Misplaced Pages

Hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Misplaced Pages. Drop a note at Misplaced Pages:New user log. -- Utcursch | Talk to me

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Response To McGeddon

Please do not correct information I've added to articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be apathetic and have been assumed racist. If you believe the information you deleted was incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making assumptions again. If you would like to experiment, use any convenient gloryhole for anonymity.

I created MINOR edits as they should not be in review nor disputed before public knowledge. I added her family members. Her sisters to be specific. Susan Silverman (oldest sister) and Jodyne L Speyer (youngest sister "step-sister" specifically). All information is correct. I added info to her partners although not all of them. Joe Franklin raped her as a child - it specifies that in the Misplaced Pages entry. I simply added the dates. Dave Attell & Colin Quinn both banged Sarah early in her career - is correct. Jimmy Kimmel was posted twice for differing timelines - is correct. Donald Sterling Owner of the LA Clippers was added because that's hilarious - is correct. Michael Sheen and Sarah MAY be dating. They are friends and they MAY be promoting her appearance on the Masters Of Sex SHOWTIME series. It may be a media prank that you've allowed to remain. LASTLY: Your definition of vandalism is very different from my own; as mine should be corrected as performance art literature. Thank you. j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for uploading j0eg0d icon --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorized for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi there! The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page is restricted to being edited by editors who have had an account for at least 30 days (not a problem in your case) and have at least 500 edits. Per this restriction, I have removed your comment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's in your best interest to note the restriction. --NeilN 04:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For clarification; A 500 edit minimum I can work through, but this entry in (TALK) < /br>

Women Of Action Media is a website that works closely in relation with Twitter & other social mediums to push immediate action against online harassment. WAM & Twitter's Abuse Problem. In a detailed report released May 13, 2015 on PDF WAM indicated that only 43% of victims actually report harassment. Whereas 57% of the reports were provided by the "Twitter Followers" of the alleged victim. A collection of said reports mention #gamergate specifically; Although WAM's investigation states "death threats", "rape threats", "doxxing", "bullying", "harassment", etc ... had very little to do with the #GamerGate hashtag at all.

It was also removed because it's a "primary source"? The very organization that works with Twitter to address abuse & harassment can not be a source without a completely separate source to back it up? --j0eg0d (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi j0eg0d. The WAM Report can be used, but we can't interpret it. We can make a clear statement, such as "According to WAM, 12% of accounts that were allegedly used to send harassment were identified as Gamergate supporters". However, we can't judge the importance of the report, as we judge the importance by looking at how people use it and refer to it, which means it is hard to know how much to emphasise the findings. We also can't interpret the report in any way, because that is something we aren't allowed to do. Misplaced Pages's role is that of a tertiary source, reporting on what primary and (most importantly) secondary sources say, rather than engaging in research ourselves. - Bilby (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bilby ... I understand. But there's still some question to what "source materials" can & can not be "viable".

For example an article by Fast Company by Sarah Kessler extends the narrative of the 12% findings;

Gamergate made up only a small percentage of reports of online harassment. Though the Gamergate controversy has been one the most visible stories about online harassment in the mainstream media over the past year or two, only about 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts reported to WAM could be linked to it.

Kessler also noted that Twitter only deleted one account in response to the 161 reports of harassments, which lends to the same narrative that the findings presented by Women Of Action Media had determined either no really threats had occurred or Twitter was biased in removing the accounts.

Additionally an article from September 2014 in Game Politics carried a POLL asking "What Is #GamerGate About?"

Around 1,855 votes were cast (our second largest poll ever), with the majority of them going to the option, rooting out malfeasance in game journalism. Around 70% of the votes (1,298 votes) said that the Twitter hashtag #gamergate represents finding and eliminating alleged corruption in journalism. Around 13% (242 votes) said that it really depended on the person using the hashtag. While six% (119 votes) said it was about silencing those who talk about gender issues in video games. And around 5% (91 votes) said that the hashtag was meant to show that "not all gamers" are bad people. Finally, 4% (77 votes) said that they didn't know what #gamergate is & 2% (28 votes) said the #gamergate hashtag is about eliminating discussions on cultural differences in video games. Poll Image

The current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI is lacking news articles that credit any retort to the main controversy; That #gamergate is simply a hashtag and it is used by several diversities. Another website similar to WAM, known as Deep Freeze independently researches the alleged corruption of gaming journalists. Some, I might point out, have written the very articles provided in the current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI. Let alone these same journalist confer with one another through a mailing list on their Google Group Community. It was first reported by BreitBart. It included the contents of those emails along with the original email addresses. Needless to say WIKI demands viable news coverages, and the articles provided have credibility issues with the people writing them.--j0eg0d (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As a quick answer, I think the FastCompany source you provided is a good one. I need to run off to a class, but I'll see what we can use from it when I get back. Off the top of my head, though, I think it may be a better source for talking about harassment on Twitter in general, rather than GamerGate in particular, but hopefully there is something we can use. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted as there are restrictions on the article and talk page that only allow edits from editors whose accounts are at least a month old and who have at least 500 edits. You only have 78 edits so at this point, you can not contribute to the discussion on the talk page or edit the article. Liz Talk 01:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a 500 edit minimum for the TALK page? I could guess why the main article would have this restriction, but for what possible purpose could anyone need to limit a TALK page?
--j0eg0d (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an issue under discussion. It is an unusual level of protection, but GamerGate is an unusual situation to try and manage, as the off-site coordination causes issues. It is intended as a temporary measure, but it is one that we currently need to work within. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

there's some discussion on the topic over here. Your voice would be appreciated (at least by me) Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi J0eg0d, Please accept my apologies for the rudeness in collapsing some of your post at this page. I'm afraid it's likely to be considered off topic or WP:FORUM, and get you into more trouble that it's worth. Other editors can still read the information by clicking on the "show" link. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed two individuals Jorm & Alsee ignoring (discounting) the collapsed thread all together. I couldn't tell if this was from short-sightedness or if a thread being collapsed is so readily dismissed? I'm trying not to repeat myself in this page but languid observations were unforeseen. Must I entertain deficient remarks, or will I experience a greater number? --j0eg0d (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi J0eg0d, To give you the best advice, I'll need to have a look at that thread & a wee think. My personal thoughts are that the "page level restriction" that's preventing you from commenting at the Article Talk page disproportionate; but that is still the right place for the comment that I collapsed. From my observations here, if you post somewhere where it's off topic, you'll likely face a ban or block.

If I can offer some advice without having seen the latest in that thread, and therefore without passing any comment on other editors... sometimes the best thing to do on Misplaced Pages is just "scroll down". We don't need to respond to everything. - Ryk72 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Understandably. My previous post in here was closed for being "off topic" - There was nothing off-topic about this. I kept it focused on the root problem; Unfair Limits on the very TALK section where communication is most needed. Is it the commonality to be silenced on a topic? How are we supposed to have an open dialogue about said limitations when my stance is both feared and opposed? This separate perspective is literally disallowed and openly targeted for not continuing the "popular opinion". I'm trying to be objectively balanced here, but this reeks of bias. --j0eg0d (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Hi, J0eg0d,
I reverted your edit the other day on this article's talk page because you didn't meet the 500/30 editing restriction. I've since been told that this restriction only applies to Gamergate controversy and not all associated Gamergate articles. I went to revert my edit but there have been dozens of edits since that day including several by you so I'm assuming you have readded that content. My apologies for my premature revert. Liz 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Are You Aware?" - I am wondering if you are aware that you are skating on very thin ice on the Brianna Wu talk page? Please do not respond with your bold caps style of comment, as your style of pushing the Gamergate POV places you at a very high risk of being blocked. There is perhaps a small chance that you can become a productive Misplaced Pages editor. But only if you reconsider your approach and stop your POV pushing now. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's up to you but I wouldn't take any of the above very seriously. A brief search of this editor's history should tell you all you need to know. 208.167.254.15 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 208.167.254.15. I don't mind critique or passive aggressiveness. I'm an altruist; I'm neither here for awards or whatever (fragile) status feeds egoism. I will keep in mind disingenuous people & with whom they Wikihound. Sincerely, --j0eg0d (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• * COPYRIGHT " Artwork designed by j0eg0d. Made by Zazzle Paper in San Jose, CA. Sold by Zazzle." That's my artwork. I made it. The pixelation is because the image was originally a cursor I made using BitMaker . It belongs to me. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:StinkingBadge.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StinkingBadge.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Strongjam (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It could be one of these many images: ... or maybe it's ONE of these two images: - Oh wait, those are mine!!!

The ever popular and recognizable star-shaped Wild West sheriff's badge, thought to be a Hollywood creation for Westerns was originally designed by the Texas Rangers and fashioned to identify with their state nickname and emblem: The Lone Star State. It was said Texas Rangers badges were made from 1884 Pesos, but the badge in question here is an inauthentic semblance. The quotation "Stinkin Badge" is a derivative from the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It has been in circulation since the re-popularization of the quote in the 1974 film Blazing Saddles. It is not a promotional item nor a prop & it's freely used across many websites. The image & badge have no ownership claims, no copyright, no trademarks or registration of a likenesses thereof. You can find the image for sale on products from both eBay & Cafe Press. But I hope you purchase it from my store on Zazzle. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you learn a little bit about how copyright works.--Jorm (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• COPYRIGHT: " Artwork designed by j0eg0d. Made by Zazzle Paper in San Jose, CA. Sold by Zazzle." That's my artwork. I made it. It belongs to me.
• CONTRIBUTION: Recognized in pop culture fandom. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Please do not edit other editor's comments, as you did at the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page. I advise you read WP:TPO, as I believe this will aid your understanding of our policies regarding editing other editor's comments. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth The edit was to remove Self-Promotion and Advertising. You restored the promotional content - I have made note of it. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless the comments involve copyright violations, BLP violations, vandalism or edits by sock accounts, you can not remove or refactor other editors' comments on a talk page or noticeboard.

I do appreciate you answering my question about "brigading". Liz 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose was to remove WP:SPAM specifically Mark Bernstein's Self-Promotion and Advertising of his website.

You made two comments with speculation and links about an identified person:

• diff at Talk:Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
• diff at User talk:Bilby

Bilby removed the first and I removed the second. The rule is simple: do not post commentary about living persons on any page at Misplaced Pages unless certain conditions are satisfied, per WP:BLP. The conditions could be explored at another time but for now it is best to keep it simple. If you have concerns about an actionable proposal for the content in an article, you need to express those concerns in general terms, without providing opinions on the character of an identified living person. For example, if someone is convicted of murder, and if it is relevant for an actionable proposal regarding article content, it is fine to observe that the person is a murderer. However, if someone is accused of a crime or other abuse, the simple rule is to not mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Johnunique: You removed my question to an Admin @Bilby: from their TALK page before the Admin was able to review it? The policy of WP:BLPTALK was enacted to ensure that we could discuss possible allegations on the TALK page of living subjects when it's related to the article or content choices. The whole WP:BLP policy in itself was supposed to ensure that we get information regarding living people correct. It was never intended to purposefully censor or negate any possible new information regarding living people. Only for us to be cautious about them.--j0eg0d (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Johnunique: Here's the revised version removing BLP concerns:

• This is a relatively new website, but pardon if I'm mistaking; ▀▀▀▀▀▀ is the ▀▀▀▀▀▀ (correct?) This same ▀▀▀▀▀▀ has been accused of abuse, bullying & harassment by StopTheGRBullies: ▀▀▀▀▀▀ organized a revolt to write "bad reviews" of Amazon & Goodreads books by authors ▀▀▀▀▀▀ didn't like - ▀▀▀▀▀▀ contacted Amazon directly through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ website to get several books (from authors ▀▀▀▀▀▀ didn't like) pulled from Amazon. It was first ▀▀▀▀▀▀ made public by ▀▀▀▀▀▀; '▀▀▀▀▀▀' author & supporter of ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Facebook account and continued updates through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter account. ▀▀▀▀▀▀ rallied ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter followers to publicly attack ▀▀▀▀▀▀ and write articles in gossip websites bluntly lying that ▀▀▀▀▀▀ is a harasser. I think it would be best to remove the WIKI 'Online Abuse Prevention Initiative' entry (at least) until OAPI actually establishes itself, because (1) this could be construed as advertisement, (2) we're promoting ▀▀▀▀▀▀ repeated hostilities, and (3) we're certain to see rampant vandalism in response to this WIKI.

--j0eg0d (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's painful obvious from the context who you are referring to. Going with the she-who-most-not-be-named style here is not going to fly. — Strongjam (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Obvious to whom, exactly? --j0eg0d (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page. Playing dumb about BLP is about the stupidest thing you can do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenofDoom: THERE IS NO BLP VIOLATION Misplaced Pages:Overzealous_deletion I have not used anyone's name. Who exactly am I writing about? Need I remind you that the policy of WP:BLPTALK?--j0eg0d (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that BLP does apply everywhere, and what you wrote contained significant negative claims. With the GamerGate article, we've tended to err on the side of caution perhaps a bit more than normal, but as a general rule I'd we'd go in that direction - generally the same concerns can be raised without making things explicit enough to raise flags. Either way, I think there is a case to be made that we don't need the OAPI article - I'm inclined to redirect it to Crash Override, as that has a bigger presence and the two are closely connected, but we can make a solid case for that on notability grounds.

An I respect that rewriting the text with names removed is better than mentioning names. However, we still run into the problem that it is clear who is being spoken about - the problem with BLP is making the allegations about a living person, and whether or not we mention them by name. If it is clear who the target is then the problem will persist.

In regard to OAPI, do you think a redirect would be the way to go? I'll look around and see if there are enough sources to warrant keeping it, but at the moment I don't feel it will have had sufficient coverage to warrant a stand alone article. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bilby: Thank you. I'm unconcerned with the WIKI Gamergate_controversy. I've supported it's current restriction all along, but I still believe it's TALK page should be unrestricted as "being unable to communicate an opinion", editors NOT assuming good faith and overzealous deletions generally incite vandalism.

The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative - I currently don't see any controversy with a redirect. The OAPI website and the Crash Override Network are basically the same owners with the same initiative. It's an unestablished website created to be the non-profit organization to which Crash Override was denied. Although I've not involved myself with the Crash Override WIKI I'd suspect it would need some restrictions as well.

The comment I posted on your TALK page was to make sure you knew what this was about, as I know Admins are incredibly busy and I'd assume you might not recall who I am nor what I was referring to. I do not think blacked-out names is in anyway obvious of who I'm indicative of - unless someone looks back through history & digs those names out it's unclear who I'm discussing. But (to put it to rest) You've answered my question, THANK YOU and that should be the end of it.--j0eg0d (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eg0d, this is not the only time you have surreptitiously edited other editor's comments on your talk page. Refrain from doing so in the future, please. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, the word "surreptitiously" refers to doing something in secret or through stealth. I believe you're using it incorrectly here. The vector graphic (Stop Hand) you've used suggested some sort of authority on your part. I found it misleading & unnecessary. Have a great day. --j0eg0d (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just a standardized template {{uw-biog4}}. You're free to remove it from your page if you don't like it, but please only edit other peoples comments in line with policy. — Strongjam (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying I shouldn't revert the svg to a more fitting one, but it's okay to delete it completely?--j0eg0d (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit the comment, but you're free to remove most things (including this) from your own user space. — Strongjam (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's perfectly reasonable. Thank you. --j0eg0d (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that you frequently place the word “wiki” in all caps -- WIKI. But “wiki” is not an acronym; it's a Hawaiian word (or part of a word -- I believe the word is actually “wiki-wiki”) that means “quick”. The original usage was coined by the inventor of wikis, Ward Cunningham, and refers both to synthesizing the pages just in time to serve them and also to the amount of time required to write the first system. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Because the word "wiki" is used so often throughout the web, most Browsers have probably wondered why we use "wiki" in the first place and I'm sure interested parties (like myself) will look up the meaning. I've known the meaning for about a decade now. I overly use WIKI the same way I use TALK, I don't believe TALK is an acronym either, but feel free to correct me. I use WIKI on purpose, because it's similar to using "WP:" when linking to an article - it's my abbreviation for Misplaced Pages. Apologies, if this confused you, and again (as I know you're excessively adamant about such things) I do not use a separate account(s) in WIKI. This is the only account I have, or need, and to be clear - I do not like to use my IP address, but sometimes I do not realize that I am not logged in. Have a nice time. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)