User talk:Heffner000

Welcome!

Hello, Heffner000! Welcome to Wikipedia! You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2021

Hello, I'm Ashleyyoursmile. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cr1TiKaL, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ashley yoursmile! 07:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Heffner000 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing

A lot of your contributions to Cr1TiKaL have been great, but we at Wikipedia politely ask that you stop vandalizing the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KullyKeemaKa (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I just want the title to change to moistcr1tikal because nobody actually searches Cr1TikaL. Heffner000 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan fraser

He has never collabed with Brendan fraser Heffner000 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Tyrone Magnus—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was just experimenting to see what will happen Heffner000 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages

In general, please don't remove comments from an article talk page. An exception would be removing or editing your own comment, but only if it's fairly recent and if no human being has edited the page since then.

On heavily-used talk pages, a "bot" may archive older comments, but this is done in a systematic way, with links to the archives listed in the top part of the talk page. See Help:Talk pages and Help:Archiving a talk page for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, Heffner000, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Faulkner vv (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. The rules on the English Wikipedia regarding use of multiple accounts are similar to those on the Commons.[1][2] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid "sockpuppetry" on all Wikimedia projects. Thank you for NOT using the recently-blocked account Commons:User: here, see note on your talk page on Commons, Commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Heffner000, and meta:Special:CentralAuth/Haroldof22 for details.

If your goal is to "promote" a particular topic, you are "shooting yourself in the foot" as it were: When a person is abusing multiple accounts and they focus on one article or group of articles, some editors, including myself, wonder "are some of the other accounts or IP addresses editing that account part of the same 'sock farm'". I can't speak for other editors, but I tend to pay a lot more attention to edits on these types of articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale behind use of "Gameography" instead of "Ludography"

Hello! I recently changed the header "Gameography" under Cr1TiKaL to "Ludography" for better consistency in terminology used across Wikipedia, though I notice you've recently undone that change, and I'd like to know the rationale behind it. The two words are, of course, synonymous, but I'd prefer the use of ludography over the alternative, as both "bibliography" and "discography" are used uniformly across the project, instead of words like "musicography" or "bookography". See for example also ludology, ludomusicology, or ludonarrative dissonance. Academic articles, for instance, use the word "ludography", e.g. doi:10.14361/9783839445976-016; doi:10.5040/9781501316647.0008; doi:10.2307/j.ctv65swb6.

Many thanks, Orcaguy (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that Ludography is the technical term for list of games but that is not the standard term in Wikipedia. Gameography is considered the standard established term and is used in articles of all major internet personalities.

eg: PewDiePie, KSI Heffner000 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heffner000: In that case, I direct your attention towards Google

109 results for ludography

183 results for gameography

There currently seems to be little consesus on the matter, and I still prefer ludography over gameography. I'll make a wider discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. P.S. I recommend indenting your replies with : so it's easier to navigate. Orcaguy (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at TommyInnit, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what about my edit was unsourced or poorly sourced? Heffner000 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this to me then, what is it that you are doing? You are engaged in an edit war as well Heffner000 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are including poorly sourced material in an article about a living person, against the concenus of Me, Masem and Zaereth at the BLP noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#TommyInnit and Edl-irishboy. You need to thoroughly read and understand Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ---Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heffner000, I'll try to explain this plainly. You can't construct your own narrative and cite Twitter alone to whatever is being asserted. It is both an Original research and a Biographies of living persons violation. WP:RSPTWITTER explains Twitter usage on Wikipedia in greater detail, but basically a genuinely reliable source is needed for attribution, which the prose then summarizes.

Bottom line: if the disputed content is a thing of note, reliable sources are pretty much bound to mention it, if not now, eventually. But we, on Wikipedia, cannot be that herald. True, we are not Britannica, but we still are a tertiary source, so that's just isn't appropriate and is prohibited by policy.

Hope that makes sense. Finally, I'll note that I considered just partial blocking you from that article outright, but hopefully, this message will resonate, so that won't be needed. Good luck. El_C 07:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: For clarification, they were previously using sources that were directly about the claims in question, including SportsKeeda and Dextero, but these have been previously judged to be unreliable in other discussions. They then began using primary sources in subsequent reverts as a misunderstanding of what the objection to the content was. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I haven't heard of either of these sources before, myself. Of course, for usage on Wikipedia, a venue such as, say, WP:RSN, needs to verify their reliablity, most especially as attribution for a matter involving a living or recently deceased person/s. El_C 07:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

— JJMC89 (T·C) 05:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Bobby690 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby690. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]