User talk:Augustremulous

Gamergate discretionary sanctions notification
Also, FYI, the page Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Avono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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:. 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.  S warm...   &mdash;X&mdash;  22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)  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.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  22:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * Undid a bunch of edits. The above comment looks right. Does that make sense? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)