User talk:AtomsOrSystems: Difference between revisions
→Can't reply on talk page, so: new section |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== Can't reply on talk page, so == |
== Can't reply on talk page, so == |
||
You definitely did ping me, I just don't edit in the evenings, and the page is locked to IP editors anyway. |
|||
I feel that "Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal" is a mouthful and doesn't sound professional. It should either be rephrased to "Those using the hashtage have defined their goal as" or "Supporters of the movement have defined their goal as". I'm not really sure how it can be controversial that the users of the hashtag support the movement -- that's what the hashtag is for, and that's generally how they discriminate between "actions in GG's name" and those without (well, that and whether the action is good PR or not). I'm also fairly confident that most of the RS acknowledge the ''claim'' that "Gamergate is actually about ethics in gaming journalism", though I can dredge them up if this is in dispute. |
I feel that "Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal" is a mouthful and doesn't sound professional. It should either be rephrased to "Those using the hashtage have defined their goal as" or "Supporters of the movement have defined their goal as". I'm not really sure how it can be controversial that the users of the hashtag support the movement -- that's what the hashtag is for, and that's generally how they discriminate between "actions in GG's name" and those without (well, that and whether the action is good PR or not). I'm also fairly confident that most of the RS acknowledge the ''claim'' that "Gamergate is actually about ethics in gaming journalism", though I can dredge them up if this is in dispute. |
||
Revision as of 19:49, 3 February 2015
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.
- 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 (~~~~).
Just wanna say
I love that you edit the Dresden Files pages. So cool, always nice to find fellow fans.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is! I was always more a fan of classic fantasy than urban fantasy, but the Dresden Files (and a couple others) have definitely made me appreciate it. Plus, it's always nice reading a series set in your home city. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate alert
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed., 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.- I've walked into the middle of a minefield with the hope of drawing a map on the way out, got it. ;) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really that bad, honestly. Just be considerate towards other editors, and it should be fine. --TS 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I figured. My snark doesn't have much chance to express itself on Wikipedia, I suppose I just let it off the leash for a moment. Thank for coming back to clarify, though! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not really that bad, honestly. Just be considerate towards other editors, and it should be fine. --TS 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've walked into the middle of a minefield with the hope of drawing a map on the way out, got it. ;) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't reply on talk page, so
You definitely did ping me, I just don't edit in the evenings, and the page is locked to IP editors anyway.
I feel that "Some of the people using the hashtag have said that their goal" is a mouthful and doesn't sound professional. It should either be rephrased to "Those using the hashtage have defined their goal as" or "Supporters of the movement have defined their goal as". I'm not really sure how it can be controversial that the users of the hashtag support the movement -- that's what the hashtag is for, and that's generally how they discriminate between "actions in GG's name" and those without (well, that and whether the action is good PR or not). I'm also fairly confident that most of the RS acknowledge the claim that "Gamergate is actually about ethics in gaming journalism", though I can dredge them up if this is in dispute.
Not sure what you meant about my "forgetting to change to prominent" -- the article already uses "prominent", and I wanted to change that as it gives the false connotation that the list is merely naming the famous victims of Gamergate, rather than the main victims of Gamergate.192.249.47.186 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)