User talk:Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom

Welcome!
Hello, Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to AT&T Mobility. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing 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

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Windows Defender
Hi, I didn't want to clutter Oshwah's talk page, so I'm posting here that I upped the archival cutoff to one year (365 days) on Talk:Windows Defender. Hope you don't mind, but if you want to - it's ok if you change the setting to your preferred choice. Thanks! byteflush Talk 04:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind it at all.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ligma Death Hoax
Hey man i found a better source bout ligma, hope you bring back the edit. https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/23/17602586/ninja-death-hoax-instagram-ligma Tnx! WikiCoolPerson (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing content
If you don't like a reference, take 30 seconds to find a better one rather than removing useful content.

Also, the websites you cite as breaking user generated content rules do not break these rules and don't seem to be personal blogs. Again, I've managed to find a better source for the content you've removed with a quick Google. You could do that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.175 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about edits done by this editor which I have reversed - there was a perfect reason why I did so. ALL of them link to articles to PERSONAL BLOGS, written by a person with SAME EXACT NAME, which is a perfectly clear example of someone trying to promote his/her personal blog, in particular all the articles written by him/her. Wikipedia has perfectly clear guideline which explains this behavior as well as how it should be dealt with, I suggest clicking on it and reading it before you continue typing more nonsense on my talk page: WP:SPAM. As for "finding better sources" - this is not my obligation, but you are free to do so, as long as they're not just another promotional attempt.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This user ardently opposes all forms of RACISM
Yes, cause racism against "white people" does not exist. 205.175.107.198 (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what exactly you wanted to say with this comment. Racism is racism, and it's bad regardless of which race/ethnicity is involved.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Fallout 76. That edit summary was absolutely unacceptable  Openlydialectic (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not exaggerate, . Omgftwbbqsomethingrandom's edit summary was "Removing edit from an irrational fan of this game who is clearly not here to make Wikipedia useful but to only portray the game in "less negative" way." isn't suitable or friendly, but it isn't "absolutely unacceptable" either. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , the simple fact that I was able to add necessary information to support the statement in lede in less than 5 minutes proves the fact that what I said about you in my edit summary is true - you are not interested in improving the article to make it a usable, unbiased source of information, you are only interested in an attempts at removing as much criticism about the game as possible. Your other edit also proves that, so is this one, when you unreasonably reverted my edit and added inappropriate tag even AFTER I provided enough sources in an appropriate section. You are free to deny this as much as you want, it won't change my conclusion or conclusion of other users. If you want to keep trying to achieve your agenda by playing with the WP:AGF and WP:CIV guidelines/policies - you are free to do that, but I highly doubt that they will work for you. In any case, if you wish to discuss the article and related edits - do so on its talk page, and if you have issues with my edits in particular - you are free to open a discussion at WP:ANI, you are not welcomed here with your nonsense.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Verge
Hey there, in your latest summary on The Verge, you stated that official website produces a LUA error. This sounds odd to me as I hadn't encountered this before. Would you able to provide a screenshot of the error so I can take a look? Regards. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the template was broken, you can see the info about it on the bottom of discussion page. I did not know when it would be fixed so I changed it to different method not dependent on templates. It appears to be fixed now.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Tech Report
I am concerned that you proposed the deletion of the article on The Tech Report when you have an "apparent COI", given your above statement on the deletion page about how you "love dearly" the founder of this website which you want deleted from Wikipedia, you have been following him on Twitter for many years, and have gone to the Tech Report BBQ's. You admit you are on the website's user forum and are linking to new posts on it, which strongly suggests you are more involved with that website than you implied in the deletion proposal where you described it as just "a random tech site". Do you say that you just came across this Wikipedia entry, and are not involved in the website as a user? Concentrate2 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "conflict of interest" as my ONLY interest is making Wikipedia a useful, reliable (as much as possible), non-promotional (in terms of financial gain for the subject of the articles) source of information. Nothing else. Instead of trying to accuse me, an editor who has made edits to many other articles independent of TechReport article and who has nominated other articles for deletion as well as voted for keeping or deleting many other articles at AfD, of some nonsense (you are trying to do now exactly what WP:PA is talking about and I will have to report you if you will continue doing this), I would HIGHLY and politely suggest you get back to improving the article in the ways I suggested in my reply on the article deletion discussion page. Unless, of course, you do not care about making Wikipedia and this article in particular a useful source of information for general user, and you ONLY came here as a part of vote brigading initiated by former editor of the site being discussed in the article to just "make the icky bad man go away and stop touching the (nearly useless to general user) article", unlike myself, judging by the FACT that I have done MORE to improving this article than you ever did (including attracting an attention of other users, one of whom has actually provided a dozen of useful sources giving this article enough notability to survive any AfD nominations). In any case I would appreciate if you would discuss the relevant article on the article's discussion place and not here. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

== Undid revision 907023705 by Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) The cite was not of a forum post, it was of The New Yorker, renown and independent publication, using the forums as a source, expressly noting its hardware expertise. The New Yorker is neither questionable nor self-published. ==

On the proposed deletion page you put out the call for people to supply useful sources towards notability.

That's exactly what I did: The New Yorker once noted the community/site as being hardware experts.

First you revert that, at best mistakenly, as being a cite of a forum post, which violates WP:SPS. This, simply and factually, was inaccurate. It was not, it was a cite of the New Yorker as the citation plainly shows.

I note this mistake, and revert it back.

Now you have reverted again, saying: "I am sorry, but WP:RS still applies and forums are not a reliable source of information even when mentioned by Secondary Source, especially since author of New Yorker article makes false claim about forum users being "expert" without even mentioning in which field they are "experts" or how the author came to this conclusion"

WP:RS plainly says: "This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

I will not engage in a revert war, but can you explain to me how you are not substituting your opinion of the primary source material (which in this case is the techreport forums) instead of The New Yorker's?

Especially as you explicitly make the statement that The New Yorker's made a "false claim"? Even the irrelevant basis by which you justify your interpretation is mistaken, as you incorrectly say that The New Yorker never said which field of expertise, when my comment on the change quoted it specifically "hardware" (and the article's context clearly and unambiguously means computer hardware). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.9.235 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)