User talk:Strongjam/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Strongjam, 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 and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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

Is this the best way to leave messages?
You were right to undo my change to Beschizza's acknowledgement, I read the source hastily. Thank you. Cobbsaladin (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually best to start at the bottom of the page, you can use the 'New Section' link to do that. I'm staying away from that other bit of that edit as I realize it's contentions. Personally I think the whole thing is a bit WP:UNDUE. — Strongjam (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I honestly don't know where to start with this article. It reads like an opinion piece because it's largely sourced from opinion pieces. Balancing it with counter opinion pieces will only make it less encyclopedic. I wish we could start cleanly from a framework of facts, then fill in context and comments sparingly. Maybe best I just avoid it. Thanks again. Cobbsaladin (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mickie James
Hi, the additional information I added to Mickie James is accurate and relevant. Thank you for reconsidering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricheckta (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like trivia to me, you also need to include sources for any claims you add to the article — Strongjam (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Clan Mackay
Hi, thanks for your edits to the Clan Mackay article. I have been meaning to upgrade the references for some time now but never got round to it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Strongjam
You sent me message for the editting. Well I am sorry for that.

Thanks for pointing my mistake out

Asjad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asjadarshad11 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've since retracted the warning, at first glance the diff looked like gibberish, but I see now that it was actually an Base64 encoded image. When trying something new like that I'd suggest you try it out on the Sandbox and also use the 'Preview' feature to make sure everything works how you expect it too. Cheers and happy editing. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediocracty
I'm glad I hit my standard writing goal of "That sucks, but it sure pisses me off less than what was there before." Yet another dose of improved mediocrity for Hipocrite! (I'm kidding, I swear) re. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] I actually prefer "most", seems kind of WP:SKYISBLUE to me, but the topic area is so controversial we end up having to write with the precision of a scalpel. — Strongjam (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possible for me to care less about that part of the lede, I'm sure. I don't know quite how. I thought I'd flex my "LOOK AT THIS SHITTY COMPROMISE YOU ALL LIKE!" muscle. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed on Zoe Quinn page as instructed by Wikpedia Core Principles
You seem to be ignoring core principles of Wikipedia with this topic. I suggest you either read, or re-read, Neutral Point of View and Verifiability  before you simply revert the tags I, appropriately, placed there – or you could at least give an explanation as to why you think these contentious claims should not be cited. The statements in the this article I have marked with a citation needed tag most definitely qualify as needed properly cited sources as substantive backing to the currently unverified claims it is making. The sources must also be from a Reliable Source. Alialiac (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't simply revert your tags, I added citations to a reliable source. Are you disputing the reliability of the source? — Strongjam (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I spoke a little too soon. Yes that source is ok. Alialiac (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A general thank-you for your patience and understanding
Hey there,

I just wanted to say thanks for putting up with my lack of experience and what appears to be a conflicting point of view in Talk:Gamergate_controversy. Your approach to the matter has been very professional, and it's very much appreciated. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Things usually work best when everyone is civil. I'm going offlone but will check in on the discussion tomorrow. Strongjam (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Improper Source?
Hey Strongjam, was just looking over recent edits on the GG article. One particular one seems odd. Specifically, this sentence:

Baldwin and other early users of the term "gamergate" sought to define certain media coverage—praise of certain games developed by women and criticism of sexism within the video game industry—as an ethical scandal analogous to others defined by the suffix -gate.

With the source here.

The sentence itself doesn't seem too bad, but the source doesn't seem to really support it. Would you mind looking into it and seeing if you agree. Maybe a BLP issue with attributing this opinion to Baldwin without proper support. Ries42 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was looking at that.. I'm not convinced it's supported by the source either. — Strongjam (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it in your hands. :) Cheers. Ries42 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Don't mind at all :P. Wasn't sure exactly how to do it honestly. Ries42 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Misattributed Quote
I noticed a quote attributed to Peter Molyneux under the Industry response section of the GG article. Developer Peter Molyneux stated that the industry needs to "adopt a level of professionalism and diversity commensurate with other industries", and recognizing some of the issues surrounding Gamergate existed within the industry; Molyneux pointed to the large amount of support Valve's Gabe Newell received after being sent a death threat from a developer who was condemned widely and quickly by the community, but found the lack of similar prompt action in the case of the harassment of female figures in Gamergate disturbing. From the source it is actually Brianna Wu making those statements and not Molyneux. Bzfoster (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've deleted the quote. Also, even as a new account you can edit the Gamergate page, your edits will just go through review first. — Strongjam (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bzfoster will be unable to edit the article as it is semi-protected as well PC2'd. Log out and try for yourself. CIreland (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well look at that. Didn't realize it was both. I guess that explains why I'm seeing so few edits to the page. I was expected a flood of edits. — Strongjam (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu BLP stuff
Is the problem that the account isn't verified as her, or the lack of reliable sources? My understanding was that the topic wasn't discussed due to the BLP bias towards privacy. It's not clear to me how reliability of sources is an issue here. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page. —Strongjam (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu. Hi, I put Brianna Wu on my watchlist to see if I could help bring a more civil process to it's editing, which I am sure is the intent of most of the editors. I see that you did editing on the article, & thought you might join in a discussion. There is an editor who would like to include some links & I am seeking your (pl.) guidance. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley
I thought I was reverting that content out, I guess I did not UNDO far enough back. Thank you for fixing it. JBH (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I realized something was wrong when I saw the byte count. — Strongjam (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see why the information I gave can't even exist as a footnote. Everyone knows what leave of absence means. It means that he is absent, not there, not functioning as a peer in the House of Lords. This is rather important.Rodolph (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We rely on secondary and tertiary sources to determine if something is important. If someone's leave of absence is important it should be easy to find a secondary source that notes it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

PR-Dino Charge EP Numbering Changes
Some people will take an episode arc (2+ "part" episodes) and count them as one. This is not how the episodes were originally aired, despite if they were aired back-to-back. Original counting puts them as being counted seperately. My count was right - Dino Charge EP#1 is #787. Also, I do own all the EPs, inlcuding the recent volumes of Samurai on up and the count comes up the same (DC starting on 787). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.234.18 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not certain if I may ask this, however...
I read the talk in the GamerGate Controversy page, and noticed you said that the page was getting too big, and I found a person's blog about crique of the site and its words, and thought it would help skimping down on page.

However, I do not have the power to make use of the talk due to it being sanctioned, how can I have it being seen? A critique should help elevate quite a few changes and possible make it more objective based on facts, as such I am asking you due to your comment about the size.

If this is by any means illegal, immoral or breaking wikipedia rules, please do mention so.

Thanks for the time if you read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealVordox (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm not really interested in getting too involved with any major changes (and hence big fights) on the page. Most of my edits lately have just been focused on copy-editing and BLP concerns. — Strongjam (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wise choice, it's a mess. Thank you for the response! TheRealVordox (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tip
Thanks for the tip about User:Dr_pda/prosesize. That's a really useful tool.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! It's really useful! — Strongjam (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For a thankless job well done.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 

You might find this useful
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Please remember: If you have any questions, please do let me know, HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for reverting vandalism and other edits where the reason for the revert is obvious
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * Yeah! I'm going to have to check out Huggle now. — Strongjam (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Techraptor Redaction
I posted an inquiry on the BLP Noticeboard regarding your redaction of the techraptor article. While the article seems useless as a a source for anything other than wikipedia's role in the controversy (which is of questionable relevance) I'm hoping for general clarification of BLP policy's application to pseudonymous accounts. —EncyclopediaBob  (talk)  19:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I've already added my 2 cents over there. I believe this exact same article kicked of a discussion previously on WP:BLPN but my search skills are failing me. — Strongjam (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had the same difficulty. I've taken to loading archives and using my brower's search, for keywords, but it's time-consuming.  —EncyclopediaBob   (talk)  19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ACM:SIGCAS
Hi there, you seem to be using certain articles under the mistaken impression they are peer reviewed, for instance ACM SIGCAS is explicitly not a peer reviewed journal. It is a special interest group's (SIGCAS = Special Interest Group - Computer's And Society) newsletter.

Here is where the article appears: http://www.sigcas.org/newsletter/latest-issue (this link will cease to link to the article in question when the new issue is released, at which point it is placed behind a paywall)

This newsletter has editors sure, but it is not peer-reviewed. My source? It's own about page: http://www.sigcas.org/newsletter

" - Computers and Society is an online edited newsletter accessible via the ACM Digital Library (please note that it is NOT a peer reviewed publication - submissions are checked for relevance, accessibility and basic suitability by the editors but not fully peer reviewed). The editors invite contributions of all types of written material (such as opinion articles, research challenge descriptions, work-in-progress articles, news reports, book reviews, bibliographies of relevant literature, and letters, fiction, poetry "

So no, not peer-reviewed.

Tookoolforskool (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted thanks. — Strongjam (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict
Thank you very much for helping to improve the Benedict page. It is great that you are helping to improve the page.

I added the appropriate references to Koenigsberger, Rabb, Stone, and Richet. But they are all from the same source. Could you please help me by merging these citations into a single footnote? Also, I am having trouble fixing the format in footnote #11 (American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature) and with adding the ISSN and doi info for the article: "Graphic History: What Readers Knew and Were Taught in the Quarante Tableaux of Perrissin and Tororel". French Historical Studies 28 (1): 175–230."

Again, I think your contributions are awesome. They are making the page better. All this info is out there, but I just needed someone to constructively point things out instead of vandalizing the page with disruptive and unnecessary deletions. Thank you so much. RefHistory (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged the refs. If you have a DOI then DOI Wikipedia reference generator can generated a cite journal for you. — Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are awesome, Strongjam! I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it is to find someone who genuinely wants to help, rather than simply tear down and destroy. Unfortunately, I don't have a doi. How do I find that?RefHistory (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Google. I can't find one for those two though either though. I'll see what I can dig up. — Strongjam (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature should be using cite encyclopaedia by the looks of it, not cite journal. Do you know which volume the cite is from? — Strongjam (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Strongjam!!!! The article that still requires the doi/ISSN is: Benedict, Philip; Bryant, Larry; Neuschel, Kristen (2005). "Graphic History: What Readers Knew and Were Taught in the Quarante Tableaux of Perrissin and Tororel". French Historical Studies 28 (1): 175–230.RefHistory (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts in terms of the citation tag at the top of the article? I haven't seen many professor articles with more secondary citations than this one. Would you care to comment on the talk page whether the tag is still appropriate, especially considering the additional sources that have been added?RefHistory (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have problem with how many times his C.V. is cited. If those could be removed or at least some of them replaced with secondary sources I think the tag could come off. — Strongjam (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, a CV published by a former employer counts as a secondary source. It is written about Benedict, not by him. But I understand your perspective. The excessive citations wouldn't be necessary if certain people weren't trying to delete information for no good reason. Compare the page with his colleagues such as Natalie Zemon Davis and you will see that Phil's page is very well sourced.RefHistory (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are now only 5 mentions of the CV -- compared to 25 uses of other sources. Speaking of which, could you please work your awesome coding magic and consolidate footnotes #7 and 18? I also added the Hirzil book as a source (footnote #17). It would much appreciated if you could add the appropriate doi stuff. Thank you for everything!RefHistory (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Strongjam. Can you please take a look and chime in on the section blanking of RedPenofDoom on the Benedict page. He is blanking an entire section that makes zero references to the CV, and which is very well sourced. I would appreciate it if you could take a look.RefHistory (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP, Wu, & discussion
In re our previous talk about Brianna Wu and BLP issues, I admit there's a case for your position, but I'm not totally satisfied. However, I read that BLP policy applies everywhere, so how do editors reach consensus on a BLP-grey-area edit if discussing it would violate BLP? Is there some obscure place in the hierarchy or offsite-but-related or something along those lines where people commonly hash this stuff out, because the strict BLP rules don't apply? I checked wiki's robots.txt, and nowhere in the hierarchy suggests itself. Dingsuntil (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. There is however the WP:BLPTALK policy. If you find a potential source for a contentious claim there is leeway to link to it in the talk space and ask if it should be added to the article. So if you do find an article somewhere that you believe passes WP:RS you can in good-faith link to it and ask on the talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I did before, and you said "Good faith but no." I'm not complaining b/c it wasn't the result I wanted (okay, maybe a little), but just that I think it calls for a slightly more extensive discussion, and that's hard when you can't mention the contents. Specifically, it turns on the balance between WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE (Wu is clearly a limited PF in law) in relation to the contents.


 * Question: although BLP obviously applies to RfC and ArbCom (don't panic; I don't want to wikisue anyone), is it customary to rigorously enforce it in those venues, or is more openness accepted? Dingsuntil (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with what you did. You linked to something in good faith and you didn't repeat anything from the link. However since reddit is not an RS for anything I removed it as it's not possible to add it to the article. No idea about RfC, but for ArbCom if you have something you want to add to the discussion but can't put on WP due to WP:BLP, WP:OUTING or any other policy you can send them an email. — Strongjam (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
Can you clarify who you're directing this toward? If it's me, I'll happily respond, but it's unclear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Directed at you, I've clarified with the two assertions that I feel need to be backed up with evidence. At least I think I have.. Form still submitting. — Strongjam (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to spam your talk page now, but I messed the ping up and I wanted to make sure you knew I replied to you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw it (and no worries about my talk page.) I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions from the evidence, but I appreciate that you have some. — Strongjam (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks?
Thanks for cleaning up my spillage at AE. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Fixing technical problems is my forte. — Strongjam (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page Edit Summaries
Thanks for the tip. I am still trying to figure out the contours of WP. Any other thoughts are most welcome. Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you monitoring me?
How did you notice my edit so quickly? The content is true, I just haven't found a reliable reference. I know it's true because I was the other man at the time.66.87.143.199 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is on my watchlist. I don't care if it's true or not. It needs to be verifiable, and compatible with the biography of living people policy. Based on your claim you should also review our conflict-of-interest policy. — Strongjam (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Thanks.66.87.143.199 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Harley Morenstein
There's no sources covering the subject outside of EMT, please find some otherwise put the revert back in place and consider page protection.--Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The coveted dingus is yours
For making the first statement at WP:AE in haiku known in modern times, you are awarded this month's Wikipedia Beaux-Eaux Cup with Imaginary Peruvian Oak Leaves. Wear it with pride and/or confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm honoured! I was inspired by 's haiku in WP:ARCA — Strongjam (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ultraman
Hi there, I've noticed you've made some contributions to the Ultraman page in the past and dealt with some things in the talk page but now there's a matter that requires the opinion and attention of a few editors. Hopefully you can help in bringing this potential edit war to an end by delivering your commentary on the matter. Armegon (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added my 2 cents over there. Sorry for the long delay, was on the beach and away from WP for awhile. — Strongjam (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Header
this page is nota useful page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arslansindhu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the page should be deleted you can familiarize yourself with the deletion policy, or you can improve the article. Vandalizing the page though is not acceptable. — Strongjam (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That was Gorgi
He's been blocked repeatedly in the past for harping on the same tired old theme in various articles; but he keeps coming back to feminism. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict
Could you please check in on the constant deletion of the teaching section of the Benedict account by two people? There is a dispute resolution here. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Philip_Benedict.23.22teaching.22_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.20.219 (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Transcript of HuffPostLive interview
Another GGer and I put together a transcript of the HuffPostLive interview Bosstopher linked to and you asked about, with timecodes for the questions and answers so you can verify the content: http://pastebin.com/Famvp4G0.

I hope this might be helpful in some way.

Also, I'm a noob so I hope this is the right way to contact you. --Mracidglee (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merci. — Strongjam (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I feel ridiculous putting the template on your talk page, but I couldn't, in good conscience, skip you after checking if everyone that edited the last few days got a notice. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. — Strongjam (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to fix those "late" problems
lol ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're too late, I took care of it. Such a bad joke. I know.— Strongjam (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
At least you seem like a nice guy. More than I can say about the rest of this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pileslugs (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

List of top 100 Major League Baseball leaders in innings pitched
Thank you for your edit on List of top 100 Major League Baseball leaders in innings pitched, help updating the list is always much appreciated. However, the reason I had purposely not but Burnett on the "600 IP till main list" page is due to the fact that he's going to retire after this season and will never make the main list. Taffe316 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize. I knew he was having elbow problems but I didn't realize he announced this was his last season. — Strongjam (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate help editing the list and feel free to update in the future Taffe316 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit? / Thank you for fixing my edit!
Why did you delete my edit on leigh alexander?Lunchyboy (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deepfreeze is not a reliable source, and your edit was not in-line with our policy on biographies of living people, which requires any information that might be challenged to be reliably sourced, and anything that might be contentious and not reliably sourced to be removed immediately. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I said she was accused, I never said it was the truth. I felt it was important information. if this still violates the policy let me know and i'll cease.Lunchyboy (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it still violates policy, for that to be in her biography it would have to be sourced to a high-quality reliable source. — Strongjam (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time but I have one last question. how is deepfreeze not a reliable source? I and many others consider it to be one of, if not the most reliable sources on the subject. and when I read this article the first time I was disappointed to see nothing here form deepfreeze.Lunchyboy (talk)
 * See WP:IRS and WP:SOURCES. For Wikipedia's purposes we're looking for mainstream publications (newspapers, journals, magazines) that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Deepfreeze would instead be a self-published source and generally is not usable as a source about third-parties. — Strongjam (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Strongjam! Poppin' in to thank you for the tip on WP:EL. That's it. Cheers! --- Asgardiator ( talk )  01:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

sarkeesian
What i'd recommend is change it so it just says her age and not her birth year. I'm 31 and I was born in February 1984. Thanks

PS, i'll be back in several hours, I have to get ready for a westjet flight to Vancouver in a couple hours. I should be back this evening, and I'll get back to you. PS, I did get the date right.

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A friend of mine, who is related to Anita Sarkeesian brought up the birth date of Anita Sarkeesian to my attention. Neither he nor I can edit the page as it is rightfully protected.

However, I'm merely trying to bring up why we have the unsourced year of 1983, the unsourced birthplace of Ontario and not the unsourced birth date of or that she was born in Winnipeg? Where are these people getting the source from? what is this madness anyway. I recently also on Anita's talk page got accussed of trying to dox Ms. Sarkeesian, but as I state, my friendship with my friend is way more important than whether or not Anita is right or wrong. ( (ps she's right about a few things and wrong about others, aren't we all? not the point) Anyway, why 1983 while not putting, and why Ontario when it was actually Manitoba? Where is this comingfrom? Thanks PS, call me Eric.

Glory Man United

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY about the privacy of her full birth date. The year is being derived from a source that says her age. As for where she was born, you appear to be right, the source says she grew up near Toronto not born there. I will fix. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good to see. I think that Wikipedians need to start cracking down on these kinds of things a lot more than they've been, but I'll leave that to them. I think however we should use this example as a lesso non how to put peoples' birth date. I'm optimistic that you'll hep people out with that, and wish to do a lot more myself but I'm busy flying planes every couple days. I have to fly a few westjet boeing 737-600s today around Canada, for example, so I'm not really able to do too much, hense my breaks form WIkipedia. When I get back home, are there other people I can talk to to start pushing this issue forward? Also if you see any articles you think I'll be interested in looking at to fix, let me know. I'm welcome to suggestions. Any concirns you have just ask and I'll addres them when I'm at home. I don't like using airport wifi as it sucks half of the time, and my IP address would thus jump all over Canada and Europe. Thanks, and GLory man united!

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit War re: Simon Danczuk wiki
It would appear that you are continually deleting my factual government sourced articles from Simon Danczuk wiki page.

You have no grounds for doing so whatsoever.!!! My last edits were all sourced from a UK government website that is publicly available to anyone who so wishes to look at MP expenses. http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/Default.aspx

Are you suggesting that the above website (government) has copyright issues with my articles? I am sorry but the information I provide is in the interests of the public regardless of what you think.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop deleting factually correct information. If this continues I will have no choice to report you for your conduct.

Sakino Sakino Akura (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter may be of interest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Familiar. I was attempting to AGF, but that's worn thin. — Strongjam (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Politicians
Hello. I'm new to editing in wikipedia and noticed you edited Obama's wiki.

I think it's a great example about how a politician's profile should look like but I've come across many wikis on polítical figures in south america and latam that just have a lot of illfull-minded stuff.

If the main editor of an article is clearly against this political figure (and protects the illfull-minded entries) how can we expect o contribute to those articles looking a little more like Obama's? (I mean focusing mainly on their political work and personal achievements rather than on biased political critique) LatamSabian (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

your theory on trolling label
I also left this on 0serenity's talkpage I explain more in depth there.

Why do you believe that Cúchullain thinks i'm a troll? Thanks

Glory Man United

Eric Ramus

aran incoherent response to a supposedly incoherent question
0serenity archived it saying that my question is incoherent, a word that people tend to throw around trying to justify deletion. incoherent basically means unable to understand. the question "in your opinion, why do you believe this user thinks i'm a troll?" is a simple question. doesn't it seem a little less than serene to simply delete a comment, clame it's incoherent without asking for clairification? Simply say "eric, what in the hell do you mean in this post?" rather than simple "poof," gone. stupid reason left. I checked my talkpage, not even a warning. It's lucky that I had to go to his talkpage history to revert this and add a simpler version to it. Your thoughts?

Thanks

Glory Man UNited

Eric Ramus

No Man's Sky Release Date
Sean Murray specifically stated that 2015 is the year No Man's Sky will be released. See Here. What reason do you have for changing it back to TBA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethaedair (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bring it up for discussion on Talk:No Man's Sky, but I see little reason to change it based on a throw away line in a blog post. — Strongjam (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

American women writers category
I think there are some serious issues with the current way that category is used. Right now, there are over 2000 articles in that category, but there are only a bit over 200 articles in the parent category American writers. So clearly, it's not being consistently used as a dupcat. Also, the category American male writers (a side issue being the non-parallel terminology) has about 5500 articles, but it is not listed as a non-diffusing category. So either all articles in both those categories need to also be included in the parent cat, and male writers needs to also be non-diffusing, or the couple hundred in the parent cat should be removed, and women writers should no longer be non-diffusing. I'd favor the latter because it would be a lot less work. But I don't know where to go to start a discussion about this. Any ideas? —Torchiest talkedits 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've actually moved the article into the diffusing subcategory Category:21st-century American writers and removed it from American writers. The American male writers category should be non-diffusing as well. A good example system is Category:Canadian novelists. It has non-diffusing men/women subcategories and then diffusing subcategories. — Strongjam (talk) 14:55, 21 October 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)



Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening that SPI
I was just going through the protocols to see exactly how that is done. Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm, sadly, familiar with the process. Twinkle makes it pretty easy to do, although I wish it had a preview button for the report. — Strongjam (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At least our friend's take on your username was more homage than name-calling! Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty straight-forward WP:UAA report. I was going to file one, but depending on the outcome of the SPI it could be moot. — Strongjam (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Power Rangers Dino Charge logo.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Power Rangers Dino Charge logo.png, 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. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I have revised my edits to ensure that the article does not imply that these hoaxes represent accurate information about the people involved. Please let me know if there are any further issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hehpillerpro (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brianna Wu
Thank you for correcting the templates at the article, Given that the article continues to be under discretionary sanctions related to GamerGate, and given the instructions at Template:Pp-30-500, I've modified the page notice and set a semi-protect on the article. I haven't been involved in protecting 30-500 articles before, so if you believe I've misstepped, please let me know. Thanks! --joe deckertalk 19:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually was just about to create the edit notice page when I noticed you had already. Looks like you've got everything covered, thanks! — Strongjam (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, thank you! --joe deckertalk 19:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Anita Saarkesian
Hello, was just wondering why you edited my entry. Would you like me to provide a source?

Barackaddict (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slow response, I was offline for most of the weekend. Yes, WP:BLP requires information about living people to always be verifiable. I see that you've taken the issue up at the article talk page. I don't have much to add to the discussion right now, but if I do I'll add it there. — Strongjam (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Harassment
Just out of curiosity, what is considered "harassment"? I realize there are blatant example (threats of violence, outright insults), but I am confused as to where the line is drawn. For example, if I say "Strongjam, what the heck were you thinking when you made that last edit?" I assume this falls within the scope of friendly banter.

The reason I ask is I have no ill-will toward NBSB, and was merely poking a little fun. Obviously I erred in my decision making. It was NOT intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2150:7400:4168:8D06:B660:EFF0 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No harm, no foul? Please indef this editor immediately and revdel even sooner. It’s obviously libel, it’s patently malicious, and no reasonable person could call it “a little fun.”  MarkBernstein (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It was not meant like that Dr. Bernstein - it was meant in humor. I've apologized.  What else am I expected to do??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2150:7400:4168:8D06:B660:EFF0 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I quite agree, MarkBernstein, but since I've just told the IP (who is clearly an experienced editor logged out) that I'll block them next time, I guess I'll wait. The weirdness of explicitly apologizing to Strongjam(here), instead of to NBSB, looks like trolling also. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC).


 * bishonen You won't have any more problems from me. I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt, and will log in going forward.  I made a stupid mistake, please don't crucify me for it.  That's the 100% truth and I don't know how to prove it other than showing better behavior going forward.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2150:7400:4168:8D06:B660:EFF0 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot imagine any justification or excuse. Can you? Please let me know if you can -- by email if it can't be discussed. What possible humor could there be?  What possible construction does not violate WP:NPA?  MarkBernstein (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A good sign of "better behavior" from 2605:E000:2150:7400:4168:8D06:B660:EFF0 would be to acknowledge their Wikipedia account. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood. I will create and login to an account today.  Again, my apologies to all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4944:6CBD:BE69:44BE (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have created an account
MarkBernstein and Strongjam, I have created an account and am happy to assist in any way I can. My wiki skills are a little rusty, but let me know what I can get started on. Thank you. Msjjkim (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Parenthesis
I'm sorry, that was an accident. I didn't intend to vandalize anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
Noticed that you posted this link to an ARCA conversation on whether "Campus Rape" fell under the GG discretionary sanctions. Would this mean that the Campus sexual assault page should have a DS notice on the talk page? Currently, it doesn't, which I always thought was an oversight, but I didn't realize it had been discussed directly. What's the norm regarding applying that notice to pages?  talk 22:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly not sure. There has been at least one case where someone filed an AE request based on the GG DS on someone who hadn't edit anything GG related, only gender controversy related which failed as being out-of-scope. My interpretation of things at the moment is that the notice should only be on GG-related pages, but topic banned editors are then restricted from editing on those articles.. I think. I'm not 100% sure. — Strongjam (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird. Thanks. talk 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
For your note on AE. --Neil N  talk to me 16:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert question
Regarding this, is this reliable? Quote: "he published a network analysis indicating that GamerGate [...] did not fit the characteristics of an “online hate campaign.”". Nergaal (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More of a question for the article talk page. I personally wouldn't consider Breitbart a reliable source in any context, but that's more of a discussion for WP:RSN or the article talk page. Strongjam (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Response
I feel pretty stupid for doing that again. I hadn't made any edits for awhile so I forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting that! I was going back and forth and got confused with it. -- Dane 2007  talk 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I found the whole history on that paragraph confusing. I had to go back a week or so in the history to find the original sourced text. — Strongjam (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 8chan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mic. 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) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow this is embarassing!
I am very sorry that this happened, I am in no way anti-Semite, it is not my fault! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApcehCraft (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't fret, it happens. Unfortunately it seems the "Coincidence Detector" app is common on public computers. — Strongjam (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Connection of 8chan to Trump election image.
Hello Strongjam,

I have removed this section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8chan&type=revision&diff=738518168&oldid=737742702 as the three sources do not mention the website in question.

It mentions twitter and uses the term fringe alt-right website as places where polemic images of Hilary are being circulated, but how that specifically indicates that 8chan as one of the major players cannot be found. Searching any of those articles does not bring up results for the terms 8chan, imageboard or pol. Therefore I have removed the section since the sources do not support inclusion to this article.

Perhaps it is better fit for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 ?

142.245.193.1 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're searching skill are poor than. Then MIC report that the NYT times cites says "The image was previously featured on 8chan's /pol/ — an Internet message board for the alt-right". — Strongjam (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added some additional wording to indicate the timing of the image's appearance, as per the MIC source 142.245.193.1 (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Names Brackets
I didn't put Brackets there, apparently my extension did it on its own. And I'm not going to apologise for that, I have every right to know what religious groups are commenting around the internet. Why are they so upset about being identified as practicing Jewish to the rest of the world?

Concerning the rest of the edit, it stands, you are in no position to deem something unconstructive clearly given that I explained the case and you saw the edit was on-topic, choosing to ignore that and consider merely the name Schwartz at the bottom of the article in the source list.

Kaiserlicher Ritter (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your possible Gamegate involvement
It seems that you trying to hide Zoë Quinn's birth name for whatever reason. I believe you either have personal ties to her or you a sympathize with the people involved in Gamergate or you're somehow involved in Gamergate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satrain18 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstaccount1
Thanks for correcting it and giving me some help. I'm new to Wikipedia and hope I've done this correctly. -Firstaccount1. Sorry if I messed this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstaccount1 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 12 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Editing
My edits made to the subject Shaun King were correctly cited so there was no reason for any complaints to be made about me. Campbell301 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 April 2016‎ (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi, thankyou for reverting by revert at Margaret Atwood, i have also referenced it so that idiots editors:)) like me don't change it back.

Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC) 