User talk:Singdavion

Welcome!

Hello, Singdavion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.

Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page (Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.

There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).

Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.

My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.

Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! --TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP

Before saying anything further, I would stop and read WP:BLP in full. You've moved from linking to WP:BLP violating content off-wiki to making disparaging comments about living persons on-wiki. This can and does lead to a block. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:BLP in full. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss the subject. Adding your disparaging, personal opinions about living persons is unacceptable. Linking to a source that we will never use per WP:BLPPRIMARY and using it to add disparaging opinions about living persons is also unacceptable. Please stop before this leads to a block. Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

In your short time here on Wikipedia you've managed to ignore the advice of a number of editors on both sides of the GamerGate dispute, start an edit war, and use Wikipedia as a forum to disparage living individuals. In my judgment it is obvious you are here not to edit an encyclopedia but to do battle on behalf of the "truth" regarding GamerGate. For that reason you are indefinitely topic banned from all pages, including talk pages, on GamerGate and all matters related to it, broadly construed. This ban will be reconsidered if you show an awareness of our core policies and a willingness to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. I suggest you choose a less contentious topic to edit and practice that way. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)