User talk:23.151.192.180

Important note to users: Hello, My name is Nahom. I use a screen-reader and an thus unable to read the captchas whenever I post a link or go to create an account. Due to this, I will edit as an IP user. Any references I will link in the edit summaries so before verting due to being unsourced, please look at the edit summaries. I am also pro primary sources in the case of credits, and obervable things in the media such as plot, what you see and or hear, and similarity to other media as long as that similarity is obvious or enough so that it warrents a mention. thanks.

23.151.192.180 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts
There is no ownership of the Gamergate article, certainly not by myself as I would burn the thing down in an instant. Instead there is a general melaise after a war of attrition on reliable sources. An actual representative article would be significantly shorter, and absent 90% of the crud. On several occasions a few editors have suggested me as the least bias / most objective (and I was on the "SeaLion" list for a while because people didn't like me not bowing to the crowd, I ended up referenced on Wikinaction and a few similar Reddit posts in a positive frame). I for instance see no issue to the use of the word 'movement' when 90% of the sources use it, but the article is locked in a death spiral of arguments about grammar instead of its fundamental flaws. In contrast, with regards to Sarkeesian and Tropes etc the articles are about as representative of the reliable sources can be about the subject. Ownership accusations (of which I have heard none) are more about single POV push, usually featuring the same spurious claims from. Cuch (in particular), I don't really know the others to any extent, has always been a reliable and objective users. That may be confirmation bias of course because we both just happen to largely agree. As for myself, I edit hundreds of articles across a broad spectrum. Ownership is largely irrelevant, tomorrow I might drop dead, then what? Tomorrow a new article from a reliable source might over turn everything, then what? All I can do is ensure what I contribute is accurate, and what isn't accurate I correct through citation with reliable sources in as neutral a fashion as possible and will continue to do so for as long as the interest takes me. If someone wants to accuse me of something, go for it. If I made a mistake at some point, I'll own up to it. I can't think of one that either haven't already apologised for, or clarified, so anyone that still carries any anger towards me I am probably not even aware of. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I will keep defending you guys if I see more types of attacks on you guys. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I just feel like those accusations I have seen around the web about you guys is way over-the-top. I get criticizing you when you make a mistake, as I myself am doing to Beyond My Ken. thanks for your words, and have a great new year. PS, sorry for the real late reply. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where these accusations are made, or who by, but please provide the links. Koncorde (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I would if I could, but due to Wiki's captchas not being readable by my screen-reader, and my girlfriend either doing recording sessions or rehearsals all the time, I can't exactly say "hey Nina come read this for me please" now can I? While you haven't been named offwiki, there are things accusing people of pushing a bias on these pages, with one person in a video on youtube stating that they tried to add a sourced item to Anita's page only for you guys to deny it. I can only assume it's you guys based on the talk page and edits. Again I'd link you to all of it if captchas had an audio option like other websites do. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Something Just like This, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Message from a screen reader user
Hi Nahom, I'm a blind Wikipedia administrator. I was referred to your talk page by a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. If you'd like an account, you can email me at with your desired username. I can then create an account for you and a temporary password will be sent to the email address you used. I can also set your account to be confirmed, so that you'll never have to deal with a CAPTCHA on the English Wikipedia again. There is also the Request an account process, but as an admin and screen reader user I can help you more easily. Graham 87 04:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ginevra
Hello Thanks for your edit to Ginevra.

I've added a few sources in an edit summary that may help you with this edit. I think because reliable sources appear to be a subjective term, it's best to find multiple sources this way if somebody wants to go around doing mass reverts on people because they think that you or I or whoever is a troll (see below, they'll be impeeded by sources. thanks. 199.101.61.34 (talk)

I want to also let you know that there are people on Wikipedia that believe that you and I are the same person, so perhaps be careful how you edit for now. As a fellow blind user I am glad to see blind users on Wikipedia and hope to help make life better for other blind users here too. You may come under unnecessary scrutany because some people like 2600 think you are a troll or else you are me or something, so just a headsup. thanks for your edit to Ginevra, Harriet (my girlfriend) and I agree that if we have a daughter har name will be this. Named for Harriet's middle name of Jennifer. thanks. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I will make note of that in the future. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where this comes from about me being you or whatever, but perhaps if the people making the accusations would be so kind as to explain themselves it may help. thanks. 23.151.192.180 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

-- Emperor of Oz&#39;s New Clothes (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)