User talk:Honestyislebestpolicy

Welcome
Hello, Honestyislebestpolicy, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to become a productive member of the community. your contributions are a part of Wikipedia's history. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

September 2014
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:GamerGate. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. M ASEM (t) 03:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Poorly referenced"... I'm sorry, but video footage of a site that never truly deletes data that proves that what Zoe Quinn herself said is less reliable than a clearly biased article that relies almost entirely on speculation?

Sorry, but the fault's on you guys for denying evidence. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Denial of Evidence, or Misunderstanding?
A short time ago, I posted one this talk page, not the article, a link to (Redacted video link). The edit, rather than be reverted or the policy properly addressed, was deleted under the excuse that the source did not qualify as a reliable source.

However, I took a look at the policy that is listed for what the video falls under: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

(Redacted BLP violation claims)

My question is this then, if we have a valid source that qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, then why are we basing our information off of a baseless source and lying to our readers?

Saved in case baseless delete again. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please understand that the source doesn't meet our BLP policy because it's a self-published source about someone else. For it to quality, it would have to be by X, about X, not by X, about X and Y or about X and Y using screenshots of conversations between X and Y, hosted by Z. Your reason for reverting just now stated "I'm not proposing the link to be submitted in the article. I'm posting it in the talk thread because it proves information (that complies with the self-published guidelines) that directly conflicts with an false source" which is a problem, because that's not what we do here. Article Talk pages are to discuss that article only, not to discuss the topic in general or to play games about who's right or who's wrong. We do have a neutrality policy governing how we, as editors, approach editing this article. But we base the article only on reliable sources which have no obligation to be neutral. (In fact, that policy used to read verifiability, not truth, but that was changed for a variety of reasons.) We also don't attempt to maintain a false balance, instead reporting based on reliable sources in proportion to those sources, meaning that if 99% of sources say one thing and 1% say another, we're going to give that 1% very little coverage, if at all. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's wrong. The chat logs only serve to present what Zoe has said to confirm the relationships. The video itself proves that these logs are legitimate. ::Furthermore, the main source for the claim is neither complete in what wikipedia claims it to do (there were allegations of five relationships, the article cited only lists one of the relationships involved and offers no proof besides a company statement. No, this article is not neutral, and you are not using reliable sources. ::Where's this article mentioned?
 * Thanks for "helping", and by that I mean avoiding the central issue that this article is poorly written an now protected because the blatant bias its presented is outraging people who support gamergate. I'm going to make another post on the talk page that highlights some of the issues presented with the wikipedia article that hopefully doesn't give anyone the "policy foul play" excuse for immediate deletion. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a discussion, you need to assume good faith from other editors (which is why I'm discussing this with you here and now) and be civil with other editors. That includes avoiding statements like "I don't have nice things to say to you"] in your very first interaction with me and confrontational subject names like "Wikipedia is not a Tabloid. Why are we asking like one?". If you want to discuss this issue, please let me know and we can discuss it. If you're going to continue attacking other editors, you'll be shown the door. And I honestly, truly don't like to see new editors blocked before they've had a chance to understand why we do the things we do here. Woodroar (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Content about living people, original research, verifibility and discretionary sanctions
regarding your comments in this edit

We go by what the reliably published sources state, not by our personal interpretation of "evidence". Articles and claims about living people fall under the discretionary sanctions that allow disruptive editors who refuse to read and follow policies to be banned from editing particular subjects or even blocked from editing entirely.

I suggest that you begin to read the policies that have been linked for you multiple times and attempt to try to follow them, or you will soon find yourself not able to edit on the subject at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't do that, just found the smoking gun. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * and again, your "smoking gun" needs to come from a reliably published source making the analysis. Not you. Breaking the BLP policy is serious and you are not showing any interest at all in attempting to follow it. Wikipedia is not here to be a forum for your crusade. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments about others
I've mentioned this several times on the GamerGate talk page, but in case you missed it, do not comment on other editors on article talk pages as you did here, article talk pages are expressly for discussing the editorial content of the article per WP:TPNO, WP:NPA and even WP:CIV. If you have comments about others, take it to your user talk pages or follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE policy. If you continue disrupting the page with comments about other editors, you risk being blocked, this is especially critical because the article and talk page are under Discretionary sanctions. Dreadstar ☥   16:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "You proposed a change in the article, but you aren't discussing the editorial content." Where do you guys get off? Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to your comment, "Reversion is a coward's way out of discussion. " is an uncivil comment about others, you will refrain from that kind of thing going forward; and I'd recommend retracting it now. Dreadstar  ☥   17:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll retract my statement when the people involve start thinking critically about what they input into the article. Right now it's locked because of the controversy behind it, and only a select few (heavily biased) persons are letting it in. I propose a change that was more closer to what the source claims and what accurately reflects the data out in the open, and suddenly it's invalid because they want to call ad nauseam.
 * I'll retract my statement when they apologize for threatening to lock me out of editing the talk page for suggesting we be more neutral and inspect our sources.
 * To you personally, I hold no vice. Have a good day. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is if you continue making rude comments about others on article talk pages, you will be blocked. Pages like the one I link to above are under Discretionary sanctions, so I highly recommend reading and abiding by the guidance provided there for editors.  This goes for everyone editing those articles.   Dreadstar  ☥   20:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the policies in place, and I understand your point. However, I don't feel as though that the people that responded to my initial civil postings were fair and simply flaunted authority over me. It is an informal rule of the internet that anything is a bannable offense because moderation often has lacking enforcement on itself. The core policies of wikipedia were thrown out the window when Project Feminism was allowed to lock out and filter edits to the #GamerGate article. Honestyislebestpolicy (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't feel you were fairly treated, but I'm not seeing where you were unfairly treated, nor do I see a basis for your accusations against Wikiproject Feminism, very few of the over 160 members there edit that article. You'll need to provide diffs that support your allegations.  Either way, it's no excuse for making comments about others - it actually weakens any case for content you may be making.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)