User talk:Willhesucceed: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:GamerGate, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface this by saying that I appear to be unable to edit the Talk: Gamergate Controversy page so I'm putting this here. http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/16/bioware-writer-quits-after-death-threats-to-family-3925970/ I found this article that seemed to support the sentence in question, but reading lower down (the update) shows this to be completely the reverse. Hope this helps. --31.52.48.234 (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the GamerGate article and its Talk page are semi-protected, you can edit neither until you're auto-confirmed. That happens once you've edited four Wikipedia articles that are unprotected. Thanks for the article. I'll consider whether to pass it along. It might muddy the issue too much to be of help. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, why did you delete your twitter and reddit accounts just recently? 194.14.179.100 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like my Twitter username because it had an underscore, so I changed it. I change my Reddit username regularly because of Reddit's stupid design (downvotes discourage/disable debate). Not that it's any of your business. Willhesucceed (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if this article might be suggested as a source for a particularly prickly subject here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BenjaminQuintero/20140902/224671/Can_We_All_Get_Along.php I'd suggest it myself, but I just got my account & can't really do anything with the semi-protection applied. Kra'ul Sheykhon (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog by someone who's not really part of the industry. I'm not sure what Gamasutra's editorial policy is, either; that is, how hands-on they are with blogs. I'd lean toward excluding it, but I'll post it on the Talk page and see what others think. Thanks! Willhesucceed (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning it, funny how it was denied for being an "opinion piece" made for a website they used as a source when they used Leigh Alexander's opinion piece in Time as a source. Kra'ul Sheykhon (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with using Alexander's piece, for obvious reasons, but I've been overruled. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Willhesucceed (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in the process of trying to convince people to add a more critical reference to all the positive reception on Sarkeesian's videos. Since you're also strifing for a less one-sided depiction of the critical response, i'd value your opinion on that discussion on the talk page, it's the section above yours. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm hoping I'm doing this right as it's my first time. You seem to be able to talk in the GamerGate talk page and appear to want to bring balance to the page. Well I hope that I can pass some things to you to take on over to the conversation on GamerGate. First I want to point out that a source under "Role of misogyny and antifeminism" has been misquoted severely. Go to the second paragraph under that heading on the GamerGate page, and check out the Forbes source. By the end the author has clearly concluded that anti-feminism. No the source says that GamerGate is gamers feeling like they are be misrepresented. Clearly one of the editors here has an agenda and I wouldn't be shocked to find that other sources have been misquoted. Now, I hope to give you a couple articles that you can take to the discussion to hopefully bring balance and a voice to the pro-GamerGate side. These sources are: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/-NotYourShield-Video-Shows-All-Different-Faces-Behind-GamerGate-67173.html and http://www.cinemablend.com/games/-NotYourShield-Hashtag-Shows-Multi-Cultural-Support-GamerGate-67119.html I'm hoping that those two sources from CinemaBlend aren't shot down. Both are written by the same guy who has another article, also from Cinemablend, sourced on the GamerGate page. AGayGamer (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at Kain's article. I'm aware of the Cinemablend articles. I've been meaning to use them, I just have to find the time. By the way, when you post on talk pages, unless you're adding to an established section, there's an option in the top right to start a new section, and you should use it. Welcome to Wikipedia! Willhesucceed (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I also want to let you know that I've gone ahead and contacted Kain in hopes of finding out just what he meant with his conclusion, letting him know that his article is being cited on this site. If and when he gets back to me, I'll let you know his reply. AGayGamer (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've seen this article yet: http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/ It's a nicely balanced article. It points out that GamerGate has essentially entered the political realm while at the same time trying to clear up the misinformation being spread by the one-sided mainstream media. The article also brings to light the harassment the anti-GamerGate side has pulled. I hope you find this useful.AGayGamer (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot about this. It's already been mentioned, and it will be used in a new section I'm creating, which will hopefully be accepted. Thanks for mentioning it. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

• Referring specifically to Gamergate controversy and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent edits to WP:VG/RS since the sites you removed as "defunct" are still reliable when accessed through archive services. In any event, as was previously asked in an edit summary for another revert of your edits on that page, please do achieve consensus for such a major edit on the talk page before making a bold, unilateral change to a communal resource. Your changes will be more likely to stick that way. czar ♔ 14:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I just spent an hour doing that. You could have at least preserved the valid changes. Not touching that page again. Congrats. Willhesucceed (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you were previously reverted on that page and asked to follow consensus. Offline sites (if they are indeed permanently offline) are still worth listing if they've been deemed reliable—perhaps in a different section? Anyway, it needs more of a discussion than one editor's unilateral change. Anything controversial is going to be reverted until everyone can agree on whether the change makes sense. So while I'm sorry that your time was apparently wasted, I'm reaching out to you as a courtesy and the sarcasm is not appreciated. czar ♔ 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to "pile it on", but just so Czar doesn't seem like the bad guy here - he's right. I'm sorry your time was wasted, but at the same time, maybe this is a lesson that you should learn a little more about what you're doing before sinking so much time into it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: There's no reason he couldn't have kept what was worth keeping. It was disrespectful. I'm not going to bother editing the page again with the risk of all my work being undone hanging over my head. Simple. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How was it disrespectful? Should we change how we run things just because you hadn't taken the time to see how we run things? (Or ask first?) Reverting misguided efforts is not disrespectful. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:There's nothing like a coherent guide on Wikipedia, and there are 3000 rules to keep in mind at any one time; people learn as they go along. I am told to be bold, but apparently I am not supposed to be bold. The changes that were worth keeping could have been kept, and the ones that weren't, removed. That's not what happened. It does not inspire me to contribute again. Anyway, let's leave it at that. Willhesucceed (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is ask before you sink a ton of time into something. I understand being upset, sure, but Czar didn't do anything wrong. People are encouraged to be bold, this is true. But that doesn't mean every bold edit needs to be kept. For example, we have policies on what to do when that doesn't work. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Garbage (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Game (Queen album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. As I mentioned, what really drew me in is the fact that one shouldn't have to pursue primary sources to get the fully story on what's going on. I read the entirety of the talk page and archived talk pages and was a little astounded by what I saw, especially the aggressive attitudes of some of the editors and contributors. What really spun my head was the elaborate debate not that there was "no NPOV dispute," but rather that there was even more elaborate dispute that there was no dispute as to whether there was no NPOV dispute. I had a feeling (perhaps something more like concern) that the cooler heads trying to prevail would eventually give up and be pushed out, so if I can do nothing else than try to be one of those cooler heads, that's my goal. I'm just waiting to get accused of being a sockpuppet/SPA/misogynist/umber hulk :) AnyyVen (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AnyyVen: Well, it happened. Now Ryulong is trying to get you, me, and anyone else who's disagreed with him kicked from the site. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colour me shocked. I wonder when he's going to include a link to this discussion in one of his accusations. I wonder how many cursewords it'll contain. AnyyVen (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

because 6/11 agreeing to mediation is not a majority, amirite? Ranze (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a very cool thing you just did there. I urge you to revert your edits to the talk page and demonstrate that you can work with us rather than throwing up your hands at the slightest note of concern. I understand exactly why you are frustrated but not everybody is as difficult to work with as the editors at the Gamergate article and there is no good reason to treat David A and I as if we were treating you as a subhuman. David A has every right to be cautious considering that this is a controversial topic and you do yourself no favors by acting so gracelessly. Don't let your problems at one page with one set of editors poison your interactions with other editors at other pages. -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]