User talk:Titanium Dragon

Join date: November 2004.

2004 Archive

2005 Archive

2006 Archive

2007 Archive

2008 Archive

BCE/BC

If you think it is time for another discussion, you are probably right - there are many more active editors at Wikipedia than when I forwarded my proposal. The way to do it is to make a formal policy proposal, and announce it widely (I posted notes for the various RfC topic categories; now we have the Wikipedia Times as well). I think as before, it will be important to provide a rationale. My only advice: when you have time, reread my original proposal and the vote/discussion, and learn from my mistakes. The main value of my proposal was, in provoking wide discussion, we got to see the range of major views and what issues matter to editors. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Punctuated equilibrium

Left you a comment on the talk page. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Draconity

Hi there. Back in 2006, you participated in an AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity. The article has been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• (Goes mad with power) Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Scrub (gaming) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scrub (gaming) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrub (gaming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fages (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question Regarding Recent Bush v. Gore Edit

Hi. I have a question about this edit. Where in the citation does it say " a statewide recount would have made Gore the winner"? Your edit summery seems to indicate that this should be in the article, but I can't find it. Thanks! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should upcite the article at the end of the article (its the source at the very end of the article). I'll do it after dinner. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok great! Just trying to head off an editing war at the pass. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted those edits, because they caused that sentence to no longer match what the source said. SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon review of the source, the issue is more complicated than "X candidate would have won". According to the source, either candidate would have won depending on the standards used to count dimpled ballots. This type of thing really should be hashed out on the talk page of the article. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 04:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unidentified flying object, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Wood (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) 11:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bow and arrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dart (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) 09:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Zoe Quinn again. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn _ notability

I do not believe that Zoe Quinn crosses the threshold of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially as the majority of coverage in reliable press on her is single-incident oriented. What are your thoughts? Also, although I am uninvolved except for having just learned of her yesterday and reviewed the page and spotted the very aggressive (and abusive) deleting of talk page content, I tried to post something to the TP yesterday on your behalf, suggesting that another editor was not conducting himself appropriately in their response to one of your comments. Idk if you saw it, or if it even still exists as a question I posted yesterday was also deleted. I saw there was a proposed deletion of the page earlier this year but it looked like there was poor participation and no really critical discussion, just a lot of white-knight-like defending of the subject. Cheers. Azx2 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Filing an RFC/U

You do realize that your editorial behavior - a singleminded obsession with depicting Zoe Quinn negatively through the use of fringe sources, promotion of scurrilous rumormongering and repeated insertion of material previously rev-deleted by administrators - will become part of that discussion, right? Once again, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before embarking on this project of yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am, in fact, completely unconcerned. You have behaved consistently aggressive towards myself and others, and as was noted in the ANI, the revdels were, in fact, done in error - stuff which is reliably sourced does not need to be revdeled, and after the ANI - something which YOU participated in, no less - we discussed the material in question in on the talk page without further revdels because it was determined to be contrary to the policy on such. The material itself in question is notable and vital to understanding what happened. Your continued insistence in impugning the motivations of anyone who disagrees with you is contrary to both WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. Your deletion of said reliably sourced material, repeatedly, in order to prevent discussion on the matter is contrary to Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Please review the relevant policies and discussion, and cease and desist in such actions. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, given that this has been covered in Al-Jezeera, mentioned by TIME Magazine, gotten several articles in The Guardian (one of which, biased in favor of Zoe Quinn, ended up with the writer of the article resigning due to backlash and her ties, financial and otherwise, to the person she was defending), and appeared in hundreds of other RSs at this point, the idea that these are "fringe sources" and is "scurrilous rumormongering" is yet another example of your failure to assume good faith and outright attacks on other users. Indeed, a big part of the problem, which you have not been sensitive to, is the fact that people are accusing these folks - the folks you are citing - of being corrupt, and of selective censorship and straw man arguments which you appear to be repeating, such as the assertion that all people who are talking about this are engaging in slut shaming rather than criticizing conflicts of interest and victim playing and identity politics. This is precisely why it blew up to the extent that it did; people who weren't even really all that involved got upset over being accused of bigotry just because they were gamers, and it ended up escalating to the point where random places like Business Insider were reporting on the backlash. The fact that you consider such sources as The Mary Sue and Slate as good examples of neutral sources indicates that you are not very well acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy either, as both are sources which suffer from extreme bias, and thus are very tricky to use as RSs. I would recommend, again, reviewing these policies; you have a long history of being warned about edit warring and POV-pushing, and you do not seem to have taken the advice of other folks to heart on this issue. I am here to report the information which is relevant to understanding what is going on. You should be here for the same reason. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your attempts to bring objectivity and neutral point of view to GamerGate article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, its so much fun! I even got doxxed over it! Good thing who I am isn't a secret anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. I don't nearly have the expertise (or courage, for that matter) to go into that mess. Fephisto (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing

I've removed your complaint from Talk:GamerGate because it identifies individuals by name. I will assist you in bringing any complaint about them to ArbCom, but please do not use the talk page for allegations involving offsite behavior, especially ones that identify specific persons. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, and thank you. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to redact the names. I did not initially realize that these individuals had posted their own names on a Wikipediocracy blog post, so deleting the revision was unnecessary on my part, but still we should err on the side of caution and not mention them unless absolutely necessary, though I know it is frustrating to extend them the same courtesy they did not extend to you. You acted appropriately in bringing this to ANI and we should leave it there instead of the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck re the Wikipediocracy issue and stay strong. Have you taken any formal steps against the involved persons already?MicBenSte (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

May I respectfully suggest you step away from the Zoe Quinn and GamerGate articles and related discussions? I haven't evaluated the content of your contributions on those subjects in any great detail, but I think the sheer volume of them suggest that your interest in the subject is no longer healthy, for you or for the encyclopaedia. It's easy to feel the need to rebut every comment or argue every point to the bitter end when you have strong feelings on a subject, but it's equally easy to lose perspective and at that point you don't do yourself or your argument any good. I think it would be best for all concerned if you were to find something else to edit for a while. That said, this is just a suggestion from a concerned outsider; it's not a formal administrative action and carries no 'official' weight, so I can't force you to follow my suggestion. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: To be honest, the main reason I'm involved with it is because I am concerned about NPOV issues; when I first went to the article I was expecting it to be overrun by gamer folks who were very angry about Zoe Quinn. Instead it was overrun by angry people who felt that the whole thing was secretly a misogynistic conspiracy. I do appreciate your concern, and have been trying to avoid spending too much time here. I use Wikipedia as a reference quite frequently (people make jokes about me using Wikilinks everywhere else on the internet... well, kid on the square anyway) so I like to improve it every now and again to "give back". Really, it seems to be getting more eyes on it now, and Masem seems to be doing a very good job at being a voice of reason there, so I'm less worried about it now than I was before, too. To be honest, it is a little ridiculous that a stupid fight on the internet (or rather, what started as a stupid fight on the internet) has ballooned into something being covered by the mainstream press. But such is the power of social media, I guess. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just learned something

If the allegations about IFred are proven true, it will be explosive.Or at least should be.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I have no idea what IFred is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

In the talk page section on that article called "Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn's action description" you posted very serious allegations regarding those two living individuals. You claim that there are reliable sources substantiating those allegations but do not list or link to those sources. Please do not make any further claims of this nature on that or any other page without direct reference to specific reliable sources substantiating those claims. For a new editor or an editor new to these articles, this might be understandable, but at this point, you have been editing these articles and Wikipedia long enough to know how irresponsible it is to make such unsubstantiated claims. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:: As a longtime editor of Wikipedia you should be aware that this is done all the time on BLP talk pages when discussing current events without issue. For example, see this from the Mark Sanford archive, or the talk page on the Shooting of Michael Brown. And it should be remembered that anything about living persons, positive, negative, or neutral, falls under the BLP policy - according to your interpretation, people would have to cite every single line about anything factual on the talk page. This is simply not done. I don't think there's a single BLP page which does that. People discuss this sort of thing all the time when it appears in the press, and there are a number of links on the talk page talking about stuff like that, so this is actually better sourced than a lot of that stuff. Discussing this stuff in the way you are complaining about is, well, unreasonable; it simply is not going to happen. Moreover, you have not hit people who have been attacking other folks; i.e. Tarc who not only accuses gamers involved of being misogynistic without citation (which would itself be a violation of WP:BLP according to your interpretation of such, seeing as "gamers" are living people) but other users of being misogynists.

If someone tries to add something like that to an article, that's a problem. If someone talking about stuff on a talk page, yeah, if they're just attacking people, that's problematic, but when we're discussing background and suchlike... moreover, this issue had been discussed elsewhere on that very talk page.

Phil fish explodes in rage

This article notes Phil Fish calling Zoe Quinn's attackers rapists

Here is an interview with the Fine Young Capitalists about their history with Zoe Quinn

This talks about the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists

You are simply incorrect in your understanding of BLP, or, alternatively, literally every single page on Wikipedia with any mention of living persons is in violation of our BLP policy. Absolutely no BLP talk page adheres to putting a wikilink into every single factual line about any living person, and you aren't even enforcing it on that page that you called me out on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simply incorrect that it is appropriate to use talk pages to make unsubstantiated allegations against living individuals. If you feel that it is substantiated by a link elsewhere on the page, then it is a simple matter for you to include that link in your own posts. If this is too onerous a requirement to comply with, then please do not edit articles about sensitive issues regarding living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have reviewed the links you have posted above, and at best, only one of the four links even remotely substantiates the broad claims you made in your post, and that link is an unsubstantiated interview with someone alleging that this was done. Again, if you are unwilling to take more care with sources involving living individuals, please do not edit these articles. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Cinemablend noted the interview as well, and I don't know what you mean by "unsubstantiated interview" - many of the articles are little more than interviews with Zoe Quinn. What would constitute "substantiation"? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about the reliable sources used in the article, so whatever other sources may be interviews are irrelevant. This is about what you posted on a talk page. You stated a number of claims as fact without reference to any sources, and without noting that they were claims made by involved parties in an interview and that those claims were not reported as fact by a reputable news source. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Zoe Quinn, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Talk pages are not exempt from BLP; you have been warned repeatedly not to use talk page space to make unsupported attacks on article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: First off, this is the wrong template. I removed information, I did not add it. Secondly, the information is in violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB's #1 rule: that the text in question not be unduly self-serving. As the text in question is, in fact, unduly self-serving, it shouldn't be used. That's ignoring the WP:NPOV issues it has, as well as WP:UNDUE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you added unsourced, highly-negative defamatory claims to the talk page. As @Gamaliel: just warned you above, that's prohibited. You are not permitted to use a biography's talk page as a soapbox to express your opinions about the biographical subject. If you do not refrain from doing so in the future, I believe you should be topic-banned from anything relating to living people under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. You have consistently disregarded the encyclopedia's policies in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that. See, this is why you don't use templates. Unfortunately, as I noted below, this is in fact cited in Forbes, as you should well know, given that it has been cited in GamerGate on numerous occasions. And quit threatening me; you've gotten yourself into enough trouble already. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to actually read the template: into an article or any other Wikipedia page. That includes talk pages. And no, the accusations you made on that page are not factual, or even well-argued. As for my statement, it is not a threat. It is a statement of fact that someone will end up topic-banning or blocking you if you keep violating BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an attempt to intimidate me. As I noted, the statement was in fact entirely factual. Forbes sources it, as I noted, as do a number of other sources. Zoe Quinn is not a reliable source, especially not on herself. She was engaged in the doxxing of TFYC, as noted by Cinemablend. Forbes notes that the accusations she made against Wizardchan, where she claimed to have been harassed by them, have been called into question and The Escapist edited the article to note that the only source on it was Zoe Quinn herself - and as people noted, she gained a lot of press after she was "harassed". That's reality. That is in reliable sources. You have been warned about attempting to censor discussion of this stuff on the talk page before. You should be familiar with these sources, given your participation on GamerGate. Have you even read any of the sources I've linked to? Ever? Because you continue to claim that no sources say this stuff, and yet, a number do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no reliable source which says what you said.

It's not "intimidation" to warn you that you're breaching Wikipedia policy.

Go ahead, start an ANI thread that claims I'm "censoring" you by deleting unsourced defamatory content from talk pages. See what happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just repeated everything I said. I sourced it. What part of it wasn't reliably sourced? Incidentally, you do realize that adding that Cracked stuff is, in fact, a violation of BLP, right? Because it totally is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You are now indefinitely topic banned from any edits and discussion related to Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, broadly construed, under the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. This ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing this issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you got banned from GamerGate discussion

Well there goes the last hope of getting the article neutral, and you also were doxxed damn

You got twitter or something to reach you? Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@LoganMac: I wouldn't count on the ban lasting; it is going to be appealed. I've been working on something. What did you need to speak to me about? Is it something private? If it is Wiki related, we can just talk here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as an outside party that's been following GamerGate and the wikipedia article/discussion I just want to offer some encouragement. I, as many others obviously, believe you're doing your best to maintain neutrality. I'm not familiar with all of the wiki regulations, but there's obvious POV pushing in the discussion I see taking place. I'm especially disappointed that you were topic ban just as the article went to dispute resolution. It very much appears to outside parties as though you're being targeted to prevent you from commenting. I will be including this incident as an example in future talks I give to my professional IT organization on bias in using and citing online sources. Whether or not the topic ban is lifted, I'd like to thank you for the effort. I hope it won't discourage you from editing in general. It's a thankless, but necessary job. If all reasonable voices are silenced then only the unreasonable are going to be heard.128.90.94.130 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The most important thing about doing research is understanding that you cannot trust any one source about anything, ever; that is always a bad idea. It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter if they're online or off, it is always an issue to trust just one source - including Wikipedia. No one is reliable on their own; it is always best to look at a number of sources so you don't miss the big picture, and to try and find an opposing point of view if possible and see what people think. Another warning sign is single-source reporting; if the material is dependent on stuff from a single source, it is much less likely to be accurate than if it is from a number of sources and takes a broader view.

It is a lot more work doing your research properly.

I will also note that anything which involves a dispute between two people or groups of people where one group has better access to the media than another is always problematic as well, and requires extra care. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the point I advocate and part of why GamerGate became so important to me is because it illustrates just that. Although, things seem to be getting better and better as real journalist seem to be getting more involved, and I'm not talking about the ones over at Breitbart. Anyway, I won't bother you again although I'll keep following the bouncing ball. I just wanted to make sure you knew your research and neutrality is being appreciated and I'm sorry things appear to be going so poorly. Politics, it's always dirty.128.90.90.141 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Discussion

No idea why you're editing Gamergate controversy when you've been topic banned but you can't touch that article, its talk page, or anything related to that topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I had appealed my ban. I had assumed that it had been revoked because I could edit the article, but it is still over on the page. I pinged the guy in question over it. I've never had to deal with something like this before. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You can still edit because you can edit other pages. Wikipedia has no software mechanism to block certain editors from certain pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the clarification. The edits have been reverted and I have gone to the ANI to apologize. I had assumed there was some ability to do this. Sigh. :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the banning info links carefully. "Broadly construed" means you can't mention the topics anywhere on Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons why there's no software mechanism as the ban is effect throughout Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. I'm looking it over now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

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 Virginia Tech massacre page, your edit caused a cite error (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) 00:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed; the issue was that I removed two lines which had unique references not used anywhere else in the document. When I removed the cited passages, there was no need for the refs. Went into the article and commented them out of the ref list in case they need to be found again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Ban

Pardon my language: Wikipedia fucking sucks. I've stopped editing because of the dark irony: indescribably awful Wiki-trolls with their own agendas shaming others for destroying their limited world view. I am frustrated, in particular, with the treatment of those who have rightfully come out and exposed this whole mess for what it is: manipulation while using "Feminism" as a subterfuge to cover up everything and destroy anyone that might shatter it all. In all my years of editing, I have never seen a blatant ignorance and disregard of what is considered a Reliable Source or Noteworthy in order to keep the truth from seeing the light of day. Zoe Quinn and her ilk have set women and Feminism back YEARS and, at once, have completely destroyed it. I KNOW women who worked to get this country where it is today. They'd be appalled if they saw what was going on with GamerGate. Anyway, I said my piece. Thank you for doing what you did. This really needs to be archived. You fought the good fight, my friend. TabascoMan77 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your attempts to bring neutrality and objectivity.Sorry to see that you were personally attacked.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Article

I find it quite peculiar how many of the Admins editing the GamerGate article (A.K.A NorthBySouthBaranof, TRPoD, Tarc, and Ryūlóng) are extremely defiant to add new sources. They just always appear to bend the Guidelines every which way just to the exact point where one's own source (Pro-GamerGate in this instance) would appear to be false or unreliable. And they aren't very secretive about it, either.

Just recently they removed a source approved by Masem (one of the most neutral of them) was removed from the article because of their personal belief that it was a "fringe conspiracy", despite it being reported by multiple sources. Beyond that they just continue to re-read the epitaph of very specific guidelines, if not, just give their personal opinion on it claiming it as wrong.

The thing that those four administrator have in common is they all have violation warnings for going against for major editing conflicts on their talkpages. One even has warning for going against the NPOV.

One way or another, we can agree that they are quite biased and corrupt, shoving out any instance that they may be proven wrong on a site that is supposed to give the facts rather than their biased one-way views. Derpen (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Derpen: None of those people are admins. If they are pretending to be admins, you should bring it up on WP:ANI. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly are they blocking access to editing the articles, deeming what is right and wrong, and placing themselves as higher authority? If they are just simply posing as "admin" then this could become a controversy within itself, as being actually PART of the main controversy. Derpen (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Make a post on ANI detailing their actions if you want action taken against them; I'm a reviewer, not an admin. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a simple quesstion, this Ryulong guy has decided to come after me now because I posted a screencap on twitter critizing Wikipedia, he posted on ANI outing me for having posted the screencap on twitter and reddit, giving links. Could I make a counter-claim against this guy, since you do know he seems to have a very uncivil approach to people, digging their past. I got all of this archived, and I know it's outside wikipedia, but on the same twitter where he told me to "learn to fucking read" (i didn't look for it, he replied to me so that's how I found it, he found that reddit username by googling my username) he calls gamergate people different slurs, clearly showing a strong bias, could I make a case out of this on the ANI or will his friends topic ban me for "doxxing" and harassing them like it happened to you? Loganmac (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)