ForbiddenRocky

Visit the Teahouse

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can use Special:Diff if you want to make your diffs pretty. For example, [[Special:Diff/645645952|revert]] will turn into -> revert. — Strongjam (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

thanks ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I use an easier way. Take your link and do this. [https://en.wikipedia.org Text to Display Here] which will show as Text to Display Here. This works on all links. Note: You must use single brackets "[ ]" and a space is required after the link (no pipes "|"). Happy editing! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

And though one head be struck down, until we lift the beast off the earth, ever more heads shall spring forth.

If you want to link to a category, without adding the page to the category you can add a : in front of the wiki-link. Like so:

* [[:Category:2014 controversies]]
* [[:Category:2015 controversies]]

Gives you:

• Category:2014 controversies
• Category:2015 controversies

— Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was passing through and noticed a question you asked.

In the section Think Progress and Epistemic Closure on Talk:Gamergate controversy you asked the question "Does 1RR apply to the talk page?" the answer that user:Thargor Orlando received from User:HJ Mitchell (now archived) gave a specific answer to a specific question, but that specific answer does not explain the general policy on refactoring talk pages.

In practice there is a prohibition on editing other users text on all article talk pages if the editor who's text is altered objects. It can be found under WP:Refactoring and the section Others' comments] in the guideline WP:TALK.

It you refactor someone else's comments and those edits are reverted you must not reinsert the refactoring. As there is no talk page about a talk page where you can explain why you made you edit and seek consensus for it, the assumption is that there is no consensus and that you should leave other peoples comments alone (the last thing we as editors need is edit warring over the content of talk pages). So if you think that a revert of an edit you make to someone else's talk page contribution violates a Wikipedia policy or guidelines (such as the bullet point "removing prohibited material" in WP:TPOC) take it to WP:ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to reinstate the change.

-- PBS (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

{ping|PBS} Thanks. What about the templates at the top? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) @PBS: (Shoot me now. You'd think I'd know how to use ping by now) reping. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you mean. -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

{ping|PBS}} There was editing of the templates at the top of the talk page. It was about a Think Progress link that I think MarkBernstein added.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC) @PBS: because I fail at ping. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just one more "{" to go.   Same rules apply, someone adds a template, someone else reverts, it gets reverted. Someone changes the content of a template it gets reverted. Both the revert and the change are refactoring. So the emphasis is on the person who wishes to refactor others edits to get a consensus for the refactoring (see for example Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 14#Talk page too long) -- BTW in reading that section you need to know that Technophant is now indefinitely blocked. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Gamaliel and Masem: (I think you are admins...)

1. Where do I ask these questions normally?
2. How do you tell who is an admin?
3. There's a 1RR violation on everyone's favorite page. I'm hoping it will resolve itself. But if I report it, does it go to AN/I or AE or the 3RR notice board? (and now I can't find the links for them)
4. Is User:MarkBernstein tbanned or not? I was under the impression he wasn't. I checked the enforcement log. Anyhow, his AN/I thing got closed with a notice saying things were rolled back. One of AE things saying he was tbanned.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can answer one (yaa me.)

1. WP:3RRN will take 1RR violation requests. However I think this one might be too stale for them. They normal only act during an edit war to be preventive.

— Strongjam (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can ask general questions on admin'ing that are not critical at WP:AN (WP:ANI is when more immediate action is needed). Special:UserRights should tell you if a user is admin or not, if they don't publicly mention it on their page. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Masem: Thanks, but when I click that link, I get "Permission error". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, wasn't sure if that was a limited use tool or not. I don't actually know how to otherwise easily figure that out - admin users are encouraged to make that point clear on their user page (like on mine there's the broom-wikiglobe icon at the top), but I don't see another easy way to figure this out. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Special:ListUsers is what us regular users can use. For example, here's a link confirming Masem's status as an admin. — Strongjam (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Masem: Added sentence about WP:AN to my user page. did you want attribution? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Masem, Strongjam, and Gamaliel: UGH.. The template on the GGC says to take the 1RR to AE. That seems so harsh. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen 1RR vios for GG handled in 3RRN so I wouldn't worry about the exact wording. I'll mention it to Harry though. In this case I think things will work themselves out without admin intervention though. — Strongjam (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was hoping for a resolution without too much sturm und drang. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

To notify someone of the gamergate discretionary sanctions, the procedure is to add a new section to the talk page without doing anything else (don't add any other text at the same time). Use a section heading such as "Gamergate notification" and put the following as the comment:

{{subst:alert|gg}} ~~~~

The full story is at Template:Ds/alert. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Didn't know. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• original decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing
• discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive272#Removal.2FModification_of_restrictions_on_editing_on_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
• discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#ARBGG_DS_page_restriction
• discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#Page_level_restrictions
• discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_49#500_edit_requirement_for_editing_Gamergate_controversy_and_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
• an appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk

This is the song that never ends

It just goes on and on my friend

Some people started singing it not knowing what it was,

And they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi ForbiddenRocky,

Apologies for the interruption, just thought that I should mention that the change here is inside a direct quote from a(n Australian) source. We usually repeat quotes verbatim, rather than trying to match MOS:ENGVAR, so it might be better rolled back.

And while I'm here, I've been meaning to ask if you, or Dumuzid, would like to collaborate on creating some articles on some prominent Women in Video Games. I worked together with Strongjam and DHeyward on the "Bonnie Ross" article, and found it a rewarding experience; and have been meaning to go back and work on some articles for the other women mentioned in this source.

There is, of course, no requirement, but please let me know if you're interested. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ryk72: Oops. I would actually like that, but between now and next March things looks crazy for me. Sorry. If I get free, I'll let you know. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Stop reverting me, please. Anyone - not just you - who edits little but GG-related articles is going to be inherently biassed. That they try to stifle discussion just exemplifies that fact. Please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia in a wider role. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: you are in violation of the meta conversation warning at the top of the talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: please restore the hat ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've no idea what you are talking about but will go look now. It doesn't alter the fact that you are quite clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia but rather to push a very narrow agenda. Sooner or later, you'll go the same way as the rest. And good riddance it will be. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sitush: there's an AE sanction mentioned at the top of the talk page that says meta topics are supposed to be moved to the meta-page. Please restore the hat. Move the conversation there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what is "meta" about what I said, nor why it needs to be moved. However, I am about to read the relevant stuff. Hopefully, you'll be banished for good before I've finished doing so but, alas, I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Or I guess you could move it if you are convinced that you are correct. The whole thing is just a mess of laws and it is people like you who are abusing them. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

If you censor me one more time at Talk:Gamergate controversy when I am discussing the relationship between thrashing out a solution and the conceptual problem that underlies the article, I swear I will find some way to have you blocked from editing it at all. Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Koncorde: I don't have the bandwidth to poke through that RfC. The most I could say is go with RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. IP doesn't understand reliable sources, and had canvassed for support (likely astro-turfing too) after raising non-neutral RFC. It was just getting to the point of full on edit warring that I was trying to avoid. He's now having the same issue on Political Correctness trying to push constructive edits there. Koncorde (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

IP did not canvass for support. IP contacted one editor for comments, while Koncorde canvassed no less than half a dozen editors in an effort to influence the RFC. There was zero edit warring, except perhaps on the part of Koncorde. The title of the article is "Controversial Reddit Communities" I suggested a non-controversial addition, provided sources (one of which called SRS quote "the most controversial subreddit") and discussed in talk. As a result I've been insulted, harassed, and accused of being a sock. Sorry to post on your page, Rocky, but I wanted you to at least have some perspective. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E8E7:7B7B:3A2A:959B (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:2602:301:772D:62D0:E8E7:7B7B:3A2A:959B, you're not helping your cause stalking Koncorde. From what I'm seeing, but without out doing serious investigation, dropping the stick may be wise on your part. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK. Good advice. 2602:301:772D:62D0:181A:1494:FA9D:30DD (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a question: What did you mean when you said "I remind that moving discussions not about editing GGC to the meta page was an Arbitration Enforcement "? Thank you for your kind attention. Chrisrus (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please read the headers at the top of the GGC talk page. The information is there. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I noticed you marked yourself as a member of WikiProject Wikify and you are currently listed as active. I was wondering if you would be able to assist with our current backlog reduction plan. While traditional drives are more structured month-long sprints by WikiProject Wikify members, there is currently lacking activity within the project and in order to significantly reduce the incredible backlog, members are encouraged to review all articles marked with the Underlinked Template Message - {{underlinked}} - a list of which can be found here - to analyze the worthiness of the template message on the given article. Articles that have nothing to link or are have had wikilinks sufficiently added should have the template removed to clear the backlog and make it easier for editors to find articles in genuine need of wikification. This can be done by any editor; however, all editors should consider joining if they haven't done so already. Thank you!

    The Novac (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I am informing you of these discretionary sanctions since your recent edit at Sarah Jeong indicates that you perhaps did not notice the edit-restriction instituted for that article. Abecedare (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply