User talk:Gamebuster/Archive 1

Fermi paradox

Gamebuster19901, if it is not already, can you put Fermi paradox on your watch list and, also, consider editing (and cleaning) that article? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

Thanks for your support. William S. Saturn is engaging in a personal vendetta against me, and is searching out places to undo my work (like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents), and has nominated every campaign logo for nomination. I appreciate the help of those who are looking for a better encyclopedia. Spartan7W § 19:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You left a {{talkback}} template on my talk page. What's going on? --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault, @I dream of horses:. I completely misread everythign at the top of this talk page. You can remove it from your talk page and disregard. Sorry about that! Katzenlibrary (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JYP_Twice_Logo_Orange.jpg

Hi Gamebuster19901, I saw that you left me a message on my talk page about the free use for JYP_Twice_Logo_Orange.jpg and then deleted it. The file still has a tag for copyright problems on it. Is there still something I need to address or is it a mistake? Thanks! Katzenlibrary (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twice_(band) was no longer using the image, but I changed it to use the image again. Now -again- another image is being used. I like the image you used better because it was the official logo used on Twice's twitter page. The new one is not the official logo. I would change it back again, but I don't want to get caught up in an edit war if I don't have to. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 22:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A special thank you for getting for page protection request at List of Bollywood films of 1948, and the SPI. I really appreciate that. Kaayay (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well refed content

Not sure why you removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Just because there is a relationship or clustering of data in one instance doesn't mean one causes or prevents the other. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 14:37, 6 September 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try.

Reverting sockpuppet vandalism isn't "edit warring." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gamebuster19901. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature at WP:RM/TR

Hi Gamebuster19901. I fixed the issues with your signature at WP:RM/TR. The pipe (|) in your signature is what broke the template. You may want to consider using a different separator. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Neelix redirects

These are done. Around 40 were retained - some were valid dab pages, and some were fine as is (for example most of the saint name redirects were plausible as alternative names for existing saint articles). Someone else had already deleted almost all the "safeguarding-the-children" ones, which were not plausible as search terms. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

@HerkusMonte: and @Rockypedia:, cease your disruptive editing immediately or I will have to report you to wp:ANI. Seek dispute resolution. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been attempting to seek a resolution via discussion - check @HerkusMonte:'s talk page. He responded with a pic that called me a troll. How am I supposed to proceed in the face of something that dismissive? Rockypedia (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides helpful information on what to do in case of a dispute. I would recommend a wp:rfc. Be sure you rfc, that you are neutral in your tone. If that doesn't help then go to the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that, thanks. There's multiple issues here, though, and the biggest problem is that he's been blanket reverting every edit I've made in the Polish towns category. The original problem I was dealing with was an IP-hopping anon editor that was adding clearly NPOV language to every single Polish town page - over 2,000 of them. It became too difficult to manually edit every one of them so I began just reverting the anon IP edits that adding that language - unfortunately, in some cases that also removed the names of the towns when they were still part of Germany. That was my mistake and a mistake that I have rectified, but my edits continue to be reverted regardless of content. Rockypedia (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer look at what Rocky actually did. He did not remove IP edits, he removed German names from settlements in Poland, which were not introduced by the IP, and replaced complete sentences (not written by the IP) by a "See also" section. He did not just revert IP edits. Per WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote (see below) relevant foreign names should be mentioned in the lead. I restored these names (carefully not the IP edits) and a complete sentence structure instead of a "See also" section. I asked Rocky to stop removing German names and tried to explain WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote[2]. As a result he removed my Gdansk vote notice from his talk page [3]. Furthermore he blindly removed dozens of my latest edits (e.g.[4], [5], [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], which are, again, completely fine according to WP:PLACE) and claims I haven't responded to his "discussion". In fact I did, I asked him to follow WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote, which he simply ignores. He did not "rectify" his mistake, he continues to ignore the Gdansk vote and WP:PLACE [12]. I did not revert his edits "regardless of content", I carefully tried to distinguish the different parts of his deletions. I will continue to restore German names for settlements in Pomerania per WP:PLACE, this is not harrassment, in fact to mention the German names of these villages in the WP:LEAD is an established WP:CONSENSUS and per Gdansk vote "persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism." Do you agree? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:

For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
For Gdańsk, use the name Gdańsk before 1308 and after 1945
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.
Reverts to conform with community consensus are excluded from the three-revert rule (3RR). Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.

The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary.

I just saw you reported me at WP:ANI [13], this is absolutely incredible, what's going on here? Every single of my edits was explained as WP:PLACE and Gdansk vote. I completely understand that the Gdansk vote for German/Polish names is not known to everybody out there but WP:PLACE is absolutely precise about the usage of foreign names ("The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses ...2: Relevant foreign language names..."). It's Rocky who ignores WP:PLACE and you dare to accuse me of vandalism? Seriously? Please try to use some reasonable diligence before starting such an ANI report. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making mass reverts like that is still disruptive, if an editor keeps editing against consensus, go to ANI.
I saw (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHerkusMonte&type=revision&diff=765647141&oldid=764970130) and mass reversions, so I thought your account might be compromised because you know that personal attacks and disruptive editing is unacceptable. The reversions also looked like they were being performed by a bot, so there was no need to look any further. I didn't accuse you of anything. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 18:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that it was Rockypedia who deleted hundreds of German names from those articles, ignored WP:PLACE continued to do so even after I asked him to stop. No? HerkusMonte (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a flat-out lie. I moved the names to the lead, from the {{lang-de}} tag in the intro, if they were not German translations. When they were translations, I left them there. A handful of names were inadvertently dropped when I was reverting an anon-IP's thousands of instances of NPOV edits (language that implied Poles were performing "ethnic cleansing" on Germans), and I rectified that mistake. Your description of "Rockypedia who deleted hundreds of German names from those articles, ignored WP:PLACE continued to do so even after I asked him to stop" is a flat-out lie. In fact, when I attempted to engage you on your talk page, you ignored me for days and then finally posted a flippant "don't feed the trolls" gif as your total response. You still haven't addressed why you're mass-reverting me without consensus, including the "See Also: History of Pomerania" additions. In short, you're flouting the rules and then citing the very rules you're flouting, and I will not sit here and take your abuse. Rockypedia (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, Thank you so much for necessary inputs to article Executive Order 13767, best wishes.Junosoon (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi Gamebuster19901. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI :"Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our reposnibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. So we add the {{wait}} tag to the report, it goes to WP:UAA/HP for a week or more, and must then be reviewed again to see if the account has since become active before removing it. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Executive Order 13767

Hello! Your submission of Executive Order 13767 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cheeseburger for you!

This was a good close.Although I was working on it the same time and lost my edits, you fared better than me.Cheers! Winged Blades^Godric 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC

Hello Gamebuster 19901. This seems a bit premature. Thirty days is the standard, and !votes have continued to trickle in at the same rate over the past three weeks. If you are bound and determined to close it, don't you think it would be better to just let it run its course? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch: I agree, it should last the full 30 days. I just saw it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, where someone stated that it needed a closer. I'll remove the templates. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 23:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good decision. Thank you. Since you've decided, may I offer you a couple bits of advice—unsolicited but I hope not unwelcome—for future consideration? When closing high-profile RfCs, such as that one, it's really important to make sure every 't' is crossed, 'i' dotted, and so on. Determining consensus (or lack thereof) can be unexpectedly tricky, too. This can be challenging even for editors who've been here since the beginning and have six-digit edit counts. Maybe you enjoy venturing into the lions' den, though.

Anyway, thanks again for reconsidering, and remember: edit summaries are your friend! Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 23:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you made the right (but by no means easy) decision. I have no problem for a similar proposal in the future as long as it is fair and neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gamebuster, I'm puzzled by the evidence you have provided for a procedural close. WP:RFC states that notices at "Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects" is fine, and does not consider relevant WikiProjects to be "notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased". The posts to WikiProjects were 3 weeks ago, yet nobody complained at the time or since that this might be canvassing. The posts were the same as this post to Village pump (policy). If we put aside neutral notices to relevant WikiProjects as okay against official policy, then rather than a procedural close, the votes of participants should be respected with a normal close, as there is no evidence that these votes were invalidated against required policies.

If you believe the guidelines at WP:RFC are inadequate, and relevant WikiProjects should be considered biased, then that is an issue for the guidelines, not this RfC. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO a contested close is well above the grade of an inexperienced non-admin, especially when the close isn't an actual decision but rather an attempted cutoff-at-the-knees on a technicality. Undo this please and let someone else who will actually read the freakin supports and opposes gauge what he consensus of the community on this topic is. TheValeyard (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Although the reasons for the closure may be appropriate.~~ The RfC should be closed after proper time by an experienced administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Gamebuster, I agree with the above editors questioning the propriety of your close. The RfC was listed at centralised discussion since it opened, and I feel both that the community deserve a review of consensus there and that User:Fæ's notifications did not constitute canvassing, although I definitely see your point. I watch WP:ANRFC too and I've NACed at least one RfC, but I don't think you made the right decision here. Please undo the close and assess consensus or let someone else assess it. As a procedural note, the RfC should be delisted from WP:CD in any case. Thanks, Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is wholly unacceptable. First, you're just incorrect about notifying WikiProjects. It is standard to notify gender-related WikiProjects about discussions relating to gender. Second, for a non-admin to close any discussion as "Thanks for your nearly 150 opinions on this matter, but sorry, try again later" is well outside an acceptable close for a non-admin. Please revert this closure or I will have to raise the issue at AN to overturn this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 05:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to think over. You disrespected the nearly 150 editors who participated in this. Revert this ridiculous close before someone else just ups and does it. TheValeyard (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of piling on, three of the four diffs you linked in the close showed no evidence of a problem. The fourth couldn't have affected any comment made before 5 May, i.e., almost all of the comments made. You're acting in good faith, and I think you may have listened to some bad advice given at the RfC page, so don't sweat it too much. I wish I'd been more direct when I opened this thread, but maybe it wouldn't have helped. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I will address your concerns in roughly the order they were presented.

Fae, while wp:rfc does state that notifying wikiprojects can sometimes be acceptable, it also states that "When posting a notice at those locations [...] Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased". The canvassing guideline states that you should notify editors via "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions". Posting the notice on wikiprojects which would undoubtedly fall on one side of the discussion would be considered "Partisan" under the chart labeled on wp:canvassing. The mass email sent out would fall under "biased", as the example comments were clearly cherrypicked to show that the opposing side was somehow corrupt or bigoted.

TheValeyard and Xxanthippe, My admin status is irrelevant, and my editing experience was not brought up when I was assessing consensus the first time (as it was posted on requests for closure), it seems odd that it would be brought up now, and not before.

Now, the issue with canvassing, is that it becomes impossible (or nearly impossible) to asses the consensus of the community as a whole. That is why I closed the discussion as a procedural close.

BU Rob13, If you wish to take this to wp:ani, feel free to do so. The issue as I have stated previously, is that the consensus cannot be determined with the canvassing beginning so early in the discussion. That is why the results must be scrapped.

TheValeyard again: My intentions were not to be disrespectful. Ignoring the canvassing would be disrespectful to this entire project. Wikipedia can not exist without collaboration, and artificially making consensus appear inhibits collaboration.

Those are the reasons why I cannot undo the close. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 06:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

I've got to get some sleep, it's 2:40AM where I live, and I have work at 2:00PM. I won't be able to respond to anything for a bit. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 06:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that relevant WikiProjects must not be notified about active RfCs that are in their domain of interest.

Not only is this an excessive interpretation of bias, based on notices 3 weeks old which nobody complained about, it is directly offensive to those WikiProject groups which are being unfairly marginalized as biased, namely WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (for goodness sake, read the title), WP:WikiProject Gender Studies and WP:WikiProject Women in Red. These WikiProjects all have central to their mission to improve the quality of articles, not to be political advocates for nonbinary people. This close sets a ghastly precedent that none of the WikiProjects could ever be notified about relevant RfCs without suffering claims of canvassing, because they are relevant. Withdraw your close, step back and let someone more experienced handle it. The reasons underpinning the closure do not withstand any serious scrutiny and the closure is disruptive to the well established consensus building process of RfCs.

Please consider your "proposer admonished" firmly rejected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - WikiProject Women in Red is all about article creation and improvement; this RfC (as you well know) had nothing at all to do with articles. So there was no reason to notify WiR, it did not qualify as a "relevant WikiProject" per WP:RFC, and your actions did indeed constitute canvassing. St Anselm (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly thing to say, the WikiProjects are good places to discuss policy improvements and do so regularly. The idea that only WikiProjects that never discuss article quality improvement, should ever be allowed to know about RfCs relevant to their domain is bizarre. --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't at all relevant to the project's domain. St Anselm (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The projects are about gender and gender bias on Wikipedia, how are they not relevant? Sam Walton (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. If you wish to comment, that's great, but please try first to understand what others have already said. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started the request on close review at WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC (2)

I have reopened the RfC as an incorrect procedural close, and stated my justification here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Cameron ministry. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]