User talk:Galloping Moses

Hi there. You clearly know your way around so I won't bother with a welcome template. But I hope you stick around. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my Sapient changes. If you believe there is a discrepancy, please contact me at jmarsik@sapient.com Thank you. 206.205.133.10 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)jmarsik79[reply]

Aedas

I will get on with the rewrite but cannot do it until the weekend because I am in Birmingham working at the moment. I just copied a load of stuff I found in articles etc. I will also ask acroterian for help he is a moderator and he is also an architect who is part of the Wikipedia Architecture Project so he will help out with this. Please don't delete until I have had a chance to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deevincentday (talk • contribs) 00:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liskeard

Hi Galloping Moses, I just noticed your edit here to the Liskeard article. I also see from your contribs you are doing good work removing material that fails WP:advert. Keep it up!

As a member of WP:Cornwall I'm currently going through the List of places in Cornwall one by one cleaning up the articles and checking them for consistency. If you find any more quasi-adverts or 'travelogue-style' promotional text in any of those articles, please deal with it – your help will be much appreciated. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi Galloping Moses,

I notice you are repeatedly reverting a new editor, ScottPAnderson. While I agree that you are restoring a better version of the articles (Mau Mau Uprising and Extermination Camp), you are nevertheless revert-warring with a newbie, which is unhelpful when you could be talking to him. I've left a longish post on his talkpage here explaining some of the editing guidelines, and I hope he heeds them, but you should be talking to him rather that just revert warring. Thanks, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why are you so gay. Seriously. You suck. That being said. Would you like to go out on a date? You seem hot. At least if you are a guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manlove23 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edits of Hola Massacre

I noted that you deleted cited and verifiable material replacing it with your own opinion in a way that distorts the facts. Kindly refrain from doing so. You don't just overwrite valid material! Kindly add your cited statement to show the alternate viewpoint. I hope we can be constructive about this. Thank you. ScottPAnderson (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I should have assumed good faith. It wasn't clear at first why you made the changes and I thought it was a continuation of the earlier edit war. Thanks. ScottPAnderson (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Reverts of Hola Massacre

You commented your recent revert as follows: "Simply reverting these changes only makes you look stupid.". Why the insult? Please lets work out our disagreements in a civil manner. May I refer you please to wikipedia NPOV rule: Neutral_point_of_view

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."..."Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

You are accusing me of flouting NPOV - yet you do not have a proper alternate viewpoint from a reliable source.

Thanks.ScottPAnderson (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deletion Proposal for redirect page "British Colonial Invasion"

Hi, Your deletion proposal is unjustified. The title is based on a historical factual event. Please see:

1. Encyclopedia of African history, Volume 1 By Kevin Shillington, p. 383 (available in Googlebooks.

2. http://www.historywiz.com/africa.htm

I have many more authoritative sources - if you are interested.

Just because you do not personally agree with something doesnt give you justification to propose deletion. ScottPAnderson (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola massacre edit war

Hello there, I've just had a look at the revision history of Hola massacre, and you appear to be involved in an edit war. Please be aware that you may end up getting blocked, or the article may be protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please try an reach consensus for the content of the article on the talkpage. There are a number of avenues you can use to help reach consensus if you're struggling; I've outlined some of those at the article talkpage.--Beloved Freak 10:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI , Why did u undo my post ? can u please let me know the criteria for rejection

HI THIS IS GOVIND SANGLI, I JUST TRIED TO ADD SOME THING TO LOGIC GATES WHICH ENHANCES READERS CAPABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC, IS THERE ANY THING WRONG, I NEED SOME RESPONSE,EXPECTING SOON ....... BYE --GOVIND SANGLI (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the edit incoherent, ungrammatical and unreferenced, and it did not help my understanding of the topic. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Instead of undoing a newbie's work, why not make the corrections yourself? When you undo, you discourage legitimate edits - discarding the good and the bad. Lets be constructive please. PS we are supposed to encourage newbies. I find your criticism of Govind to be excessively harsh and insensitive. Thanks. ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and you were complaining of being stalked. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just concerned by the pattern here. It doesn't hurt to be friendly and welcoming to newbies. ScottPAnderson (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]