Jump to content

User talk:GGG65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GGG65 (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 22 October 2019 (→Block issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome, fellow video game enthusiast!

Hello, GGG65! 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –xeno (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Suggested WikiProjects

If editing articles on video games interests you, consider joining the Video games WikiProject and/or one or more of these platform specific projects: WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Nintendo. Cheers, –xeno (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:BattleGoatlogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:BattleGoatlogo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Supreme Ruler 2020 Box.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Supreme Ruler 2020 Box.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton library

Note that I also added the following to the talk page:

The reason I did that is that there are at least four "Hamilton Libraries." The way I found it, "Hamilton Library", "Hamilton Public Library", "Hamilton City Library", "Hamilton City Libraries" (that's right, the plural), etc, all led to different libraries. Thus, I made "Hamilton Library" a disambiguation page, redirected all those generic alternates to that disambig page, and put the clarifier term on the individual library articles. I don't object to using public library, but I feel you should use "Hamilton Public Library (Ontario)" due to the number of libraries in cities named Hamilton. D O N D E  groovily Talk to me 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Supreme Ruler.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Supreme Ruler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:GGG65/Kyle Schole

User:GGG65/Kyle Schole, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GGG65/Kyle Schole and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:GGG65/Kyle Schole during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Box art for Supreme Ruler Ultimate.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GGG65. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block issue

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

GGG65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seriously, what's up with the user block? Although both Chris Latour and I work together in the Canadian Games industry and local post-secondary education, we are also clearly two separate people and since we both have a long history in Canadian and Ontario press in both games industry and political action simple google searches would verify this. We've been interviewed in local mass media press, radio, and television on both game industry and political topics. The fact that we are both professors at the same institution (Mohawk College, Hamilton) and game developers for some of the same projects should not be a reasonable cause for any form of block. Common interests do not the same person make. In particular, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (longer, I see, than any of my "blockers" - I mean, geez!) Maybe a direct message, question, or notification would be nice before the block action was taken? After Mr Latour created the Galactic Ruler page I edited it to try to improve the quality and add more references/information, which I went to continue to do today when I discovered the block. Why would two people editing the same article even be suspicious? One of us could easily have done all the edits ourselves, but shared the work. This really makes no sense to me, it is not as if we were trying to stuff any vote or discussion, we were just both adding to the quality of the article. Yes we both have COI on BattleGoat, but again there is no attempt to hide that, I endeavor to add external references as much as possible. BattleGoat is a major Canadian Software developer in business since 2000 and shipping over half a million units in that time, so there is clear notability.

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.
Administrator use only:

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=Seriously, what's up with the user block? Although both Chris Latour and I work together in the Canadian Games industry and local post-secondary education, we are also clearly two separate people and since we both have a long history in Canadian and Ontario press in both games industry and political action simple google searches would verify this. We've been interviewed in local mass media press, radio, and television on both game industry and political topics. The fact that we are both professors at the same institution (Mohawk College, Hamilton) and game developers for some of the same projects should not be a reasonable cause for any form of block. Common interests do not the same person make. In particular, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (longer, I see, than any of my "blockers" - I mean, geez!) Maybe a direct message, question, or notification would be nice before the block action was taken? After Mr Latour created the [[Galactic Ruler]] page I edited it to try to improve the quality and add more references/information, which I went to continue to do today when I discovered the block. Why would two people editing the same article even be suspicious? One of us could easily have done all the edits ourselves, but shared the work. This really makes no sense to me, it is not as if we were trying to stuff any vote or discussion, we were just both adding to the quality of the article. Yes we both have COI on BattleGoat, but again there is no attempt to hide that, I endeavor to add external references as much as possible. BattleGoat is a major Canadian Software developer in business since 2000 and shipping over half a million units in that time, so there is clear notability. |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=Seriously, what's up with the user block? Although both Chris Latour and I work together in the Canadian Games industry and local post-secondary education, we are also clearly two separate people and since we both have a long history in Canadian and Ontario press in both games industry and political action simple google searches would verify this. We've been interviewed in local mass media press, radio, and television on both game industry and political topics. The fact that we are both professors at the same institution (Mohawk College, Hamilton) and game developers for some of the same projects should not be a reasonable cause for any form of block. Common interests do not the same person make. In particular, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (longer, I see, than any of my "blockers" - I mean, geez!) Maybe a direct message, question, or notification would be nice before the block action was taken? After Mr Latour created the [[Galactic Ruler]] page I edited it to try to improve the quality and add more references/information, which I went to continue to do today when I discovered the block. Why would two people editing the same article even be suspicious? One of us could easily have done all the edits ourselves, but shared the work. This really makes no sense to me, it is not as if we were trying to stuff any vote or discussion, we were just both adding to the quality of the article. Yes we both have COI on BattleGoat, but again there is no attempt to hide that, I endeavor to add external references as much as possible. BattleGoat is a major Canadian Software developer in business since 2000 and shipping over half a million units in that time, so there is clear notability. |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=Seriously, what's up with the user block? Although both Chris Latour and I work together in the Canadian Games industry and local post-secondary education, we are also clearly two separate people and since we both have a long history in Canadian and Ontario press in both games industry and political action simple google searches would verify this. We've been interviewed in local mass media press, radio, and television on both game industry and political topics. The fact that we are both professors at the same institution (Mohawk College, Hamilton) and game developers for some of the same projects should not be a reasonable cause for any form of block. Common interests do not the same person make. In particular, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (longer, I see, than any of my "blockers" - I mean, geez!) Maybe a direct message, question, or notification would be nice before the block action was taken? After Mr Latour created the [[Galactic Ruler]] page I edited it to try to improve the quality and add more references/information, which I went to continue to do today when I discovered the block. Why would two people editing the same article even be suspicious? One of us could easily have done all the edits ourselves, but shared the work. This really makes no sense to me, it is not as if we were trying to stuff any vote or discussion, we were just both adding to the quality of the article. Yes we both have COI on BattleGoat, but again there is no attempt to hide that, I endeavor to add external references as much as possible. BattleGoat is a major Canadian Software developer in business since 2000 and shipping over half a million units in that time, so there is clear notability. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Also, what's with the insane Block page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GGG65/Archive - it says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.", but you can't, because of the block? Seriously what is up with this system? Wikipedia was a much nicer place back in 2006.

GGG65 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That space in the SPI is for accused parties to comment before they are blocked. Your block appeal(which I will leave for someone else to review) is your means of giving a statement on the matter. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was blocked without notice or advance opportunity that didn't work, plus the line "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below" shows in all cases, even when this is not a possible action. That is not just misleading but highly confusing. It took me half an hour to find out how to post the unblock request, something that is not once mentioned on the relevant page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims - there is no hit on "user talk" at all on that page. Why not? Why mislead people and create barriers to those trying to respond to this claim??? I would also note that nothing about the block appeared in the Notices/Notifications. Isn't this something worth including in Notices? Probably somewhat more important than "your article X has been connected to Y". As you can tell, this is very frustrating for a user that has supported Wikipedia for over almost 15 years, both with editing and financially. GGG65 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you have been a productive editor in other areas for a long time. But, two people working in concert to promote a commercial interest is a serious problem, and that's why you were blocked. So, let me propose a solution (which I would extend to both of you); lift the block, but you agree to stay away from editing anything having to do with BattleGoat Studios. This would be implemented as a topic ban. I don't have the authority to impose this on my own, but if you agree, I would open a discussion on WP:AN, explain that as the blocking admin, I support lifting the block along with you accepting the topic ban, and I'm reasonably sure the community would rubber-stamp that. The socking/COI issue would be resolved, and you would be able to continue to edit on other topics. Let me know if that is acceptable to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: While the COI guidelines have certainly changed much since 2006 and I may have now become a wikipedia dinosaur, in my past experience the emphasis was on references, sources, verifiability, and notability. First regarding the original ban, the wikipedia definition of meatpuppetry says "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" - there is no possible way to see there being a "debate" here. Cooperative editing building upon previous edits and adding sources can under no manner be considered "debate". The Block page points out the Chris uploaded a screen shot graphic and I then edited it, proving sockpuppetry - since my edit was to reduce its resolution and add license/use rationale, if we were the same person or similar sock puppet why wouldn't I/we just have uploaded the correct resolution and not had to edit it? How does editing to *fix* an issue at all relate to the sockpuppet or meatpuppet activity? This just doesn't make sense. Regarding BattleGoat, yes Chris and I work on BattleGoat projects and that was never hidden... but every attempt is made to source, reference, and keep neutral tone, and it was not a paid editor situation. I was also on the Hamilton Public Library board, should I remove my edits on that page? I contribute to open source projects so I should remove my edits on those project pages? We have edited past BattleGoat pages to improve references, clean up visual presentation, update old links, and correct factual errors (such as linking us to the wrong game series, etc) Your solution for the topic ban suggests that we have made article updates and edits for commercial/advertising purposes; the Galactic Ruler page was added because it is a continuation in the "Supreme Ruler Series" which has a half dozen articles on Wikipedia and dates back to 1982. If the article is undercited or non-neutral that should be addressed and can be addressed using existing policies. Wikipedia has less and less editors that create pages on indie and niche topics, and maybe that is the admin's intentions now, to only focus on overwhelmingly popular topics. I agree that we should better identify any potential COI but I disagree that editing BattleGoat topics as individuals with appropriately sourced information is in violation of even the latest Wikipedia guidelines. It would be akin to asking that since I'm a Computer Science professor I shouldn't edit CS articles because I have too much subject matter expert knowledge. GGG65 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GGG65&oldid=922546374"