User talk:Zakkarum

GamerGate Draft Talk - Lead change proposal
As per WP:LEAD guidelines, the Gamergate controversy article should have the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view and the lead should be sourced as The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. And as far as I know there isn't any editorial consensus. '' Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.'' Since the topic is controversial, the lead should be extremely well sourced with reliable sourced. --Zakkarum (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added your statement to the talk page for you. Ping me if you need anything. FYI I have no problem with reasonable citations in the lede. It's just been discussed before and I want to make sure we get consensus to change it. — Strongjam (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, Strongjam. Zakkarum (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Draft Talk

 * Do note I'd discuss this in your page instead of reverting it if your page wasn't locked. --Zakkarum (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop edit warring of those citation needed tabs. You're at your WP:3RR. If you need to add something to the talk page about it just ping me and we'll figure it out. — Strongjam (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sent you a message at TheRedPenOfDoom's user talk Zakkarum, but Strongjam is right here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Zakkarum, it is not the place of Wikipedia to second guess the conclusions made by the sources it cites" That doesn't exempt the source. According to WP:TRUTH The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value and One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking. The source doesn't engage in fact-checking and it is effectively spreading a rumor, since the primary source is not in accordance with what the source claims. Using primary sources is not forbidden by the rules. At best the source is provenly biased. --Zakkarum (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not rumors. They are verified information printed by reputable news agencies. It is not Wikipedia's place to go "but they didn't say they were part of Gamergate". Journalists have made the connections themselves and it's not up to us to say anything different.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What reputable news agency doesn't fact-check, ? That's the requirement in the truth page to be considered reliable. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of note is that we don't say that they were from or part of Gamergate. We just say that her address was posted in the comments section, something verified by four highly reputable sources. — Strongjam (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still mentioned as harassment in her pic, and the whole paragraph, so if it's not implied it's biased towards that pPOV, and there's also the issue that the sources are not reliable, . --Zakkarum (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in relation to a post she made about GG. In fact if anything the article doesn't go as far as some of the sources in tying it to GG. Also, The Guardian, CNN, Washington Post and Time are all extremely high-quality sources. You're not going to get anywhere arguing that they're not. — Strongjam (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Who gets to decide that? A "high-quality source" posts a rumor (they base the thing off twitter) that's based on a lie. That doesn't seem like a reliable source, at least for that matter. At the very best they are just biased. It's in relation to a post she made about GG. and uses rumors and unreliable source as a source. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who gets to decide that?" Consensus of editors on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss the reliability of a source then WP:RSN is the place to do it. I won't recommend it though, I don't think you'll get very far disputing those sources. — Strongjam (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I will follow on that. The sources are not reliable, in this issue at least. --Zakkarum (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually,, according to the WP:3RR, shouldn't you be banned right now? --Zakkarum (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ? he only had 3 reverts, which is with-in policy. Editors don't usually get banned for violating that anyway. Reports get filed WP:AN3 here and preventive (but not punitive) temporary blocks are handed out if needed. — Strongjam (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA
You are an SPA unambiguously. However, that doesn't mean your opinions automatically get disregarded the moment you make them. Just be cautious of violating hidden guidelines such as WP:3RR, WP:SOAP, and WP:CIVIL. Keep your comments on point and support with guideline and policy. The editors trying to say that you are an SPA automatically means you can't edit this topic, they would be wrong. You become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED in 4 days. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to violate any of them, and I don't intend to. Thanks a lot for the info! --Zakkarum (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page
Please use my user talk page (User talk:EvergreenFir), not my user page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)