User talk:AtomsOrSystems

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

Please carefully read this information:

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)

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)

Yeah, I seem to have gotten turned around backwards with the primary/prominent change, I think it was late for me. I agree with you, and I've struck my comment in the talk.

I think your second paragraph may be addressed to Strongjam, although I agree with you on wordiness. My only other point, I believe, was the suggestion that we continue to list the primary targets as part of a larger group, such as primary targets of the attacks include rather than primary targets of the attacks were.

Since the talk page is currently locked to IP editors, and I believe I remember you saying you're not interested in creating an account, is there any input you would like me to add to the talk page on this discussion? (kind of a semi-protected edit of the talk-page.) AtomsOrSystems (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed "Some" to "Many" to match up with the section it's summarizing. My first reaction to changing just to a blanket statement is that its difficult to make any blanket statements about GG. However I'll take a look at the sources to see if we should re-word. — Strongjam (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with "includes". My only quibble is with using "prominent" instead of "primary", since it feels (to me, at least), like it is downplaying how much abuse these people recieved.

Thank you for the offer, but I've already had HJ give me the heads up that using an IP account could be considered close to giving the impression of impropriety, even if I haven't technically done anything wrong, so I definitely don't want to do anything that would get credulous people in a twist about "meatpuppeting". I'll just wait until the lock on the talk page expires -- there's very little of value that I have to add to the conversation, anyway, since there's already a plethora of intelligent, honest editors there anyway.192.249.47.186 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your caution is admirable. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Without asking you to make any specific edits or take any specific stances whatsoever, it would be comforting if you could take a look at the "Brandwatch elaboration" section.192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your username

Hello, thanks for signing up at WikiProject Accessibility. However, your username appears to be the name of an organization, which is against the username policy; it might be a good idea to get it changed. Graham87 02:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It's... it is? I certainly didn't choose it for that, and a cursory Google search doesn't show me anything. I chose it because I'm equal parts a science nerd (Atoms, Systems, etc.) and a book nerd (Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man). I've been using it as an internet handle for a while now, and I've never come across an organization. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw your request on your talk page for replies there, apologies. I will move my response there. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... I just assumed it was the name of an organization ... I guess I've encountered way too many usernames like that! Also, because I use a screen reader, I didn't notice (until now) that your username consisted of three words stuck together ("atoms or systems") ... it read the username way too fast for me to figure that out! I'm now having fun imagining a nuclear technology company with this name ... hopefully they'd work with both atoms and systems! Graham87 07:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I was assuming it was something like that. I was sincerely curious if you had found an organization using the name that I had somehow missed, over the several years I've been using this as an internet handle. I think that a nuclear company named this would be rather terrifying... although they would certainly keep with the "into ruin hurled" theme. :D Thanks again for the welcome! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For cooperation and collaborative editing on The Dresden Files. You've made it fun to once again edit some of my favorite article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)