User talk:Hmcst1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, Hmcst1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Regarding your recent change to Alberto Granado, this is something you need to take up at Talk:Che Guevara. Don't disrupt other articles to make a point (WP:POINT). --Biker Biker (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard GamerGate notification
Woodroar (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the links above. Gamergate controversy as well as its Talk page and Meta page are under a 500/30 restriction, meaning they "may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old". This is to prevent disruptions from less-experienced editors. You've been very civil so far, so please don't take this personally. The hope with restrictions like these is that, by the time you've reached 500 edits, you'll be more familiar with Talk page guidelines, consensus-based editing, and so on. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
To answer your question, the body of Gamergate controversy is fully cited as required by WP:V. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is simply a summary of the body and doesn't require redundant citations. In short, it's really up to editors who work on the article. The project as a whole seems to be trending towards this cleaner, citation-free lead section. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Theres something in the lead I dont understand and I want to read the source "Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent and contradictory, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives" I've read the rest of the piece, well skimmed thru it but cannot find anything in the main body of the article that enlarges on that, or indeed supports it. Hmcst1 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a decent summary of the Gamergate activities section–especially the first 4 paragraphs and the Efforts to impact public perceptions subsection. But really, it's a theme that runs throughout the article: in addition to the above, read paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the Debate over ethics allegations section, paragraphs 1 and 3 of Coordination of harassment, and paragraph 2 of Social and cultural implications. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

500/30
Hi there! The Gamergate Controversy article, and its talk pages, are under a restriction such that only editors with at least 500 edits on their accounts and 30 or more days of having been registered are allowed to edit. Unfortunately, you do not have 500 edits, and as such, I have reverted your comment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Where am I supposed to raise concerns now? I successfully raised a concern a couple of days ago on the meta page and it was debated at some length on the talk page I dont have access to. There seems to be some inconsistency here.The 500/30 restriction works automatically to restrict editing to the main talk page, if the meta page is covered by the same restriction why is the revertion being done by you rather than the software preventing me editing it in the first place? Hmcst1 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To be completely frank, you don't. The 500/30 restriction is in place to prevent disruption from inexperienced users. Once you've made 500 constructive edits to the project, then your account will automatically get flagged as WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED and you can contribute at Talk:Gamergate controversy. I manually removed two of your edits at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta‎ because that page had the 500/30 restriction notice at that time, even though it didn't have technical restrictions at the same level. Since then, there was a consensus to remove the 500/30 notice entirely. That being said, the Meta Talk page is for meta discussion about Talk:Gamergate controversy itself, not about the Gamergate controversy article. Any discussion you start at the Meta Talk about the Gamergate article (1) will likely be removed as off-topic, and (2) may even be viewed as disruption and result in an actual technical restriction.
 * And here's why, again being completely frank. Your contributions so far demonstrate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For example, let's look at your recent issue with the Herzog sentence. Sources that we consider reliable must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (see WP:V and WP:IRS) and so we trust them. We wouldn't exclude a source because it doesn't supply supporting evidence, because that's not something that most journalists do. This isn't a court room or math class, after all. In addition, we should always summarize our sources neutrally, and words like "opines" and "suggests" are discouraged per WP:SAY. Likewise, the source isn't noted as an editorial/opinion piece, so we shouldn't treat it as anything other than factual journalism. If we look at this next to your issue with the uncited lead–which has been discussed many, many times at the Talk page–and your request for sources when you admit that you had only "skimmed thru" the article, even how you disregard Talk page guidelines, it's clear that you need more experience. I don't mean to condescend, but more than a dozen editors have been banned from the article for repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies (most notably WP:BLP) and there are 53 archived Talk pages of often bitter discussion. This isn't an article for someone new. I really do hope that, by the time you've made 500 productive edits, you'll have a decent understanding of our policies and guidelines. I mean, I've made more than 10,000 edits in 10 years and I'm still learning some of the intricacies. Again, I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Since this is my Talk Page I take it I'm still allowed to note my concerns about the Gamergate Controversy here, yes ? I have accepted your answer about the uncited lead, there is no need to bring it back up again. Thankyou for expanding on the 500/30 restriction, although (FWIW) I'm a little confused by "Since then, there was a consensus to remove the 500/30 notice entirely" I am wondering if there was a consensus to remove, is the restriction still in place or not ? I have not questioned the reliability of the source for the Herzog quote. I am saying that the Herzog quote is unsupported by any evidence and should therefore be treated as her opinion. Thanks for drawing my attention to WP:SAY which puts 'commented' on the same footing as 'stated', I would suggest the former is preferable to the latter, because there is a difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion. Her allegation is moderated by the words 'under the surface', but the article Gamergate Controversy removes that moderation. Quite what 'under the surface' means is a matter for discussion but by omitting it the editors are subtly changing the meaning of her words and losing accuracy. Where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say we assume everything is factual journalism unless noted as an editorial/opinion piece ? Avoid stating opinions as facts WP:YESPOV Are you suggesting I am in breach of WP:BLP ? Perhaps you could expand on that please, where exactly, I'm mystified, how can I be in breach of WP:BLP for raising concerns on a talk page, which living person are we talking about ? It would be helpful if you could expand on the statement 'you disregard Talk page guidelines' perhaps by being a tad specific. Cheers! Hmcst1 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't intend to suggest that you had violated BLP, just that many editors had. We're a bit of an anomaly on the internet, in that some speech is expressly forbidden and that we require editors to stay largely on task. Some people can't handle that. Face-smile.svg
 * To answer your questions quickly:
 * As far as I know, there are no restrictions on discussing Gamergate articles here on your Talk page. But at the same time, I wouldn't expect much of a response, if any.
 * The 500/30 restriction on the Meta page has been removed. It's still a Meta discussion page, though.
 * YESPOV does say to "[a]void stating opinions as facts", but it also says to "[a]void stating facts as opinions". If a source says "this happened", for example, we should never summarize it as "it is their opinion that this happened". Most reliable sources have editorial/opinion sections where one can expect to find opinion-based articles. It is expected that the remainder is fact-based journalism. Separating the two is part of what makes reliable sources reliable.
 * As for Talk page guidelines, get in the habit of threading discussions as soon as possible. MediaWiki wasn't designed as forum software, so proper threading is required to keep discussions readable. I've seen new editors refuse to adapt and just let others clean up after them–indenting discussions, fixing section headers, signing for them, etc.–but eventually other editors will simply ignore them. (I'm not saying you're doing all these things. I'm just saying that you should make an effort to "do as the Romans".) It's also good practice to read the Talk page (including archived pages) and keep your headings neutral.
 * Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. Hmcst1 (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

under development
'Most commentators dismissed Gamergate's purported concerns' - purported is editorializing

The sides in the controversy do not agree what the controversy is about. One says it's about harrassment the other says it's about journalistic ethics. Those opposing views need to have equal weight in the introduction. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them WP:Wikivoice.

Herzog's exact words are "but not far beneath the surface are virulent strains of anti-Semitism, racism, and neo Nazism." What exactly does she mean by 'virulent strains' and 'beneath the surface' ? It is open to debate. Is she saying something meaningful here or moderating her statement ? These are weasel words WP:WEASEL If there is neo-nazi link she would be telling us about it.

Here's another example of exaggeration. WP article says "Journalists ... were accused of conspiracy"  supporting ref says "Journalists ... were labeled gaming journalism conspirators"  Labeled is not the same as accused. Hmcst1 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmcst1 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate Controversy/Meta
Howdy. Turns out I was wrong about 500/30 still applying to that meta page! It's just that comments may be removed if they are off-topic. As yours was, I have removed it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sir Aubrey Thomas Brocklebank
Hi, I'm Kudpung. Hmcst1, thanks for creating Sir Aubrey Thomas Brocklebank!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Blogs are not considered reliable. Please find a new source for the fire engines or remove the mention

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BBC pay
Thank you for adding the salary ranges of several BBC staff from the recent disclosures. However, you have not specified that the figures are for the financial year 2016-17. Unless we give the year then the figures may become misleading in a few years, particularly if inflation rises. I have added the date to the Andrew Neil article, can you do the others? Thanks, Verbcatcher (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, yes I was wondering about whether to do that. Hmcst1 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Wiveton Hall) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Wiveton Hall, Hmcst1!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good. I've cited and categorised the listing and added a picture, and linked to the Wikimedia Commons category and a talk page. I've also linked to it on the Grade II* listed buildings in North Norfolk page."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wiveton Hall


A tag has been placed on Wiveton Hall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wivetonhall.co.uk/history. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't spot this. Sorry, we can't copy advertising copy - and there's no indication that this source is reliable as there's no credited author whose credibility we can assess. I've deleted the text that's a paraphrase of the website and replaced it with a more limited text based on the listing. Blythwood (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (This is WP:COPYVIO and WP:RS, especially WP:SPS.) Blythwood (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Kinross 2.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Kinross 2.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 11:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Kinross 2.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kinross 2.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)