Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Augustremulous

Welcome!

Hello, Augustremulous! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! LorTalk 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Gamergate discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.

Also, FYI, the page Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Augustremulous reported by User:Avono (Result: ). Thank you. Avono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the one-revert rule on Gamergate controversy, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Swarm... —X— 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

  • Just so you know, lead paragraphs in articles may or may not be referenced, but it's common practice for them to provide no sources, as they're simply summing up something detailed further in the body of the article that is sourced. Swarm... —X— 22:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lead paragraphs clearly cite the sources that disagree, I'm wondering why sources aren't needed for the characterization of the controversy. I certainly didn't see sources about claims of artistic recognition.

GGC lede

FYI, the consensus is that the GGC lede doesn't have citations. That's why your change keeps getting reverted. Citations are in the main body. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 1RR (One Revert Rule) sanction in place. I'm not going to alert any admin, but thought you should know. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Oh... Just noticed the section above. Sorry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the sentence after that has citations right in the next from several publications. That's a citation even if it's not a foot note.

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. So bear with me if I get this answer wrong. The lede ends with (ATM) "ries, unfounded in fact, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in the industry." the next sentence starts "In February 2013, independent game deve" it's in the main body. I believe several sentences there share references.ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undid a bunch of edits. The above comment looks right. Does that make sense? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... you think the list of publications is a citation? Interesting. Bring that up in the talk page? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not citations it's attribution to avoid weasel words. It used to say something like "commentors have described", but it was decided we needed to say who exactly described it that way. — Strongjam (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]