| Revision as of 20:15, 19 May 2016 edit204.11.142.106 (talk) →Sargon of Akkad (YouTube): new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:36, 19 May 2016 edit undoPeterTheFourth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,071 edits →Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)Next edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| That page doesn't look like it establishes notability, but I have neither the time nor desire to go through an AfD process on what would definitely be contentious. Is there someone impartial I could hand this off to and let them deal with it?] (]) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | That page doesn't look like it establishes notability, but I have neither the time nor desire to go through an AfD process on what would definitely be contentious. Is there someone impartial I could hand this off to and let them deal with it?] (]) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :If you're truly looking for impartiality, I'm not your best bet- I'll take a look now, though, because now my curiosity has been piqued. ] (]) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:36, 19 May 2016
Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Alison Rapp
Here are a couple sources you might find useful regarding the harassment of Alison Rapp. They all mention the allegations made against her by Jaime Walton. They also mention that one of the driving forces behind those allegations was Andrew “weev” Auernheimer and his buddies at the Daily Stormer.
Torven (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Torven. Sorry for replying days later. I've made a comment on the gamergate controversy talk giving these links. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk: Anita Saarkesian Edit
Hello, was just wondering why you removed my edit. Is there anything you'd like me to do?
Barackaddict (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Barackaddict. You'll need reliable sources when you add information to wikipedia pages. Information added that is not cited to reliable sources is considered original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new to this. I've got my citation ready and it's from Forbes but for some reason I can't edit. What's going on?
Barackaddict (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- No idea. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Metal gear Solid 5
Hey PeterTheFourth. I had to undo one of your reverts and added an explanation for your convenience. IP's version sounds a bit less hostile or antagonizing, while the message is still left intact. The criticism section could use more professional and valid criticism. Or the praise could be reduced quite a bit. (The whole article seems a little bloated, IMO. I wonder how much of it is actually relevant for people trying to get a general overview over the game. This not Metacritic after all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiningExample (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've commented on the talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Please be more careful
Please see Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard a merge against consensus was done, and the AfD is included in the discussion I ping past participates who are active in the discussion. Had you reviewed the discussion you would have seen this. Therefore your warning is a violation of WP:AGF. Valoem 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem: I don't believe my rather politely worded caution violated WP:AGF- but certainly, reverting this caution as 'vandalism' would count as a bit of an assumption of bad faith, no? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- And I find it odd that you would jump from one discussion where we disagree to another without checking the history just to "warn" me. When a merge is done against consensus it seems completely reasonable to ping the involved parties against that consensus ... all of whom were directly involved in the discussion. Valoem 05:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Valoem: A discussion about whether or not you are canvassing (with examples from three independent editors) is not "vandalism". You seem to have difficulty understanding that vandalism is "addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages." You really need to stop abusing the word. - SummerPhD 11:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- And I find it odd that you would jump from one discussion where we disagree to another without checking the history just to "warn" me. When a merge is done against consensus it seems completely reasonable to ping the involved parties against that consensus ... all of whom were directly involved in the discussion. Valoem 05:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)
That page doesn't look like it establishes notability, but I have neither the time nor desire to go through an AfD process on what would definitely be contentious. Is there someone impartial I could hand this off to and let them deal with it?204.11.142.106 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you're truly looking for impartiality, I'm not your best bet- I'll take a look now, though, because now my curiosity has been piqued. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)