User talk:GameGod

Welcome![edit]

Hello, GameGod, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ysangkok (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Long Intimidator. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Posting on Reddit to find people to agree with you is not acceptable. Wikipedia works by consensus and following of notability guidelines not a vote count by canvassed editors Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Reddit to find topic experts who could shore up the references on the page that is proposed for deletion and to help engage in proposal for deletion. The proposal for deletion is inherently biased against the article, and the editor who proposed it has a history of hastily deleting paintball topics. As evidence of this, the Planet Eclipse Ego article was proposed for deletion by @Ajf773 on May 27th, 2023 and was deleted only a week later, with no editors opposing it. (With the Ego article, I agree that the article was of poor quality and should have been deleted, but I disagree with how quickly the decision was taken - 1 week is simply not enough time for enough people to see the warning and work on improving the page.)

For the record, some of the articles proposed for deletion by @Ajf773 are:

The reason why canvassing for topic experts is necessary is because @Ajf773 and have been moving too quickly on deleting these articles and don't seem to have any awareness of the significance of the topics. In some cases, I think they're right and the articles are of too poor quality and are better off having the article deleted (like the Ego), but in other cases like the Sheridan PGP, the page is of good quality and describes a notable marker, we just need to improve the references so that it is clear it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

What's frustrating about this is that it seems like there's a bunch of editors proposing sports articles for deletion (@Joseph2302, @Ajf773, @Oaktree b), then all agreeing with each other that an article isn't notable, then deleting them a week later. Based on the Talk pages for these articles, no effort is being made by these editors to actually improve the articles or develop an understanding of the topics to address the issues, they're just rushing to delete them. (I don't disagree with their decision in all cases, but the pattern is problematic. Unfortunately, some of these deleted articles are totally unavailable now, so I can't even form an opinion because the articles are gone. But if you're proposing to delete the PGP article, I'm concerned other articles that were worth saving have already been deleted.)

It's totally unrealistic and unacceptable to propose an article for deletion and actually delete it in 1 week. And frankly, it's a bit rich to then give me a warning for canvassing to find topic experts to actually help do the research you and other editors seem unwilling to do yourselves. Maintaining Wikipedia takes doing more than just lazily deleting unmaintained articles and you and others should be mindful that you sometimes need to recruit volunteers from outside the Wikipedia community, and that you should engage with them in way that nurture's their future contributions.

I skimmed through every early issue of Action Pursuit Games last night, which are fortunately archived here, to try to find good references for the Sheridan PGP, but it seems like it was released before the magazine was in print. It's probably worth going through those again to see if I missed anything. The marker was released so early in the sport that I'm not aware of any other contemporaneous print publications that would have mentioned it, but there probably are books or other reliable sources that mention it and support its notability, but it will take some time to find it.

Lastly, there is an ounce of arrogance in the way @Joseph2302 and @Ajf773 have been engaging with commenters on the deletion pages, including:

@JML1148 dismissing player positions because of a lack of content found in articles they found online about it, which are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, so there's a double standard here.
@Ajf773 referring to paintball as a "low level sport" on the deletion page for Inline Blowback.

This behaviour is not conducive towards growing Wikipedia. GameGod (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is this also neutral that one of editors involved in these hasty deletion processes is the one who's giving me a warning for canvassing? GameGod (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of your paintball articles have had sources, and I can't find any. I'm not biased, I play paintball. There just aren't many quality sources for paintball marker reviews and such (markers are what they call the airguns used). Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GameGod: It doesn't matter what you think on the notability of paintball-related articles, WP:CANVASSING is a very serious matter when it comes to deletion discussions, especially on external social media. If you do it again, it is very likely you will be blocked from deletion discussions at the very least, and possibly from Wikipedia entirely. On another note, you cannot tell editors to wait before nominating articles for deletion. Also, we have very strict notability guidelines. I don't think paintball has a specific guideline, so WP:GNG applies. Even if you think it is notable, Wikipedia does not. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you complain about us not being "neutral", but you're actually the non-neutral one since you're the one who told everyone to vote Keep, which is canvassing, which is against Wikipedia policy. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. most of those "experts" on Reddit shouldn't be voting on this, unless they're already established users.. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't aware of the canvassing rule at the time that I posted that, so I apologize for that. And you're right, I wasn't being neutral in what I wrote there, but I've left my Reddit post as-is because it's been reference here a couple times (the damage is done). I also was completely unaware that the deletion process had a 7 day rule, (which seems unreasonably hasty IMHO for cases that don't quality for "speedy deletion"). I apologize for blaming the speed at which @Joseph2302, @Ajf773, and @Oaktree b were moving on these deletions on them themselves, when they were simply following Wikipedia's established deletion process.

I think what's alarming to many of us is that this process could probably be exploited to delete genuinely notable articles and that's easy to find pages that lack sufficient references to be notable and 3 editors who will nod yes to delete an article.

Regardless of the canvassing, the consensus of editors and Wikipedia's notability guidelines are going to make the final call and I don't think my actions have impacted this process in a negative way. (The article's probably going to get deleted or merged into something else - but at least we've now done a more exhaustive reference search for you. The consensus is more informed because we've put some effort into doing research - there's less room for doubt about the lack of notability.)

Regardless of what you think of the "expertise" of people outside Wikipedia, this was an opportunity to get newcomers to be engaged in contributing to Wikipedia and I'm very disappointed at how elitist and unwelcoming the editors involved have been. Rather than parroting policies at us with terse replies in the deletion discussions, this whole situation could have been avoided with a single reply from an experienced editor, like:

"Hey, it's great that you're interested in bringing some paintball expertise into Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we have a high bar for what justifies a standalone article, which is described in our Notability policy. That doesn't mean the topic is historically insignificant or unimportant, it just means Wikipedia sees it as not worthy of a standalone page. It's clear that you care about this topic and paintball a lot, and perhaps you'd be willing to contribute by finding references to help us establish whether this topic is notable or not. Wikipedia's deletion policy gives us a week to find consensus between editors over whether the page should be deleted, but fear not, there's some alternatives if we decide to delete the page. The contents of this page could be merged into a separate, new article on Stock Class paintball, or the general Paintball article, [or some other constructive suggestion]. If we ultimately cannot find a good home for this information on Wikipedia, you're welcome to copy it to your own webpage or fan wiki site because all our contributions are Creative Commons and GFDL licensed, so the information itself can live on."

I hope the admins who are reading this can appreciate the context and see that I had no ill intent here. I think it's deeply problematic if there's no way to bring in outside contributions in a last ditch attempt to do research and establish notability (or not), and you're just incentivizing users to be sneakier about canvassing. (I didn't try to hide anything.) GameGod (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rocket Streaming Audio Server for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rocket Streaming Audio Server is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket Streaming Audio Server until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sure feels like retribution for an administrator of Wikipedia to propose to delete the only article I've contributed in recent years, the day after some editors complained about me on the Adminstrator's noticeboard/Incidents. GameGod (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate, I believe what you have just done is called Wikihounding and is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on harassment. You've dug through my contribution history and taken this action as an act of harassment that serves no constructive purpose. GameGod (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It had been about 1 day since you'd last accused people on here of acting in bad faith. Nominating articles for AFD is not abusive, retribution or wikihounding. The same as how disagreeing with you at AFDs is none of those things either. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you wrote is a defense for my accusation, which is that the specific timing of this adminstrator's actions clearly makes the AFD an act of retribution. (Why are you even replying to this on my talk page today? This thread doesn't involve you and disagreements over the Sheridan PGP article were just that - disagreements. No hard feelings and I think the outcome of all of the drama was constructive, even if the article gets deleted.) GameGod (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I'm an administrator who keeps an eye on the administrators' noticeboard, and I occasionally take a deeper look into the things that pop up there. And in the process of doing that, I sometimes do administrator-like things. I have no idea what you think I'm even seeking retribution over (and I'm not curious, so please don't ping me to tell me). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing - You're a real human administrator, and you saw this incident pop up on the noticeboard feed (which is very much still up for discussion) and is about an disagreement with how an AFD was handled, and you so you looked at my most recently created article, and you decided it was a good idea to propose it for deletion. I cannot fathom how you thought this was an appropriate action, given that you knew we were having disagreements about the AFD process. If you looked deeper into what was going on, as you claimed (or even read the incident board), then you would know proposing this specific action would be escalatory and perceived as retaliatory.

If I were to suddenly propose to delete any of the articles by any of the other editors involved the day after they wrote about me on the incident board, it would undoubtedly be perceived as harassment.

If this is something you're doing often to people who show up in the incident noticeboard, you're probably creating a bunch of unnecessary escalation and creating a culture where contributors who's actions are disputed become targeted for retribution like this, whether you realize it or not.

There's a real human contributor behind my comments, a member for 21 years, and a donor, and there's no reason to escalate a disagreement like this with a silly action like this. Think that article should be deleted? Great, wait a few months. Just don't pour gas on the fire while there's a pending incident. GameGod (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RSAS logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RSAS logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]