User talk:Woodroar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).


If you're here to ask why I removed/reverted one of your edits or left a warning message on your talk page, may I first suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (because the answer can most likely be found there). Many of the messages I leave are for the following reasons:

You may also want to familiarize yourself with these specific guidelines:

Otherwise, keep reading and feel free to leave me a message. Thank you!


Sockpuppet Investigation[edit]

I am very sorry that you feel that I am a sockpuppet. I want to tell you truthfully that I am not. Some of the evidence with editing gaps is because simply I took a break from editing for an hour or something. And I didn't thank that user for the barnstar because I wasn't sure where or how to thank him. You have to believe me. I love Wikipedia and I am doing my best on it. Proof I have is that I undid his edit while using STiki and it would be extremely unlikely for me to even see my own edit using a a program like that. Leoesb1032 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the investigation finds that you are not socking again, then I will apologize for the accusation. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though a check was not run, I'll still apologize for the accusation. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You have mail![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Woodroar. You have new messages at Talk:List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suzannah lipscomb[edit]

As you have pointed out TheRedPenOfDoom should be focussing on the content of the book and not the decoration. Additional the link the poster has provided does not work. Can you please remove the comment? (Lw1982 (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC))

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Lw1982, I believe you're referring to comments from a different editor. Yes, it's true that we may focus on the content of the book, although it would be more appropriate to do so in an article about the book itself rather than at Suzannah Lipscomb. In an article about the author, we're certainly able to use the book for biographical details. A discussion of which details are appropriate or inappropriate is also based on reliable sources via our WP:DUE policy, and that's a discussion which should happen at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. In addition, I'm not sure why the link is not working for you, but this and this work quite fine for me. Even if they didn't, as The Bushranger pointed out above, a dead link isn't grounds for removal. I hope this helps. And, as usual, if you have any questions feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Chasedbyablackdog[edit]

Hi Woodroar - Thanks for your message on my talk page. I am still familiarising myself with how wiki editing works so please forgive me if I've not responded to you in the correct manner - your message to me said to respond on your talk page so I'm going with that, despite your talk page's warning against doing so.

I don't really understand why some of my contributions have been removed. For instance on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games#Browser_game I added a link to the Bin Weevils wiki page, as it is a game in a very similar vein to Club Penguin and so seems totally reasonable to add to the list.

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Three_Peaks, the 'accepted route' from Horton-in-Ribblesdale is mentioned but there's no mention of the complete route time or length. As such, I added this in and cited a reference which is, to the best of my knowledge, a site with expert knowledge in the particular area in question.

There's also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Weevils#Merchandise - I added some info about more official Bin Weevils merchandise that I know of (this is incidental of knowing a nine-year-old, I assure you), I thought it would be of particular interest because it allows users to create wall murals with their own in-game Bin Weevil character - something quite novel and not provided by any of the other mentioned merch.

If you could advise me on why any of these things pose a problem then please do - my intention was to provide additional information and trustworthy sources for that information, and I thought I had done so.

Chasedbyablackdog (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

All good questions, and all related to our various policies and guidelines which, I admit, can be a lot to take in at first. I removed your wall murals link at Bin Weevils and another editor removed your hiking link at Yorkshire Three Peaks because they lead to commercial sites. While it wasn't your intent to advertise, we have a pretty strict policy against linking to commercial sites, whether in the external links section (what I and others would call "linkspam") or in the form of references ("refspam"). In fact, about the only time you'd link to a commercial site is in an article about that business: you shouldn't find a link to amazon.com, for example, in any article other than Amazon.com. Now if, say, Bin Weevils murals were noteworthy enough to garner coverage from the gaming press or other reliable sources—doubtful, but you never know!—we'd reference the source itself. The source then would presumably include information about purchasing murals. As far as our List of massively multiplayer online games article goes, I removed Bin Weevils because neither the article nor any reliable sources I could quickly find describe it as a massively multiplayer online game. Club Penguin, on the other hand, is described as an MMO nearly everywhere. The term "MMO" is a little problematic, as there's no dictionary definition and developers have a history of using the term (or avoiding it) for marketing purposes. So, like many things, we have to fall back on what reliable sources say. (We even have a specific "WikiProject" devoted to video games that put together a list of reliable and unreliable sources.) Reliable sources in an article about Yorkshire Three Peaks routes would be something like Backpacker (magazine). (But, of course, a UK version. I would imagine there is such a thing.)
And no worries about replying here, the goal is communication and I've found it easier to keep conversations on one page rather than replying on each others' Talk pages. I'm kind of rambling because it's late here, but if you have any questions at all, feel free to reply below. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't you feel that a blanket ban on links to commercial sites is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? For instance, regarding the 3 Peaks, the information I added would be relevant to the content I'm sure, and the website I linked to makes it their business to be experts in that field - surely that makes it just as likely to be correct info as any other place? Perhaps even more so. As for categorising Bin Weevils as an MMO or not, whilst it may not self-classify as one, I'd argue that the nature of the game as described on their site (http://www.binweevils.com/aboutus.php) has at the very least aspects of an MMO. Chasedbyablackdog (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, all references should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy": that is, most journals, many newspapers and magazines, and a few non-commercial websites/blogs of experts. Now some self-published sources are acceptable, mainly for non-controversial/self-serving/extraordinary details about that person/business/organization only. So we could rely on a game developer blog for information about, say, their incorporation date, but it's rarely a good idea to use them for upcoming release schedules or for the features that set them apart from their competitors. But if a reliable third-party source discusses a game's revolutionary features, then of course we'll include it. Sure, this does limit some of our sources, but it also keeps out diatribes from the cranks building perpetual motion cold fusion engines in their basements. I'm only mostly kidding. Keep in mind that we're building an encyclopedia, not a directory or a means for companies to market their wares. Commercial links are, by definition, self-serving, as they exist in order to sell a product, and whether or not we can glean information from their sites is irrelevant because we simply can't trust its veracity.
Bin Weevils is an interesting case. I don't know much about the game itself, but from what I've been able to gather it's a virtual world where players can interact, but that virtual world functions as a lobby where players can do a variety of things, including playing games. To me, that doesn't sound like an MMOG, just a virtual arcade with avatars and chat functionality. A true MMOG would involve thousands of players within the same game, whether it's an MMORPG or MMOFPS or a running SIM with ten thousand lanes. Bin Weevils could do this for all I know, but it seems like they're avoiding the term "MMO" even on their own website because of negative connotations of the genre. But the types of sources we use don't call it an MMO, either, so I'm guessing their games are primarily single- or multi-player. It seems like most games marketed towards children lack "massively multiplayer" functionality, probably because maintaining the safety of thousands of minors isn't economically feasible for the developers. But I can't speak from first-hand experience playing the games—they didn't exist when I was that age—but only from editing articles about them.
Anyways, I hope this helps give more insight into why we do the things we do. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Math rock[edit]

Hi Woodroar,

Firstly, I'm only new to Wikipedia contributions so I apologise if I'm not following proper protocols just yet. I'd like to quickly address the revisions you made to the math rock article. I can understand your decision to revert the deleted content. My intentions here were that I feel the Foals anecdote is rather irrelevant and not a genuine reflection of the contemporary math rock movement as a whole, but I can understand that my lack of providing alternative case studies doesn't warrant the deletion, so this is quite acceptable.

However, I feel that the listing of non-commercial news sites such as Musical Mathematics and Fecking Bahamas is important for users to pursue further information on the topic. Again, I'm only new to Wikipedia contributions, but I feel that this isn't a breach of policy. Similarly, the move towards clean-toned guitar sounds and finger-tapping is an evident trait of contemporary math rock and there are a myriad of examples (Piglet, Them Roaring Twenties, Invalids, Hannibal Montana, Uchu Conbini, Zefs Chasing Cara, toe, Low-pass, Macho Machismo etc). As a new user, I want to play by Wikipedia's rules, but this information is an important addition to this subsection. Any tips on how to integrate this information into the article, whilst being within compliance of Wikipedia's guidelines, would be appreciated.

Cheers!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandofcrete (talkcontribs) 10:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from regarding Foals. I personally don't have much of an opinion, and neither version was based on reliable, third-party published sources as they should be, but I felt that the original version gave a slightly broader view of the genre. Ideally, we should be referencing all statements to reliable sources rather than our own opinions, but unfortunately there isn't a wealth of music journalism about the development of the genre as a whole. It's probably best to start a discussion at Talk:Math rock to see if others would like to chime in on the direction of the article. As far as the links to Fecking Bahamas and Musical Mathematics goes, that's an easier answer: per our external links policy, we should only be linking to official websites of the subject of the article. If either site is determined to be a reliable source, we can link to specific URLs—a review, for example—but not to the main page itself. We really only link to main pages when they're widely recognized as the go-to place for information about that subject. If Rolling Stone were the only magazine to report on rock music, I wouldn't be surprised to find it linked in the article about that genre, but niche genres generally have niche sources. Which is too bad. As far as Fecking Bahamas and Musical Mathematics being considered as reliable sources, I'm not so sure. You'll probably find more opinions at (again) Talk:Math rock or our reliable sources noticeboard, but we have a reliable sources checklist that, while not official policy, gives information to consider when evaluating a source. What is the source's editorial policies and circulation, and what have other sources written about it? What is the author's background (credentials and experience) and where else have they been published? Again, you may want to take the discussion to the article Talk page as I don't have any final say, I've just been here for a while and know our policies and guidelines pretty well. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutelary (talkcontribs) 20:13, 5 July 2014

You do realize...[edit]

...that your comments here are incorrect? Now you've told the editor to go ahead a create a new account, which would be evading a valid block. They blocked because both their username AND promotion ... the panda ₯’ 11:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, wow. I don't realize how I missed that. I was reading the first admin's reply as declining a username change based on the limited number of edits, but didn't stop to think (or check) that the block was still in effect. I've struck some comments there and added clarification. Thankfully, User:UnhappyDecius123 hasn't been registered yet so it doesn't appear he is evading the block. I'm sorry for muddying the issue! Woodroar (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Loved (video game)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

These count as unreliable?[edit]

There are kotaku links in there and that website is frankly an involved party in this. Crisis.EXE 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sources were Know Your Meme, Reddit, and Imgur, none of which are reliable, especially for BLP claims such as these. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Drew games.[edit]

Hello Woodroar. You have deleted the "Fatal Errors", "Easter Eggs" and "References to other Nancy Drew games" sections from many of the ND game pages why have you done that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.110.49 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the sections violated our policies on what Wikipedia is not, specifically that Wikipedia is not a place for game guides. We have detailed guidelines on what video game articles should and should not cover: our articles on video games should include a summary of the gameplay as well as sections on the development of the game and its reception by game journalists/critics, but we leave it up to other sites (like Wikia or dedicated fan sites) for the specifics of how to play the game, trivia, cheats, etc. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok but "Fatal Errors" is not a guide so i don't think you had to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.110.49 (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure it is. An exhaustive list of things not to do is just an inverse of things to do, which is telling players how to play a game. As our article guidelines state, "[i]f the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable". I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Permission to post?[edit]

Brother, do you still grant Sidurians permission to post here, or do you retract your welcome? We will ALWAYS respect your wishes brother... but suggest... courage. Men follow courage. Women follow courage. We ALL follow courage! Demonstrate courage Woodroar and we will follow you. You are better than this, deep down you are not a “Brutus” and I apologize for calling you one. Join the Wikipedia reform movement and we will make you a king among men.

Re-Request-Permission-to-post-to-your-talkpage-Brutus (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Please delete this after u read it brother=>) On Nov 5th it is looking increasingly likely that we are just going to FORK Wikipedia (take all the free text/image bits) and add enhanced audio, video and software. It will be easy ;) You could run this effort Woodroar. We may not always agree, but we are WikiFamily, and we will never give up on our inclusionist brothers. Don’t be seduced by the deletionist horde, I swear to you brother their days are numbered. Join the future. Damn, we have girls writing Siduri love on their own faces. We have already won the war. Join the revolution. Join your brothers, join the white Knights, you’ll feel better about yourself. I Promise…(<DELETE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-Request-Permission-to-post-to-your-talkpage-Brutus (talkcontribs) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are an indefinitely blocked user or editing on his behalf, so no, you should not post here. All of your edits have been to support things Wikipedia is not and, quite frankly, you're wasting our time. Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian's page[edit]

Hello Woodroar! I noticed you have deleted the “Criticism" section and their references from the page belonging to Anita Sarkeesian. I believe the citations and references were from reliable sources. If one of them was a deemed to be unreliable by Wikipedia’s policy, then sure, that specific reference should of been deleted without question.

Understanding that this falls under 'biographies of living persons'. Extra care must be taken to insure that biases are kept to 0. I had a talk with a fellow Wiki editor, and I was informed that one has to avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism. Shortly after, I was directed to the page Wikipedia:Criticism.

I quickly noticed my shortcomings. But I do ask if you can maybe send me back what I wrote with their references. I wish to go back and edit within the Wiki guidelines. Hopefully it is not deleted permanently and you can still recover it.

Sorry for the inconvenience, I am still kinda new to this lol.

secretagentzed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretagentzed (talkcontribs) 03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Secretagentzed: rarely are things permanently deleted on Wikipedia, although this article is a magnet for that. Your edit and content can be found here. I would caution you to discuss these edits at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian first, though. Bright Side of News and Viral Global News have been dismissed as unreliable at Talk:Gamergate controversy, and The Learned Fangirl appears to be a blog, which wouldn't allow them to be used in a BLP or, for that matter, much of anywhere. Even if they were reliable sources, some of your language or phrasing—"highly criticized", "focusing on sensationalism to drive home her points", "errors in her analyses", and "misleading her viewers"—would never be allowed in a BLP unless we had an overwhelming number of reliable sources making those statements. Even then we would probably quote those sources directly to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to negatively criticize a living person. In any case, I hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP stuff[edit]

I'm sorry I got annoyed with you. It is a bit tiresome having to deal with some of this stuff, and you probably didn't deserve the full brunt of my frustration there. Still, please be sensitive to this in the future; I have, in fact, been dealing with people harassing me over this, and thus when I see you complaining about it over on ANI, I just see it as more of the same. It isn't much fun, which is why I try to do this stuff only every other day or so with any great amount of focus, spending the rest of my free time writing about ponies kissing or playing video games or working on my own game or doing other stuff. The only reason I'm even still involved with all of this is because I have a much higher tolerance than most people for doing stupid stuff like counting sources or fact-checking or whatever, because I have a high tolerance for abuse because I have an enormous ego, and because I feel that it is important to keep Wikipedia neutral about all things, even stupid internet fights.

I'm sorry for missing your question over on GamerGate about my edit. I noted my response to you in the ANI thing (which is now closed), but if you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Yeah, I understand the frustration, especially when working with a number of testy editors, oftentimes talking past each other and accomplishing nothing. And believe it or not, but when I offered to help with what we see as BLP violations, part of that was because I could see you hitting a brick wall when it came to interacting with us. (And by "we" and "us", I suppose you could say "anti-GamerGaters", although my opinion is much more complex than that. I also can't speak for the others on the Talk page, of course.) I really do want to move forward past that brick wall, and I would rather nobody gets blocked or banned if we can avoid it. I should also mention that, though Callanecc mentioned WP:AE as the appropriate venue, I don't intend to purse a block as long as the problematic editing stops.
Speaking of that, I'd like to take a minute to give an example of what I mean by problematic editing, and perhaps why you don't see it that way. The question of Quinn issuing a DMCA takedown has come up many times, and it seems you believe she truly was behind it. But I don't think any of the "anti" editors do, or at least we feel it's not properly sourced (or perhaps even sourceable). Yes, it's mentioned in Forbes, which attributes it to Mundane Matt, who has a screenshot of the notice submitted by someone claiming to be Quinn. So it's mostly-reliable based on self-published based on something easily Photoshop-able based on someone entering Quinn's details post-doxxing. Did Quinn file the takedown or was it Photoshopped or even a false flag? That's a great question, and probably one we'll never know the answer to. (Personally, I doubt it was Photoshopped, but I also doubt Quinn actually submitted the DMCA takedown based on capitalization, but if superpowers enabled me to know the truth behind such things I probably wouldn't spend my time editing Wikipedia.) To make a long story short (too late), you believe the allegations and restate them as fact, and that irks editors who are more conservative regarding allegations on BLPs. I totally get that you believe you're speaking truth whereas others believe you're committing BLP violations, and others believe they're confronting you with it whereas you believe you're being harassed. And seeing things from others' perspectives isn't something we as humans are very good at. Unfortunately.
Anyways, there are other issues, of course, but I don't have the time to go into them and I'm not sure it's even something you'd like to hear. I really am sorry that it's come to this point, but I do hope we can all move forward from it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
See, this is deep level conspiracy theory stuff which we really shouldn't be getting into. A number of sources note it, we have a primary source on it, and, to the best of my knowledge, Quinn has never denied sending it, despite having received high-level criticism about it from folks like John Bain. This makes it very unlikely that it is fake in my eyes, and it isn't sufficient grounds to not include it on Wikipedia. Indeed, Quinn has never denied the actual factual allegations against her as regards her relationships, only the implications thereof. She has specifically denied the allegation that Grayson wrote a positive review for her game, or ever wrote a review for her game at all, and I don't imagine that she would have missed denying the DMCA thing as well if it wasn't her.
This is the same sort of thinking which leads people to believe that the death threats against Anita Sarkeesian are fake, because the image was taken a dozen seconds after they went up. Or that Phil Fish doxxed his own company because his hosting had two-factor authentication. Or that Quinn made up the death threats against her (though in her case, at least, the Escapist did apologize for their previous report about Wizardchan and noted that it had never been verified by anyone else, so maybe doubt about that is legitimate to some extent). Milo has claimed to have received double digit numbers of death threats and to have received a syringe in the mail. Do we know that this happened for sure? No, but sources are noting it. Indeed, some of these things should probably be noted as being reported by these people, because in some cases there is no independent confirmation; all we have is their claims that these things were directed at them. Maybe Sarkeesian and Quinn and Milo made up the death threats. Maybe they sent them to themselves, or had their friends do it - this has happened in the past on a few occasions, and people have even gone to the police to investigate attacks against themselves perpetuated by themselves in the past. Maybe the attacks are made by their own side to make the other side look bad. Maybe Phil Fish went crazy and released all that documentation about his company in some sort of bizarre ploy to gain sympathy. It is possible. But we have no way of knowing for sure, and thus have to report on what actually happened as reported by folks. Some of it can be independently confirmed - at a minimum, we know that TFYC were hacked, and I find the idea that Phil Fish faked a hack on himself and then quit the internet forever in response to it as very unlikely, because it just makes no sense. But we have no idea who hacked Phil Fish. We have no idea who sent death threats to anyone. No legal action has actually occurred - Sarkeesian is reportedly involved with the FBI, but we have absolutely no details on it. Other folks could have filed with the police and just not spoken about it publicly, and thus we have no idea about it. But I haven't seen news of any lawsuits or any charges being filed.
I'm not interested in conspiracy theory nonsense, especially conspiracy theory nonsense which has, to the best of my knowledge, not appeared in any reliable sources. Some of this stuff is shady as hell, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Quinn, Sarkeesian, Milo, and some of the others were exaggerating the hate that they're getting in a ploy for public sympathy and donations. In fact, I'm quite certain that even if the hatred is all real, they are advertising it to promote themselves as legitimate and use victimhood as a tool to improve their credibility to their "side". But without actual evidence of malfeasance, the best we can do is simply state that these folks reported that they had been attacked and detail what has been claimed by whom which was noted by the press. Some of this stuff can be independently verified to some extent, other material cannot. But the DMCA on YouTube is probably one of the better established things, along with the GameJournoPros emails, some of the censorship and blocking, Kotaku's response to the claims against Grayson, the hack on Phil Fish, the hack on The Fine Young Capitalists, the changes of ethics policies on various websites, the original allegations by Eron which have been widely noted by the press, and some of the hatred thrown at these people online. We know that people have cursed at, insulted, and otherwise been nasty to many of these people because we can actually see it online. We have actual press releases on some of this stuff, and other material we have primary documents on, or people involved peripherally acknowledging it. A lot of it has been reported to the point where it is unlikely that it isn't true because the people involved haven't denied it, as if it was untrue it would be great ammunition and wouldn't be that hard to prove. We saw that when some idiots early on who didn't know what they were talking about claimed that Grayson had reviewed Depression Quest; some people still throw that around as proof that all the allegations were just made up, and as if that was the original, primary allegation (which it was not). And I'm sure there are still some people who believe that he did review her game because they got that in their head and will never let it go. But it doesn't matter.
This is where WP:TRUTH comes into play. In this case, we have a number of sources noting it, a primary source which confirms the claims, and, to the best of my knowledge, Quinn has never denied the veracity of the claim about the DMCA. Given that this was one of the things which actually caused it all to blow up - both John Bain and InternetAristocrat got involved directly because of the DMCA notice - it is hard to say that it isn't notable or noteworthy, as it was one of the key early events which brought it to the attention of gamers, because Bain and InternetAristocrat both have much, much more reach than someone like MundaneMatt, especially at the time. It is the same reason why we can't exclude claims by Sarkeesian or Quinn of being sent death threats, even though people have questioned those claims, because they are reported all over the place and, as far as I know, there is no definitive, concrete proof that they're fake. We should be careful about how we word all of these things when we put them in the article to make sure that we're attributing stuff properly and tagging information where appropriate (blah said blah, when all we have is the secondary sources saying that blah said blah), and we need to make sure not to give anything undue attention, but I think it is pretty hard to say that that should be excluded.
If we were to go down this route, we could say that we shouldn't report Sarkeesian's claims of being harassed because she noted them alongside a request for donations, and therefore it falls under WP:HOAX. And that's dumb as hell, even if some people do believe it. What is verifiable is that she has claimed that she got death threats and has left her home as a result and posted a screenshot of some of the alleged death threats, and it should be clear where these claims are coming from. If the FBI arrests someone later on for posting them, then we'd note that; if they dismissed it as a fake, we'd note that too. But until then, all we have is what is reported in the reliable sources, and we have no good reason to exclude the material.
We need to actually have a reason for our skepticism beyond "some guys on the internet said this might be fake", which applies to literally everything; just look at the comments on the Moon landing video on YouTube. If something is widely reported but dubious, then it should be possible to source why it is dubious. I believe that we note the false claim that Grayson reviewed Depression Quest because it was notable, even though it is, indeed, false, and we make note of that fact. That's how it works. If something isn't a reliable source, that's a problem. But just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it doesn't get to be here. And we need to be consistent in our skepticism. The DMCA is better verified than Quinn's claims of having received a death threat or receiving threatening phone calls, because ultimately, the only source we have on that is her - and because of The Escapist's apology for their failure to attempt to verify her claims the last time and their note that there was no independent confirmation of her prior bout of harassment there is actual legitimate reason to be skeptical of said claims because a reliable source has amended an article to make specific note of the lack of verification of similar claims made by the same person in the past.
If you have actual evidence that this stuff isn't reliable, please share. Analyzing the reliability of our sources is important; just because a source prints something doesn't make it true, and I've caught several sources making factual errors as I was going through them (as I have noted in the DRN); most of them are minor, but a few of them have been fairly major. But if it is just conspiracy theory stuff, I'm no more interested in it than I am with the GamerGate folks building their gigantic web of connections. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Titanium Dragon: As I see it, the difference between the DMCA claim and any of the harassment claims is that we name a perpetrator, and that's my objection. I have no doubt that all of these people were on the receiving end of some sort of harassment, because it (unfortunately) happens. And it's inconsequential enough that a self-published source is usually fine for that sort of claim, although I also understand the concerns that it's not an inconsequential claim. But when we move from "I receive a harassing Tweet" to "X sent me a harassing Tweet" to "X committed a crime against me", that's when we need to drop anything with elements of self-publishing and move through increasing quality requirements of third-party sourcing. And personally, I feel that if there's any wiggle room in even a third-party source's accusations, we simply shouldn't make that claim until it can be backed by a better source. And when I say "wiggle room", I don't mean going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. Filing a DMCA claim is fairly easy, something that a single person with a grudge, or even someone who believed they were acting in Quinn's best interests, could have done. You're right that we shouldn't just skeptically remove a sourced claim for skepticism's sake, but I don't believe that applying skepticism about negative BLP material is bad, either. I mean, it often happens in articles where someone is accused of a crime, where claims either have a watertight source or are aggressively removed, and per WP:BLPCRIME are sometimes removed even if sourced. (Keep in mind that the DMCA does allow for criminal penalties, which includes filing a false claim.) To me, the spirit (if not the letter) of BLP says we shouldn't include the claim.
And lest you think I'm a hypocrite, I would argue for the removal of any claim that names a harasser or attacker, whether it comes from Quinn or Grayson or Sarkeesian or Yiannopoulos.
Not sure if you find it helpful that I ping you when replying. Some editors like it, some watch Talk pages anyways. If you want me to knock it off, just say so and I will. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to any information, of any kind, about any living person. It doesn't matter if we're naming them or not, BLP still applies to them equally. If we make a statement about a group of living people, it still applies because it is about living people, and we cannot make statements about groups of people which we are not allowed to make about individuals. The nature of the material is also irrelevant; positive, neutral, or negative, all of it is equally protected under BLP. As GamerGate is pretty much entirely about living people, WP:BLP applies to pretty much everything in it. Ergo, the exact same standard applies to Zoe Quinn claiming to be harassed as people claiming that Zoe Quinn issued a DMCA notice against a video; both fall directly under BLP, and indeed, both directly concern a specific individual (Zoe Quinn), so in either case it would apply equally anyway.
Indeed, as far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned, given that harassment is itself a crime, that would apply equally to anyone who harassed Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian, ect. Indeed, as BLPCRIME suggests: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is acccused of committing, a crime unlesse a conviction is secured." This would apply equally to any claims about harassment, hacking, ect. of people, and given that these people are by their very nature unknown, this is something of an issue, given that no one has even been charged with a crime in this case. According to your reading of BLPCRIME, we couldn't include any information about their harassment at all, because the perpetrators are unknown. In any case, as long as we simply note what happened (that a DMCA claim was filed, the video was taken down, then restored on appeal because it fell under fair use) we aren't stating that anyone committed a crime.
The reality is that we do frequently cover such things when they are part of notable and noteworthy events, but we make sure that we're talking about stuff which actually is significant. Given that we decided that GamerGate is notable, we're obligated to cover stuff like this, and given it was a major part of what set off the whole thing, ommitting it is unacceptable as it was a component of a notable thing.
We must include the claim. The fact that something reflects poorly on someone is actually utterly irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not it meets our BLP standards. BLPs must be fair to the people involved at all times, and ommitting something like that wouldn't be "fair". Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
BLP doesn't apply to groups, though. At least not at such a level as "gamers". This is borne out in discussions at WT:BLP, where a very small group (say, a small law firm named after its partners) would qualify under BLP but a corporation's nameless employees would not. Applying BLP to something as vague as "gamers", a group numbering 2/3 of households in the U.S. alone, is not something we do.
I empathize, though, because it seems like you're truly upset at being called a "misogynist" simply because you're a gamer. I don't know what to say, other than to say that on some level, even people who say "all gamers" probably don't mean it. Probably half the adjectives I would use to describe myself—including gamer—would make someone hate me. Maybe more. I just don't believe in absolutes when it comes to group mentality and I guess I assume that of others as well. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh[edit]

I am not sure why adding an external link of a new translation of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" which I worked on for full year constitutes "conflict of Interest". How else would I be able to inform the readers of Wikipedia about this translation? Sabulhab (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it violates our policies on conflicts of interest to link to yourself or your own work, whether as an external link or as a reference. If it's an important translation, someone else will link to it. Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)