Hello, Singdavion, 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:
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 here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar ( talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.
Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page ( Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.
There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.
Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).
Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.
My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.
Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! -- TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)@ Fut.Perf.: Hi, I'm appealing this ban. It prohibits me from posting on TOPICS related to gamergate. ArbCom is a voting case and it is not inherently related to Gamergate. I ask that you respectfully lift this ban. Thank you Singdavion ( talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: Please be aware that quite a few people are using the same internet connection as my self and that TrueKindness is a friend of mine, not myself. Singdavion ( talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
if TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so". For most of the TBANed editors on that case exceptions where made for the arbcom proceedings by the sanctioning admin. — Strongjam ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again.
I noticed that your user page contains a couple of lists of links to external pages such as YouTube channels and Reddit forums. Our guideline on user pages forbids "Promotional and advocacy material and links". Also in the case of some of your links (by no means all) the offensive nature of the material linked, especially pages promoting harassment of Wikipedia editors and others, may also be intrinsically unsuited to Wikipedia user space under this guideline. For clarification see
Wikipedia:User pages.
While guidelines are written to allow exceptions, I think some of this material definitely should be on your personal website (if anywhere) rather than your Wikipedia user page.
Since you're blocked from editing, at least for now, I've taken the liberty of collapsing the part of your user page containing the links in question. If and when you're unblocked, please bring your user page into conformance with our policies and guidelines. --
TS 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Singdavion, 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:
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 here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar ( talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.
Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page ( Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.
There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.
Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).
Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.
My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.
Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! -- TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)@ Fut.Perf.: Hi, I'm appealing this ban. It prohibits me from posting on TOPICS related to gamergate. ArbCom is a voting case and it is not inherently related to Gamergate. I ask that you respectfully lift this ban. Thank you Singdavion ( talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@ DeltaQuad: Please be aware that quite a few people are using the same internet connection as my self and that TrueKindness is a friend of mine, not myself. Singdavion ( talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
if TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so". For most of the TBANed editors on that case exceptions where made for the arbcom proceedings by the sanctioning admin. — Strongjam ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi again.
I noticed that your user page contains a couple of lists of links to external pages such as YouTube channels and Reddit forums. Our guideline on user pages forbids "Promotional and advocacy material and links". Also in the case of some of your links (by no means all) the offensive nature of the material linked, especially pages promoting harassment of Wikipedia editors and others, may also be intrinsically unsuited to Wikipedia user space under this guideline. For clarification see
Wikipedia:User pages.
While guidelines are written to allow exceptions, I think some of this material definitely should be on your personal website (if anywhere) rather than your Wikipedia user page.
Since you're blocked from editing, at least for now, I've taken the liberty of collapsing the part of your user page containing the links in question. If and when you're unblocked, please bring your user page into conformance with our policies and guidelines. --
TS 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)