User talk:Weedwacker/Archive 1

==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) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing your comments?

I'm not sure I see what you're referring to on the evidence page when you say I edited your comments. I did not intentionally change anything in your comments and I don't actually see what the change was supposed to do or why I would make it. It was most likely just something that got fouled up as I was typing in my commentary somehow. In any case it wasn't purposeful and I apologize if you found it alarming. ReynTime (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@ReynTime: I highly doubt it wasn't intentional to edit a comment of mine 800 lines up the page from the new comment you added. The fact that you made the change and then removed it 18 minutes later tells me it was more than just a simple editing error (if that were even possible). I doubt you don't know what you're doing since you seemed to know how policies here work on your first day of editing. If you are truly a week old account of a new editor, perhaps you should take time doing other activities to familiarize yourself with wikipedia decorum before immediately engaging in an arbitration case just because you hold a strong opinion about it. Since you did revert the change yourself, even if i think the original edit was done purposefully, i'll accept your apology and strike the link to the edit from my evidence. Weedwacker (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Harsh 2580. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jagapati, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Harsh (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:Workshop

Am I not allowed to point out to someone that there are formatting errors on an article that if I were to actually edit there'd be a collective aneurism on Reddit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Admittedly none of the suggestions were content related. I posted that more for the benefit of the editor I was responding to than as an accusation of any wrongdoing, because of his statement that you had removed yourself from the article. If you had made formatting suggestions to almost any editor i'm sure they wouldn't have ignored them and would have taken action on fixing them. I appreciate you taking this concern to my talk page and not on the workshop, and i'm going to add a clarification to my statement that I don't find fault with any of the suggestions you made. Weedwacker (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

These suggestions keep getting brought up as some sort of wrongdoing though (at least the other times Ive seen the complaints). I look at a page, I see a minor error like the ones I pointed out, and like I can't touch the page because KiA will have a field day, even if it's fixing Post''' to Post'' or whatever else I found. It's inane.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen mention of the suggestions before coming across them on the talk page while i was formulating my post to the workshop. I can understand the reaction that would happen if you edited the page though, and I think it's a good idea that you did not make the changes yourself as you're probably right in your assumption of how people will react. I know i'm probably one of the last people you'd want to hear this from, but if you're trying to avoid a reaction you should refrain from making even minor edits to correct formatting and surely other editors will find them. Weedwacker (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked the error with the ''Washington Post''' thing was still up, as was that duplicated reference. But no one really gives a shit about the formatting as much as they do about what it says about them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 hostage rescue operations in Yemen

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

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I've redacted our conversation, removed the link to Reddit (even though it's deleted now), and closed the thread. I don't think it's a major issue, but I see your point. Let me know if there's anything I've forgotten. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I still have some issue with the comment you removed the link from, but since it's no longer linking to anything specifically it's not really in violation of anything. Thank you for doing this and understanding where I was coming from. Weedwacker (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Gameranx

Editorial team. There's also nothing on Wikipedia that says that all reliable sources must have a "posted editorial policy" nor does the fact that it's not on WP:VG/RS qualify because 8chan is not a video game. Not to mention, we use it extensively already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A video game site not reliable for video games means its reliability for other topics is also in question. from my last edit summary. All reliable sources do not require a posted editorial policy, but editorial control and corrections (or a statement that they make them) are important things looked for in identifying reliable sources. Just because the site is sourced elsewhere on Wikipedia already does not mean it's reliable. Also Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis WP:NEWSORG. Since we've both passed 3RR at this point let's agree to stop fighting over this on the article for now and discuss it. I'd implore you to take gameranx to WP:RSN, I won't even post there, let others decide if it's good enough and then I won't fight it. Weedwacker (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just because it's not on WP:VG/RS doesn't mean shit. It's used extensively on Wikipedia already. You need to drop the act and just say you don't like it because Ian Miles Cheong wrote it and he's what would be considered by Gamergate as "anti-Gamer" or whatever term is used this week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have my own opinions when it comes to the author for his colorful past including things I don't have a good enough RS to mention on Wikipedia. I am well within my rights to question a source that hasn't been questioned or approved before, as we all are. Weedwacker (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)