User talk:AnsFenrisulfr

Welcome

Hello, AnsFenrisulfr, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

"reliable sources" for Wikipedia are those that have a well established reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and editorial oversight for the materials they publish - essentially, newspapers, magazines, books and scholarly journals. In rare occasions it may also include self published materials like blogs / vlogs if they are from someone who has established themselves as a subject matter expert by being previously published in the subject by a standard publisher Most of the hits at news.google.com (that are not blogs) or at books.google.com (that are not Wikipedia scrapers or from the self e-pubs like LuLu) . Sometimes Wikiprojects have identified lists of niche publications that are also generally acceptable for content about that niche area.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Right, I have something I wish to ask about, loosely dealing with sourcing and how to phrase things in an article. Before that, though, I wish to explain why I chose you out of everyone to talk to for these. Simply put, it is because you and I appear to be on differing ideological sides. This means anything I ask will be held to higher scrutiny, and thus be worth more in terms of the weight I give it for advice and learning. That being said: In the Draft article of the Gamergate Controversy, I see this sentence. "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay",[7] containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson". The line about it being a "Rambling online essay" is in the source, but I question why it was added. From a neutral view, I cannot see how this adds anything to the article. It seems to merely be a dig at Gjoni, while providing no greater understanding as to why the article was bad for Quinn, nor adding anything to the understanding of the controversy. This leads me to my question: Why is it in here? Is there some rule of wikipedia I do not know that makes it needed?

and when in doubt, the reliable sources notice board can help determine if a particular source is appropriate for particular content in a particular article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Routine notification

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM formatting issue

Hi there! Can you please use direct links instead of the "ref" in the section that starts Diffs of edits that violate? Direct links would be like this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629] NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans].

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I have done so. ^_^ Not used to the requirements for this kind of thing. Would honestly prefer to say sod it all, but from my, albeit limited, understanding of BANEX this is... a bit borderline of what he should be doing. :/

NorthBySouthBaranof

He has more than violated the ban, he has outright admitted to being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

I have no doubt other admins have seen him violate his topic ban with all the GamerGate comments he has made, especially on Jimbo's wall. I hope they will have the will to take action, like they would if any other editor violated their ArbCom judgement. 96.245.254.115 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You already know your way around, so...

WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Go

Go edit something. Anything unrelated to Gamergate. Articles, not talk pages. Prove that you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Here is a BBC News article. Maybe, add something from that article to Wikipedia. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

suggestions

To find other things to do on wikipedia that don't have to do with article writing: for example:

• Wikipedia:Community portal - look around for something that you can do
• Category:Wikipedia backlog - some of these are easy fixes and will build up your editing skills

  To help, often you don't have to know anything about the subject of the article. You can still help by adding wikilinks, fixing really bad wording in a sentence, fixing punctuation etc.

  Or look in Wikipedia:Maintenance and find something like De-orphan an article

  There are many little edits you can do. There's lots of editors that only do these kind of things and never write articles at all.

  Feel free to ask me questions. EChastain (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-imposed article ban

Hey, I don't know if you are being truthful or not, but one way to extricate yourself from the current proceedings is to announce a self-imposed 90 day ban of the GG articles. And then go edit other articles. One way to accomplish this is to go over to recent changes and look for vandalism. You can revert the vandalism using Twinkle or just 'Undo' the changes. Depending on your preferences. It can be tedious, because you have to make sure it's vandalism before reverting and warning the editor/ip. Even though I am interested in the GG subject, I have refused to put the article, or any other related article, on my watchlist. It's too toxic. There are several editors that have been caught up in the GG net that could be productive Wikipedia editors, try other things and see if you wish to be one. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

In accordance with the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, you are hereby banned from making any edit related to GamerGate (broadly construed). The reason for this sanction is your apparent focus on the inner working of Wikipedia, and particularly enforcement procedures, rather than on contribution to the encyclopaedia. This topic ban is of indefinite duration, but I will reconsider on request after three months of productive editing in the mainspace on a topic not related to GamerGate. You may appeal this restriction in accordance with the appeals procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)