User talk:Retartist/Archive 1

I always thought
that the whole point of philosophical quotes was to be vague? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: News and More
Hello Retartist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of News and More, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Radio stations are generally considered notable, even without references. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy
Hey, I declined the speedy on Destry (band) because there was *just* enough notability asserted by way of the album and the band members. I can't honestly guarantee it'd pass WP:BAND if it went to AfD, but there was just enough notability asserted to where it'd pass speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just done the same thing with Mainframe (band), because a claim to have released a few singles under Polydor Records is generally sufficient to pass the speedy deletion criteria. I have, however, added a proposed deletion tag as the article is completely unreferenced and the claims, even if sourced, may not necessarily be sufficient to pass our notability guidelines for musicians. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion G5
I have just declined three speedy deletion nominations you have made under criterion G5 (creations by banned or blocked users). In none of the three cases could i find any evidence at all that the user was evading a block at the time when they created the page in question, and a page is not deleted because the person who created it later became blocked. If you know that a user was, in fact, evading a block, but that fact is not likely to be obvious to an administrator reviewing the speedy deletion nomination, then you should give an indication of where that evidence is. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The user in question came to my attention when i was browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and filtered new pages created by blocked users, all the pages were created after the user was blocked. Retartist (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update, he was blocked on November 2 and he created the page(s) on November 3 Retartist (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, a page can't be created by a blocked account, and it needs to be a different account of the same user. If you know what other account of the same user had already been blocked before the page was created, then you need to indicate what account that was, as without that information no administrator has any of verifying that the page was created by a blocked user. Usually in such cases the block log for the sockpuppet account says what earlier account it is a sockpuppet of, but in the case of Mike78040 the block log entry just gives the reason as "Copyright violations", with no mention of any previous account.


 * As for the dates of creations of pages, as you can see here, Limperich (SWB) was created at 21:02, 1 November 2013, not 3 November. (If you have your Wikipedia preferences set to show your local time, rather than GMT, you may see a different time than the one I have quoted, but it can't be more than 12 hours different, so, depending on what time zone you are in, it could show as 2 November, but not 3 November.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sphe07 created Eliakim Khumalo on 30 October, even further away from the 3 November that you quote as the creation date of all the articles in question: . JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my mistake. Will check before tagging. Retartist (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your G5 tags were mentioned in Sockpuppet investigations/Wikigabriel11. In case you have anything further to say, please comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Retartist/Userboxes/Doge
I removed the nonfree image in User:Retartist/Userboxes/Doge per the NFCC criteria 9, Restrictions on location. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the image from the 'Dogepedia award' you placed on Cmcnamee's talk page per the same criteria given here already. Please do not keep using non free images. Thank you.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doge (meme)
A file uploaded by you is currently being discussed at Files for deletion/2014 January 27. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD contested
Hi there, I have removed your db-nocontext on Mi esqueleto, as it has enough context to identify what it is about. Feel free to Propose deletion or take to AfD if you disagree. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  11:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mecaplast Group
Hi, I would like to find out why you have tagged my article for speedy deletion. Thank you for our response.(Albert av (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

Image Studio Lite Submission Declined
Retartist,

Thank you for reviewing the Image Studio Lite article. The Articles for Creation are very backlogged, and I appreciate your time.

However, could you please be more specific about what parts of the article your think are not objective (maybe compare this to similar articles like Image J)? Would it help if removed the line about “A full version of Image Studio ….” from the intro and boiled the Features section down to a summary?

Thank again,

Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To Clarify I meant that the page read as if it was a page on the producers website listing the products features to a potential user like: Photoshop Features. The point was that I felt that the article was too much like the tutorial guide source and had not enough on its actual use towards Western blot images. So if you were to add more on its use and added more third party sources it may pass. Retartist (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you for clarifying. You don’t perceive that the article is written in a promotional tone, but you think that 1) the article’s emphasis on features makes it seem promotional and 2) it also requires more external validation. Those are interesting points. I think a different perspective may address your concern #1, but concern #2 is something I would like to ask you about.


 * To the first point: as you mentioned in your comment on the article page, the software has an input (this input is images) and an output (the output is data that correlates optical density of spots on an image with biomolecule abundance in a sample). The input image types are explained, the method of obtaining data (quantitation & background subtraction) is explained, and the outputs (export) are explained. My opinion is that this article addresses the workings of IS for a scientist interested in reading about image processing software, even if the content is arranged around features. Let me know if that makes sense.


 * POINT 2: is the tricky one. The Ultimate Source for information about IS is the user guide; other sources are secondary. My hope was to provide sources such as Luke Miller’s blog and the How to WESTERN-BLOT to provide other tutorials that substantiate my explanation of IS lite. The “Further reading” and ”External links” provide notability. However, this format of providing references makes it impossible to inline references, which I think is what you want. How would you have me address this quandary?


 * Thanks again for your time. You are helping me make this article a valuable addition to the Wiki knowledge base. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check Autodesk_Maya for an example on a C-class software article as an example. It contains an explanation on its uses. Retartist (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the Maya page, it occurs to me that their Components listed in the Overview section look very similar to the IS article. Are you recommending that I dismember the "Features section" entirely or would adding some kind of overview section (similar to how the Maya page is set up) explaining a basic workflow make this page seem less commercial to you? Please keep in mind that Maya and IS Lite are very, very different. Maya is a huge, complicated, expensive software, and IS Lite is small, free, and basic.


 * This is a very simple article. My hope is that scientists in the field will add any additions they deem necessary once the article is published.


 * PS: What do you think about the sources? How should I address the quandary in my previous post?


 * Thanks - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I Recommend that you add an overview section explaining the workflow and what Western Blot imagery is. I just think that having an article with a features section and little or no overview is not enough. Concerning the sources I recommend that you use some of the further reading or external links as sources. AS LONG AS: they refer to the software, they are preferably third party and generally WP:RS. Inline citations are hard maybe refer to: WP:REF? If you can't inline cite the sources you can still have them in a bibliography section. Hope you can improve the article.- Retartist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I’m glad you were able to stay with me through this back and forth. This article is important information that should be included in Wikipedia, so I’m happy to have an editor paying attention to it.


 * After this talk, I have a grasp on what needs to be done. I will work on the edits we talked about and get back to you on your talk page when I’m ready to resubmit.


 * BTW, I noticed that neuroscience and graduate studies are in your plans for the future. I'd be remiss not to point out what a small world it would be if you ended up using IS someday (or ImageJ) - let me know if that happens, I'll be here awhile…


 * Best on your exams. Thanks for helping and I'll talk with you soon - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad to be of help. Looking forward to the improved version - Retartist (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits are up, but I have not resubmitted the document.


 * Please tell me if this looks like the Overview section you had in mind.


 * As far as the sources go, there was really only one of the External links (Densitometry Tutorial for Image Studio Lite...) that I could move to the References section (and it should have been there to begin with, it is an introduction to IS Lite and links to a tutorial already included in the References). The other External links are to other WB analysis software or to the IS software page. The Further Reading links just say that they used IS lite to do some analysis; they don't really explain much about the process from the software end. I think the third party references listed provide validity and context for the article (I even saw the Luke Miller blog post cited in a Master's Thesis), and I hope they will be okay without being inline references. There doesn't appear to be a good way to do this.


 * If you have time, I would greatly appreciate a thumbs-up or thumbs-down review prior to resubmitting the article. Best - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I currently don't have time to do a detailed check. From a brief look; the article needs to have the first paragraph in the overview section moved up to the lead or the whole section reduced little bit and moved up to the lead. Have you read the manual of style? It currently WOULDNT be AF'D if it was a full article but I feel that it needs some stylistic clean up and maybe one more third party reference. I think if you submitted it; it might pass depending on the editor. I want it to pass and be a B-CLASS article. You could ask at the teahouse for any final tweaks but I have made my recommendations. Good Luck - Retartist (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe the division of content between the Lead and the Overview fits Wiki’s Manual of Style, but it may be time to get some more opinions. I’ll be resubmitting soon. Again, thanks for the help! - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL
Please do not call other editors "fools", as you did at User talk:Shyam Sundar Mandal. Insulting other users is discouraging and unnecessary. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juror misconduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Influence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

suggestion
Thanks for your support of the Violence against men category. Just a quick suggestion - it would make your case stronger if your provided a rationale for supporting the category. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your request at WP:PERM/RV
Do you want to reply there? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kindly stop templating NorthBySouthBaranof
We don't template the regulars. In addition, I'm looking at NorthBySouthBaranof's contribs and am not finding any personal attacks nor inappropriate talk page refactoring. Can you please provide some diffs to support your warnings? Certainly simply telling someone they're being inappropriate without any specifics doesn't help the situation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We can template the regulars WP:TR, so i do, i don't discriminate based on time spent on the 'pedia. How about this? Clear attack on me instead of my argument. Retartist (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet attempting to engage them in discussion might have helped the situation, while templating twice over apparently the same thing doesn't do anything but escalate it. NorthBySouthBaranof's edit was a tad uncivil, but the edit to your comment was justified. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * They could have just retracted ONLY their names, THEIR changes change the tone of my post, the quote "the woman who have been harassed just yell the loudest and make a bigger fuss" does not violate BLP, it just violates Norths opinion so they retracted it. The second quote could have been factored like this: "I was referring to the two who do (NAMES RETRACTED)" in fact i'm going to do that now. Retartist (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Statements that violate WP:BLP can be removed. North did that. That's not even close to template-worthy. Again, you might want to read over WP:BLP; we have to tread very lightly with such topics.
 * 2. That quote right there is difficult to parse but does read as specifically applying to the noted women. It includes them in a greater category, then makes an unsupported claim against that category. Even if you didn't intend it to be that way, it's unnecessarily inflammatory. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If he can have a quote of it, i can have my statement Retartist (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * North did not include the BLP violating element in the post (i.e. what I said "includes them in a greater category"), but clipped around your post to avoid that. Do not readd BLP violations. If you want to edit your post to simply slander an entire category of people instead without making a connection to any individual to avoid the BLP violation, mind that that's really not helping the discussion in any way either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

HE retracted statements then quoted them, ill be back in 1 hr Retartist (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) His retracting of my statements make my OP look like a sexist rant, its not. I was identifying a group of people by their common trait: their gender. If negatively criticizing a group of peoples tactics is sexist because the group all happen to be woman, then there is rampant misandry in this thread. Retartist (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert
-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Heya, got a quesiton
Hey there. So and thank you for including me in the Dispute Resolution thing. The thing im hoping for, is could you tell me what all happens during a resolution? Considering im new to WP. Thank you if you can. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, In a dispute Resolution you first make a statement (which you have done) then a unrelated mediator mediates the discussion at hand. Just participate in the discussion and you will be fine. Retartist (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Retartist/hall of infamy


A tag has been placed on User:Retartist/hall of infamy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a copyvio of a thread still on WP:AN that is being unnecessarily retained here

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Retartist/hall of infamy
User:Retartist/hall of infamy, 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:Retartist/hall of infamy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Retartist/hall of infamy 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. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate
Gamaliel ( talk ) 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

arbcom page
Here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Applying GamerGate controversy sanctions on Shirtstorm
Can you explain why these are applicable? I'm not familiar with "GamerGate" and now I'm wondering just what I've wandered into after picking an article to clean up off the NPOV problem list. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know about the Matt Taylor article, and "Shirtstorm" - but I know nothing at all about "Gamergate", and have no clue about what a controversy about a British scientist's shirt has to do with "video game culture".  Both may be related to sexism, but there is a lot of sexism in the world without the two incidents being related in any way.  Please explain.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * since gamergate is so large and amorphous, shirtstorm has been absorbed as part of the culture war. dont be too worried as Time (the publication) falls under these sanctions as well. Think of it as gamergate is a big part of a culture war against the sort of people who caused shirtgate Retartist (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag from Matt Taylor (scientist) because I can see next to nothing (apart from news outlets very occasionally discussing them within the same article) linking him to gamergate. Applying general sanctions there will do more harm than good. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retartist (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, the same factions of POV-pushers that have hit GamerGate controversy were expected to hit Shirtstorm. I owe you an explanation:  I had found Shirtstorm in the NPOV dispute list, and went to it thinking I would both improve Wikipedia and learn something in the process since I had never seen the term before.  After two of my edits with detailed summaries asking for discussion 12 were largely reverted 12 with short summaries and no discussion, I left two somewhat sharp comments on the other user's talk page.  Imagine my surprise when the first response I received was this.  In any case, whether the sanctions were appropriate or an example of WP:IAR, they appear to have immediately helped and there are now actual discussions beginning on the talk page, including from a user who previously had been one of the most-reverted POV-pushers on the article.  Thank you. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also note that the special sanctions have since been removed, since WP:NEWBLPBAN applies. Again, thanks for your help. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Found something
I came across this link on the Web. You might be interested in looking at the 4 "archive.today" screenshots. starship .paint ~ regal  02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * already been brought up, there is nothing in this because it not a personal relationship. Its just tarc having an anti-gg bias like me having a pro-gg bias. Retartist (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * although if he claims to be neutral, then bring it up Retartist (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point...
...but the new User clearly committed vandalism. He is now aware you are keeping an eye on him, so I will desist from anything further. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
 * Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
 * The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
 * Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged Retartist (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Re: GG PD
Check the collapsed table immediately below that one (labeled "Ryulong remedy calculations") - the result calculations for Ryulong got complicated, so they were moved to their own space. Random th e Scrambled (?) 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --Ret&Delta;rtist (разговор ) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion question
Could you explain what changed between and  that led you to believe your reversion had consensus? Hipocrite (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and made a change, i was challenged, then consensus was formed after discussion on the talk page. No need to question me on it Ret&Delta;rtist (разговор ) 05:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm wondering why you made the change twice. Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont know, i think i forgot i was reverted once. But its all done now Ret&Delta;rtist (разговор ) 06:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
In accordance with the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, you are hereby banned from any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed. This topic ban is indefinite, but may be reviewed after six months of unproblematic editing elsewhere. The proximate cause for the sanction is your addition of BLP-violating external links to a talk page without due care for the material they contained, and having previously been counselled for BLP violations. Further, your pending-changes reviewer permissions are revoked. You may appeal this sanction at any time in accordance with the procedure at WP:ACDS. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pan Asian Chamber Jazz Ensemble
Hello. I've removed the speedy tag you placed at Pan Asian Chamber Jazz Ensemble, as the article clearly and credibly asserts notability. If you disagree you can take it to AFD. Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC
Hi. Your edits at WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants‎ were noticed. Please note also that  the 500 mainspace edits/90 day membership is only part of the criteria. The process is gong to  be shortly  changed anyway so  that  an admin  will  decide in  future who  may  patrol  pages after a review of their editing  experience. On a personal note, I  amaways curious to  know why  young, inexperienced users always want  to  police this encyclopedia and think they  are qualified to  do  it. Your previous editing history apparently  demonstrates that  even with  500 edits you might  possibly not  be considered ready  for AfC reviewing any  time soon. If you are concerned about  the encycopedia, you  are nevertheless more than welcome to  help  us combat  vandalism. With just  over 200 edits you  qualify  to  enrol  at  the WP:CVU/A to  learn how to  do  it. You will  then be able to  apply  for permission  to  use tools that  make anti-vandalism work somewhat  more streamlined --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration clarification request archived
Hi Retartist, I've closed and archived this arbitration clarification request that you are listed as a party to to the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I like to pick nits
Hate to be a bother but can you change the reason from "proxy editing in breach of topic ban" to either "too cool for school", "didn't take no shit", or "Editing in breach of topic ban" because i was not that ip who posted earlier, i saw the stupidity of it being closed because they were an IP so i reposted it. Retartist 11:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By reposting the IP's material you were proxying for them. This proxy editing was in breach of your topic ban, so the block summary is correct. If the block was for using the IP address to bypass the topic ban, the reason would most likely include "evading"/"evasion" and mention logged-out editing or sockpuppetry.
 * Finally, block log entries are informational for both the person being blocked and anyone reading the block log, as such we would never use reasons such as "too cool for school" or "didn't take no shit". Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the funniest thing, here in my enforcement, is an exception to my t-ban that should have been applied: "Implicit in the topic ban exception for reverting BLP violations and vandalism is the permission to report the same to an appropriate noticeboard. It makes no sense to allow someone to revert a vandal, but not report said vandal to AIV." Huh, funny that NBSB can file a request and not get banned, But i cant? Retartist 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Retartist/sandbox
User:Retartist/sandbox, 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:Retartist/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Retartist/sandbox 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i hope you notice that i can't contribute to the discussion? Retartist 08:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to comment there, I can copy the comments you make here over to that page- just let me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, please add: " *Oppose Per the arguments of Ryk72, Having read through the discussions in the links he provided I think that there is no real reason to have the material removed. Also I invite Ryk72 to talk to me over email or my talk about BLP. The editor who made this page was banned from the gamergate topic area for posting these links at the talk page of gamergate controversy as they were BLP-violating Is tricky because obviously i think that the decision was unjust and in opposition to wider community consensus (and filed by a t-baned editor, apparently filing cases is BAN... oh wait) but still its an Oppose from me Thanks Peter for posting this on my behalf --[my sig here] Retartist 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger roger- comment posted. Ping me whenever you wanna add more or respond to something. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Retartist 10:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Retartist, Thanks for your invitation above. I have a strong interest in our BLP policy, and in ensuring that we are using it correctly to protect both living persons about whom information is documented on Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Project itself, while at the same time ensuring that it is not overused to suppress discussion & prevent improvement to the encyclopedia.

While I do not concur that WP:BLP supports deletion of the page mentioned above, I would suggest to you that it is prudent to remove the link(s) that cause(s) the most consternation. If I suggested that the "TZP" link might be removed, would you be amenable to that? I am not certain that I see any other link that would cause as much angst; and certainly the majority appear to be links to reliable (or potentially reliable) sources.

Please let me know if you are amenable to such removal. If so, seeing as you are blocked, I am happy to make the edit. Regards, - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Im happy to have individual links removed as some of them (as of now) are useless to me. The "zoepost" one also causes consternation so that one can be removed as well. There are also aspects of BLP i wish to discuss later (school work keeps me busy). Thanks again --Retartist 23:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. That was actually the link that I was alluding to. I have now replaced it with "(link removed)". I will also place a note to this effect at the MfD. It is not "redacted", and the removal is not based on BLP.
 * I am happy to discuss BLP policy any time; now or later. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you add to below my comment the following (thanks in advance) ":*Comment Having read through the links in question, i fail to see how any of them violate WP:BLP only possibly excepting: 104. the zoe post (already removed but contained email transcripts), 110. (email transcripts but the actual emails aren't there so impossible to verify the truth), 112. (from 110). The rest are not in themselves BLP Violations, their reliability may be in question but that is no issue as they are not in article space. The only real reason to have this page deleted is that i can't contribute to the topic area. However, other editors can contribute and i think that they have something to gain from looking at this. Failing that, i'm going to let it be known that i intend to appeal the t-ban and block so then the deletion of this page has no reason. Thanks again Peter -- Retartist 05:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"
 * Yep yep. My no-lifing at least enables me to respond to things quickly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CSGO workbench screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CSGO workbench screenshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The1337gamer (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

;-; damm Retartist 11:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi Retartist. It looks like your current signature doesn't have the required link to your user page, see WP:SIGLINK for details. Cheers! — Strongjam (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, although it is strange, it used to be ok and i didn't change it, odd Retartist (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)