User talk:Nosepea68

Welcome!
Hello, Nosepea68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! Diego (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Be careful at talk pages
Please be careful with other people's comments when editing talk pages. You have removed with this edit the comment I posted after your commentary at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Diego (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages again
Can you please read Talk page guidelines. You're still not signing your posts properly and now you're top posting and adding incorrect templates. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure

October 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Anita Sarkeesian. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Your deliberate falsifying of a title of a source is particularly disruptive.  Neil N  talk to me  00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Anita Sarkeesian. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Anita Sarkeesian. ///Euro Car GT  00:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anita Sarkeesian, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullain t/ c 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For fucks sake,

I am a n00b I admit, reason I flagged all Anita Sarkeesian parts was because I thought that is how to do it. I sincerely did not know my editing every single part (that a proper saying?) was counted as spam. Seriously I thought that after editing a part you must save them for later use.

Obviously that wasn't the case.

After all. I would like to have OrangeMike's Skype handle so I could discus this matter more closely or I can PM him with mine to continue this conversation.
 * Why did you falsify the title of a source? Why did you stop only after you were blocked and not before and ask questions as to why you were being reverted? -- Neil N  talk to me  01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly (you know no normal human memory is perfect), I had several tabs open in firefox and refreshed the main article every now and then to see my edits appearance and I was sleep depraved when I was editing the article. I wanted to POV the article because all the criticism against Sarkeesian's work is refuted as no reliable sources and to me (subjective view, yes!) it seems the article is glorifying Anita Sarkeesian showing only her "misogynistic" harassment. Actually the backlash she got wasn't against females per se but against her as a person.

Your submission at AfC Tropes vs. Women in Video Games was accepted
 Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

October 2013
I've refactored your recent post at Talk:Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Per the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for expressing personal opinions on the subject. Is is especially inappropriate to engage in personal opinions regarding a living person. In the future, please keep all your talk page posts tied to specific and actionable article improvements. Violating the policies repeatedly will be considered disruptive and may lead to you being blocked or banned from editing. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Cúchullain, remind you I am new here and I asked about POV in talk page and Diego stated "Editors' POVs are allowed on talk pages.". Jebus, you could read the whole talk page before ranting. That seems that I was given wrong information about the POV.


 * And by the way, now it's more like an advertisement banner and curious people will take look at what's so bad to be edited out. That was not my intention.
 * Nosepea68 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Diego said that, he's wrong. Please review the policies I linked to and keep discussions about article improvements rather than your personal opinions on the subject.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute both of you, what I said is that talk pages don't need to be neutral (except for section titles). The comments still need to be related to article improvement, as explained in the WP:Talk guideline. This means that yes, you can express personal views and yes, ranting about your personal opinions is allowed (though not recommended, but other editors are free to ignore them), but only as long as it's connected to the article improvements that you want to introduce, in order to justify why you want them. In this case User:Cuchullain was right that Noepea's edit was not the style of commentary for which talk pages were created.
 * I'm glad that you've collapsed it instead of removing it, as that action is reserved for severe infringements and not just slightly off-topic rants, as it prevents its content from being archived. (Also since explaining one's view helps others to understand that editor, it's not totally unrelated to improving the article - as it improves editor collaboration and coordination). That's why editing other people comments is to be done only with great care. Diego (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck this Cúchullain and Diego, I'm man enough take the blame. I have misinterpreted what been said, unintentionally though. And Cuch yes, I've read the guidelines ever since there's been a link to them.

November 2013
I've refactored more of your comments at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Above, you were informed that posts that just give your personal opinions of a subject, rather than suggestions for specific article improvements, violate the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines. Your replies appear to acknowledge the problem at hand. It is additionally troublesome that virtually all of your edits serve to disparage this subject. Consider this your final warning to keep all your comments focused on article improvements. Otherwise, you will find yourself blocked or banned from editing in very short order.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cúchullain bud, there's no 100% neutral way to say stuff. I never have had problem to say that what I say on a talk page is not neutral. That said reliable source doesn't mean it's neutral. In Sarkeesian's case some sources are irrefutably [radical] feminist biased, making the article biased. If you can't comprehend that little bit, then I can just wonder why you have administrator status.

Nosepea68 (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Harassment section in Tropes page
Let's discuss this further on talk. I think some of this material needs to be on the Tropes page, but I'd be willing to discuss the structure. I do agree that much of the material should be associated with the BLP, but if she didn't start the project, none of this harassment would have occurred. While directed AT her, such negativity was in RESPONSE to the project, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm open to suggestions! And to be honest, I like them!


 * Nosepea68 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit: and if you ask me, I'm all in for gender equality. AS is not just the best at it, she's just missing the whole point and in the wrong way in my OPINION. Without further a due I still think there's EP (encyclpedia) worth of VS-article. And really, I feel like slitting my wrists writing about it with my hands tied to explain of what I see it to be.
 * Good work on updating the table of episodes. Where did you get the Pre-production name material? BusterD (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Kickstarter page, it should be in some of the previous sources link. Nosepea68 (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/ c 05:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd Cúchullain actually bothered to read what I have tried to discuss about the content of that article, you would have seen I asked to collapse that harassment section and I had proper RS about the timetable Sarkeesian gave about the schedule she would be making the videos in which. So, I don't see your point removing the fact she promised to make 12 videos, a video a month, from what I edited into the article.
 * This article is about the videos she made/promised to make and what they consist of. My main drive is the disappointment of seeing political organisations "attacking" wikipedia with their dumbing agendas. I see it on the Finnish side, animal activists have basically shitted the finnish article about furs by just redefining the word fur (article says fur is a fibre, for a short).
 * I see this article really about whether you can or can not use wikipedia as a promoter for your business or political adenda.
 * So, Cúchullain, are you sure you are impartial?Nosepea68 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The first time you tried to excise that information, you were reverted and at least two other editors expressed concern about it. No other editors agreed with the removal. Despite the fact consensus was against the removal, you made exactly the same edit again. This is not acceptable behavior. You've made it clear you're not editing based on what the best available sources say, but according to your own negative point of view of the subject. This is a major problem, and that's besides the problems of you repeatedly violating WP:BLPTALK, WP:NOTAFORUM and the talk page guidelines by engaging in disparaging discussions not connected to article improvements, and the fact that you've made virtually no edits that aren't intended to disparage this living person. You've been warned many times before about this; if you don't stop your problematic behavior, I'm going to have to start a community discussion to ban you from editing this articles.
 * On Wikipedia, editors' personal opinions don't matter. All that matters is the ability to write encyclopedic content that reflects what the best sources say about the topic, in line with our basic policies. If you don't have that ability, you're probably better off finding another hobby.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. Thank you. —Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
 * Problem solved for me. Nosepea68 (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:
I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You have exhibited nothing but contempt for the due process of editing wikipedia, and a continued single mindedness to edit Anita Sarkeesian out of existence. Koncorde (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem solved, for me at least. Nosepea68 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Calling other editors "white knights" is never acceptable. Woodroar (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please Woodroar care to elaborate how infinite amount of white knights refers to anybody in person?Nosepea68 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Neil N  talk to me  02:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My skype is up, care to have a chat what you saying?
 * Nope, another edit like that and I'll head to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban on all things related to Sarkeesian. That's all I have to say to you. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nosepea, you're on exceedingly thin ice. You've been warned and blocked enough times that it's frankly mystifying you haven't received stronger sanctions already. Please do yourself a favor and just stop. Your next bit of disruption will take you to WP:ANI and it's very likely you'll be banned from editing the topic.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. ''"Radical feminist" in this edit. You've been told time and time again to stop this kind of crap.'' Neil N  talk to me 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more than enough warnings. It's time to take this to ANI.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nosepea. I've blocked you for the next week based on your continued violations of various Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and several others.  Please note that this does not make moot the ongoing discussion about whether or not to topic ban you, and please also note that any further sanctions will be of increasing duration. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously too many white knights here taking bullshit told about Sarkeesian too seriously. NO, I don't name anybody. Also Sarkeesian seems to have let out information about herself only through sources that view her stupid views as positive, she's using category googolplex bullshit in her latest video and outright lies about Hitman: Absolution killing strippers is'nt encouraged in it but penalized when the mission is complete, ALL CIVILIAN kills in Hitman: Absolution are penalized, were they female or male. That's why it is IMPORTANT TO mention connections to Anita Sarkeesian if source have them, like Aja Romano. It's a mutual praise club and they are all click whoring by stirring shit up that doesn't exist to generate traffic to their sites to get more ad revenue. Kevin Gormanand Cúchullain For your INFORMATION CULCHU, TELL ME UR CONNECTIONS TO ANITA. Article about the VIDEO series is NOT BLP. BLP violation redacted Nosepea68 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you just earned yourself a substantially longer block. The next time you attack a living person like that, I am indefinitely blocking you, revoking your talk page access, and blocking any socks you create.  Follow WP:BLP, or don't edit Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't use sock-puppets. Just FYI, Kevin Gorman. Nosepea68 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman, Cúchullain, Kurtis, BusterD, Woodroar, NeilN and Diego plus other users involved.
 * First of all, link at Jonathan MacIntosh is to a BLOG and Jon's claims about privilege can be "privileges" of a stone, simply not privileges at all. Just try it. Just made me radge when you use blogs, but it's never allowed when the blogs are negative towards Sarkeesian.
 * Secondly, calling editors (without naming anybody) WKs is as irritating to you, as was Anita's claim about gamers' boy's club, no girls allowed and prevalent sexism in gaming spaces was to me as a gamer.
 * Thirdly, MacIntosh called his article popular and he didn't get any flak, it wasn't popular and because it was published on like-minded people site he didn't get flak.

Nosepea68 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA applies to Wikipedia. It would be nice if people off Wikipedia wouldn't make personal attacks as well, but they're not bound by our policies and guidelines. As far as blogs go, WP:SPS are generally not reliable—especially about other living people—although per WP:SELFPUB they can be used for statements about the author. Woodroar (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your last post was more than enough after the number of warnings you have received. I have revoked your talk page access.  If you would like to appeal my block, you can follow the procedure laid out at WP:UTRS. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been blocked indefinitely for continued disruption and violations of WP:BLP policy. Dreadstar ☥   21:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone ever lifts this indef, please simultaneously reopen the topic ban discussion at ANI. Though I'd suggest no one lifting this indef, at least anytime soon... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Best to ask me and/or Kevin before lifting this block, we can explain in detail. Dreadstar  ☥   00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropes vs. Women in Video Games


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello JMHamo,
 * If you'd care to read my user talk page you'd notice I am blocked from editing wikipedia indefinitely, so, I can contest jack all. [And now I need to do some hardware changes!] Nosepea68