the talk page. You did say To be honest, I just disagree with your consensus (diff), but would you just WP:DROPIT now? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have been a bit busy, did not see you had made an addition to the talk page or I would have addressed it.

But on that point‎, there are several threads you haven't addressed on the talk page, which you should be addressing if you are adamant about this.

I am not the only one who supports the YTN edits, so proceed with caution before removing or negating that information.

So I won't say consensus-- because there are other editors who have supported some of my edits on the page-- but your understanding of the subject is flawed in some areas. This would be more evident if you were more specialized in Korean subject matter and in the language.

Lastly, try to be a bit more nice. You gave a very rude response to an editor who provided valid information on the page. Don't be a bully, and don't assume all new information is invalid. GIOSCali (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better than to do this. See WP:NONENG. This is the English version of Wikipedia. By your argument, most of the sources would be disallowed. Jim1138 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason I removed it. The material is in dispute, so translated excerpts must be provided. The same applies for the NewsDaily sources from which I have been attempting to add material. GIOSCali (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Apple Daily source publishes a considerable amount of pop/tabloid like material, so I do not believe it is as reliable as other sources. Until relevant translations can be provided, reliability cannot be verified.GIOSCali (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor Thank you for the notice, is the discussion still in progress? If so I would like to add input. GIOSCali (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]