User talk:Stephen Games

Welcome!

Hello, Stephen Games! 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:48, 28 October 2009 (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 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 • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!

The Architecture page is one of the most attacked on the list that I watch. It is fairly concise and has been only kept that way by continually removing vandalism, nonsense, and details added by every architecture student who cannot understand why their favourite (or their teacher) doesn't rate a mention. It's hard to maintain a balance and a coherence. You edits are the most well-considered improvements that have happened for a long time! Amandajm (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stephen Games. You have new messages at Talk:Metropolitan Railway.
Message added 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are being massively slandered AND threatened with crude physical violence (with the additional risk of tea drinking!!!) here - please pop in and have a look. :) Cheers. DBaK (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Update - it's now somewhat superseded by later comments and edits but do please drop in anyway if you feel like it! thanks - DBaK (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postmodern architecture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Canaan and Richard Sheppard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Postmodern architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Stirling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paternoster Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nudity in religion page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"

Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Driehaus Prize and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thiepval Memorial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Stephen Games/sandbox

Hello Stephen Games. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Stephen Games/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 1)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Stephen Games/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Stephen Games, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of Birmingham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Best. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Easter Rising. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. sourcing to a bookstore is not citing and can be considered as promotion if done on a generic and mass scale Tmol42 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Flying Corps, you may be blocked from editing. sourcing to a bookstore is not citing and can be considered as promotion if done on a generic and mass scale Tmol42 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Bedales School. sourcing to a bookstore is not citing and can be considered as promotion if done on a generic and mass scale Tmol42 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Tmol42 has this afternoon left three messages for me, accusing me of behaving improperly on Wikipedia. I find this offensive. I have an impeccable record over several years, quietly correcting, editing, and putting into better language postings by others that I have come across. This afternoon, I added to various Wikipedia pages a reference to a newly-published non-fiction book called Frank's Great War. In every case, my postings added factual information to the pages in question. I am happy to identify the various pages that I posted to. I linked my posts to a footnote, showing where the book could be acquired. Because the book was privately published, it is not available in bookshops and not, or not yet, available in libraries. For the handful of people who might ever want to see it, it can only be acquired online. I don't see this as improper, since in several cases there is no other independent source of factual information about the topic in question cited on the page.

In spite of that, Tmol42 sent me three warnings one after another: 1. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Easter Rising. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. 2. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Royal Flying Corps, you may be blocked from editing. 3. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Bedales School.

I think this is unfair, and I object to having my intentions misrepresented. The book in question has an entire chapter on the 1916 Easter Rising, and it is therefore entirely fair that it should be cited on the Easter Rising page. It has two chapters on the training of British pilots in the Royal Flying Corps, and it is therefore entirely fair that it should be cited on the Royal Flying Corps page. It is also about two schoolboys from Bedales School, and contains two chapters about Bedales, the ethos of which runs throughout the book, and it is therefore entirely fair that it should be cited on the Bedales page.

For the same reasons, I posted references to the book on other pages to do with where the Royal Flying Corps was based (including pages where no such evidence has previously been posted).

I would appreciate it if you would allow my posts to stand, and ask Tmol42 to be a little less the martinet. But in any case, would you please get back to me about this, as it is upsetting to stand under accusation.

@Jackmcbarn: Stephen Games (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your edit to Easter Rising, and Tmol's revert, and I thought I might clarify some things for you. Assuming you are the Stephen Games that edited Frank's Great War, you have a problem with conflict of interest. The book was published by an "Independent Publishing Platform", and does not appear to be widely read. On Goodreads, for instance, it has "0.00 avg rating — 0 ratings"; and it cannot be found on a search of Google Books. The addition of such a book to multiple articles by a user whose username is the same as the book's editor does, therefore, have the appearance of "advertising or promotion". It is particularly blatant in the Robert Dudley Best article, and I will regretfully have to delete some of that article's content. While Tmol might have been a little less confrontational in his posts to you, he was right to revert you, and to notify you of why he did. Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while checking the Amazon page I found another problem with the Best article: possible copyright violation. I have posted details on Talk:Robert Dudley Best. --Scolaire (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read your post. It seems unreasonable. You are making unjustified value judgements about the legitimacy of a book that, yes, I am the editor of. You seem to be saying that if the book had been published by a major publisher and was available in a bookshop you wouldn't have an issue with it but because it has been published using Amazon's CreateSpace scheme and is only available online, you're going to allow Wikipedia to be institutionally prejudiced against it. That's commercial discrimination. We can't all persuade Penguin or Simon & Schuster to publish us. Some books of value have to find small publishers. The fact that you haven't found that this book is highly rated says nothing about its value, and it is not acceptable that you should act as a hanging judge in this case. Are you qualified to make editorial judgements about literary and historic content in books you haven't read? I don't think so. I worked on this book for five years before publishing it, and I think I'm better qualified to authenticate it than you or Tmol42 are. Apart from anything else, private online publication is a developing format, and if Wikipedia can't accommodate it, its neutrality is going to have to be called into question, perhaps by hunting a legal challenge, since your intervention represents an unreasonable constraint on trade. That aside, I cited the book on webpages that self-evidently benefited from the linkage. You seem to be saying that those pages are better off without having this book connected to them and, again, I don't think you have the authority to make this judgement. Tmol42 has spent time going round reverting my changes, some of which happened to be unconnected with the book, and simply offered a better structuring of information already on the site. I have to say, I find Tmol42's behaviour heavy handed, and I think his/her reversions should in turn be reverted. More to the point, I think there is good evidence to raise a complaint about Tmol's behaviour and to question your support of it, which seems automatic and not thought out. I have a long history of adding valuable corrections to Wikipedia websites, putting right errors of thought and expression where I find them, and I have so far not been presented with sufficient evidence to call my editorial judgement into question in regards to today's additions. If you have such evidence then please present it. Otherwise, I'd like the reversions reverted. (An apology would be nice too.) @Scolaire: 77.96.231.223 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why there is a copyright violation. I am the copyright holder, and have freedom of action in this respect. Please explain. @Scolaire: 77.96.231.223 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"You are making unjustified value judgements about the legitimacy of a book that, yes, I am the editor of." - maybe because there is the possibility of conflict of interest which Wikipedia strongely discourages. In regards to citing sources that you wrote yourself please see this specific part of the article. It is allowable, but as it says must adhere to relevant policies. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that articles "should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform doesn't have such a reputation, so citing it is against Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a policy. Specifically, WP:RS says here, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, [or web-based media]—are largely not acceptable." What I said to you above was neither a knee-jerk support of Tmol nor a comment on your edits in general, it was only a friendly attempt to explain to you why those specific edits were reverted. As regards the "copyright violation", I am satisfied that the blurb was written after you created the article, so that's not an issue after all.

See also Wikipedia:No legal threats in relation to your comment that "[Wikipedia's] neutrality is going to have to be called into question, perhaps by hunting a legal challenge, since your intervention represents an unreasonable constraint on trade." That policy says, "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding."

Please keep your replies on this page, so that others can follow the thread, and please remember to log in before posting replies. Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There seem to be three issues here. The first, made by Scolaire, is that any book published using the CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is sui generis disqualified from being cited on a Wikipedia page. That's quite a big claim, and reveals that the guardians of Wikipedia are basing qualitative judgements solely on the medium of publication and not on the merits of the work itself. I hope you can all see that there is a high level of presumption behind this: no one who has so far objected to my postings yesterday has any knowledge of the work itself. Would it not be more transparent for Wikipedia to base its judgements on knowledge rather than presumption? As for threatening, I'm not threatening: I am saying simply that if your objection is allowed to stand, it might have to be tested through a process of judicial assessment: I hope you can see the difference. Thirdly, I'm not convinced that Tmol42's actions reflected the worry about CreateSpace that you say lies at the heart of this. Indeed, I did not provide information that the book had been published on the CreateSpace platform until after Tmol's objections. Tmol simply made unpleasant allegations, claiming that i was posting "promotional material". I hope my earlier explanations had clarified this. It would be helpful if Tmol42 could explain why he or she is unconvinced by my assurances - and without resorting to offensive assumptions about me. The guardians of Wikipedia, whose situation I understand and respect, must also comply with Wikipedia's code of respectful communication and not make unfounded and apparently knee-jerk remarks about those of us who donate to Wikipedia and try to make our own contributions to its success and comprehensiveness. That aside, Tmol should say what was or is still worrying him/her, so I can agree with it or try to address it. Thank you. @Scolaire: @DBak: @RepublicanJacobite: 77.96.231.223 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is an issue about the reliability of CreateSpace then raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and see what the opinion of others is. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mabuska. That seems sensible - although I think this is also a rather important public issue and deserves airing outside the confines of Wikipedia as well. (Or will that also bring down the wrath of the wikipedian gods on my head?) 77.96.231.223 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If "airing outside the confines of Wikipedia" means "tested through a process of judicial assessment", then it will be construed as a legal threat and you may be blocked. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats and don't just assume you know what it says. Now, to get back to your earlier comment that "[my] intervention represents an unreasonable constraint on trade." There is an implication there that removing your content will affect sales of your book, which in turn suggests that adding the content was at least partially motivated by a desire to promote your book. That is why I believe that Tmol was correct in reverting. Having said that, I don't claim to speak for Tmol, only for myself. I learned about CreateSpace on the Amazon page; I did not need you to provide the information. And by the way, Tmol is under no obligation whatever to respond to you. He has stated his case above, and that's enough.

And please remember to log in.

And please learn to indent your posts. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stephen Games. You have asked for clarifications of my reversions of your edits and my postings on your page. As an experienced editor I assume you will be aware of the requirements for matrial content to articles to be verified by citations. On the day in question you added over 15, almost identical edits to a range of articles, I was only aware of this sometime after quite a few but not all of these appeared on my watchlist. Having looked at the first two or three of these that had appeared it was also clear that not only were they almost identical in each case i.e. including basically little more than reference to events portrayed in one or other chapter of a specific named book and the authors name. Further rather than a standard citation format listing the book, author, ISBN number, page(s) etc; there was a URL to the page listing the book on a leading online bookstore. Having noticed others on my watchlist for this reason I applied a reversion with a clear edit summary and added a first level warning using a Wp standard warning template for promotion. I then saw more similar edits were appearing so I quickly added a couple more warnings and saw that the adding of further pages then stopped. I think in total there were about 16+ such edits by you over a very short period of time that day. I went on and reverted most of these adding the same explicit edit summary reason. Having been away from Wp I have now read your comments on my talk page and here plus responses to other editors. I stand by my reversion edits and warnings. I now see you have advised you are the editor of the book in question and may or may not also have another connection with the 'books' author' As others have already stated I agree your direct connection with the book clearly brings into focus the matter of a potential conflict of interest which I for one feel obliges one to raise it for consideration at the COI noticeboard. I also concur with the other advisory / cautionary words from the editors above about threatening editors and Wikipedia with legal processes. This has been done to help you. All I will say on this side issue is it has done you case and your standing as an editor no particular favours. Can I encourage you to take a step back and take on board the advice of other editors who have been trying to be of help.Tmol42 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Games concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Stephen Games, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen Games

Hello, Stephen Games. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Stephen Games".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —MRD2014 T C 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stephen Games. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stephen Games. 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)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Please note that topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to the extended-confirmed restrictions. This includes very severe limits on edits allowed to people without 500 edits. The history of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are included. Please read the restrictions and stick to them until you reach the magic 500. Zero^talk 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Seems fair. How will I know when I'm eligible? 82.39.103.167 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Try this link: [1] and look at "live edits". Also, don't forget to log in. Zero^talk 01:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)