User talk:GGG65

Suggested WikiProjects
If editing articles on video games interests you, consider joining the Video games WikiProject and/or one or more of these platform specific projects: WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Nintendo. Cheers, – xeno  ( talk ) 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BattleGoatlogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:BattleGoatlogo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Supreme Ruler 2020 Box.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Supreme Ruler 2020 Box.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton library
Note that I also added the following to the talk page:

The reason I did that is that there are at least four "Hamilton Libraries." The way I found it, "Hamilton Library", "Hamilton Public Library", "Hamilton City Library", "Hamilton City Libraries" (that's right, the plural), etc, all led to different libraries. Thus, I made "Hamilton Library" a disambiguation page, redirected all those generic alternates to that disambig page, and put the clarifier term on the individual library articles. I don't object to using public library, but I feel you should use "Hamilton Public Library (Ontario)" due to the number of libraries in cities named Hamilton. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Supreme Ruler.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Supreme Ruler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:GGG65/Kyle Schole
User:GGG65/Kyle Schole, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GGG65/Kyle Schole and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:GGG65/Kyle Schole during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Box art for Supreme Ruler Ultimate.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Block issue
Also, what's with the insane Block page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GGG65/Archive - it says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.", but you can't, because of the block? Seriously what is up with this system? Wikipedia was a much nicer place back in 2006.

GGG65 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That space in the SPI is for accused parties to comment before they are blocked. Your block appeal(which I will leave for someone else to review) is your means of giving a statement on the matter. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I was blocked without notice or advance opportunity that didn't work, plus the line "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below" shows in all cases, even when this is not a possible action. That is not just misleading but highly confusing.  It took me half an hour to find out how to post the unblock request, something that is not once mentioned on the relevant page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims - there is no hit on "user talk" at all on that page.  Why not?  Why mislead people and create barriers to those trying to respond to this claim???   I would also note that nothing about the block appeared in the Notices/Notifications.  Isn't this something worth including in Notices?  Probably somewhat more important than "your article X has been connected to Y".  As you can tell, this is very frustrating for a user that has supported Wikipedia for over almost 15 years, both with editing and financially.  GGG65 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that you have been a productive editor in other areas for a long time. But, two people working in concert to promote a commercial interest is a serious problem, and that's why you were blocked. So, let me propose a solution (which I would extend to both of you); lift the block, but you agree to stay away from editing anything having to do with BattleGoat Studios. This would be implemented as a topic ban. I don't have the authority to impose this on my own, but if you agree, I would open a discussion on WP:AN, explain that as the blocking admin, I support lifting the block along with you accepting the topic ban, and I'm reasonably sure the community would rubber-stamp that. The socking/COI issue would be resolved, and you would be able to continue to edit on other topics. Let me know if that is acceptable to you. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While the COI guidelines have certainly changed much since 2006 and I may have now become a wikipedia dinosaur, in my past experience the emphasis was on references, sources, verifiability, and notability. First regarding the original ban, the wikipedia definition of meatpuppetry says "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" - there is no possible way to see there being a "debate" here.  Cooperative editing building upon previous edits and adding sources can under no manner be considered "debate".  The Block page points out the Chris uploaded a screen shot graphic and I then edited it, proving sockpuppetry - since my edit was to reduce its resolution and add license/use rationale, if we were the same person or similar sock puppet why wouldn't I/we just have uploaded the correct resolution and not had to edit it?  How does editing to *fix* an issue at all relate to the sockpuppet or meatpuppet activity?  This just doesn't make sense.  Regarding BattleGoat, yes Chris and I work on BattleGoat projects and that was never hidden... but every attempt is made to source, reference, and keep neutral tone, and it was not a paid editor situation.  I was also on the Hamilton Public Library board, should I remove my edits on that page?  I contribute to open source projects so I should remove my edits on those project pages?  We have edited past BattleGoat pages to improve references, clean up visual presentation, update old links, and correct factual errors (such as linking us to the wrong game series, etc)  Your solution for the topic ban suggests that we have made article updates and edits for commercial/advertising purposes; the Galactic Ruler page was added because it is a continuation in the "Supreme Ruler Series" which has a half dozen articles on Wikipedia and dates back to 1982 (edit: note the game dates back to 1982, not the wiki articles).  If the article is undercited or non-neutral that should be addressed and can be addressed using existing policies.  Wikipedia has less and less editors that create pages on indie and niche topics, and maybe that is the admin's intentions now, to only focus on overwhelmingly popular topics.  I agree that we should better identify any potential COI but I disagree that editing BattleGoat topics as individuals with appropriately sourced information is in violation of even the latest Wikipedia guidelines.  It would be akin to asking that since I'm a Computer Science professor I shouldn't edit CS articles because I have too  much subject matter expert knowledge.  GGG65 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I should also lament the changes since 2006 in how editors can share their knowledge on Wikipedia - back then it was definitely "you have knowledge on this? please create an article and share!" whereas now the opposite is true, and novice editors in particular are hit over the head so hard that most never come back. Maybe it's time for me to get on my ice floe and drift off to sea... GGG65 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)