User talk:GeneralHamster
Welcome!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg/50px-Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg.png)
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:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OK, quick one here my friend - I thought the criteria had been met? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Hi Rhain, would you mind giving me a hand, friend? I have been blocked for reasons that do not seem very clear to me, all of my contributions have been reverted. This includes 2 articles which I had created and other editors had made amendments to. It seems highly unfair to destroy this work. I would be grateful if these could be reinstated. BattleBit Remastered and Sandbox (video game) are my two primary concerns. GeneralHamster (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OK, quick one here my friend - I thought the criteria had been met? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Outwood Academy Newbold. Tacyarg (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oi, can you back off a little instead of coming in with both barrels? I suggest you change your tone instead of coming in with no regard for WP:AGF GeneralHamster (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, apologies if tone was inappropriate - but I don't understand why you have added unsourced information to this article? I accept you are a former student of this school, but you are making an allegation about someone without providing sources. I did look yesterday when I reverted this change by an IP editor, and could not find a source to back it up. The reference given was dead so I added an archive link, but that does not verify this specific claim. Tacyarg (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair enough - just getting the warning sign and commentary of vandalism got me riled up. Which section of information are you disputing, that the staff were all suspended overnight without explanation, or that students were excluded for making allegations? GeneralHamster (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, apologies if tone was inappropriate - but I don't understand why you have added unsourced information to this article? I accept you are a former student of this school, but you are making an allegation about someone without providing sources. I did look yesterday when I reverted this change by an IP editor, and could not find a source to back it up. The reference given was dead so I added an archive link, but that does not verify this specific claim. Tacyarg (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en![@](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/At_sign.svg/15px-At_sign.svg.png)
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Yamla (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
GeneralHamster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. This is not correct, as I have been an active user since December '22 and prior to that have intermittently made IP edits over the years on my travels. I last created an account on wikipedia circa 2015, but I do not remember the account name and never took it seriously back then. It may be worth disclosing - I frequently use a corporate VPN service as I edit wikipedia during my lunch breaks & spare time. So if there are other blocked accounts associated with my address, I would like to stress that I am sharing a range and carrier with others. I would be happy to have a conversation to prove this if required.
- Also - I am very disappointed that you have seen fit to delete the two articles that I had entered. Surely, this is counterproductive to the project? BattleBit Remastered especially, as other editors had contributed to these, which does not make sense. This is taking a guilty until proven innocent approach, which I do not approve of. Please can this be corrected immediately? Also, I did go to IRC to ask for reason why this was done, and the response was to kick me and tell me I should wait for a response here. I am happy to work with people here, but I think I have reasonably acted in good faith since I fully committed to the project late last year.
I am not going to lie, this makes me very angry and frustrated, as I spent significant time and effort working towards improving and adding new content and do not think it appropriate that someone has arbitrarily smeared it all away without having the human decency to come and speak with me or give me a chance to prove otherwise. I am going to keep calm about this, but surely you should not operate on a policy of guilty until proven innocent. Please respond here, and allow me to respond accordingly and we will go from there. GeneralHamster (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, you're almost certainly Zombiedude101z. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
GeneralHamster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Why am I this user? Can I at least be given an explanation of why people think that is the case? Is there any way I can prove otherwise? I can point to my service providers if you need proof. If you look at my edit history I think you can see a trend of good faith behaviour though maybe I shouldn't have gone "wheek wheek motherfuckers" in my edit summary but I like my cavies, nothing malicious. I don't think "computer says no" is an acceptable answer for either party here. Thanks. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Why am I this user? Can I at least be given an explanation of why people think that is the case? Is there any way I can prove otherwise? I can point to my service providers if you need proof. If you look at my edit history I think you can see a trend of good faith behaviour though maybe I shouldn't have gone "wheek wheek motherfuckers" in my edit summary but I like my cavies, nothing malicious. I don't think "computer says no" is an acceptable answer for either party here. Thanks. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Why am I this user? Can I at least be given an explanation of why people think that is the case? Is there any way I can prove otherwise? I can point to my service providers if you need proof. If you look at my edit history I think you can see a trend of good faith behaviour though maybe I shouldn't have gone "wheek wheek motherfuckers" in my edit summary but I like my cavies, nothing malicious. I don't think "computer says no" is an acceptable answer for either party here. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}