User talk:PeterTheFourth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

Hello, PeterTheFourth, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Notice: sanctions apply to Gamergate controversy topics

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Joke

Actually it's about ethics in hatting conversations. Cheers! — Strongjam (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I did hope somebody would enjoy that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A request

This and this are not really what I'd consider collaborative in nature. Clearly this isn't your first time through here, but I'm a longtime editor, so I'd appreciate not being spoken to as if these are my first edits. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to my ethical, free speech talk page. I believe I have been unfailingly polite, but if you were to suggest an improvement, I'd be amused to hear it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Polite" is coming across as unnecessarily condescending. If polite is truly what you're aiming for, maybe just take a second glance before hitting the button in that case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any actionable suggestions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider how you come across when you post on talk pages, maybe? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I always do. I'm glad we could settle this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you think this is "settled." I do hope for your sake that you actually do take my advice, because at some point your tone will irritate the wrong person and it might not end up well. You're not going to sway many people in your direction with the tack you're taking, so seriously reconsider instead of extending the battleground mentality that got the article into ArbCom to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Look

I hope you are not getting angry. You were posting that I wasn't telling the truth and something like that. Please don't think that way. Now, I kind of understand where you are coming from. If I could revert just the first sentence, not the whole paragraph, I would. But since 11 Feb, the whole paragraph has been rearranged. I can't just revert the first sentence. We could find middle ground - how about including "within a day" in the first sentence in the version before my revert to draft-merge. Then we'll work from there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but despite your arguments to the contrary I still see 'within a day' as needless and awkward. It's simply bad wording to place it there, and confuses it with the earlier 'shortly following'. Did you consider placing it elsewhere in another sentence, as I suggested earlier? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was considering it. But I need some time to think it over, because I might have to re-write some parts of the paragraph while doing it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

huh?

What was it that Kia wasn't supposed to know? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Something about blocks. You like legos too? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 13:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're on my talk page. Was there something you wanted to discuss? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: You're topic banned from GG and you well know that KiA is a reference to the subreddit KotakuInAction. I suggest you drop it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: If Kia is a Gamergate reference, would it be considered an actionable offence that I would be able to report? I'm not exactly hot on cryptic clues being left on my talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Kind of inside baseball and obscure references that you'd have to explain to AE. Hopefully they just drop it and go back to editing KDE articles where they're a productive editor. — Strongjam (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Googling 'Kia gamergate' reveals a discussion forum for Gamergate as the first result, so I might try my hand at AE. I honestly don't think going out of his way to aggravate people he hasn't interacted with is the sign of an editor who'll improve given space. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KiA (the final "A" is capitalized") is KotakuInAction, a reddit forum where GamerGaters organize their attacks. Here, for example, is a thread (currently 98 comments long) about whether Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter statements can be excluded from the Gamergate article:[1]. The originator of this thread (and, understand the moderator of the entire forum) shares a name with one of the topic-banned parties in the ArbCom case. Brianna Wu recently published a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

sublreddit. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 23:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

You'd best come up with a diff to back your assertion here] really fast. Dreadstar ☥ 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: Hi! Sorry for the late response. If you examine the diff I provided at the start of that section, you'll see that the edit summary contains that slur. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Involvement

Involvement is defined at the top of the appeal template. "Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action." Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello friend. Unfortunately, I've read that and am still yet a bit confused. Yes, I've spoken of (and to) DHeyward before, but to my recollection it's questionable if I've taken a part in disputes related to the contested enforcement action. English is tricky, and I'd rather wait for some smart editor to clarify for me than act now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I linked at AE are all edits you've made related to the dispute between DHeyward and MarkBernstein. I wouldn't sweat it. I'm just being punctilious in bringing it up. Rhoark (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Thanks for the copyedit, it's way too easy getting blind when moving stuff around. Cheers! BP OMowe (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad it was helpful. I appreciate your effort in finding compromise in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

Hi Peter! I see you have WP:SEALION listed as your favorite policy. Interesting! I can't say I have a favorite. Anyhow, we're discussing its deletion and I thought you might want to contribute. Cheers! 169.57.0.213 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality

Out of curiosity, is there anything about the quality of the recent AVFM edits that piqued your interest, like do you disagree about making the statements pertain to the content of HuffPo/Cosmo/Time? This issue has come up before where the HuffPo article got cited as making statements it didn't and to keep the source in play I had to find something it actually said about the site or else remove it altogether. The idea being: if there is something else said about the site in the ref then it could be substituted once located. Ranze (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I disagree with a topic banned editor editing in the topic area in which they are banned. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to A Voice For Men. Thank you. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Improving an Article

Making an article less bias directly improves it. Destructor3 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Live Events are not WP:HORSEMEAT

You know this fine well, so don't act stupid. 2.102.157.53 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if any comments I've made have hurt your feelings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarky tone

Here. Best, JBL (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries about the tone. You may be right that it won't be helpful in achieving a solution to this problem- I hope it's able to at least calm down the hostilities for a while. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

Please don't revert again, discuss on the talk page instead. You show a clear bias for the anti-rape agenda which is not in line with WP:NPOV. This will be reported if you continue. 169.57.0.219 (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we must fairly present the pro-rape agenda, you know, balance and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination

Hi PeterTheFourth, This is a quick note to let you know that, in accordance with WP:SPA, I have added a Template:Spa tag to your MfD nomination here. Per the template, this does not imply any wrong doing; it is simply an indicator to other editors that you appear to have few or no edits outside the topic area. Please also review WP:ADVOCACY for additional information. Feel free to ask me any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cute. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

oops

Sorry about that [[2]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Source Reliability

Hi Peter,

I'd just like to ask you about your statement that 'We do not research our source's claims.'

I'm not in any way versed in the rules governing editing on Wikipedia, but I'm confused as to how this justified reversing my changes.

The statement that I removed referenced two online articles from relatively reputable sources. However, the claims that were justified by said references were not justified by the these references. The made the claims without any evidence. If this were a scientific paper, that wouldn't be accepted for a second.

Essentially, what you're suggesting is that because the source was reputable, any statement it makes is also reputable. This give licence for people to source fabricated evidence from supposedly 'reputable' sources and get away with spreading disinformation through Wikipedia.

Furthermore, while one of the articles was balanced and impartial on the issue, the other was clearly very biased against men's rights activism. Surely bias must be taken into account when determining whether a source is reputable or not.

I don't want this to be seen as a personal attack. If you're just applying the rules, then its the rules that I should be angry with. I'd just really appreciate some clarification on this point.

Thanks.

124.179.101.26 (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Essentially, at Wikipedia we rely on verifiability, not truth. That means when something has an established reputation for telling the truth we take it at its word- we don't by ourselves attempt to find out whether or not a source is lying or not, we assume that a history of being trustworthy means that its statements are then trustworthy until contended by another reliable source. An essay which goes into great detail about this is called verifiability, not truth and you may find it aiding your understanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

I have made thousands of edits over the past decade, I always did them as IP. I ask that you yourself revert again, or re-edit as I did, since my edit was appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2015‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your edit introduced the word "opponents" what responsibility, if any, supporters and opponents of Gamergate share. Reviewing the sources cited it does not appear to be supported and I was going to revert it anyway for that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I added "opponents" and removed reference to use of the hashtag since I split up the harassment section into pro and anti harassment accusations, and not all threats were tweets. Please see the cited report of the bomb threat in DC or "In an interview with Vice, a supporter going by the username _icze4r, noted the death and rape threats she had received, claiming there was a perceived "free pass" when it came to harassing Gamergate supporters."

I don't want to be accused of giving anyone a free pass.The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I'd rather not debate the merit of your edit. I left a note on your talk page explaining the restrictions. I'm sorry to hear that your edits were applied while logged off- this means they don't count towards your accounts contributions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A Whine for Deadbeats

Please don't expose yourself by WP:EW Some get rather testy... Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 08:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Cheers for the warning- my bad for being impatient and letting my frustration get the better of me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta

Where do you see the restriction applies to meta pages? On the talk page it says 'This talk page and this article' -- it doesn't say anything about meta or sub pages. Handpolk (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: The meta page is a spun off part of the talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And as such the 30/500 does not specifically apply. It says this talk page, not this talk page and spun off parts of it. Handpolk (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: I'm sorry, that doesn't quite fly. The restriction is in place for a reason, and I've told you about the restriction before. Please cease editing Gamergate controversy until you have 500+ edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite fly. The restriction is worded as is for a reason, and I've told you about the way that it is worded. Please cease removing comments from meta and sub pages until such time as a 30/500 rule applies to them. Handpolk (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two reverts, 1RR

please undo your 2nd reversion [3]. 1rr here. Hat note was unsigned and incivil. No useful content was removed. I don't know who made the hatnote as it was unsigned and not in the history. Nor do I care. It doesn't need to be incivil and your edit warring over it isn't helping. --DHeyward (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm sorry, I'm unwilling to undo that reversion as I don't believe that page is under 1RR restrictions. If you believe it is and I've violated 1RR, you're welcome to report me to the edit warring section of the administrators noticeboard, Arbitration Enforcement, or (and this would be preferable) point out to me where it's established that that page is under 1RR and I'll self-revert. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 Do we really need to tolerate incivil/bitey comments in hatnotes and editors that want to edit war (on a meta talk page, really??) to retain them? PtF barely meets the minimum requirements himself for editing, began his wiki career at ArbCom proceedings. I cleaned it up once and think perhaps PtF needs some guidance as a new editor. He seems unwilling to accept it from me. --DHeyward (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

His not being blocked from editing that article is blatant evidence of bias by administrators. If he were a Gamergater there is no way he would be allowed to carry on like this. Especially when it's obvious he is a sock. Handpolk (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: Either take your evidence that PeterTheFourth is a sock to WP:SPI or retract your accusation. Casting aspersions against other editors is not acceptable. — Strongjam (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of being a sock. I said it is obvious he is a sock. If it could be proven, somebody would have done it already. It's also obvious he is good at covering his tracks. Handpolk (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Mattress Performance Page

Trying to provide additional information and adequate citation, in the meantime please stop deleting it and just note that citation is needed. That information has been published in court records and in newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29#Reception 4.35.92.19 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! If you believe sources for the content you're including are readily available, please provide citations in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! A discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kleiner

I know you may want to participate out of your favorite topic area so people stop accusing you of being an SPA. How about take a look at the edits I made to Kleiner and see if you agreed with some or all of them and help to improve that article? The edits I made were before it was redefined as a gamergate article anyway. Reverting those is probably not even correct. Handpolk (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Handpolk! I don't necessarily disagree with the content of your changes, but it's definitely not kosher for somebody topic banned from an area to edit that area. I believe that the conflict between Ellen Pao and that firm (which is heavily rooted in allegations of sexism) counts as a 'gender related dispute' (point b of your topic ban), and as such your edit to the firms article violate your topic ban. Please cease editing in that area. You've been given a lot of leniency already. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An Invitation

@PeterTheFourth: Per my user page, I am the author of Matthew Hopkins News. The site has from time to time sourced national news stories, and my work has been retweeted even by some major celebrities like Richard Dawkins. I have recently written some articles critical of misconduct on Wikipedia, for example here.

I am currently considering follow-ups including deep concerns about Wikipedia:Wikibullying. Some users who have received several warnings have been allowed to continue in their misdeeds and may pose a threat of emotional harm to the vulnerable.

I am also a Wikipedia user and editor. I am keen to oppose ethical lapses and I agree with you that the GamerGate article, for example, could be less biased. I am setting up a private venue for like-minded to meet and discuss these issues and consider you suitable. If you are interested, please email me via the address on my blog, giving your Wikipedia and Reddit user names. Vordrak (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I don't think your website would be the appropriate platform for my views. Best of luck in the future! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That Revert at AE

Thanks for reverting my edit, Zad68 closed the discussion while I was making the edit. I didn't expect it to close that quickly. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for saying thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess who's edit-warring again

Any outside advice is welcome, even if it points at me ... I'm stepping out of this. --McDoobAU93 22:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: I will say that the insistence of using a film as a source for this article is very troubling, and I've made a comment on the talk page- I can't speak to the quality of the rest of the edits, given my complete lack of expertise in the topic area. I'll try to stick around and ensure that civil discussion is attempted rather than the back and forth insertion and removal that can be popular. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Roosh

Consider undoing this edit for the time being while discussion continues at BLPN. I don't think there's consensus yet (only been a day of discussion) and it's been edit warred over enough already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sure thing, have done. My bad for being premature! PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't seen....

You're famous! [[4]

Thanks for letting me know. I wonder if I'll receive as obsessed an audience as those unfortunates that started editing in the GGC topic area before me did. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I only hope I, too, can someday reach the point where a presumably uninvolved person will ask if a petition should be drafted about my participation in a hobby. Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Hey, Peter,
I just wanted to thank you for the virtual thanks. I'm feeling rather bruised today so it is appreciated.
Sorry to hear your subject of a reddit thread on KIA...that is, unless you view it as an achievement. I guess we all get a chance for a turn in the spotlight and mine was last December. I firmly believe there will be a point where this subject won't be so contentious, I just don't know when that will happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I value the contributions you've made to the topic area, Liz, and I'm glad your RfA seems to be looking to conclude as a success (hope you understand my reticence to voice my support- worried it would hinder the overall chance of the request passing.) I won't say I enjoy the attention from KiA- much more pleased that the thanks is appreciated, for example. I find it easier to be pleased at positive feedback from nice people than negative feedback from jerks. Here's hoping your time at Wikipedia goes along pleasantly in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, screw that. I'll toss in my support- with adminship, you'd be even more a boon to the site than you already are, and I don't think it'd hurt for me to note that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hi there! You may be interested in this discussion where you were reported for edit warring.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

--DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• No violation PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Phil Fish

I feel it's important to note that the attack against Fish originated on the imageboard, where the users are anonymous and is actively corroborated by the source cited. If another source says otherwise it should be cited here, but until then removal of that changes the implication of the sentence, suggesting Gamergate outright attacked Fish on twitter. Do you disagree?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people using the Gamergate hashtag have outright attacked Fish on twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you need a source stating that, which that source isn't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your question was unclear. Which of my edits do you believe are unsupported by the sources I've used? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically the sources discussing Phil Fish's doxing. The sources are not stating a direct tie to twitter nor Gamergate, but instead attributing the attacks to 4chan (the group of which did blatantly name themselves after Five Guys as a an attack against Quinn, which I've noted). The omission of that suggests the attacks came directly from Gamergate on twitter, which isn't what the sources are saying, now are they?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that by not attributing it to 4chan, I am instead attributing it to 'Gamergate', the amorphous leaderless group which originated on 4chan? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying this more directly reflects what the cited source is saying without synthesizing information, which we should aim for to maintain neutrality, no?

Btw I responded to your point on my talk page. Please give me a shout back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is included on the GGC page because it's related to the GGC. If it's not, by all means, remove it- if it is however related to the GGC then I stick by my edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But those sources cited are saying where the attack originated from. Purposefully leaving out that information in the assumption that they were absolutely done by the same group would be synthesis on our parts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If it truly is unrelated to the GGC I firmly encourage you to remove it from the article- you will face zero objection from me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hiya Peter, sorry about the revert. It was the accidental result of an edit conflict, although your comment was not constructive. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fully understood- these things happen. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

PeterTheFourth, please stop edit warring to keep that content about Cathy Young in there. I see that Masem says there is no proof for the statement as you keep restoring it, and that should be enough. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, Drmies- I've reverted one edit by The_Devil's_Advocate, which I'm not sure is sufficient to paint as 'edit warring'.

My reason for that (single) revert is that I don't believe stating that Cathy Young has lied and that is why we don't use them as a source (per previous consensus) is a BLP violation. I thought TDA was overstepping bounds more than a bit for somebody who has been 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia' by the Arbitration Committee. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he's actually topic banned from the topic area. Well that's interesting. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BANEX would apply here. Also, would be helpful to link to actual discussion (which I'm not familiar with,) and maybe use a less contentious word like "false statement" which doesn't imply intent. — Strongjam (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: the discussion we're talking about is here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be confused, from the context I thought there was a previous discussion about Young that section people were referencing. — Strongjam (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, you did it only once. But the point stands. Yes, the actual language used is quite important, as Strongjam suggests. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries- I've decided to just leave a note that material has been removed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki considerations

Apparently, you have to name your Twitter account after your opponents' nicknames for you to reach the high bar of "reasonable doubt" required by Arbcom to consider your username might be the same person. Looks like he did break the rules, much like they do in To Catch a Predator. I'm hoping to see T join the peanut gallery of the Greatest Show on Earth, however! 72.198.208.71 (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

About an edit on The Fine Young Capitalists

this edit introduced a factual error: TFYC did not create Vivian James, but they allowed 4chan members to create the character after $5000 of donations. Or am I incorrect? I am trying to bring this to GA, which is why I attempted to expand the lead section. sst^flyer 09:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, how is Vivian James a "Gamergate icon"? Do reliable sources support this statement? sst^flyer 09:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: My bad with the first comment! Luckily, Brustopher corrected my error. To the second: they sure do. For example- 'gamergate mascot vivian james'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the rest of the article state that Vivian James is a "Gamergate icon". The lead section is meant to be a summary of the article, so such a disputable statement should not be included. sst^flyer 08:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: Who disputes it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP redaction at Talk:Gamergate controversy

Hi PeterTheFourth, I noticed that you reverted a redaction of material that I made under WP:BLP. Please familiarise yourself with that policy before reinserting the material again. Contentious claims about living persons must be well sourced. Please don't edit war to include such material without sourcing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've asserted that this is contentious- it isn't, and the sourcing is easy to find. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please also note that I did not remove the whole of the comment, but simply the piece that contained the contentious claim; I think the remainder of the comment still makes its point adequately, but will have no objection to reinsertion of the material, if it is well sourced. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If the claim is easily sourced, in its specifics & entirety, please provide that sourcing along with the claim, as required by WP:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As provided in my edit summary- [https://archive.is/https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936 here's] an archive of the tweet in question. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By all means, though, bulldoze your editing of other people's comments in. If being seen as an upstanding person were an issue, why, you probably wouldn't be lobbying for gamergate in the first place. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm Chelsea V V. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chelsea V V (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't have one of these.

Discuss-Dubious is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding the content of {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you have a good holiday. I don't know if you're a Christmas person, but this isn't a twisted threat or a 'warning' or anything. I guess if you're not a Christmas person, I hope you have a fun time relaxing, or getting in some exercise, or trying new recipes, or sleeping (which also counts as relaxing, depending on how you relax) or something else that's fun. No pressure. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to visiting my aunt for Christmas lunch- hope you have a nice time on Christmas too. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

Please cease stalking me as you have done on multiple articles that you showed no prior interest in. Stalking is against the rules, I will report you if you persist. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, PeterTheFourth!

Happy New Year!

PeterTheFourth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you. I hope 2016 is good for you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Zika virus

Hi, can you explain why you removed the external link that Marko Grobelnik provided for the Zika virus page? I checked the Rich media link but did not see any conflicting there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.58.157 (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur that pointing to WP:RICHMEDIA was a dubious reason for revert. However, it was a good revert (or two). Other users, including at least one admin, have opined on the talk page or in their edit summaries that @Marko Grobelnik:'s contributions were spamming. Politrukki (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The content on the page linked was viewable through a very strange widget that was lagging out my browser. I figured WP:RICHMEDIA (which talks about how content shouldn't require special software or add-ons or stuff) was appropriate. Was there a more appropriate policy or guideline to point to? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, does the page require a specific browser or plugin? No (even though the page does seem to consume lots of CPU cycles, the issue is not necessarily browser-specific). Is the content type text/html? Yes. Hence I don't think anything in WP:RICHMEDIA specifically would disqualify the page.
I'm hardly the best person to answer your question, but I would ask editors to consider WP:EL on the whole. In my opinion the page doesn't pass any tests in Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link, and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #9 (the service seems to be a search aggregator, kinda) and #1 would suggest excluding. Today I learned that we have a noticeboard for external links: WP:ELN. Politrukki (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My bad! PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of talkpages

Hello Peter, I appreciate your latest effort on the hashtag activism page which I feel is a great improvement over the previous versions. I apologise for not using the talk page, I'm a wikipedia Noob (I'm sure you've noticed) and unsure how to handle "conflict" on here. Aparslet (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Aparslet. Please don't feel afraid to use talk pages- it'd be really helpful, actually, considering it's just me and Runescrape talking there at the moment. More perspectives is always good. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Hashtag activism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Per comments at Talk:Hashtag activism the inclusions violate WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. There is significant original research including synthesis, as outlined on that Talk page. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Hashtag activism. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Apologies for the template, but while I am pleased that we are now in dialogue about the content, the comment in this edit is a personal attack, and a failure to assume good faith. I note also the previous personal attack in the edit summary here. Please focus on content and refrain from comment on contributor. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning your recent edits at GamerGate controversy.

@PeterTheFourth: The narrative that GamerGate is a harassment campaign is one sided and just because some sources claim this, doesn't mean that it actually is a "harassment campaign". This article has almost completely been re-written to feature a one sided claim that #GamerGate is exclusively used for supposed "sexism against women", this even goes against several Wiki-policies most notably the WP:NPOV. --Cookie Nguyen (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Please do not use the talk page to cast aspersions or imply aspersions regarding other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

PeterTheFourth had commented DIFF after admin Anthony Appleyard had previously responded to request by 97198 at Special:Permalink/713144571

• Notifying you as you had previously been involved recently in process regarding title of the page: Please see Talk:Social_justice_warrior#Requested_move_6_April_2016. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt. I've commented there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Alison Rapp

Here are a couple sources you might find useful regarding the harassment of Alison Rapp. They all mention the allegations made against her by Jaime Walton. They also mention that one of the driving forces behind those allegations was Andrew “weev” Auernheimer and his buddies at the Daily Stormer.

Ars Technica

The Guardian

New York Mag

News.com.au

Wired

The Verge

Torven (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Torven. Sorry for replying days later. I've made a comment on the gamergate controversy talk giving these links. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Anita Saarkesian Edit

Hello, was just wondering why you removed my edit. Is there anything you'd like me to do?

Barackaddict (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Barackaddict. You'll need reliable sources when you add information to wikipedia pages. Information added that is not cited to reliable sources is considered original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new to this. I've got my citation ready and it's from Forbes but for some reason I can't edit. What's going on?

Barackaddict (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Metal gear Solid 5

Hey PeterTheFourth. I had to undo one of your reverts and added an explanation for your convenience. IP's version sounds a bit less hostile or antagonizing, while the message is still left intact. The criticism section could use more professional and valid criticism. Or the praise could be reduced quite a bit. (The whole article seems a little bloated, IMO. I wonder how much of it is actually relevant for people trying to get a general overview over the game. This not Metacritic after all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiningExample (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard a merge against consensus was done, and the AfD is included in the discussion I ping past participates who are active in the discussion. Had you reviewed the discussion you would have seen this. Therefore your warning is a violation of WP:AGF. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I don't believe my rather politely worded caution violated WP:AGF- but certainly, reverting this caution as 'vandalism' would count as a bit of an assumption of bad faith, no? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And I find it odd that you would jump from one discussion where we disagree to another without checking the history just to "warn" me. When a merge is done against consensus it seems completely reasonable to ping the involved parties against that consensus ... all of whom were directly involved in the discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: A discussion about whether or not you are canvassing (with examples from three independent editors) is not "vandalism".[5] You seem to have difficulty understanding that vandalism is "addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." You really need to stop abusing the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

That page doesn't look like it establishes notability, but I have neither the time nor desire to go through an AfD process on what would definitely be contentious. Is there someone impartial I could hand this off to and let them deal with it?204.11.142.106 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're truly looking for impartiality, I'm not your best bet- I'll take a look now, though, because now my curiosity has been piqued. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hi Peter. You appear to have broken the 1RR restriction on Gamergate with these two reverts within 24 hours: [6] [7]. I'm sure it was unintentional. A self-revert would be the easiest way to settle it. Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Per WP:EW- "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.". I don't believe the first diff you linked is a revert- it's a change to wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Both edits removed the following text:

"...began principally in the area of video game journalism"

Neither replaced it in substance.

You're welcome to consult more senior editors but the case is straightforward. If necessary I'll link AE requests you filed and/or participated in concerning similar reverts, showing your understanding these edits fall within the definition of "revert" and the scope of the restriction, but they'll come in an enforcement request and I'd prefer to keep this collegial. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll phone a friend- The Wordsmith, do you believe the first diff linked by James J. Lambden is a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

They both remove some of the same phrasing. While some of the content is different, they both are substantially a revert by the standards used here, and Arbcom Findings of Fact, AE and AN3 have sanctioned for similar edits. I do believe that it was an accident, and not in bad faith. To avoid giving anyone ammunition to cause drama, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert as a gesture of good faith. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. It is rare in this topic area, as I'm sure you're aware. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia

Thanks for your edits to List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia. If you follow the edit history you'll see I have been trying to weed out non-reliable accounts and uncritical acceptance of the fringe view that real ghosts exist in all of these places, but another editor has been blind reverting me. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

Not sure how to create a new section for Ghostbusters/July 2016, so I'll just use this one. The two sources given basically say "Critics give lots of legitimate reasons why they don't like the idea of the new Ghostbusters and think that it will suck, but we're pretty sure it's just because they hate women." I just wanted to discuss this with you before the GB article gets even more messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs)

@MegaSolipsist: To create a new section, either click the 'new section' button next to the 'edit' button, or tag it as such- == Section name ==. I think the best place to discuss your problem with the sources used for the statement (and your preferred alternative) is the talk page for the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

AE request closed

I have closed an arbitration enforcement request that you filed regarding Ranze. The result is that no action was taken since the topic ban had expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, you're not at fault for mistakenly believing that the ban was still in force. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed lead section

It might be worthwhile self-reverting the Proposal #3 from the Gamergate article. It's clearly over the top and misaligned with previous statements on the matter that it's likely to be seen as disruptive. Your mileage may, however, vary. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Drowtales

If you decided to take this to AFD again, ping me. I felt like the last discussion was closed way to early. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, I created an AFD for it here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Peter, you're dangerously close to your 3RR limit today. Please take a cup of tea and relax for a few hours, the Internet is not in danger because of a few more or less paragraphs at The Order of the Stick. Diego (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Thank you, Diego. However much of a jerk I am at times, I do genuinely appreciate this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand the feeling, having been there myself several times. ^_^ Diego (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

conflicts of interest

As per Ryk72's recommendation I'm requesting that you attest to any conflicts of interest you may have with Crash Override Network. I asked this because of a consistent trend of meat-puppets acting on behalf of the subjects of the articles themselves. (Redacted) 24.84.155.22 (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Partial redact per WP:NPA - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa! To clarify, I did not make a recommendation that such a request be made; I made an admonition, in these edits (see edit summary), that article Talk pages were not an appropriate place for this question to be asked. I also redacted part of the comment there, and now again here, which casts aspersions on specific editors &/or former editors; you need to link to evidence to make such statements about editors, and it (almost always) needs to be on-Wiki evidence. (No, that is not an invitation to do so; it is, in fact, a strong advisement to not do so. The question has been now asked; discussion of other editors is not required.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ryk72. I am not Alex Lifschitz, Peter Coffin, Arthur Chu, or anybody else you might want to assume I am. I have no conflict of interest regarding this topic. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, PeterTheFourth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Thanks for the email, I've read it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent redacted edit

PeterTheFourth, Please have a look over WP:OUTING. Unless an editor themselves makes a link to their external information or accounts on other websites, it is not acceptable or appropriate to makes such links on Wiki. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: I'm using a basic dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverting

I cleared the paged because they violated policy on WP:soapboxing. It was an administrative function. You are welcome to take it to WP:AN if you like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PeterTheFourth. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Mike Cernovich

Re: "With these 7 sources" - did you examine the sources or was your response reflexive? The former seems unlikely as not one is usable for statements of fact. Wikipedia requires high quality sourcing for biographical claims. Please be more careful. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: They're sources- whether or not you think they're good sources is irrelevant to the simple fact that they are sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Unusable sources are irrelevant. 15 tumblr blogs are not 15 sources. That's a weak argument. Policy dictates what sources are usable, not my opinion. I note increasing irascibility since Trump's victory. If you're allowing emotions to affect your judgement in areas where BLP is concerned a break from the wiki is advisable. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting

You recently removed my comment after you deemed it a personal attack. You did not remove the comment I responded to, which was attacking an anonymous user. You must not have actually read my statement. Please, don't spend so much of your time removing and reverting content if you aren't even going to read the context. You have no more authority than I or anyone else does. GG360 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@GG360: WP:NPA is policy. Don't reply to somebody's comment 9 months late just to berate them for not behaving how you'd like. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Twitter image

Hi, The Twitter bird image is, unfortunately, not free use. Suggest self-reverting. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks buddy! PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Couch

When you reverted my edit today you out in the summary "editor is topic banned".

If you are referring to the "gender related disputes" aspect of gamergate bans, I was told this expired 10 months ago: special:diff/729932574

Since you and another editor were still under this impression do you known if there is a template I could paste at the top of my talk page informing people about that so this doesn't continue to be mis-stated? Ranze (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ranze: Oh dear, what a terrible mistake. No, I don't have any advice you can use there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

American Politics 2

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversial subreddits - SRS

I understand you were previously hesitant to add SRS, but I was wondering if you had looked at the my latest changes. More sources and different wording so as not to violate copyright. I mentioned this in the talk section as well. Regarding SRS, sometimes the best course of action when faced with wrongdoing is to not go on the offensive, however other times it is necessary to bring misdeeds to light. i don't purport to know the reasoning behind your opposition to the inclusion, but I think we can both agree that if reliable sources are exposing the controversy (or toxicity or whatever) at SRS, then we are certainly not placing ourselves at risk by doing the same, Those sources are written by reporters who are not using pseudonyms to the best of knowledge. IF they don't fear the reprisals of SRS, there is no reason for us to. Just an opinion. And NOT saying that you fear reprisals from them - merely stating that I would understand feeling that way. 2602:301:772D:62D0:E055:B3EF:6113:19F0 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Civility at talk:GGC

You know comments like this don't help anyone and don't jibe with policy. Knock it off, will you? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be censored. There may be more than several points of views than just two. WP:NPOV is important, relevant as well as notable views must not be censored according your personal views on feminist gamers. Also read the sources before removing them. Thank you UmdP 09:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please get rid of your "Siege mentality" and learn collaborate with others. Removing content due to you disagreeing with them is not collaboration, I kindly ask you put back the series of the articles by Liana K, instead of maing meaningless statements like they are poorly sourced when the articles comes directly from the critic herself, If there is something wrong you are supposed help as a Wikipedian and help to make the article more constructive or unnecessary conflicts arise.I am not an ideological enemy or pushing anything against you, we all are here to imporve wikipedia not fight eachother. Thank you -UmdP 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@UMDP: If you'd like to discuss why you believe Metal Eater is a reliable source or Liana K's opinion is notable, you're welcome to participate on the talk page of the article, where I created a section just for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey.

Don't remove a POV tag I put on a biased article (see Help:Maintenance_template_removal). The issue has not yet been resolved, so please go to Talk:Gamergate controversy to discuss improving the article instead. (This comment has been edited.) Zakawer (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I was pretty darn triggered. So I removed it. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning

You pull another major BLP violation like this one and I'll make it my mission to see you permabanned.--MONGO 04:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@MONGO: What, by referencing Scaramucci claiming that Steve Bannon tried to suck his own dick? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to others to decide here--MONGO 04:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi PeterTheFourth,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I don't think this is helpful. You can't have an RfC on what somebody's pronouns should be - they're what the person says they are. This could be harmful and result in misgendering, and I'm upset that you think this is the appropriate solution. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're hugely confused about what this RfC is about. This is not about determining which PGPs are Zoë Quinn's. It's not about what Quinn's pronouns should be.

If you think that is the point, then you're hugely mistaken. What this RfC is about is interpreting Wikipedia policy in this grey area case to best suit both the subject of the article and our readers. If Quinn hadn't deleted the blog post in question, or used consistent pronouns in personal publications and blog posts and the book, then there would be no disagreement and no need for this RfC. But unfortunately this is unclear and so the RfC is required.

You or I might have firm opinions on this topic, but clearly there exists a disagreement in consensus and so we must request the wiki community's input. Trust in the process. I also urge you to follow the principle of charity and assume good faith... It sounds like you think I'm trying to hurt Quinn or attack the article in some way. This is most definitely not the case. Check my edit history, check my actions, I think you'll find I am not in the business of such harassment.

This is exactly what I meant when I said in the RfC that articles like Quinn's are rife with controversy because of outside issues. See the uncharitable and inflammatory comment from the IP below. But our job is to ignore these things and be as unbiased as is possible about WP policy. Please help me do that job. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Removed dumbass IP Comment)

I don't think you're attempting to be harmful at all, I just think that this RfC is more likely to harm than most. I don't feel comfortable participating in it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm sorry...but you're giving up your influence on the outcome...

I think it might be pertinent to remind you that even the blog post that's been put forward as evidence towards a they/their/theirs PGP was apathetic to all others, in a non-upset way. It didn't say "please don't misgender me" or "everyone has been misgendering me so let me clear this up!" like many other coming out posts have.

And the vast majority of personal promotional material uses she/her/hers. I would think if Quinn were hugely offended by or hurt by the misgendering of feminine pronouns, then publishing those pronouns in the book or on the blog would be less common...

Also, the instant that Quinn comes out with an up to date firm statement on PGPs, the article can be changed. We are supposed to be as firm with our use as the subject has recommended. If Quinn tweets out tomorrow "I prefer they/them/theirs, thanks." then the entire RfC is meaningless.

But suit yourself, your opinions are your own and I salute you for having them so strongly. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hate is not helping

Please stop providing false information about things you dislike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikicreamdaddy (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for edits, it helps a lot. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Careful

I happened to notice your discussion and wanted to add a word of caution from my experience.[8] Some editors take offense easily and just as easily report you. Though you are correct, you may need a different approach. Good LuckC. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion that might concern you [9]

C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Hi Gilmore! Thanks for the beer, although I am a teetotaler. I've read through the discussion and appreciate the notice, but I'm not going to participate there. In my experience, the community is very reluctant to enforce any standards on harassment and personal attacks. The initial responses echo my experience. Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you use this time to gain consensus and make changes to pages before the disruptor returns, you do not have long and the protection on a page has been lifted. Good Luck C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The Admin-gods hate to have their decisions questioned and will remember you for it, and not in a good way. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but I don't need coaching. I have the time to occasionally stop people editing Wikipedia in a way that's dumb or bigoted, but I don't have the time to create content of much value - different people will contribute in different ways. You're free to make any changes to whichever page you want. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for what you have done and you have your hands full with that one. Sadly I can not go near that subject after my run in with the disruptor, the Admin-gods decided I should be banned after someone complained about DS. I can only watch as things unfold. Thanks again and best of luck with that one. Bye C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Is as you know under a 1RR restriction, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, PeterTheFourth. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of comments

In this edit you removed my comment [10]. The conclusion of our past interaction was that it is not acceptable to remove others' comments. I do not believe my comment violates the topic ban but if you are concerned you can ask GoldenRing for clarification. Removal on your own initiative is inappropriate. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Patriot Prayer

1RR applies to the talk page as well as the article, stop reverting people's comments Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: You'll find you're wrong there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: No violation Looks like you found you were wrong there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PeterTheFourth. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Baizuo

I think it's time for you to go to the talk page and state your case. Continuous unexplained removal of content does not look good seeing how you are already at 2/3 reverts per day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence submission

Hello PeterTheFourth. You created a section in /Evidence subpage of Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case. However, your submission would be more appropriate as a comment on one of the desysop proposals at /Workshop subpage. The /Evidence is not intended to be used for general comments on the case or proposed remedies, but for submission of actual piece of evidence including diffs that demonstrate the nature of the dispute and assist the arbitrators reaching a decision. So, it would be recommended to move your submission at workshop as a comment on one of the "desysop" proposals. Otherwise the comment will likely be ignored.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: No worries at all, I've removed my section. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's very kind of you :) PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom again! Please read.

Only Arbitration Committee has the authority to desysop any Administrator. No any community discussion on AN or ANI can. I think earlier your posted another unhelpful, frivolous personal opinion in the name of evidence and later politely asked to removed it, which you obliged

Please I will advise you again to remove this section and further read ArbCom policy and WP:ADMINABUSE section in Adminstrators' policy. If you have any grievance about any administrator that's the guide you should first read on how to proceed. Sorry to say, that comment is generally unhelpul and not question for Arbitration Committee. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: Why do you think I should remove my question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Because

1. AN that you mentioned cannot desysop.
2. That's not the right place to ask that question.
3. It has no relevance to the proceedings of Arbitration Committee.
4. Both you question and earlier remark which you retracted show you have not fully grasp the essence and purview of Arbitration Committee and its case pages.
5. Removing it and devoting time to understand WP:ADMIN and WP:ARB is the most appropriate thing. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I disagree. Thank you for your input. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea to get to The Root of the matter

[11] Same story and same type of online magazine, just a predominately white readership; you could switch them out to keep the peace, but it's up to you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

I was going to drop the first chunk on the scrapped edit that was in the BuzzFeed page VolseniMack (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2018 March 6

You make another edit like this again and I will report you to ANI for wikihounding. Wingwraith (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wingwraith (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

May want to be more careful with Sockstrike in the future

I was looking through some older edits, and I noticed you strikethroughed an IP's comment. WP:SOCKSTRIKE is an essay (meaning it's not a policy or guideline), and it specifically says: "This is NOT done to spite or punish them. It is done to alleviate the disruption/deception caused by abusing multiple accounts. In WP:AFD, RFCs or other !voting discussions, you should strike their contributions using one of several available methods." Note the text I've bolded. An IP user's comment shouldn't be striked just because they were blocked, but specifically for voting malfeasance or abusive commentary. In this case, the strikethrough was inappropriate, since the IP editor was continuing a productive conversation about the verifiability of a source. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i: Agree to disagree about the productivity of the IPs contributions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

How do you expect to get this done [12] without Gamaliel running cover? If the embarrassment of getting de-Arbcomed wasn't enough and he wants to actually lose the bit I guess he could try, but otherwise I don't see it happening. Thoughts? 91.215.152.12 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I got another Q: Looking back, would you say you're "happy" with how it worked out? SJWs got Kotaku and Gamergate got the White House. Fair trade or? 91.215.152.12 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

'Trump Blames Video Games for School Shootings. Here's What Science Says'. Nerd. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. WP:RTP says: " If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I explicitly objected. – Lionel^(talk) 06:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please revert yourself so you are not in violation and subject to sanction. – Lionel^(talk) 06:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: If you want, you can start an ANI thread about it. Don't see it going any better than your other ones buddy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please self revert on the Columbia University article

Hi Peter, if you could please self revert on the above article, that would save us all a lot of time. I've posted on BLP/N here, and left a note on talk page. I would suggest more restraint when reverting BLP issues when someone has stated an issue with it. Also, please respond more substantially on talk, or engage at the BLP/N please. Arkon (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I may be as impatient as yourself. Still, please chime in at the appropriate venue. Arkon (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out, dude. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You should revert your undo

At Template:FIFA World Cup group table sidebar. You obviously know nothing of this topic, but come revert constructive edits instead of helping solving the issues. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Category

1. The Conservatism US category is too big and is being WP:DIFFUSED. When the process started it had almost 500 pages. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/LioneltBot_2
2. Alt-right is already categorized in category:Paleoconservatism which is a subcat of category:Conservatism in the United States. Per policy Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages articles should be placed in "the most specific" category which is Paleoconservatism. – Lionel^(talk) 08:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks buddy. Enjoy editing! PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

See you around, Peter – Lionel^(talk) 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Pizzagate

I undid the following comment on the Talk page at Pizzagate: "My supervisor in the deep state has instructed me to close this thread. Please direct all complaints to the Department of the Interior, because obviously that's where the deep state would be headquartered, because no one gives a crap about the Department of the Interior." The comment struck me as brainless, which is why I undid it. You undid my undo with this comment: "Endorse hatting conspiracy bullshit." What is that supposed to mean? Chisme (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Chisme: The section was about a guy insisting that we take the conspiracy theory seriously and treat it as something that may be happening. There was made a comment that closed/hatted the section, as well as joked about it being silly. You removed the comment that closed the section - I agreed with closing the section, and undid your edit undoing the closing/hatting. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Well said!

[13] --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for the truly immense amount of effort you've put into the Donald Trump article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comments

PeterTheFourth, now that you mention it (you were the one who brought it up), and looking at the various tools available for doing a WP:SPI, there is good evidence that appears to point to the editor you mentioned as being the person behind the IP address. Could be circumstantial, I suppose. Regardless, I wasn't even thinking of him as being the IP, and I'm still not even sure why you brought him up in relation to this discussion. But it seems that you think he's the IP. Which leads me to wonder why you are accusing me of thinking it and why you were thinking it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: ???? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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.

Swarm ♠ 02:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Chris Heaven page

Excuse me, I am not able to understand why you proposed the deletion of the page (that was on WIKI for years before the first deletion). The page have many references including Imdb, magazines, websites etc. AND...someone deleted all the tributes album part that included various collaborations with notable people in rock/metal music. Thanks Giulia Marchesini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchesinigiulia (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marchesinigiulia: Chris Heaven is not notable enough for his own wikipedia article. He does not pass WP:GNG. Was Chris Heaven deleted before you recreated it? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: The official website of RAI (First italian television with the picture and the mention on it) is not enough? Same for discography? And Imdb movies etc? I found pages with people that made surely less than a movie with great actors, some CD and collaborations with famous musicians. And yes was deleted before (but doesn't include some info I added) but after many years online!comment added by Marchesinigiulia (talk • contribs)

@Marchesinigiulia: Discography and IMDB are not enough. The RAI mention is not enough either, sorry, as it is not 'significant coverage'. It may be best to read through our policies on notability. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Alert

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I felt it necessary to bring some of your recent edits to the attention of the arbitrators.[14] Rhoark (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello PeterTheFourth, I have just closed the AE thread concerning your conduct. As I said at AE, I find the edits you made to Gibson's biography problematic; they are pretty much a textbook violation of BLP, in that contentious information concerning a living person was removed from an article on BLP grounds and you reinstated it repeatedly without getting consensus first. Please, be more careful in future when making edits concerning living people. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, I should have been more careful in that instance. I'll be so in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For the best talk page question I've seen in 10 years of editing. Toddst1 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoah. Thanks dude! PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson RfC

Hi there. I was quite astonished to see your edit here which undid an edit made relating to the closure of the RfC on Talk:Jordan Peterson. Am I correct in thinking that the edit was made without discussing this on the talk page, with the closing editor (feminist) or on a noticeboard (perhaps WP:AN)? feminist is an experienced editor who was not involved in the RfC and so had every right to close the discussion; moreover, the closure looks like it correctly assesses consensus to me. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The RfC was the discussion. Thanks so much for sharing your valuable opinion on the discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gab (social network)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 October 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Pudeo (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Gab (social network), 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.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PeterTheFourth. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

November 2018

Hello, I'm Kendall-K1. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Gavin McInnes, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sock accusation

seems no one had the common decency to inform you of this: 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:2DE9:AC2A:78C7:7FEF (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:2DE9:AC2A:78C7:7FEF: Thanks buckaroo. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

CIS

Hey, nothing personal to you. There's just often a situation on the CIS talk page where multiple editors jump in around the same time. Didn't mean to call you out. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RE: Gavin McInnes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/08/fbi-says-proud-boys-are-not-an-extremist-group-after-all/?utm_term=.22f9c2016b4b

The citation of the SPLC's designation of the Proud Boys as a 'hate group', is baseless and not backed up by empirical evidence. Hence why I removed that blurb. The SPLC does not retain even an iota of credibility any more, and has an exceptionally large multitude of pending lawsuits against it for defaming various individuals and groups. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.9abf0912d7af

Read the links and stop rushing to preserve fallacious junk information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspectRatiocination (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@AspectRatiocination: - You have twice removed properly sourced information from Gavin McInnes, Sourced information should not be removed from articles without a consensus on the article's talk page to do so, which you did not, and do not, have. I have warned you on your talk page about this, and you deleted the warnings, which is your perogative <- (shouldn't that be "prerogative"?). However, if you remove sourced information from this or any other Wikipedia article again, I will report you to WP:AIV for action by administrators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

^ What he said. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I explained this fully in my summary. Are you guys thick? AspectRatiocination

Re: Anticom

I noticed you reverted my edit on Anticom, saying that the sources stated that Anticom as a whole espoused neo-Nazism. But that doesn't appear to be the case. There's no source that provides any evidence of that. I understand this was a mistake, and if you have any source that shows evidence that the group as a whole endorses neo-Nazism, please feel free to provide it. Thanks. OnceASpy (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@OnceASpy: First source cited, first paragraph. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see the issue here. That radio station makes a pretty bold claim, but there's zero evidence provided for it. I've gone ahead and fixed it. If you can find a reliable source that shows evidence that the group as a whole espouses neo-Nazism. Plese feel free to add it. Thanks. OnceASpy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hodl PROD

I undid your edit because it already had a disputed PROD see [15]. Pajeet 💩 04:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

AE appeal declined

Your appeal at AE on behalf of MarkBernstein has been procedurally declined - sanctions may only be appealed by the sanctioned user. There is nothing stopping Mark appealing on his own behalf if he wishes to. Additionally I would very strongly caution you to lay off the personal attacks - they are never acceptable and do not help your cause. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is one thing I know about Wikipedia from my experience on it, it's that you can call somebody a cunt and get away with it. I try to give as much respect to people as they deserve, and if that loses me internet points I'm okay with that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

新年快乐！

Peter, please allow me to say thank you and I look forward to collaborate with you in the brave New Year! Happy editing 2019! Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: Aw, thanks for saying that. I really appreciate it. I hope you enjoy your 2019. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Hi Peter.

I've been editing Wikipedia here and there since the early '00s but I don't know much in-depth about the ways to do things so perhaps you can tutor me here.

Does the fact that some references mention that Ocasio created a publishing house make it automatically worthy of mention, down to its specific mission statement? Should the Wiki contain all things any citable reference have to say about her? Or should we limit the page to actual accomplishments, such as creating a publishing company that actually published a book? It seems to be a bias in favor of a politician to present as an accomplishment something that doesn't seem to have been an accomplishment, which is why I removed it.

I'm curious why you say my looking at Amazon and the publisher's website constitute research. Someone clearly looked at the cited reference; does that not equally constitute research? (I think not, in either case.) Since you don't see the current link to a reference claiming the BAP existed as research, I've just added two more links that it has no books known to Amazon, neither available or even unavailable, and that the web site has been reclaimed by the hosting site. But this seems messy: rather than have multiple links why a mentioned fact about her is of little import, it seems cleaner to simply not have it in the first place. Should all Wiki pages have even unimportant things about their subjects, along with notes about why the thing mentioned actually is of no or little import? (There seems to be an asymmetry in the way these web pages work: there's a clear way to provide a reference for something that is there, but there's no way to provide a reference why something is NOT there...)

(cur | prev) 06:19, 17 January 2019‎ PeterTheFourth (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,975 bytes) +760‎ . . (Undid revision 878833613 by Swiss Frank (talk) What? We don't perform research to refute claims by reliable sources.) (undo | thank) Tag: Undo

(cur | prev) 06:11, 17 January 2019‎ Swiss Frank (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,215 bytes) -760‎ . . (Removed Brook Avenue Press from her list of accomplishments, as this "publishing house" seems to have made zero books. Their home page is blank, their twitter account is protected, and Amazon shows zero books new or used. By all means let us list her accomplishments but if we add this back, let's first verify the company published anything.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs)

@Swiss Frank: TL;DR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb. 2019

Your recent editing history at BAMN shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CordialGreenery (talk • contribs) 09:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Trans man

Please point me to the place in " our RfC about it" that forbids my edit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the RfC is here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gab_(social_network)#Gab Dissenter merge

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gab_(social_network)#Gab Dissenter merge. Peter, since you're one of the main contributors of the page, I believe this RfC is highly relevant to your interest. You may participate whenever you have time. Also I'd be happy to be informed of other discussions and RfCs. Thanks. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: Thanks for reminding me - I meant to comment, but never ended up doing so. I'll do so now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox discretionary sanctions alert

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 shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. 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 the 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Merphee (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, stop the edit warring and obvious tag teaming

Hey dude, stop the edit warring and tag teaming to 'technically 'avoid the 3RR. There is a current discussion underway and you've started this crud again right in the middle of discussion where NO consensus has been established. Merphee (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Pings

Was just rereading edits to the talk page on The Australian, and just in case you didn't realise, if you go back to fix pings, they wont work; you have to sign and ping at the same time. I muck them up all the time, and have to put an extra message saying "forgot to ping" etc- and have myself missed a few pings from other editors who forgot the same thing. Curdle (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Curdle: Ah, crap. Sorry. I forgot to re-sign my comment. Usually I remove my signature and add a new signature, which works to make the ping go through, but I'd forgotten it on that occasion. Thanks for the reminder. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

notice

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Merphee_reported_by_User:Onetwothreeip_(Result:_), so notifying you of that. cygnis insignis 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, PeterTheFourth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning

I see you restored the contentious material. Did you read the talk page discussion, including the admin note? The reason it's a BLP violation is that the primary source doesnt say anything about the phrase being anti-Semitic. Perhaps you'd like to self-revert? StAnselm (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: That they mentioned the conspiracy theory is true. That the conspiracy theory is anti-semitic is also true (please see our article on it.) You're welcome to continue edit warring to keep this out. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "anti-Semitic" does not occur in the cited reference, and of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching

PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't always refer to that. Did you read the article I linked to on the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, @PeterTheFourth: Be careful when using SPLC as a source. It is most likely not considered an WP:RS for the Fraser Anning article, especially if you're relying on it for classifications. From the RSP: As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from this organization constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. 84percent (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Peter, thank you for the feedback. Will take it into consideration! With love,

84percent (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Accidental Undos & bias in edits

Hey, sorry about undoing somethings, but other users seem to intentionally deceptively vandalizing a quote and not mentioning the changes.

The source article clearly has the full quote.

The behavior this is referring to is clearly documented

The only reason for the ellipsis is to create a bias and not report on it in a neutral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingthorr (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)