User talk:GeneralHamster

Welcome!

Hello, GeneralHamster, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

GeneralHamster, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Steam Deck has been reverted.
Your edit here to Steam Deck was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.vgchartz.com/article/455068/report-steam-deck-ships-over-1-million-units/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm GA Melbourne. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rupert Murdoch have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralHamster! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. Also see the WP:BRD policy.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of video games considered the best, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games considered the best, you may be blocked from editing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and threaten me just because you don't agree, I have good reason for including NV on the all time greatest list - there's the minimum 6 references on there where it's cited amongst top scores / influential lists. I re-read the FAQ and agree - yes, for now - DMC5 and GOW Ragnarok don't yet meet the criteria, but FO NV certainly does. GeneralHamster (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I "don't agree"—I don't have an opinion about the game—it's that it simply doesn't meet the criteria. Most of the references you've provided are not "best games of all time" lists, and some are unreliable. As it stands, Fallout: New Vegas is currently on three lists. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes vandalism. Just because you disagree with my content does not qualify it as vandalism, and I will not back down just because someone tells me to. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but you should "back down" when guidelines and consensus tell you to. Your edits are disruptive. I suggest you engage in the talk page and gain a consensus before continuing to edit war. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Hi GeneralHamster! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Closhund (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, didn't realise it was an issue. Can you clarify maybe what defines meaning? Is that including adding photos etc? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a firm rule, but because adding a picture is something that someone might object to, adding pictures is probably never minor. It's adding content. Moving a picture slightly might be minor.

The reason minor edits exist is to allow people to filter the edits they see to remove the non-controversial, simple ones. A cleaner view of edit history. So it's important they be non-controversial. I would say most of the edits you've marked as minor are not minor as evidenced by many of them being reverted. It's safe to not mark an edit as minor even if it might be, but the reverse is frowned upon. Cheers. Closhund (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could I be blocked for inappropriately marking an edit as minor? Or is this just the risk of attracting the ire of a few meticulous wikipedes? I'll keep in mind either way. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games considered the best, you may be blocked from editing. To further clarify why your edit was reverted: of your 19 references, two are unreliable, five are "best of the decade" lists, six are "best RPGs" lists, two require a discussion first, and two aren't actually lists. Fallout: New Vegas still sits at four of the six necessary lists as outlined atop the article's talk page. Please let me know if I can clarify this further. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruption. Take it to arbitration. I have spoken. (this was meant to be a Mandalorian reference but in retrospect I realise it kinda seems.... edgy, sorry) GeneralHamster (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm afraid you haven't really spoken; you simply revert without explanation, despite my several attempts at explaining the situation to you. Please read the criteria atop the article's talk page. I hope you choose to engage in conversation before reverting again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, quick one here my friend - I thought the criteria had been met? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I'm afraid. The criteria (see the FAQ here) requires each game to be included on at least six "best games of all time" lists (i.e. not "best RPGs" or "best games of the 2010s") from separate publications. New Vegas is getting closer (currently at four) but somehow it's not quite there yet. I imagine it won't take much longer for two more publications to include it. If you come across more lists that you believe fit the criteria, please start a discussion on the talk page so they can be assessed. I hope that makes sense. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is inherently a problem with the nature of media, because of the way video games have diverged over the years. I mean it's a hot potato, because FO3 is a somewhat disputed title - some hate it, some love it. I'm between, FO3 introduced me to the franchise and I think it deserves to be there, but I also think FONV deserves that title as it does stand apart story wise. I won't bore you with details but I do wish Bethesda/Zenimax had given Obsidian more time....

Just finding articles that explicitly list it in "best of X" rather than "best of RPG" is a pain in the ass. Ah well. GeneralHamster (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, and I'm sure most people who played New Vegas agree it deserves a spot on the list too. I think when it comes to games like this, the publications tend to limit themselves to choose one game from the series, and New Vegas gets the short straw. But I think it'll see more of a "comeback" soon; a recent list from GQ ranked it at 66 (only a bit behind Fallout 3 at 59), and that was based on a survey of 200+ people in the industry, so it has the love. It won't be long before it hits six lists, in my opinion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a little combative before. I guess I took your statement the wrong way. Will work to be better! GeneralHamster (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Hope to see your name 'round these parts more! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:No Nazis. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is actually a genuine belief among Neo-Nazis (or at least the pople I've been around) that there's a non-white conspiracy to cause Global Warming. I wasn't joking. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the essence of the essay. Belief in weather modification by Other People is not on the same level as denying Other People the right to exist, which is the core issue that makes them incompatible with this encyclopedia project. A recitation of loony beliefs that may accompany bigotry is beside the point.. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]