User talk:The most effectual Bob Cat

Gamergate sanctions alert
EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Controversy Restrictions
Hi there! The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page is restricted to being edited by editors who have had an account for at least 30 days (not a problem in your case) and have at least 500 edits. Per this restriction, I have reverted your change to the article. Feel free to ping me or leave a question on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Anita Sarkeesian has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. -- Irn (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is 100% accurate and cited. If "In 2012" activities is appropriate, so is "In 2015". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue regarding the merits of your addition, please use the article's talk page. I was referring only to your misleading edit summary. -- Irn (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you came here to tell me the edit summary was misleading, tell me how you were misled. I can't read your mind. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning
It looks like you are edit warring here. I would also note that calling someone reverting you "vandalism" is uncivil, as his actions were clearly not vandalism, even if you disagree with them. According to WP:BRD, you need to stop adding the material back in, and instead use the talk page of the article to build consensus. Otherwise, you open yourself up for sanctions, including getting blocked. Please note that this article is covered under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed you aren't even qualified to edit on that article, which is why your edit wasn't allowed. Only experienced editors are allowed to edit articles that relate to the Gamergate controversy.  If you attempt to do so again, you will be blocked.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, With apologies to for the interruption on their Talk page. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the comment Only experienced editors are allowed to edit articles that relate to the Gamergate controversy. What exactly is meant by this? And on what basis is the assertion made?
 * Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit"; editors should not be sanctioned (or threatened with sanctions) for making good faith, non-disruptive edits to Articles. Appreciate any advice you might be able to offer. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is lumped in with a bunch of other articles under an Arbitration case known as Gamergate. The ruling there was that only editors with 500 real article edits could edit these articles.  It was done to prevent all the hit and run vandalism and infighting with these articles.  It also empowered admin to pretty do whatever they felt was necessary to protect articles that clearly fall under this umbrella.  As he has been warned above with the Discretionary Sanctions banner, this means any admin can topic ban, block up to a year or use any other type of sanction necessary to preserve the editing environment.  It is rather sweeping.  These types of restrictions are only uses in areas where the disruption has been so great, that it trumps letting new users edit.  If you go to the talk page of any article covered under the Gamergate controversy umbrella, you will see a lot of templates with links to explain it further. On the vast majority of articles, it is still possible for any editor to edit.  Only the most controversial (there are other Arb cases over the years) require special treatment. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for the prompt & extensive response. I appreciate your concerns w.r.t this topic area; and agree wholeheartedly that users should tread carefully, especially given the Discretionary Sanctions. There are, however, a number of inaccuracies which would directly relate to this editor's contributions, and those of many others.
 * The WP:ARBGG decision did not impose a limit of "500 real article edits" on articles within the topic area. A limit of "500 edits (in any namespace) and 30 days account age" was set by an uninvolved admin under the discretionary sanctions; but this page level restriction covers only the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk pages. It does not currently extend to other pages. Details of the restriction can be seen & confirmed at WP:DSLOG. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I thought it covered closely related pages as well (of which this is obviously one), but I don't see that on her talk page.  DS isn't my forte, or I would have read up more closely I suppose.  But the general gist is what it is and the remedies available are the same for all pages, hence the warnings.  I managed to avoid the entire Gamergate controversy myself, and think Anita's is the only page I watch from that. Of course, this begs the question, if you knew all this, why are you asking me? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do completely concur with your warnings to the editor about edit warring, and also about the discretionary sanctions, and that this is probably not the best place for novice editors; and advise to pay them heed.
 * On the last question, it is a simple case of "I know what I know; but I don't know what I don't know"; I considered that there might have been additional restrictions recently placed that I was unaware of. Your first response provided confirmation that we were both thinking of the same things, so it was quick to confirm the current status of those (through WP:DSLOG).
 * I do think it possible (likely?) that the restriction will be extended at some stage; but that is just my own speculation. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, the controversy will die down, as time tends to do, and it won't be necessary. When something is hot, admin tend to get ham-fisted with DS, and justifiably so.  It gets out of hand so fast, good faith editors are driven away.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to a ping from on my User Talk page (and ping ), the 500/30 restriction is, at this time, applied only to the Gamergate controversy article itself, its Talk page and its subpages.  In case there's confusion as to what a "subpage" is, see Subpage, which has the definition I'm talking about.  Linked or related pages aren't included in the 500/30 restriction, as of yet.  But, if convincing evidence can be brought that shows that a related page is having chronic problems from a series of low-experience accounts, it can be applied to those pages too.   14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term vandalism on Wikipedia
Please note that the word vandalism is a term of art on Wikipedia, and not just a synonym for an edit one disagrees with. You've already been notified that great care is needed in editing biographies especially those covered by the discretionary sanctions related to the Gamergate arbitration. Please take more care and try to avoid actions and language like this, which are likely to unnecessarily make the editing atmosphere more hostile. --TS 19:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You should tell me what was wrong with my EDIT, which I worked on for a considerable time and with the utmost care. I am not an "inexperienced editor" as others have accused me of, I have at least 10,000 edits over the past decade. always as IP, often reverting vandalism. People who destroy another editor's good work are vandals, period. Again, what was wrong with my edit? The only hostility so far has been by the deleter. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He is telling you what I told you above, you don't call someone's edit "vandalism" unless it fits the criteria at WP:VANDAL. Doing so very often can, and will, get you blocked.  It is incivil.  If you want to argue about the edit, do so on the talk page of the article itself.  Continuing to revert on a Gamergate type article will get you in trouble.  Your edit might be fine, but according to WP:BRD, you need to go get consensus for it since it has been reverted.  These are hotly edited articles, under Arb care, so you either exercise caution or you end up drawing sanctions.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dennis, you said I cannot even edit the talk page of that article! So, let's discuss it here. How is adding one sentence about more current events "Not minor, hardly relavant." as the deleter so elegantly put it? The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Dennis does correctly summarise what I and others are trying to say.


 * It's not your fault, but you have parachuted into one of the most closely watched parts of Wikipedia. --TS 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Your warning about the use of the term should be withdrawn. Content was removed for just that purpose.The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And yes, you can edit both the talk and regular article, per the correction above. What you can't do is keep reverting, or you risk sanctions.  TS is right, these articles are hotbeds of problems, so the threshold to get blocked is very low.  You have been warned.  3x now.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not "keep reverting" anything, I reverted once. I have not "been warned 3 times", unless you count your erroneous assertion that this account cannot edit the article and talk pages as 2 warnings. Please do not write things on my talk page that are not factual. That was a total of 4 misstatements of fact you made here today, so I feel like you are attacking me for no good reason. You still have not addressed what was wrong with the edit. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have several people here saying you should exercise caution when editing Gamergate-related articles. You can go to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015 and see the lengthy list of editors who have received topic bans and indefinite blocks because of the contentiousness of this area.
 * These editors are not personally attacking you, they are warning you! Trouble ahead! Editors with more experience than you have received sanctions because of the volatility of these articles and Tony and Dennis are saying, multiple times, to please be more careful. If you choose to not pay attention to them or argue with them, that's up to you. But you've been warned, that's all they are saying. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Liz, you are wikistalking me, please stop. This is not the first time you have magically showed up. I made a proper minor edit and I still have not heard why anyone wants to keep recent events from that article. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with your initial edit was that you marked it as a minor edit. 67.49.237.137 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, first I was told the edit summary was misleading, then I was told I was not allowed to edit that page, then I was told it was not a minor edit, even though it was one sentence. My impression is that people are looking for excuses, as they have done on previous edits of mine. There was nothing wrong with my edit, it was factual, npov, and cited. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits
Just an FYI that removing external links (even when dead) is never a minor edit (see Help:Minor.) Nothing wrong with your edit besides that, the link was dead and should have been updated or removed. — Strongjam (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Deep Impact (film)
Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in citations. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb does not say citing IMdb lists of credits are an inappropriate use; they might be disputed, but they are not specifically addressed. Nonetheless, your revert of my edit was noticed by Strongjam, who is clearly wikistalking me, and he found a death notice to cite. Amazing how he just happened to edit another article for the first time shortly after I did, eh?
 * While I obviously don't think wiki-stalking's a cool practice, if Strongjam is improving articles in the process I don't really see the problem... If it's a problem for you though, WP:ANI is right over there. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I offended or upset you in any way. Your user talk page is on my watchlist because I left you a note previously, which is how I came to notice the article. This is also how I noticed that the WP:RS/IMDb shortcut was broken. — Strongjam (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Randi Lee Harper


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Randi Lee Harper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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. KSF T C 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Iranian public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of Iranian public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

March 2018
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Gamergate controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit at 1984 New York City Subway shooting
Hello! I just wanted to flag that I reverted your edit here, as Bernhard Goetz is a redirect that links to the page—1984 New York City Subway shooting.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Peter Daszak
Your recent editing history at Peter Daszak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 03:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know
You can't slander the dead. DS (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)