Wikigetsme123

Hi - thanks for reaching out and politely poking me about my revert.

The following is the stock standard welcome which you may find useful. I found the links very helpful:

Hello, Wikigetsme123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or .

So...regarding your edit to the already awful Gympie Pyramid article - please don't remove an existing category (in this case it was Pseudoarchaeology). By all means add something new if its relevant. Also, re Youtube links. The Gympie Ape clip will almost certainly be regarded as "Fringe" by most users here. If you are interested in pursuing this, the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard is here, and a good start.Nickm57 (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... Hi Nick, I find the youtube video including the Gympie ape a welcoming collection of knowledge to the article. There will be always something in the fringe area if you have so much information in one video. I would like to try and see if someone, who sees the overall context of the video, will pick on it. They don't pick on the current article, filled with fringe. So, I have my text written, I will try it in the sandbox and see how to establish the reference links. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing help request as no question asked. Furthermore:

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
— WP:RSPYT

Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for delay in responding but I can see your question has been answered. I will try to keep up with changes but am now often busy on things other than WP. Nickm57 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikigetsme123. I wonder if @Rotideypoc41352: might have a look too, I am an irregular user here now. Also I didnt know you had written anything until I plotted my way to your sandbox, which Im reluctant to edit. And I cant remember if thats good form to edit someone elses sandbox.

I like the fact you have started with reference to the local indigenous people. Part of the problem remains that there is not much in the way of sources, but I think your approach of balancing the competing claims is better. However, Im really uncertain about the use of some more extravagant claims - which cant be verified anywhere else. You mentioned newspaper files when we corresponded previously. Can you access these? Regards Nickm57 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for the feedback. You say its not a good form to edit in someones sandbox, shall I upload instead and we see from there? Yes you are right in regards to the claims of Indigenous people. Its only a claim as I write, but whats documented is that the claim is old and has been through the courts. I am not on anybodies side here, I just find that this article in this time needs to be objective and informative, as many people look for the info and find only that whats there. Which are so more extravagant claims? I deleted the last paragraph 'conclusion' as it could appear like a personal opinion, guess that's less allowed on Wiki. Newspaper articles, yes I spent 3 hours in the Gympie library reading and scanning the 4 collections of articles. I am in contact with other persons but could not get a verified photo or drawing. I would like to see that article up there and let others come up with suggestions if they have any. Lets upload it in an ok format, adding more objective info to Wiki. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Chris

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by J947 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikigetsme123! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Wikigetsme123! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, need article edited, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I've been meaning to get back to you. The other editors are basically experienced editors, even if one sometimes leaves not useful edit summaries. We don't use Wikipedia as a source. I don't think you've looked at the talk page since I added a lot of text to some official sources which have good information. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doug, just noticed, wrote that at you talk page. Guess still getting used to all that.

The design/ shape of the wall is polygonal. I mentioned the wall because its a strong part of the 'pyramids' history. I walked around it, made photos. Its unexplained and should have its space I find, but I see your point, its weird stuff. Its easy to see that the bricks were reused because they not all interlock as obviously initial intended. But at the entrance corners they interlock three dimensional perfectly. Its as weird as the Ape statue or the other artifacts that were found. There is this guy walking around it on youtube 'Pyramid Polygonal Wall Gympie Queensland'

Neither a YouTube video or your experience meet our criteria for sourcing

See WP:Verify and WP:RS. We don't use our own articles or personal experience, see WP:NOR. Have you read the talk page yet? And especially my links, which include Elaine Brown's report. 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Hi, yes I read it all Doug. I sent you the youtube link just so you can see what I saw as being polygonal shaped. Its the govs experience, too, as the wall is described as polygonal in their survey. I understand wiki links are not used, apologize for that link. Wiki links are used before and didn't give any problem (the Kabi Kabi link).

This Wiki link about megalithic wall designs could show you the unique construction that makes it a polygonal wall, and as we can call a sandstone ridge with terracing a 'pyramid' or a shaped stone an 'ape' why can't we call that wall by its common name. Its part of the 'pyramids history since the 30', 'shaped' stones, not retaining wall stones, which could mislead in that context. You can see, the wall is how I got to the whole project, following 'megalithic sites' for years now. No other interest or side, just preservation of 'possibly' very old sites we don't know enough about, yet.

Even as my English is not the best, I am an analytical thinking engineer and have put some thought into the text, its not coming out of nowhere, there is some sense behind it. I read everything and saw what there is to see, compared to the editors, who base their actions on what they find in the wheeler account or where else. So I am a bit disappointed that there was zero interest in that previous article and now 3-4 editors do their thing like locusts do, not coordinated (like not valuing/ respecting your initial edit), but just picking things apart until it doesn't make sense anymore. Another example of edit I can't follow is moving the gov 'no prove of any heritage significance' into the paragraph 'further finds'. Who has read about the background knows that mentioned 3 finds were done 'in the area', the ape across the street, thou. The govs survey covered only the pyramids site, so it doesn't include the 3 finds, but listed with them, it wrongly looks like it. I think the govs account belongs into the 'history' paragraph, because they did a survey as Elaine Brown or the Greens, or Wheeler did, and concluded there is or is no history on site. They should line up with the other assumptions, even thou its the gov. And who read their survey can wonder why no grinding grooves are mentioned, but every wooden post, and why the polygonal wall 9by the name!) is brought 'or left' with rough retaining walls in Bundaberg. It makes sense and its based on facts, that I mentioned that.

Just one question aside. Wiki doesn't accept first hand information but allow what is published by an editor, who takes over the risk of getting sued, that's why Elaine Brown and the Greens are unacceptable? understandable that way So I hope we can name the wall polyonal, as even the gov did name it in their survey, that we can keep the govs account in the history paragraph, as their findings don't include the finds. No need to mention other megalithic walls, its just where I come from and got to it). Thanks

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kabi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. --John B123 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you John. I asked in the teahouse what I could do against violation of a page and redirecting of it anddid not receive an answer. I am in contact with the Kabi page author. On the Gubbi Gubbi Talk page we discuss and bring good information forward that supports that view that this Kabi page should be online. The violation comes from other editors who are likely Gubbi Gubbi people. No one who deleted the text and redirected has discussed it before hand. Deleting a page and redirecting it is a violation, isn't it? That I am the only one trying to reestablish the page against several potential people of the Gubbi Gubbi tribe doesn't make me a criminal. The author of the page is deeply disenchanted that her page gets vandalized for years now. I doubt you had the time to read yourself into it. You just noticed my actions and got active, sent me a warning... why? Because the Kabi page is constantly violated the discusion about it arose now on the Gabbi Gabbi Talk page. Have you had a look? no?

Wikigetsme123 (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox

Hello, Wikigetsme123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Wikigetsme123/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)