Revision as of 00:17, 2 February 2015 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →No thanks: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 2 February 2015 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →No thanks: clarifyNext edit → | ||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
== No thanks == | == No thanks == | ||
We have more than enough drama whores who have substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, we really don't need |
We have more than enough drama whores who have substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, we really don't need new ones who don't. I have blocked this account indefinitely. Feel free to request unblocking, which I will gladly support on the proviso that you undertake to avoid all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Misplaced Pages noticeboards. In other words: contribute to the encyclopaedia, or get lost. | ||
Sorry to be brutal, but seriously, we have had enough. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC) | Sorry to be brutal, but seriously, we have had enough. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:17, 2 February 2015
Hello! TyTyMang (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Notice: sanctions apply to Gamergate controversy topics
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 Misplaced Pages, 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's Five Pillars
Tyler,
You raise some interesting ideas in your talk page post, but essentially what you're asking is something Misplaced Pages fundamentally can't do. Our articles, by foundational policy, are based on information that is verifiable by dint of being published in reliable sources. If all the reliable sources are biased, as you contend, then Misplaced Pages's articles will necessarily share that bias.
However, I'd suggest that you seriously think about what you are claiming — that effectively every major mainstream media outlet has some sort of inherent "bias" against your position. Do you understand that this appears to outside observers as a grossly-overbroad and evidence-free conspiracy theory? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence, much less proof, do you have to support this contention of yours? Moreover, why do you think such a broad-based coalition of people would all come to the same conclusion? I'd encourage you to do some soul-searching about what it is you really believe and what you think others really believe. What do you think Gamergate stands for, and what do other people think Gamergate stands for?
Cheers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The thing is, there is plenty of evidence such as the Misplaced Pages article itself being part of the evidence that leads me to that conclusion. Though most notably the "End of Gamers" article collusion along with the mailing list. WP only considers a very narrow range of articles as evidence. However, as a not-Misplaced Pages human person, my acceptable range of evidence is much broader.
- Also, not every media outlet is antiGG. But of the ones who are considered "reliable" that have spoken out on the subject, they have all been anti-GG. But my claim says nothing about the ones who have not spoken on the subject. Though to be honest, having lacked much consideration for these unspoken entities, I am not sure of how many they number in currently.
- In any case, I know what my GG stands for. And it is more than just about ethics in gaming journalism at this point. And from the things I've seen from some of the more predominant members of the opposition I'm more convinced than ever that I've chosen correctly.... Besides, due to the antiGG flawed-logic position of "Not with me = Against me", I'm also not able to openly take a neutral position on the matter anyways... TyTyMang (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not built on "evidence" that you may have found. It is built upon what has been found by experts and made available through reliably published sources. If you think those policies need to be changed to give gamergate its fair shake, then you will need to change the policies themselves. (good luck with that) (you may wish also to read WP:FRINGE as Misplaced Pages's policies have often been critiqued from that angle by supporters of groups and issues that find themselves in the same position as gamergaters.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
DarknessSavior
I know editing others' talk page comments is generally considered rude, but I took the liberty of fixing the link you attempted to the AN request (I assume it was just a copy/paste fail, but you actually linked to the editing form for the same section on DS' talk page). 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. I very much appreciate it! TyTyMang (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No thanks
We have more than enough drama whores who have substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, we really don't need new ones who don't. I have blocked this account indefinitely. Feel free to request unblocking, which I will gladly support on the proviso that you undertake to avoid all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Misplaced Pages noticeboards. In other words: contribute to the encyclopaedia, or get lost.
Sorry to be brutal, but seriously, we have had enough. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)