User talk:Gerixau

If you check the history of Hillary Rodham Clinton, two other editors have removed it as trivality at first. Then you readded the text two more times, which after having been reverted one more time before me, I naturally assumed you were vandalizing the page. If you weren't, I would suggest adding it to the talk page with a source. Then you can get more consensus on whether it should really be added to the article. Without a notable source, me or any other editor is entitled to remove it on sight as unsourced and non notable. The pages on

Notability should help clarify this more. I hope this answers your question, if it didn't, please let me know. Have a nice day! Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. :) Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 19:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Naming conventions

Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please

If you have any questions, please see

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Mattinbgn\^talk 10:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the current controversy section is the result of a long discussion that achieved consensus to have it in its current form. Since this is a controversial article, please refrain from making additions to that section without first discussing it on the talk page and getting consensus. Thanks!

please do not edit an article talk page message after you have posted it. It causes confusion. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! Lionel (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going to start an article on him and saw Gerixau/Nick Danziger , which has been left for some time. Are you ok if I take this as a starting point? Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also about to start an article, found yours... might just go ahead and make a quick start now, leave it to you to continue. PamD 08:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice when you see messages like the above - no

satusuro 10:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

quote: Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be – or to be indistinguishable from – self-righteous sixteen year olds possessing infinite amounts of free time(Neal Stephenson)Cryptonomicon

GerixAu (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a new edit is objected to and reverted by another editor then the person who added the new information is expected to follow the appropriate discussion process instead of reverting the revert. I have again removed your edit to the Ted Kennedy article because it was non-notable and unreferenced trivial gossip and personal commentary. Do no(t) add this information again unless it is properly referenced. Anglicanus (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why not search for the cites yourself, and improve it ? That is my approach GerixAu (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your unconstructive editing on this matter has already been reverted several times. The reference does not support your personal commentary. It is also your responsibility to provide proper references for your own editing, not other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your input. "As a professional educator and writer" your views must demand the greatest attention and respect. Perhaps it may be useful to request comment from other suitably qualified editors on this.GerixAu (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?! Firstly, there is nothing in the reference which states or even implies that "His friends were accustomed to his regular consumption of alcohol" ~ only that he was "a man who sometimes imbibed too much" and, because of this and his unruliness, had "a lot in common with jailbirds, alcoholics and, in particular, Kooris." There is no mention in the reference of "his friends" in this context and nothing about them being "accustomed to his regular consumption of alcohol". Perhaps they were, but the reference does not mention this. Therefore it is speculative commentary on your part. Secondly, your edit says that Kennedy had "limited patience for those he called 'do-gooders'". Again, maybe he did but the reference does not say this and doesn't even mention him calling some people "do-gooders". All of this is your own personal commentary without any support in the reference. This kind of editing is not acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your feedback, suggestions and yr point of view. Quite understandable - unacceptable editing and non-serious contributors are a clearly demonstrated issue on WP. GerixAu (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring over your repeated and unconstructive inclusion of information which is not supported by the reference you've provided. It is not acceptable and it is also ridiculous that you keep telling me to read the reference. I have done so and it does not support your editing. Afterwriting (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The references do not say what you claim they do. Anglicanus (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again guys (or gals) for your consistent input . It is noticeable that it's always the same two users who object to these edits, or seems to be. Wonder if there is someone else out there who can comment? I am interested to know if either of you met Ted or Fergus at Redfern, and whether this may be the basis of your repeated edits? Don't know. Yes, this contention has reached the stage of edit warring - I'll stop now. GerixAu (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However. I found more references, and since WP is not about suppressing facts , obviously within the limits of slander, I decided to include one . I feel that Ted would have wanted this. Good to see the article improving . GerixAu (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The remark about "do-gooders" was made by the author of the referenced article. There is no evidence provided that Kennedy ever "termed" people in this way. Your other comment about his friends being accustomed to his "regular consumption of alcohol" still remains unreferenced. Therefore both comments have again been removed. Anglicanus (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking rather repetitive of course. One wonders how there can be such divergent views of what seems to be one example of clear expression. No one seems to be addressing the necessity of removing these items of information from the article, which leads inevitably to the question of which editors are demonstrably contributing to this article. Life cannot be usefully composed of mere obscuration and wearing out the "delete" button, one might argue, one would expect something better. At the risk of indeed extending the scope of the repetition, there is always hope that one of you might search for a cite that could improve the article. GerixAu (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is effing ridiculous!!! If you can't edit properly then just go away and allow more sensible people to edit instead. You have repeatedly ascribed words that are clearly those of someone else to Kennedy himself. If you are incapable of realising this obvious fact then you are clearly incompetent. Afterwriting (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. You may need to read the personal attacks page. Wonder if anyone is going to address the points I have mentioned. We'll push on if you don't mind. GerixAu (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is actually "intriguing" is why you have constantly failed to realise that you are ascribing comments clearly made by others to Kennedy himself. Weird. Afterwriting (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Afterwriting, that point is definitely worthy of further examination and may form the basis of some correction if it possesses validity. Have you read the personal attacks page yet ? I have . GerixAu (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Thanks for this recognition of my contribs. GerixAu (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gerixau. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Hello, Gerixau. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gerixau. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

So after you reverted[1] my conversion[2] of those categories on User:Gerixau/temp0 to links, I undid your edit.[3]

Please note that

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thanks for your cogent, very significant and indeed masterly intervention. GerixAu (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vancouver, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

righto, done GerixAu (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding

You have returned the article to the state it was in. Actually I'm not sure what new material I did add. Consider this idea: my edit was structural .. you realise that the criticism paragraphs were somehow embedded in the Liturgy section, it's not hard to correct that, you know. If you wish to talk about unsourced information, this article has that in spades. Take a look. What would be the criteria for selecting this detail above others? Your edits have nullified the grammar corrections I made also, and my determined attempt to render the prose within encyclopaedic balance. My advice

talk) is simply slow down, read the article and consider what you are doing. It is a 'mess' in WP terms, what do you think? GerixAu (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

H Gerixau, First of all, I am not an interested editor for this article. The revert was because you didn't provide sources of your input (content/info). You could copy edit and you are welcome to add them in if you would provide sources for

talk) 10:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a puzzle. Can you provide examples of that unsourced content? Thank you. We seem to disagree. GerixAu (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerixau, You need to ping me when so I may know you sent me a message. Sourced content means the info claimed (texts/content that input in the article) need to be supported by independent reliable source for

talk) 05:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Gerixau, I leave the ref on my message above. I saw you deleted message to me. Whatever you do, pls adhere to the content policy of Wikipedia. As long as independent reliable is provided for

talk) 03:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry mate, the puzzle continues. Incidentally I prefer to have no references on my talk page, hope you understand GerixAu (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to fix this article? Where is the substantial progress ? GerixAu (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain etc.

this article now moved to Draft:Woman (Wallis Bird album), work in progress. Would anyone like to help ? GerixAu (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding

Same again. Get a citation to add things to Wikipedia article.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

why not search for the cites yourself, and improve it ? That is my approach. GerixAu (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not work that way. See

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Christmas to you,

Richard-of-Earth and all GerixAu (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop adding

talk) 06:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Christmas to you

CASSIOPEIA GerixAu (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

why not search for the cites yourself, and improve it ? That is my approach. GerixAu (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent you from persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked once you agree to stop adding unsourced content, then demanding that other people find citations to support the content you want in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message understood, fair enough. I will attempt to resolve this later in September GerixAu (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gerixau. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I will recreate the Wallis Bird album page later, unless someone else does GerixAu (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Gerixau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this is my appeal for clemency to recover editing rights. Back in March I knew that i was being provocative. I guarantee now that I will respect the policy on citations and provide them for my own edits as policy. I cannot use my knowledge here if unable to edit WP pages and I'd like to get back to it GerixAu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

That seems to satisfy the blocking admin's conditions for unblock, so I have unblocked you. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and NinjaRobotPirate: Since this user was unblocked two weeks ago, they have made six edits in article space. Of these, at least three [4] [5] [6] have added substantive uncited content. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerixau, your unblock request above seems to indicate that you understand how Wikipedia works and that you intend to follow its policies. To be explicit, however, Wikipedia is supposed to summarize what

verifiable. This means you can't just add your own random thoughts to articles. You have to summarize what someone else said. If this sounds too tedious for you, maybe you should find something else to focus on. Some people fix typos, some people revert vandalism, and some people write scripts to keep the site operating. But if you continue like this, you're going to end up indefinitely blocked again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, and g'day to JBL again. GerixAu (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already established that you were going to add citations and stop edit warring to restore your unsourced content. This follows up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1032#Gerixau and total disregard for V, BRD, CIVIL, Special:Diff/978436022, and Special:Diff/983039087. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough guys. I just hope that someone does repair the WP page for Neocatechumenal Way. And of course, g'day to JBL (talk) - Joel B Lewis.
GerixAu (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gerixau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this is my appeal to recover editing rights. I will genuinely respect the policy on citations and provide them for my own edits as policy. I cannot use my knowledge here if unable to edit WP pages and I'd like to get back to it GerixAu (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You made the same promise in your unblock request in August 2020, though it was a guarantee that time. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gerixau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to be unblocked. I understand the problem with unsourced edits and my previous attitude, I will comply. Have seen many WP articles since the block started, which I could improve. this will be my last appeal GerixAu (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't need to be your last appeal, but you will need to actually demonstrate that you understand the reason for the block. You will need to provide an example of a well sourced edit that you would make to an article as part of any unblock request. I will provide a process to do so below. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Reading our guide to improving articles.
• Picking any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.

Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:

• 1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}}),
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]),
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]),
     • and do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the
     copyright attribution
     ): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include any
     reliable sources
     (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking using {{
  administrator
  will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will hopefully improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]