User talk:PeterTheFourth

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Hello, PeterTheFourth, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

==Notice: sanctions apply to Gamergate controversy topics==

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Joke

Actually it's about ethics in hatting conversations. Cheers! — Strongjam (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I did hope somebody would enjoy that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A request

This and this are not really what I'd consider collaborative in nature. Clearly this isn't your first time through here, but I'm a longtime editor, so I'd appreciate not being spoken to as if these are my first edits. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to my ethical, free speech talk page. I believe I have been unfailingly polite, but if you were to suggest an improvement, I'd be amused to hear it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Polite" is coming across as unnecessarily condescending. If polite is truly what you're aiming for, maybe just take a second glance before hitting the button in that case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any actionable suggestions? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider how you come across when you post on talk pages, maybe? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I always do. I'm glad we could settle this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you think this is "settled." I do hope for your sake that you actually do take my advice, because at some point your tone will irritate the wrong person and it might not end up well. You're not going to sway many people in your direction with the tack you're taking, so seriously reconsider instead of extending the battleground mentality that got the article into ArbCom to begin with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Look

I hope you are not getting angry. You were posting that I wasn't telling the truth and something like that. Please don't think that way. Now, I kind of understand where you are coming from. If I could revert just the first sentence, not the whole paragraph, I would. But since 11 Feb, the whole paragraph has been rearranged. I can't just revert the first sentence. We could find middle ground - how about including "within a day" in the first sentence in the version before my revert to draft-merge. Then we'll work from there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but despite your arguments to the contrary I still see 'within a day' as needless and awkward. It's simply bad wording to place it there, and confuses it with the earlier 'shortly following'. Did you consider placing it elsewhere in another sentence, as I suggested earlier? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was considering it. But I need some time to think it over, because I might have to re-write some parts of the paragraph while doing it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

huh?

What was it that Kia wasn't supposed to know? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Something about blocks. You like legos too? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 13:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're on my talk page. Was there something you wanted to discuss? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: You're topic banned from GG and you well know that KiA is a reference to the subreddit KotakuInAction. I suggest you drop it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: If Kia is a Gamergate reference, would it be considered an actionable offence that I would be able to report? I'm not exactly hot on cryptic clues being left on my talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No idea. Kind of inside baseball and obscure references that you'd have to explain to AE. Hopefully they just drop it and go back to editing KDE articles where they're a productive editor. — Strongjam (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Googling 'Kia gamergate' reveals a discussion forum for Gamergate as the first result, so I might try my hand at AE. I honestly don't think going out of his way to aggravate people he hasn't interacted with is the sign of an editor who'll improve given space. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

KiA (the final "A" is capitalized") is KotakuInAction, a reddit forum where GamerGaters organize their attacks. Here, for example, is a thread (currently 98 comments long) about whether Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter statements can be excluded from the Gamergate article:[1]. The originator of this thread (and, understand the moderator of the entire forum) shares a name with one of the topic-banned parties in the ArbCom case. Brianna Wu recently published a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

sublreddit. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 23:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

You'd best come up with a diff to back your assertion here] really fast. Dreadstar ☥ 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: Hi! Sorry for the late response. If you examine the diff I provided at the start of that section, you'll see that the edit summary contains that slur. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Involvement

Involvement is defined at the top of the appeal template. "Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action." Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello friend. Unfortunately, I've read that and am still yet a bit confused. Yes, I've spoken of (and to) DHeyward before, but to my recollection it's questionable if I've taken a part in disputes related to the contested enforcement action. English is tricky, and I'd rather wait for some smart editor to clarify for me than act now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I linked at AE are all edits you've made related to the dispute between DHeyward and MarkBernstein. I wouldn't sweat it. I'm just being punctilious in bringing it up. Rhoark (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Thanks for the copyedit, it's way too easy getting blind when moving stuff around. Cheers! BP OMowe (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad it was helpful. I appreciate your effort in finding compromise in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

Hi Peter! I see you have WP:SEALION listed as your favorite policy. Interesting! I can't say I have a favorite. Anyhow, we're discussing its deletion and I thought you might want to contribute. Cheers! 169.57.0.213 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality

Out of curiosity, is there anything about the quality of the recent AVFM edits that piqued your interest, like do you disagree about making the statements pertain to the content of HuffPo/Cosmo/Time? This issue has come up before where the HuffPo article got cited as making statements it didn't and to keep the source in play I had to find something it actually said about the site or else remove it altogether. The idea being: if there is something else said about the site in the ref then it could be substituted once located. Ranze (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I disagree with a topic banned editor editing in the topic area in which they are banned. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to A Voice For Men. Thank you. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Improving an Article

Making an article less bias directly improves it. Destructor3 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Live Events are not WP:HORSEMEAT

You know this fine well, so don't act stupid. 2.102.157.53 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise if any comments I've made have hurt your feelings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarky tone

Here. Best, JBL (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries about the tone. You may be right that it won't be helpful in achieving a solution to this problem- I hope it's able to at least calm down the hostilities for a while. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

Please don't revert again, discuss on the talk page instead. You show a clear bias for the anti-rape agenda which is not in line with WP:NPOV. This will be reported if you continue. 169.57.0.219 (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we must fairly present the pro-rape agenda, you know, balance and all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination

Hi PeterTheFourth, This is a quick note to let you know that, in accordance with WP:SPA, I have added a Template:Spa tag to your MfD nomination here. Per the template, this does not imply any wrong doing; it is simply an indicator to other editors that you appear to have few or no edits outside the topic area. Please also review WP:ADVOCACY for additional information. Feel free to ask me any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cute. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

oops

Sorry about that [[2]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Source Reliability

Hi Peter,

I'd just like to ask you about your statement that 'We do not research our source's claims.'

I'm not in any way versed in the rules governing editing on Wikipedia, but I'm confused as to how this justified reversing my changes.

The statement that I removed referenced two online articles from relatively reputable sources. However, the claims that were justified by said references were not justified by the these references. The made the claims without any evidence. If this were a scientific paper, that wouldn't be accepted for a second.

Essentially, what you're suggesting is that because the source was reputable, any statement it makes is also reputable. This give licence for people to source fabricated evidence from supposedly 'reputable' sources and get away with spreading disinformation through Wikipedia.

Furthermore, while one of the articles was balanced and impartial on the issue, the other was clearly very biased against men's rights activism. Surely bias must be taken into account when determining whether a source is reputable or not.

I don't want this to be seen as a personal attack. If you're just applying the rules, then its the rules that I should be angry with. I'd just really appreciate some clarification on this point.

Thanks.

124.179.101.26 (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Essentially, at Wikipedia we rely on verifiability, not truth. That means when something has an established reputation for telling the truth we take it at its word- we don't by ourselves attempt to find out whether or not a source is lying or not, we assume that a history of being trustworthy means that its statements are then trustworthy until contended by another reliable source. An essay which goes into great detail about this is called verifiability, not truth and you may find it aiding your understanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

I have made thousands of edits over the past decade, I always did them as IP. I ask that you yourself revert again, or re-edit as I did, since my edit was appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2015‎ (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your edit introduced the word "opponents" what responsibility, if any, supporters and opponents of Gamergate share. Reviewing the sources cited it does not appear to be supported and I was going to revert it anyway for that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I added "opponents" and removed reference to use of the hashtag since I split up the harassment section into pro and anti harassment accusations, and not all threats were tweets. Please see the cited report of the bomb threat in DC or "In an interview with Vice, a supporter going by the username _icze4r, noted the death and rape threats she had received, claiming there was a perceived "free pass" when it came to harassing Gamergate supporters."

I don't want to be accused of giving anyone a free pass.The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I'd rather not debate the merit of your edit. I left a note on your talk page explaining the restrictions. I'm sorry to hear that your edits were applied while logged off- this means they don't count towards your accounts contributions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A Whine for Deadbeats

Please don't expose yourself by WP:EW Some get rather testy... Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 08:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Cheers for the warning- my bad for being impatient and letting my frustration get the better of me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta

Where do you see the restriction applies to meta pages? On the talk page it says 'This talk page and this article' -- it doesn't say anything about meta or sub pages. Handpolk (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: The meta page is a spun off part of the talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And as such the 30/500 does not specifically apply. It says this talk page, not this talk page and spun off parts of it. Handpolk (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: I'm sorry, that doesn't quite fly. The restriction is in place for a reason, and I've told you about the restriction before. Please cease editing Gamergate controversy until you have 500+ edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't quite fly. The restriction is worded as is for a reason, and I've told you about the way that it is worded. Please cease removing comments from meta and sub pages until such time as a 30/500 rule applies to them. Handpolk (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Two reverts, 1RR

please undo your 2nd reversion [3]. 1rr here. Hat note was unsigned and incivil. No useful content was removed. I don't know who made the hatnote as it was unsigned and not in the history. Nor do I care. It doesn't need to be incivil and your edit warring over it isn't helping. --DHeyward (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm sorry, I'm unwilling to undo that reversion as I don't believe that page is under 1RR restrictions. If you believe it is and I've violated 1RR, you're welcome to report me to the edit warring section of the administrators noticeboard, Arbitration Enforcement, or (and this would be preferable) point out to me where it's established that that page is under 1RR and I'll self-revert. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 Do we really need to tolerate incivil/bitey comments in hatnotes and editors that want to edit war (on a meta talk page, really??) to retain them? PtF barely meets the minimum requirements himself for editing, began his wiki career at ArbCom proceedings. I cleaned it up once and think perhaps PtF needs some guidance as a new editor. He seems unwilling to accept it from me. --DHeyward (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

His not being blocked from editing that article is blatant evidence of bias by administrators. If he were a Gamergater there is no way he would be allowed to carry on like this. Especially when it's obvious he is a sock. Handpolk (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: Either take your evidence that PeterTheFourth is a sock to WP:SPI or retract your accusation. Casting aspersions against other editors is not acceptable. — Strongjam (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't accuse him of being a sock. I said it is obvious he is a sock. If it could be proven, somebody would have done it already. It's also obvious he is good at covering his tracks. Handpolk (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Mattress Performance Page

Trying to provide additional information and adequate citation, in the meantime please stop deleting it and just note that citation is needed. That information has been published in court records and in newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29#Reception 4.35.92.19 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! If you believe sources for the content you're including are readily available, please provide citations in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! A discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Kleiner

I know you may want to participate out of your favorite topic area so people stop accusing you of being an SPA. How about take a look at the edits I made to Kleiner and see if you agreed with some or all of them and help to improve that article? The edits I made were before it was redefined as a gamergate article anyway. Reverting those is probably not even correct. Handpolk (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Handpolk! I don't necessarily disagree with the content of your changes, but it's definitely not kosher for somebody topic banned from an area to edit that area. I believe that the conflict between Ellen Pao and that firm (which is heavily rooted in allegations of sexism) counts as a 'gender related dispute' (point b of your topic ban), and as such your edit to the firms article violate your topic ban. Please cease editing in that area. You've been given a lot of leniency already. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

An Invitation

@PeterTheFourth: Per my user page, I am the author of Matthew Hopkins News. The site has from time to time sourced national news stories, and my work has been retweeted even by some major celebrities like Richard Dawkins. I have recently written some articles critical of misconduct on Wikipedia, for example here.

I am currently considering follow-ups including deep concerns about Wikipedia:Wikibullying. Some users who have received several warnings have been allowed to continue in their misdeeds and may pose a threat of emotional harm to the vulnerable.

I am also a Wikipedia user and editor. I am keen to oppose ethical lapses and I agree with you that the GamerGate article, for example, could be less biased. I am setting up a private venue for like-minded to meet and discuss these issues and consider you suitable. If you are interested, please email me via the address on my blog, giving your Wikipedia and Reddit user names. Vordrak (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I don't think your website would be the appropriate platform for my views. Best of luck in the future! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That Revert at AE

Thanks for reverting my edit, Zad68 closed the discussion while I was making the edit. I didn't expect it to close that quickly. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for saying thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess who's edit-warring again

Any outside advice is welcome, even if it points at me ... I'm stepping out of this. --McDoobAU93 22:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: I will say that the insistence of using a film as a source for this article is very troubling, and I've made a comment on the talk page- I can't speak to the quality of the rest of the edits, given my complete lack of expertise in the topic area. I'll try to stick around and ensure that civil discussion is attempted rather than the back and forth insertion and removal that can be popular. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Roosh

Consider undoing this edit for the time being while discussion continues at BLPN. I don't think there's consensus yet (only been a day of discussion) and it's been edit warred over enough already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sure thing, have done. My bad for being premature! PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't seen....

You're famous! [[4]

Thanks for letting me know. I wonder if I'll receive as obsessed an audience as those unfortunates that started editing in the GGC topic area before me did. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I only hope I, too, can someday reach the point where a presumably uninvolved person will ask if a petition should be drafted about my participation in a hobby. Dumuzid (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Hey, Peter,
I just wanted to thank you for the virtual thanks. I'm feeling rather bruised today so it is appreciated.
Sorry to hear your subject of a reddit thread on KIA...that is, unless you view it as an achievement. I guess we all get a chance for a turn in the spotlight and mine was last December. I firmly believe there will be a point where this subject won't be so contentious, I just don't know when that will happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I value the contributions you've made to the topic area, Liz, and I'm glad your RfA seems to be looking to conclude as a success (hope you understand my reticence to voice my support- worried it would hinder the overall chance of the request passing.) I won't say I enjoy the attention from KiA- much more pleased that the thanks is appreciated, for example. I find it easier to be pleased at positive feedback from nice people than negative feedback from jerks. Here's hoping your time at Wikipedia goes along pleasantly in the future. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, screw that. I'll toss in my support- with adminship, you'd be even more a boon to the site than you already are, and I don't think it'd hurt for me to note that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hi there! You may be interested in this discussion where you were reported for edit warring.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

--DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• No violation PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Phil Fish

I feel it's important to note that the attack against Fish originated on the imageboard, where the users are anonymous and is actively corroborated by the source cited. If another source says otherwise it should be cited here, but until then removal of that changes the implication of the sentence, suggesting Gamergate outright attacked Fish on twitter. Do you disagree?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that people using the Gamergate hashtag have outright attacked Fish on twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you need a source stating that, which that source isn't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your question was unclear. Which of my edits do you believe are unsupported by the sources I've used? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Specifically the sources discussing Phil Fish's doxing. The sources are not stating a direct tie to twitter nor Gamergate, but instead attributing the attacks to 4chan (the group of which did blatantly name themselves after Five Guys as a an attack against Quinn, which I've noted). The omission of that suggests the attacks came directly from Gamergate on twitter, which isn't what the sources are saying, now are they?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that by not attributing it to 4chan, I am instead attributing it to 'Gamergate', the amorphous leaderless group which originated on 4chan? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying this more directly reflects what the cited source is saying without synthesizing information, which we should aim for to maintain neutrality, no?

Btw I responded to your point on my talk page. Please give me a shout back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is included on the GGC page because it's related to the GGC. If it's not, by all means, remove it- if it is however related to the GGC then I stick by my edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But those sources cited are saying where the attack originated from. Purposefully leaving out that information in the assumption that they were absolutely done by the same group would be synthesis on our parts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If it truly is unrelated to the GGC I firmly encourage you to remove it from the article- you will face zero objection from me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hiya Peter, sorry about the revert. It was the accidental result of an edit conflict, although your comment was not constructive. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Fully understood- these things happen. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

PeterTheFourth, please stop edit warring to keep that content about Cathy Young in there. I see that Masem says there is no proof for the statement as you keep restoring it, and that should be enough. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, Drmies- I've reverted one edit by The_Devil's_Advocate, which I'm not sure is sufficient to paint as 'edit warring'.

My reason for that (single) revert is that I don't believe stating that Cathy Young has lied and that is why we don't use them as a source (per previous consensus) is a BLP violation. I thought TDA was overstepping bounds more than a bit for somebody who has been 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia' by the Arbitration Committee. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he's actually topic banned from the topic area. Well that's interesting. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BANEX would apply here. Also, would be helpful to link to actual discussion (which I'm not familiar with,) and maybe use a less contentious word like "false statement" which doesn't imply intent. — Strongjam (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: the discussion we're talking about is here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be confused, from the context I thought there was a previous discussion about Young that section people were referencing. — Strongjam (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, you did it only once. But the point stands. Yes, the actual language used is quite important, as Strongjam suggests. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries- I've decided to just leave a note that material has been removed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)