User talk:Destructor3

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Destructor3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate notice[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also please read the big note at the top of the editing box "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. You have reverted multiple times over the past hours. Further edits of that nature will be addressed as per the sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've also used up your single revert, are editing against consensus, and violated 1RR earlier in the day. Please take a walk around the block, make a sandwich, or do something unrelated to the Internet for a while. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion i just reverted something again before i read this. Sorry about that. Do what you must i guess. There only so much i can do when theres multiple different people reverting anything thats not anti GG. Destructor3 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best thing to do when lots of people disagree with you is to sit back, digest their arguments, and learn from them. You're providing a textbook example on how not to make your point on Wikipedia. Have you looked through the talkpage archive? I hope you have a couple of weeks, because you'll need that long to read them, and they contain much more expertly argued advocacy and rejection of the same thing you're trying to force through. And as Woodroar says below, no copying, not ever. That will get you blocked on its own. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion Could you help me out then? Both me and you know the article is biased and its a wikipedia rule to be neutral. Everytime someone posts in the talkpage that is pro gamergate they are instantly silenced. Its not really fair that the members of a movement arent allowed to have their side of the story. 66.87.114.246 (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the top being anonymous. It logged me out for some reason. Its me though. Destructor3 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. First, administrators can't take action in content against consensus, especially in areas in which they are actively making administrative decisions. Second, I don't know that the article is biased according to reliable sources. This is something that pro-GG editors insist about, yet are unable to produce a consensus of sources to support their point. Whether that reflects a systemic bias in journalism is a different argument, which Wikipedia can do nothing about. The subject has been arbitrated and discussed to death, which is why sanctions are in place, and which is why earlier today I imposed an indefinite topic ban on someone who was in much deeper trouble than you. Seriously, look at the FAQ at the top of the talk page: it's there for a reason. Look at the archives, look at the arbitration: I was a party as an administrator activev in keeping some kind of order. You're in way over your head in this one. Learn Wikipedia policy first. Learn the history of the dispute. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit is a copyright violation. You may want to self-revert it. Just a head's up, too: per consensus, we don't cite statements in the LEDE, because the lede is really just a summary of the article itself. The "sexism in video game culture" part is supported by dozens of reliable sources, which is why it's in the lede and why it's also the first sentence. Woodroar (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Gamergate controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you admitted to the revert, you made no effort to self-revert, and it was a clear-cut violation of the restrictions on that article. Coupled with your personalization of your dispute with TRPoD and the copyright violation mentioned by Woodroar, not to mention the 1RR violation earlier in the day, a block was inevitable. I'm not going to impose editing restrictions for the time being, but if any hint of this conduct recurs, you'll be restricted from this topic. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Aysmmetric Video Game[edit]

The article Aysmmetric Video Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be an original essay. No sources given and no way to determine if the subject is even a valid and notable subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Safiel (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Aysmmetric Video Game for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aysmmetric Video Game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aysmmetric Video Game until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safiel (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]