User talk:Gianturco gusano: Difference between revisions

Line 111: Line 111:

::::::::So you were in a hurry because your equipment doesn’t work right. [[Special:Diff/1324609487|You were sleepy (!)]]. And you added copyedit tags, not because the articles needed copyediting (they didn’t), but because they already had other tags, see edit summary [[Special:Diff/1325545259|here]]. These excuses are so poor that I’m tempted to block you immediately. And do you really expect other users, in this case GRuban, to go through 40 edits of yours (the recent removals of content), that you made in about six hours, and tell you which of them needs reverting? That would take them far longer than it took you to speed-edit them. Please don’t rely on others to clean up your editing. (Especially since you’ve been seen reverting people when they try — I’m thinking of [[Special:Diff/1325545259|this revert of yours]].) I suggest, instead, that you go back and self-revert all the disruptive editing I have described in general terms above. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

::::::::So you were in a hurry because your equipment doesn’t work right. [[Special:Diff/1324609487|You were sleepy (!)]]. And you added copyedit tags, not because the articles needed copyediting (they didn’t), but because they already had other tags, see edit summary [[Special:Diff/1325545259|here]]. These excuses are so poor that I’m tempted to block you immediately. And do you really expect other users, in this case GRuban, to go through 40 edits of yours (the recent removals of content), that you made in about six hours, and tell you which of them needs reverting? That would take them far longer than it took you to speed-edit them. Please don’t rely on others to clean up your editing. (Especially since you’ve been seen reverting people when they try — I’m thinking of [[Special:Diff/1325545259|this revert of yours]].) I suggest, instead, that you go back and self-revert all the disruptive editing I have described in general terms above. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC).

:::::::::: {{U|Bishonen}}, I cannot reverse everything because it would violate the rules on spam and reliable sources. You are accusing me of bad intentions, something that did not appear anywhere in my edits. The wiki project in question has been at a standstill for years, and it’s my fault? Am I the only one who has to take responsibility now? [[User:Gianturco gusano|Gianturco gusano]] ([[User talk:Gianturco gusano#top|talk]]) 05:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: {{U|Bishonen}}, I cannot reverse everything because it would violate the rules on spam and reliable sources. You are accusing me of bad intentions, something that did not appear anywhere in my edits. The wiki project in question has been at a standstill for years, and it’s my fault? Am I the only one who has to take responsibility now? [[User:Gianturco gusano|Gianturco gusano]] ([[User talk:Gianturco gusano#top|talk]]) 05:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: I’ll see if I can reduce the number of external links to 3 per red link tomorrow. [[User:Gianturco gusano|Gianturco gusano]] ([[User talk:Gianturco gusano#top|talk]]) 06:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you’ve recently been removing huge swathes of content from Wikipedia:Requested articles. For example, in this edit, which removed 55,052 characters, the first bit you removed was a link to the Library of Congress, which is usually seen as a very reliable source, and the next was the only text description of the entry. Can you explain why you’re doing this, please? —GRuban (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pardon, I was sleepy, but is a blog. Gianturco gusano (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a web site run by the Library of Congress, which is an organization, not a person. They can call it whatever they want, it still doesn’t make it self-published, which is the issue in WP:BLOG. But that specific part of that edit, like any one of your many removals can be debated, I wouldn’t be asking if it was one. You removed 55k of content in one edit, and more in other edits. That’s a lot. Please explain. —GRuban (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many sources for the article; only three are needed for each suggestion. Gianturco gusano (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see that at the top of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession, Please do not overload requests with references. Any more than 3 per request will be removed. But how do you explain what you did to the next entry in that very same edit, Kaisha Esty, where

1. there were 2 sources, and you removed one, and

2. you removed all the text? That same page also says ENTRIES MUST INCLUDE: … Identifying information – For, example, there are lots of James Smiths in the world; so specify which one are you asking about — the Scottish pathologist, the American rapper, or who? Notability – if it isn’t already obvious from the identifying information, describe precisely what makes them notable. By removing the text, you removed the identifying information (Assistant Professor of African American Studies at Wesleyan University) and the reason for notability (Her essay ‘“I Told Him to Let Me Alone, That He Hurt Me”: Black Women and Girls and the Battle over Labor and Sexual Consent in Union-Occupied Territory’ won the the 2022 Letitia Woods Brown Article Prize for the best article in African American women’s history), both of which the page says the entry MUST INCLUDE in capital letters, no? —GRuban (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but can’t it be a brief description of the link? And I can restore the links that I accidentally removed. (I just need a deadline). Gianturco gusano (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you want to shorten the descriptions to make them more concise, great! Requested articles is a bit of a swamp, not very many are looking at it every minute, anyone that wants to help with it is welcome. I was just worried by those large removals, worrying that the few people who do want to help create articles would have less to work with. And for deadline, well Wikipedia:There is no deadline . When you get around to it is fine. If you’d like, though, you might want to revert your edits until you have time to improve them. Your call. I can see you want to help. Thank you! —GRuban (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The string of moves you did at History of the socialist movement in the United States is baffling, and very disruptive. Please take greater care to 1) not do several moves in a row and 2) make sure that new titles are actually grammatically correct, in addition to being compliant with title policy _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edits do not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the “Save” button.
I see you know how to use them, please use them regularly. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Socialism of United States of America has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: There is no way this article could have this title, according to other Wikipedias. Any ideas on how to solve this? I can’t merge redirect histories that have already been created. Some elected eliminator could eliminate the redirect socialism in the United States to redirect later. Right? Gianturco gusano Gianturco gusano (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve pasted basically this message on Talk:History of the socialist movement in the United States as well–it is entirely unclear what you mean by it, or what your objection to the current title is. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Brazilian, I spoke portuguese. Gianturco gusano (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current title yields fewer results on Google. Gianturco gusano (talk)

Legal, então pode você descrever para mim qual é seu crítica do título atual? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um título mais curto, conciso e simples para aproveitar o tráfego do google por conta do atual título destoar o título de outras interwikis. Gianturco gusano (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Más o título que você escolheu foi “Socialism of United States”, que é um error gramatico, e não tem mais resultados. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

É que não sei eliminar um redirect pra mover para o original conforme padrão em todas as wikipedias quando discutem este tipo de tema. Gianturco gusano (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bom, agora que existe um debate sobre o titulo do artigo na pagina Talk do artigo, achou que o melhor processo sera participar nessa discussao e dessa manheira chegar ao um acordo _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gianturco. I noticed that you added a “copyedit” tag to some ten articles in a row today, without there being anything wrong with the grammar or spelling of these articles as far as I can see. When one of your additions was reverted here, you reverted back, with an edit summary I don’t understand at all: “I’m not the only one who thinks the article needs maintenance; just look at the consistency of this article’s history, stable version with tags indicating this in the intro.” What? What does that have to do with copyediting? Do you know what copyediting means? It frankly doesn’t look like it, so I’ll quote our Help page Wikipedia:Basic copyediting: copyediting means “correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout”. Please stop adding irrelevant tags. Also, while you’re about it, please stop removing large swathes from various “Requested articles” pages, as you did yesterday. Neither of these actions — adding copyedit tags and removing content — improves the encyclopedia, and you have performed them at such speed that there’s no way you can have given the pages in question any reasonable consideration. I will block you if you continue such disruption. Bishonen | tålk 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Er; Gianturco? Didn’t we reach an agreement, above, that you wouldn’t be removing content like that any more? Wikipedia:Requested articles/Music/Performers, bands and songwriters: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia this edit removes a lot of content, including, in several cases the only text description of the entries. I do understand that some people think more than three links is too much, but the descriptions are very useful, or even strictly necessary. Right? —GRuban (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that give importance to the article will not be a long internet long text of facebook of more than 3 kb written without thinking that it will give notoriety to the suggested topic. If the person thinks that a description of that length is necessary, they already have the competence to create the article. Gianturco gusano (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three lines of description in one sentence are enough. Gianturco gusano (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you didn’t leave three lines. The first entry in that edit I linked, Daphne Hellman, you removed all the description. Three entries below that, Hila Kila, you removed all the description. Three below that, the band, you removed all the description. I thought we understood each other. —GRuban (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s just that I was in a hurry to get below 180 kb of text, because the computer I’m using now is old and crashes with more than 180-190 kilobytes. Gianturco gusano (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an excuse, I’m afraid. —GRuban (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will reverse everything you tell me is necessary. Gianturco gusano (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you were in a hurry because your equipment doesn’t work right. You were sleepy (!). And you added copyedit tags, not because the articles needed copyediting (they didn’t), but because they already had other tags, see edit summary here. These excuses are so poor that I’m tempted to block you immediately. And do you really expect other users, in this case GRuban, to go through 40 edits of yours (the recent removals of content), that you made in about six hours, and tell you which of them needs reverting? That would take them far longer than it took you to speed-edit them. Please don’t rely on others to clean up your editing. (Especially since you’ve been seen reverting people when they try — I’m thinking of this revert of yours.) I suggest, instead, that you go back and self-revert all the disruptive editing I have described in general terms above. Bishonen | tålk 05:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I cannot reverse everything because it would violate the rules on spam and reliable sources. You are accusing me of bad intentions, something that did not appear anywhere in my edits. The wiki project in question has been at a standstill for years, and it’s my fault? Am I the only one who has to take responsibility now? Gianturco gusano (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll see if I can reduce the number of external links to 3 per red link tomorrow. Gianturco gusano (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]