User talk:ColorOfSuffering

Yes

Like your homepage. Love your slant. Admire your vigorous removal of cant. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much -- I spend so much time mired in reading diffs of vandalism and contentious 9/11 conspiracy edit wars, it's easy to forget that there are 99% of the editors on this website are actually some damn fine people. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seagull

Nice picture. Got any more? (particularly related to Chekhov, that is.) ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm...well, I was looking through the free databases last night, and I found some stuff from 1929 on the New York Public Library database (not quite public domain yet...so I wasn't totally sure about the upload). Also found another shot from the MAT here, though it seems to be rights-mannered, even though it's from the 1898 production. I've also got a couple of books with photos that I can peruse -- I was looking at the Hamlet page, and I think that'd be a great direction to take The Seagull...and step one is getting a couple more photos to punch up the plot section, and others. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Gavin.collins

Hello. :) Could you please comment here on the latest outbreak of activity from Gavin.collins? Thank you. BOZ (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New proposition regarding D&D article notability

Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadzar

Hi. I just wanted to make sure that you saw new discussion on WT:D&D, where Shadzar has left the WikiProject because of discussion regarding Gavin.collins, although Gavin WAS NOT involved in the discussion itself. I thought you might want to comment. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Notice

Hello, ColorOfSuffering. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lindh

Hello,

I would just like to say thank you for being able to edit this article (JWL) without being like the rest of the users who cannot disagree without being disagreeable (i.e. feeling the need to insult someone who says something they don't accept rather than rationally approach and fix the problem). I did massive editing to the article because prior to me doing so, the only image presented of JWL was VERY biased in my opinion. It literally had no information that was negative towards him; it simply made him out to be a victim.

Again, thank you for not being ridiculous. I'm a law school student so I'm very used to having to converse with people arguing the opposite side of whatever I take, but not in an insulting way. So I suppose thank you for not being childish.

Thank you and Merry Christmas,

John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcoving (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?

I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)

If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. :) Hope all the work that Drilnoth and I have been putting into the project has been making it look a lot better! :) BOZ (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Arneson

HI there,

Thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.

You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to "Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. I don't see any reason we at the D&D WikiProject can't get Dave's article promoted now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.

Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Serrell.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Serrell.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eyebrows raised

I just spent waaaaaaaaay too much time looking through your contributions just so I could read all of your edit summaries. They're so fun! Thanks for putting so much humour into things that pop up on my watchlist, :-) Maedin\^talk 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Yorkey

Hello. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your message - I've been away. I assure you I'm familiar with the guidelines for citing sources. I just find the end result is a sloppy mess at the bottom of the page. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it constantly evolves as new ideas are introduced. If people weren't bold enough to make changes, the site would still be the same as the day it was created.

I don't quite understand your contention that citing references your way makes it much easier to identify the reliability of a given source. The definitive way to know how reliable a source is is to click on the link and access the web page that was referenced. Knowing who wrote the article, on what date it was written, and where it was published can be learned just as easily from clicking on my style of citing as yours. I don't feel it needs to be spelled out in such a messy fashion at the bottom of the article.

My personal policy is never to create an article and leave it in this state [1], or to bring it only as far as this [2]. I try to add as many details as possible in the initial draft. I think that's more important than worrying about the formatting of references, especially when either way is going to bring you to the same point. Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Roberts

Thanks for adding some references to this article. To answer your question [3], not exactly, but there are certain facts that have to be referenced on articles, and more so on biographies of living persons. Those include specific facts about box office gross, critical commentary, such as referring to something as being "critically panned", "box office failure", "mixed reviews" and the like. Quotes always need to have specific quotes, whether from printed sources or a verbal quote. That would seem to me to be the reason the facts tags were placed. Thanks again for placing refs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just find it goofy that the reference is practically in text. Took me 20 seconds to Google it, and add the reference. If someone has time to add a ^{[citation needed]} tag, they should have time to add a reference. I wish more people would just either add a reference, or delete the contentious material. But it's not for me to tell others how to edit, right? Now, I don't see the box office gross, critical commentary, or quotation requirements for inline citations in WP:BLP, but it doesn't really matter. Thanks for the heads-up. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st New York Volunteer Engineer Regiment

~~1st New York Volunteer Engineer Regiment~~ Want to see exactly what I need to push this lil' guy along to B-class. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still start, I'm afraid, no enough references. The rule of thumb for B-class is at least one per paragraph. Roger Davies ^talk 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh

I'm fairly new to this editing game, but I'm glad to see someone else is as semi-neurotic as I am when it comes to maintaining NPOV in two sentences in a page about a mediocre comedian. Also, lovely user page. Godspeed out there. --RachulAdmas (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love it -- I think you did a great job, and that first edit you made to the Tosh article was perfectly bold (even if it was reverted). I'm a terribly sporadic editor, and when I edit I often spend more time looking for sources, checking policy, and composing talk page responses than I do actually making the edit in question...which is why my "total edit" count is comparatively low. I also attempt to avoid hot-button articles that might provoke a conflict, but sometimes I can't help myself. Either way, I'm glad you decided to weigh in. Thanks for dropping by, and glad you've decided to start editing articles. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy notification

OH BOY! HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!LOLOLOL!!!!

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's terrifying. It's like a perverted version of the welcome committee. My username is on a list, and I'm now a heartbeat (or vague BLP claim) away from being indefinitely banned from the site. "The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies." Cool. Thanks guys, great advice. I really tried, but the looming spectre of community sanctions has me sufficiently intimidated from even discussing the topic, much less making bold edits in the article space. What an absolute mess. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4Chan BLP Discussion (copied over from Risker's talk page)

Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ColorOfSuffering. Thanks for your post. To start off with, you were posting BLP-related material on the talk page of an article that is only peripherally related to the BLP subjects. Gamergate isn't really very important in relation to 4chan, believe it or not; it's just one more episode of dozens over the years, many of which have received publicity but many of which have long since been forgotten. None of the links you posted were really about 4chan, they were all about Gamergate, and 4chan was mentioned in some of them but was not the crux of the linked material. Your assessments of the links continuously repeated long-since-disproven allegations with your own comments such as X denies the allegation. This is not the same thing as calling it "false." Please note that the article about which you posted that analysis does not even mention 4chan. In fact, it is completely unclear why you posted that section to that particular article; 4chan is only one of dozens of websites affected by Gamergate. Just about all of those links had already been analysed in depth on the more immediate articles (i.e., the BLPs of the subjects and the Gamergate controversy article), so as interesting as your personal research may have been, it was a poor choice to link it to the article you chose. I'm going to assume good faith here and presume that it never occurred to you that after all these months nobody else had bothered to do this leg work.

I'm going to copy over this entire section to your talk page as well, and we can continue the discussion there if you would like. As the relevant arbitration case is just closing as I write, it's unclear to me exactly how to go about formally advising you that this topic is the subject of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions in any number of ways (including the special BLP provisions, which is the basis for my having closed the section on the 4chan talk page). However, please consider yourself advised. Risker (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<note> I see that you received a formal notice above, while the article was still fully under community sanctions. Yes, I understand the hesitation. However, as a rule of thumb when jumping into a very controversial subject, it's usually best to read all the relevant articles and their talk pages and talk page histories to see what's already been resolved, what best fits where, and so on. Risker (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker:Thank you for the thoughtful response, and for assuming good faith. Firstly, I must apologize for my stunning lack of brevity, which I'm sure makes interacting with me to be a bothersome and thankless chore for most. I want to assure you that I have the utmost goodest of faiths, and I intend to be a beacon of joy and positivity and joy in this dark and troubled space. As for my reasoning, I posted that research on 4Chan because I was attempting to resolve an edit conflict that had occurred in the article space, which unfortunately led to two previously uninvolved editors being blocked ([4][5]). To resolve the conflict I thought I would go directly to the most reliable sources I could find to see if they dismissed the allegations as definitively "false," as had been claimed by several editors. What I found upon review was that the reporting was far more nuanced than what was reflected in the article space; most saying that either some aspects of the allegations were false (that Grayson never wrote a review of Depression Quest) or that the involved parties denied the allegations (a disinterested clarification that good professional journalists make, but not synonymous with "false"). I feel compelled to point out that at no time was I trying to assert, in any way, that the allegations are "true." I was trying to avoid weasel words, which is why I opened the discussion. I was seeking a word that was more reflective of the majority of reliable sources, or failing that, just removing the value judgement altogether. As you say, I tried to look through the relevant Wikipedia articles and talk pages, but even though the allegations had been widely and thoroughly covered in a vast number of reliable sources, whenever the allegations were discussed in on-Wiki, the information was oversighted, and the "offending" editors were accused of violating BLP and (often) blocked, topic-banned, or even site-banned. This concerted effort made it impossible for me to see how to proceed with the discussion I wanted to have, and also made me frightfully nervous, so I took extra precautions to ensure I was well within the bounds of BLP. That's why I was disappointed when you stepped in and hatted the entire discussion.

I think this is a big problem with these sanctions. New editors are immediately treated with suspicion and placed into a camp -- proGG or antiGG. I am neither, though I'm sure my first post in the subject area was enough evidence for most of the involved editors. I want to help, as per the ArbCom recommendations, but when I attempted to conduct what I considered to be a thorough and fair analysis of an ongoing content dispute, you almost immediately shut it down. As you say, none of the articles I posted are specifically about 4Chan (though 9 of the 15 do mention 4Chan), but the reference used in the article space is not about 4Chan either (this one), and my research was about that claim. I considered moving it to a different article, but I wasn't really interested in discussing the veracity of the allegations; I only wanted to discuss how the were represented in reliable sources. In addition, I was nervous that a discussion of the allegations in more central GamerGate articles would be immediately oversighted and I'd be blocked (as the two previously-mentioned editors had been). I'm here to help, but the threat of BLP-related blocks has made me nervous. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a pretty good explanation of the basic problem at Talk:4chan. The key point is that an article at Wikipedia has no "author" so common practice in many publications is not applicable here—if a columnist in a magazine writes an opinion piece they can (within legal limits) use whatever words they want and readers will understand that those words are the opinion of that author. At Wikipedia, there is no attributed author behind a phrase like "unsubstantiated allegation", so the procedure here is to stick to the facts—if someone is convicted of murder an article may describe them as a murderer, but until that time they are not an "unsubstantiated murderer" or any other kind of murderer; they may be on trial for murder, but they are not a murderer. Likewise, an article does not amplify an unsubstantiated claim because mud sticks and articles do not "allege" that someone has done a bad thing—no claim has been proven (the opposite has occurred), so "false claim" is correct. Dozens of good-faith editors have arrived at Wikipedia wanting to tell the world about gamergate, so discussions like this cannot continue until everyone is satisfied, and people will have to accept that that's how Wikipedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:For my own benefit, it would be great if you could frame your explanation around policy rather than abstractions like "that's how Wikipedia is" or "mud sticks." It's a content dispute, and when this happens I'd prefer to focus on the core principles rather than an editor's opinion of best practices. The BLP aspects particularly have me a bit flummoxed. The allegations against Ms. Quinn, while ostensibly baseless by any measure, have been widely reported by dozens of reliable sources; some of them in great detail. BLP is applicable for contentious or libelous material only when the material is "unsourced or poorly sourced." In no way does that apply here. In addition, oversighting is done in very strict cases relating to the posting of libelous information, copyright infringement, and non-public identifying information. From the FAQ: "Material that is simply offensive or obscene, even if it's grossly so, is generally not covered by our oversight policy." The allegations, discussed in detail by the New York Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian, can not possibly fit into the strict oversight limits, yet that's how the tool has been used with regard to these specific allegations. It's almost like there's a different set of guidelines for this one aspect of the GamerGate narrative, and there's really no way for an uninvolved editor to know the limits because they are amorphous and inconsistently applied. This is especially frustrating for new, uninvolved editors because it was a major instigator for the movement (as evidenced by the wide coverage), and yet no one is allowed to talk about it?

And thank you for your explanation about the "basic problem" with replacing or removing the word false. Truly, it's a good discussion, and one that I really wanted to have on the article space rather than tucked away in my awesome user talk page, where I'm not obligated to actually discuss the content. Seriously, have you seen my user page? It's like I wrote a whole fake article about myself! How hilarious is that?! But I digress. I would love to have a discussion about proper encyclopedic tone, written in a dispassionate impartial and disinterested style. To your points, I would cite WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT as two applicable policies in this case, specifically the part where it advises to "describe disputes, but not engage in them." Painting the allegations as "false" is, in my opinion, actively engaging in the dispute. There's also the part where it says: "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts." Heck, you yourself wrote that "those words are the opinion of that author." I couldn't agree more! Further, I would argue that the reliable sources are not uniform in their reporting on the allegations, and they often conflict. I can point out specifics if you'd like, but I could just as easily refer you back to my original post on the 4Chan talk page. As for whether or not this issue has been decided, I think there is a touch of group think on this topic. From what I have observed, whenever editors try to cast doubt the assertion that the sources call the allegation false, the offending editors are accused of violating BLP and warned/blocked/banned. That's a dangerous and unproductive atmosphere to discuss legitimate content concerns where any dissenting voice (however reasonable) is not just dismissed, but also threatened and often punished. This is why I'm going out of my way to be as reasonable as possible. Others have not been so cautious, and they've paid the price. In the back of my mind I'm still nervous that I'll be punished for even discussing this, especially considering my username is now permanently enshrined on the "you better watch out" list.

Lastly, your analogy about murderers being called a murderer in the article space is not at all applicable. A conviction of a crime meets a strict evidentiary legal standard. There's even a clear-cut BLP policy on crimes that reads: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The veracity of the allegations against Ms. Quinn do not even come close to approaching that standard, and the voice of Wikipedia is currently engaging in the conflict and declaring the allegations universally false, rather than striking a more neutral approach and asserting something along the lines of Quinn was the target of multiple baseless allegations. While "false" and "baseless" essentially mean the same thing to the reader (baseless is not on the words to watch list), calling something "false" is engaging in the dispute and making a judgement not supported by the sources, whereas "baseless" is clarifying that the well-publicized allegations were made against the subject with zero evidence. I feel that it is an important distinction. I would say that "false" asserts that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, when in actuality the only evidence is: 1) Grayson did not write a review, and 2) all of the accused parties deny the allegations. To use your "murderer" analogy, no criminal court would ever convict someone based on that level of evidence. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you really want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about gamergate, and you are prepared to devote serious amounts of time to one word—a word that you seem to think is technically correct but which should not be used because it overstates what is provable. Perhaps your efforts should be focused on Gamergate controversy which is the main article for the topic, and where "false allegations" appears. However, bear in mind that the text has been debated for several months so people may not want to rehash the whole argument again. I won't continue at the moment because I find it offensive that people want to "neutrally" slant the articles so readers get the impression that lots of good folk believe there are serious allegations and, who knows, those allegations may be correct. And after all, where is the proof that there was any harassment, and even there was, let's be neutral because there is no proof that any harassment came from gamergaters, and so on and on for every word in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that went south pretty quick. Consider that maybe, just maybe I was trying to equitably resolve an edit conflict that resulted in two uninvolved editors being blocked...but sure, it's just a possible that I'm desperately trying to evangelize for GamerGate. Well played, my friend -- nice talking to you. Also, the months-long debate just happened to take place between editors who did such a "great job" that ArbCom had to step in and topic-ban about a dozen of them, so you'll excuse me if I'm not immediately taken in by their conclusions. But whatever. If I can't even get editors to budge on a single goddamn word in a semi-related article, what possible hope to I have to win hearts and minds at the main article? It's ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this shit. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM Clarification Request & WT:BLP Discussion

Based on the discussion in the section above, you may be interested in an ArbCom Clarification Request and/or the discussion at WT:BLP. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ColorOfSuffering, you may be interested that I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences for your loss

*snrk* Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :D -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, I couldn't help myself. That's the kind of crap I write that gets me immediately (and completely appropriately) hatted. I think I've made a decent case, but there are quite a few entrenched editors on the article, so any change to the high profile parts of the article are bound to meet stiff resistance (apparently), no matter how well-reasoned the arguments. I feel another RFC coming down the pipe if I can stay interested long enough to keep pushing for a change. I'm always locked in a heated battle with WP:DGAF. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi! Please don't use edit summaries to insult other editors, as you did at the Gamergate talk page. This[6] edit summary ("I wrote a bunch of stuff on the Gamergate talk page today, mom. Are you proud of me?!?!?" "No, son. No one is proud of you.") is more than a bit uncivil, and I don't know what I've said to invoke your ire. Let's all be friends, okay? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth:What on earth makes you think I was talking about other editors? I was being self-deprecating, my dear friend. My goodness, you truly need to assume good faith here. It was me trying to come up with an edit summary for each of my talk page entries, and the shame my mother would feel if I ever had to explain this to her. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange, but I'm not seeing a violation of WP:CIV. I would suggest a little more seriousness in that particular venue, humor in that arena can be misunderstood or inappropriate - after all, we're discussing living people with families, friends and feelings - people who have been attacked, threatened and subject to horrible threats. Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but with all due respect we are editing an encyclopedia, not curing cancer. Nearly every article on Wikipedia involves real people with families, friends, and feelings -- what makes Gamergate any different? I approach each article discussion in the same way, with a careful mind to WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL. I have never insulted anyone (at least, not intentionally). I generally have not even discussed other editors. I have not violated BLP. I have consistently focused on the content, and in doing so I have made jokes. And so long as I am not violating any policies I will continue to make jokes, because I feel that humor and satire are the best weapons against intransigence, pomposity, and bureaucracy. Or as some other essay more succinctly put it, "Humor is the grease of communications." I thank you for your warning, but I must politely refuse your suggestion. It is not the end of the world. If you feel you must take some kind of administrative action against me for having a sense of humor about something so serious as an article regarding sexism in video game culture, then that is your decision. I'll just be over here, pining for the fjords. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your contributions to the GamerGate article today.

It was really refreshing to see someone citing RS in this way :-)

Racuce (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious! Thanks! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocation

You know what?

Before we progress any further, gather around the Cosby recliner, children, because it's anecdote time.

One day, as I was listlessly browsing YouTube, a notification appeared in my Google+ box: "[Kitschy pseudonym]: Commented on, +1'd your comment on [Video]". Consumed, as I was, by adolescent boredom, I partook out of pure curiosity...and was met with this:

"Old king cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he....". The rest of the comment, I forget. Which is fine, because that little preface is what we'll be discussing today.

I don't quite think I can adequately convey just how fatuously discordant that sentence was with the rest of the comment. It would be like opening up a super-mart by first setting it on fire. Sure, it creates quite a spectacle, but what are you left with in the aftermath?

Ashes.

I began to hate that commenter almost instantaneously. It was such a non-sequitur, such a faux pas. It was ludicrous.

Why do I bring this up? Chiefly because I felt like it, frankly.

With that tangent thusly divulged, let's address something marginally more salient, I suppose.

I see you've been...'fighting the good fight', as it were. Against a very...shall we say...obdurate opposition?

That's enthusing to know--truly, it is. You have my...'support', for what little good it will do. Hit me up sometime--I'm beginning to enjoy conversing with you. Ghost Lourde (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nearly as gifted at word talking as you are...I mean I can be, it just takes a lot longer and I'd be leaning far too heavily on thesaurus.com. Like I said, I'm not sure if you're completely serious or not; this could easily be Horsey Surprise meets Ignatius J. Reilly. If that's the case, then well played, and I hope you keep it up. But if you're truly what you say you are, then rock on either way. It's unfortunate that you were topic-banned from GamerGate, because with a little bit of focus you may have made some truly productive edits in what is a very difficult article space. But it's just a repeat of what's happened far too often -- new editors come barreling into the article and inevitably post some inappropriate link, start picking fights, or try to make well-intentioned sweeping changes that go against consensus before they get topic-banned for being "disruptive." It only reinforces the narrative that there is some vast ill-trained army of GamerGate sockpuppets marching off to right great wrongs on a supposedly friendly website they don't really understand at all. I prefer to think this influx as just the effect of average readers digesting a shoddily-written article and trying to fix it in the spirit of neutrality. Alas, neutrality is one of the toughest rows to hoe in Wikipedia, because of a lethal combination endemic to editors constituting both the Dunning–Kruger effect and bias blindness, so the article continues in its current state with most dissenting voices being shouted down or silenced as they arrive by entrenched editors who have experience operating in a contentious article space (I'm loathe to use a battle-related metaphor because it will no doubt be misconstrued, and in no way does it represent my own approach to editing this article, but I'll leave it anyway as I think the comparison is apt). I'll probably drop away too, eventually. I don't have a great track record staying interested while editing in contentious spaces. Sigh. If only you had cut your teeth on a different emotionally-charged article space then come back here armed with an iron-clad grasp of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP we might have made some serious headway, but alas, as some guy once said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Hope you stick around, and if you need me to chime in and help with any issues you come across in your new career of editing non-GamerGate articles I'll be more than happy to weigh in. We prolix, palaverous, pleonastic, periphrastic pedagogues ought to stick together. Illegitimi non carborundum, and all that. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that last sentence. Or, well, second to last sentence, as it were, but I'm just going to 'last sentence' for the sake of brevity. Well, ostensibly now, anyway. In any case, it reminds me of perhaps the best alliteration I have ever committed to paper: "Oh, yes. I'm a licentious, lecherous, lubricious, lascivious, libidinous, lewd, and lustful libertine." Moreover, I wrote that quite casually. Such are the benefits of possessing such an inordinately large lexicon--you can simply browbeat people with your vocabulary. The best lack conviction? Doggerel. Aphoristic doggerel. Hasn't this man ever read Fahrenheit 451? Anyway, I assure you, my account is not satirical--though I certainly don't blame you for supposing that it is. Additionally, one admin proposed that the sanction be lessened afterwards--apparently, not to much avail, however, as it has yet to be heeded in any respect. This isn't the first time my vulgar volubility has caused me difficulties, to be certain, but I maintain that the sanction into which all of this culminated was rather...draconian. Censorious, even. Still, 'not here to build an encyclopedia'....say that one more time, and it'll become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I'll reorient my ambitions towards mopping this mendacious floor with your daffy little head. Bah. In any case, I do hope that you can succeed where I have failed. Something something, assessino, something something, Jade Raymond can't do research for beans, something something, hey, look, we're in Italy, so let me teach you some italian expletives. Molto bene. Ghost Lourde (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Sanction lifted per agreement described below. Zad68 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

}

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, for three months.

You have been sanctioned for trolling: [7][8][9].

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Zad68 03:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. "Trolling." How interesting. You see pointy trolling, while I see critical satire. If you had assumed good faith, you might have seen the same thing. As far as I understand it, there's no site-wide ban on satire, and it's not inherently disruptive. But I digress. Hey, so did you notice how my last edit was in a section titled "Calling Off The Sea Lions," which was a personal attack against the other editors on the talk page? Didn't feel like taking administrative action there? Curious. I know, I know, "Go ahead and appeal yadda yadda". Unfortunately only certain users have the privilege of using satire in their talk page posts, or commenting on the behavior of other editors. Everyone else gets the "zero warning topic ban" treatment, which is then upheld by the administrative allies monitoring WP:AE. It's now my turn to churn through the futile appeals process for the honor of contributing to the broken Gamergate article space. I'm really looking forward to it! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem a tad bit selective when you consider the Gamergate topic is pretty much a hub for edgy sarcastic trolling, and I think a caution would probably have served better. See some recent examples of people engaged in trolling without sanctions: [10][11] (including insults to the autistic), [12][13] (has boasted of purposefuly being engaged in disruptive trolling on reddit),[14][15] (should really know better). Bosstopher (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Sarcasm? Yes. Facetiousness? Sure. Satire? Boy I hope so. But disruptive trolling? It did seem a tad inconsistent. But it appears that the sanction is being overturned so long as I adhere strictly to the talk page guidelines and promise to only say the things that I mean. I wouldn't mind seeing this rule applied to all editors in the talk page, but I suppose someone had to be first, right? Thanks you for your message. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColorOfSuffering, per your agreement here, I am lifting your topic ban under the condition that, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, you commit to adhering to the guidelines at WP:TPG, and in particular that you will commit to using plain, straightforward communication about the article content and sourcing. Failing to do this will likely result in a sanction. I will log this change to the sanction in the DS logs. Zad68 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GG

Not that it matters but this made me laugh. Prominent is a synonym of notable. — Strongjam (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally! I know how to use a thesaurus too, but I do appreciate the tip! Notable is listed on WP:PEACOCK, while prominent is not. Perhaps you feel that both words should be on that list? That may be, but I think an argument could be made that they're distinct. And I'm just the person to make that argument! Follow along with me as we take a magical journey through the land of "What means words have make?!" There's another great tool out there on the internet called a "dictionary." Believe it or not, thesaurus.com and dictionary.com are owned by the same company - Lexico, which is a division of IAC/InterActiveCorp. Crazy, right? So let's dig in a bit. While synonyms are similar, you can't just swap them out willy-nilly, you silly-billy! Like, we wouldn't just swap notable out with other synonyms like serious, evident, notorious, or rare, would we? That'd be just bonkers! When a person is "notable," they are labelled as such because they are "worthy of note." Prominence does not always carry a similar worthiness value, and typically only implies that the subject is "readily noticeable." For example, you would never have described Snooki as a notable celebrity, right? But she was certainly prominent at one time. A mountain peak can be prominent, but that doesn't mean it's always notable. Does that make sense? Or, to go a different route, it might help to dig into the etymology a bit. Prominent is from the Latin prominere meaning "jut or stand out, be prominent, overhang." While notable is from the Latin notabilis, meaning "noteworthy, extraordinary." I'm glad you see no difference between the two words, because that was the objective -- to remove the puffery inherent in the word "notable." If you have any future confusion about words, or heck if you just really need a really good laugh, feel free to drop by my talk page again and ask! I'm more than happy to help. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, quite the response. Anyway, it's a small thing, I see no difference between the words and it made me chuckle. I didn't mean to argue, just wanted to share my gaiety. — Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. lol indeed -- I share your bemusement! What convivial joviality! What...uh...hang on...mirthful jocosity! Such fun times! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a veritable font of sanguinity. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]