User talk:Lorson

GThis user is a member of GameFAQs.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GameFAQS

Hi Lorson, I want to let you know I've opened a query about the GameFAQS template at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#GameFAQs_template, so you may like to comment. Marasmusine (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Don't worry. I won't (depending on what they are, anyway). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time, I assumed it was advertising, plain and simple. Now I realise that they were using a template that existed for a reason. I'll base future actions on the consensus at WPVG. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

we can't use the word 'blocked' in discussions?--Lorson (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Lorson- You can use the word "blocked" in discussion. Often times humor is lost in our postings, which can lead to misunderstandings. I wouldn't take Rrburke's posting personally if I were you. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Ravimakkar Despam

WTF did you just do, asshole? And what are you douing to the HUNDREDS of other articles, you idiot?

No, he'sright, you are reverting MANY PEOPLE, don't you see he didn't even edit SINCE 2006? GameFAQs (you're removing them too) and MobyFames templates are like the IMDb template for the movies (and for some games too). So STOP NOW and REVERT all your recent vandalism. Christ! 83.5.31.77 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I also guess you meant to revert [those strange edits (spam, admitedly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Video_games#Moby_Games.3F (4 years later), but now you're erasing ALL of MG (and even GF) links, often even leaving NOTHING in "External links" sections (just the section's title). 83.5.31.77 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fixing any collateral damage, so no problem.--Lorson (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All collateral damage is now repaired I apologise for the mess and have taken steps to make sure no more of these types of edits take place. Thank you for alerting me to them.--Lorson (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's one thing. And it's nice you're cooperating. But now, your MobyGames template removals (lots of them) - this is also damage and the problem. Now I think you meant something about MobyGames rating (to not be used on Wikipedia), but you removed a large number of MG template links (and I've seen your edit history, and you also used to "spam" templates - but the GameFAQs one). So stop immediatelly, then repair all the articles. Because you just damaged them. Seriously. 83.5.31.77 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have repaired all collateral damage and made sure it won't happen again, I'm not sure what you are talking about.--Lorson (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm talking about now: In this case you were actually right (no such MobyGames page) - but in this case you were wrong - there's such article alright, and you damaged the article (and didn't restore the old version). So maybe go and check if it's really false links before removing them. And if you have a problem with this template to begin with, just nominate it for deletion, and explain why it should be removed - if you win, it will be simply removed by bots (it was nominated once or twice already few years ago, but the consensus was to keep it - same for the GameFAQs one btw). 83.5.31.77 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you may want to read User talk:Ravimakkar to see why they were removed. Only links that were added by that user were removed.--Lorson (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing useful content. eg The Neverhood. This issue has been discussed to death, and the majority of those old additions have been checked (or the content has changed in the 4 years since, so would need to be re-checked). Thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They weren't checked when they were added, read User talk:Ravimakkar.--Lorson (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of their age relative to the recent WP:VG discussion on the topic, it is better if you sought input from that project first before mass deleting these. New moby games spam is ok, but when the links have been far established , you probably need to check this. There may be consensus to remove these, but I would not blindly remove them without having checked. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm only removing ones which were mass added without a second thought.--Lorson (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

God, man, what have you done?! I just noticed that the Ultima article links to MobyGames had been pruned, but then I checked and saw that you had automatically killed hundreds of MB links everywhere!? This seems so far beyond all reason and scope that I can't even reason about whether it was in good faith or actually vandalism on a huge scale! Would you please undo your MB purge? Miqademus (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what's already been said above.--Lorson (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ravimakkar despam finished. Y.--Lorson (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't fixed all of your "collateral damage". There are TONS of articles you unlinked MobyGames where the link was totally justified. I'm fixing what I can, but there are probably hundreds I'm going to miss. Did you even check the MobyGames links before you unlinked them? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're wondering why...

Lorson's edits are in response to complaints regarding editors with few other contributions adding bulk ELs to MobyGames.[1][2][3] Which I find to be slightly ironic in this case... :P SharkD  Talk  11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Finished? Not quite.

In your bulk removal of ELs, you left some (many?) empty EL sections: in instances where you removed the only EL, you didn't remove the section header. It's not the easiest thing to do with AWB because it takes some fiddling with regex to conditionally remove them, but still, it's the right thing to do. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with empty EL sections, it encourages users to add useful sites.--Lorson (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB like edits

Did you hack AWB's open source code to make (semi-)automated edits? You should not be doing edits that fast without permission (and without gaining consensus for your edits). Can you please explain. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could say that. I didn't think reverting spam needed consensus, according to WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I've already brought it up at VG noticeboard many times, but get responses of support and straw man and ad hominem arguments.--Lorson (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mobygames deletions

I notice you've been deleting links to Mobygames as spam. Has it been determined anywhere that mobygames is in fact a spam website? Last I knew there there was still no consensus on this issue. If new consensus has emerged that Mobygames is a spam site, then I'd recommend linking to that decision in your edit summaries rather than just explaining that you've used AWB. Even if you're in the right here, these edits are bound to create confusion without a bit more explanation. As it stands it looks to the external observer like you've just unilaterally decided that mobygames is spam. Thanks, -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not repeating what is already said above.--Lorson (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're also being very mysterious about what you're actually doing. Earlier I see you had a project where you were undiong Mobygame additions by User:Ravimakkar. I also see that you declared that despam "finished". Is this part of another despam aimed at a particular spammer? Since I have pointed out that there is a reasonable chance that other editors may be unclear about the rationale behind your edits from the edit summaries you are leaving, would you consider replacing edit summaries such as "despam using AWB" with something that actually gives reasons for the change? Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll provide a link to the user page of the user that originally spammed the link.--Lorson (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it'll probably save you some headache as well because it should cut down on people complaining at your talk. If there's a reasonable rationale supplied, even if just in summary, then it's bound to cut down on the sense of outrage for some users. Good luck with your campaign. -Thibbs (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bonze Adventure, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mephistophelian (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Casino Mogul, you will be blocked from editing. Mephistophelian (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Look up what vandalism is and stop leaving these silly messages here.--Lorson (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson, I know perfectly well what constitutes vandalism, kid. Perhaps you'd like to revisit each individual article, actually help by adding references and the like, rather than rack up hundreds of meaningless edits that alter little besides your ego. By removing these so-called "spam" links to MG, you're actually leaving even more articles without any links whatsoever. Congratulations. Mephistophelian (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It won't be long before you are banned as a vandal, so please pack it in...cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

a

You are engaging in disruptive editing. At the least, this edit has an edit summary which is untrue, claiming that you're undoing an edit by an idle account which has never edited the article. That alone gives people reason to revert your edits on sight. The point of external links is to point people to resources which have information which goes beyond what Wikipedia includes or should include. MobyGames is such a site. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't see it in the page history it was due to a merge that the user previously edited.--Lorson (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly unlikely. Changes on the scope you are making should not be done without first reaching consensus in support of them. You have not done that. Stop these edits until you have. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly going against consensus. There's no need to waste time with edit summaries when you already know why you're being reverted. Also, why haven't you attempted to remove the GameFAQs links you previously "spammed"? Reach Out to the Truth 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Links that have been in articles for years – without challenge – should be given the benefit of some doubt. Do you imagine that you are the first person to have noticed them in all these articles? It seems to me that they have been judged on a case-by-case basis – over the course of half a decade, by countless other editors of these articles – as not-spam. Wholesale deletion of material that has withstood that much scrutiny is irresponsible. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lorson. You have new messages at Reach Out to the Truth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:ANI

there is a report about you in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_using_hacked_AWB_code. Pleas reply. I advice you to stop editing until the issue is cleared. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You both have to stop editing right now. We ll try to find the truth and the solution. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Block

Temporarily blocked you for running an unapproved bot on this account (hacked AWB counts in this case). Please do not do this again without consensus or a botflag, ideally both.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not removing anymore links so I don't why you've blocked me. But if it's my punishment for editing too fast I guess I'll have to live with that.--Lorson (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not for editing too fast it's for using AWB without permission. something lame from CBW 16:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought open source was programs were allowed to be edited by anyone? Sorry then.--Lorson (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between that and using it on Wikipedia. something lame from CBW 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson, I left you a message in your talk page 3 days ago to inform you that you shouldn't be doing edits this way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to undo the damage done by this bot automatically? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lorson, I have undone all your edits as approval for this task was not granted. No comment as to their utility. If you wish to make automated edits via AWB, please seek approval at WP:BRFA. If you wish to use it manually, please apply at WT:CHECKPAGE. An {{unblock}} request noting understanding of this would probably go a long way towards lifting the block. –xeno^talk 04:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What can I say, but I don't understand. Users spam thousands of links to their own website in 2006 without 'consensus', but they don't get reverted only blocked, I spam about a 100 and get told to stop. I undo the spammers and get blocked for doing it too fast and then all the spam removing I did get reverted back without 'consensus' about 10x the speed I added them. The only thing I can think of was anyone and everyone was allowed to spam Wikipedia up until about 2008, then the rules changed and now you can't, but all the spamming that was on Wikipedia before then is allowed to stay because it's been there long enough because nobody has removed it. Very strange and confusing rules.--Lorson (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"...get blocked for doing it too fast...". No you got blocked because you were using AWB with first getting permission to use it. You have been told that several times now but seem to be ignoring it. At the same time you were removing links to MobyGames but either leaving in or adding links to GameFAQs. As far as other editors are concerned you appear not so much to be removing spam but more pursuing an agenda of removing links to a site you don't agree with. something lame from CBW 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The bad faith ad hominem arguments got old the 100th time. Spam is spam, does it matter who removes it?--Lorson (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When being done with an automated tool on a bot-scale, then yes, it does matter who removes it. Ideally an approved botop. Again, no comment as to the general utility of removing a mobygames link, but many of the edits you made left an External links section with absolutely no links. One of the reasons we vet AWB participants and AWB bot operators is to ensure they use the tool in a responsible manner. –xeno^talk 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with empty external link section? I was checking all my edits so I was just saving myself time using AWB, I don't see the big deal.--Lorson (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It violates the MOS. The big deal is you were doing edits on a mass-scale without approval. Please know that any repetition of this behaviour will result in another block. –xeno^talk 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So did the users I was reverting (User:TnS User:Flipkin User:69.139.77.86 but they were not reverted, only blocked. Like I said, I guess the rules have changed since they did their edits on a mass scale without approval.--Lorson (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true. One of those accounts (Flipkin) was mistakenly blocked for 24 mins [4], the other two have never been blocked. (Some editors were 'cautioned' not to mass-add links, and subsequently did cease doing so). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

External Link for Contra series

I don't get why you removed an official link in the External Links for Contra Series, you dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.236.120 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gamefaqs frontpage 2009.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gamefaqs frontpage 2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lorson. 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)