User talk:ColorOfSuffering

• 1st New York Volunteer Engineer Regiment Want to see exactly what I need to push this lil' guy along to B-class. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Still start, I'm afraid, no enough references. The rule of thumb for B-class is at least one per paragraph.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to this editing game, but I'm glad to see someone else is as semi-neurotic as I am when it comes to maintaining NPOV in two sentences in a page about a mediocre comedian. Also, lovely user page. Godspeed out there. --RachulAdmas (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love it -- I think you did a great job, and that first edit you made to the Tosh article was perfectly

bold (even if it was reverted). I'm a terribly sporadic editor, and when I edit I often spend more time looking for sources, checking policy, and composing talk page responses than I do actually making the edit in question...which is why my "total edit" count is comparatively low. I also attempt to avoid hot-button articles that might provoke a conflict, but sometimes I can't help myself. Either way, I'm glad you decided to weigh in. Thanks for dropping by, and glad you've decided to start editing articles. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read this notification carefully:
A

Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's terrifying. It's like a perverted version of the

bold edits in the article space. What an absolute mess. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, ColorOfSuffering. Thanks for your post. To start off with, you were posting BLP-related material on the talk page of an article that is only peripherally related to the BLP subjects. Gamergate isn't really very important in relation to 4chan, believe it or not; it's just one more episode of dozens over the years, many of which have received publicity but many of which have long since been forgotten. None of the links you posted were really about 4chan, they were all about Gamergate, and 4chan was mentioned in some of them but was not the crux of the linked material. Your assessments of the links continuously repeated long-since-disproven allegations with your own comments such as X denies the allegation. This is not the same thing as calling it "false." Please note that the article about which you posted that analysis does not even mention 4chan. In fact, it is completely unclear why you posted that section to that particular article; 4chan is only one of dozens of websites affected by Gamergate. Just about all of those links had already been analysed in depth on the more immediate articles (i.e., the BLPs of the subjects and the Gamergate controversy article), so as interesting as your personal research may have been, it was a poor choice to link it to the article you chose. I'm going to assume good faith here and presume that it never occurred to you that after all these months nobody else had bothered to do this leg work.

I'm going to copy over this entire section to your talk page as well, and we can continue the discussion there if you would like. As the relevant arbitration case is just closing as I write, it's unclear to me exactly how to go about formally advising you that this topic is the subject of Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions in any number of ways (including the special BLP provisions, which is the basis for my having closed the section on the 4chan talk page). However, please consider yourself advised. Risker (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<note> I see that you received a formal notice above, while the article was still fully under community sanctions. Yes, I understand the hesitation. However, as a rule of thumb when jumping into a very controversial subject, it's usually best to read all the relevant articles and their talk pages and talk page histories to see what's already been resolved, what best fits where, and so on. Risker (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

weasel words

, which is why I opened the discussion. I was seeking a word that was more reflective of the majority of reliable sources, or failing that, just removing the value judgement altogether. As you say, I tried to look through the relevant Wikipedia articles and talk pages, but even though the allegations had been widely and thoroughly covered in a vast number of reliable sources, whenever the allegations were discussed in on-Wiki, the information was oversighted, and the "offending" editors were accused of violating BLP and (often) blocked, topic-banned, or even site-banned. This concerted effort made it impossible for me to see how to proceed with the discussion I wanted to have, and also made me frightfully nervous, so I took extra precautions to ensure I was well within the bounds of BLP. That's why I was disappointed when you stepped in and hatted the entire discussion.

I think this is a big problem with these sanctions. New editors are immediately treated with suspicion and placed into a camp -- proGG or antiGG. I am neither, though I'm sure my first post in the subject area was enough evidence for most of the involved editors. I want to help, as per the ArbCom recommendations, but when I attempted to conduct what I considered to be a thorough and fair analysis of an ongoing content dispute, you almost immediately shut it down. As you say, none of the articles I posted are specifically about 4Chan (though 9 of the 15 do mention 4Chan), but the reference used in the article space is not about 4Chan either (this one), and my research was about that claim. I considered moving it to a different article, but I wasn't really interested in discussing the veracity of the allegations; I only wanted to discuss how the were represented in reliable sources. In addition, I was nervous that a discussion of the allegations in more central GamerGate articles would be immediately oversighted and I'd be blocked (as the two previously-mentioned editors had been). I'm here to help, but the threat of BLP-related blocks has made me nervous. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a pretty good explanation of the basic problem at Talk:4chan. The key point is that an article at Wikipedia has no "author" so common practice in many publications is not applicable here—if a columnist in a magazine writes an opinion piece they can (within legal limits) use whatever words they want and readers will understand that those words are the opinion of that author. At Wikipedia, there is no attributed author behind a phrase like "unsubstantiated allegation", so the procedure here is to stick to the facts—if someone is convicted of murder an article may describe them as a murderer, but until that time they are not an "unsubstantiated murderer" or any other kind of murderer; they may be on trial for murder, but they are not a murderer. Likewise, an article does not amplify an unsubstantiated claim because mud sticks and articles do not "allege" that someone has done a bad thing—no claim has been proven (the opposite has occurred), so "false claim" is correct. Dozens of good-faith editors have arrived at Wikipedia wanting to tell the world about gamergate, so discussions like this cannot continue until everyone is satisfied, and people will have to accept that that's how Wikipedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

FAQ

: "Material that is simply offensive or obscene, even if it's grossly so, is generally not covered by our oversight policy." The allegations, discussed in detail by the New York Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian, can not possibly fit into the strict oversight limits, yet that's how the tool has been used with regard to these specific allegations. It's almost like there's a different set of guidelines for this one aspect of the GamerGate narrative, and there's really no way for an uninvolved editor to know the limits because they are amorphous and inconsistently applied. This is especially frustrating for new, uninvolved editors because it was a major instigator for the movement (as evidenced by the wide coverage), and yet no one is allowed to talk about it?

And thank you for your explanation about the "basic problem" with replacing or removing the word false. Truly, it's a good discussion, and one that I really wanted to have on the article space rather than tucked away in my awesome

you better watch out

" list.

Lastly, your analogy about murderers being called a murderer in the article space is not at all applicable. A conviction of a crime meets a strict evidentiary legal standard. There's even a clear-cut

words to watch list), calling something "false" is engaging in the dispute and making a judgement not supported by the sources, whereas "baseless" is clarifying that the well-publicized allegations were made against the subject with zero evidence. I feel that it is an important distinction. I would say that "false" asserts that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, when in actuality the only evidence is: 1) Grayson did not write a review, and 2) all of the accused parties deny the allegations. To use your "murderer" analogy, no criminal court would ever convict someone based on that level of evidence. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears that you really want to use Wikipedia to tell the world about gamergate, and you are prepared to devote serious amounts of time to one word—a word that you seem to think is technically correct but which should not be used because it overstates what is provable. Perhaps your efforts should be focused on

Gamergate controversy which is the main article for the topic, and where "false allegations" appears. However, bear in mind that the text has been debated for several months so people may not want to rehash the whole argument again. I won't continue at the moment because I find it offensive that people want to "neutrally" slant the articles so readers get the impression that lots of good folk believe there are serious allegations and, who knows, those allegations may be correct. And after all, where is the proof that there was any harassment, and even there was, let's be neutral because there is no proof that any harassment came from gamergaters, and so on and on for every word in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, that went south pretty quick.

Consider that maybe, just maybe I was trying to equitably resolve an edit conflict that resulted in two uninvolved editors being blocked...but sure, it's just a possible that I'm desperately trying to evangelize for GamerGate. Well played, my friend -- nice talking to you. Also, the months-long debate just happened to take place between editors who did such a "great job" that ArbCom had to step in and topic-ban about a dozen of them, so you'll excuse me if I'm not immediately taken in by their conclusions. But whatever. If I can't even get editors to budge on a single goddamn word in a semi-related article, what possible hope to I have to win hearts and minds at the main article? It's ridiculous. Maybe I'm just not cut out for this shit. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi ColorOfSuffering, you may be interested that I've closed and archived

ping in reply) 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

*snrk* Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :D

Heh, yeah, I couldn't help myself. That's the kind of crap I write that gets me immediately (and completely appropriately) hatted. I think I've made a decent case, but there are quite a few entrenched editors on the article, so any change to the high profile parts of the article are bound to meet stiff resistance (apparently), no matter how well-reasoned the arguments. I feel another RFC coming down the pipe if I can stay interested long enough to keep pushing for a change. I'm always locked in a heated battle with

WP:DGAF. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! Please don't use edit summaries to insult other editors, as you did at the Gamergate talk page. This[6] edit summary ("I wrote a bunch of stuff on the Gamergate talk page today, mom. Are you proud of me?!?!?" "No, son. No one is proud of you.") is more than a bit uncivil, and I don't know what I've said to invoke your ire. Let's all be friends, okay? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth:What on earth makes you think I was talking about other editors? I was being self-deprecating, my dear friend. My goodness, you truly need to assume good faith here. It was me trying to come up with an edit summary for each of my talk page entries, and the shame my mother would feel if I ever had to explain this to her. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange, but I'm not seeing a violation of

Dreadstar ☥ 04:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Understood, but with all due respect we are editing an encyclopedia, not curing cancer. Nearly every article on Wikipedia involves real people with families, friends, and feelings -- what makes Gamergate any different? I approach each article discussion in the same way, with a careful mind to

take some kind of administrative action against me for having a sense of humor about something so serious as an article regarding sexism in video game culture, then that is your decision. I'll just be over here, pining for the fjords. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your contributions to the GamerGate article today. It was really refreshing to see someone citing RS in this way :-) Racuce (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious! Thanks! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what?

Before we progress any further, gather around the Cosby recliner, children, because it's anecdote time.

One day, as I was listlessly browsing YouTube, a notification appeared in my Google+ box: "[Kitschy pseudonym]: Commented on, +1'd your comment on [Video]". Consumed, as I was, by adolescent boredom, I partook out of pure curiosity...and was met with this:

"Old king cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he....". The rest of the comment, I forget. Which is fine, because that little preface is what we'll be discussing today.

I don't quite think I can adequately convey just how fatuously discordant that sentence was with the rest of the comment. It would be like opening up a super-mart by first setting it on fire. Sure, it creates quite a spectacle, but what are you left with in the aftermath?

Ashes.

I began to hate that commenter almost instantaneously. It was such a non-sequitur, such a faux pas. It was ludicrous.

Why do I bring this up? Chiefly because I felt like it, frankly.

With that tangent thusly divulged, let's address something marginally more salient, I suppose.

I see you've been...'fighting the good fight', as it were. Against a very...shall we say...obdurate opposition?

That's enthusing to know--truly, it is. You have my...'support', for what little good it will do. Hit me up sometime--I'm beginning to enjoy conversing with you. Ghost Lourde (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nearly as gifted at word talking as you are...I mean I can be, it just takes a lot longer and I'd be leaning far too heavily on thesaurus.com. Like I said, I'm not sure if you're completely serious or not; this could easily be Horsey Surprise meets

battle-related metaphor because it will no doubt be misconstrued, and in no way does it represent my own approach to editing this article, but I'll leave it anyway as I think the comparison is apt). I'll probably drop away too, eventually. I don't have a great track record staying interested while editing in contentious spaces. Sigh. If only you had cut your teeth on a different emotionally-charged article space then come back here armed with an iron-clad grasp of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP we might have made some serious headway, but alas, as some guy once said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Hope you stick around, and if you need me to chime in and help with any issues you come across in your new career of editing non-GamerGate articles I'll be more than happy to weigh in. We prolix, palaverous, pleonastic, periphrastic pedagogues ought to stick together. Illegitimi non carborundum, and all that. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, that last sentence. Or, well, second to last sentence, as it were, but I'm just going to 'last sentence' for the sake of brevity. Well, ostensibly now, anyway. In any case, it reminds me of perhaps the best alliteration I have ever committed to paper: "Oh, yes. I'm a licentious, lecherous, lubricious, lascivious, libidinous, lewd, and lustful libertine." Moreover, I wrote that quite casually. Such are the benefits of possessing such an inordinately large lexicon--you can simply browbeat people with your vocabulary. The best lack conviction? Doggerel. Aphoristic doggerel. Hasn't this man ever read Fahrenheit 451? Anyway, I assure you, my account is not satirical--though I certainly don't blame you for supposing that it is. Additionally, one admin proposed that the sanction be lessened afterwards--apparently, not to much avail, however, as it has yet to be heeded in any respect. This isn't the first time my vulgar volubility has caused me difficulties, to be certain, but I maintain that the sanction into which all of this culminated was rather...draconian. Censorious, even. Still, 'not here to build an encyclopedia'....say that one more time, and it'll become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I'll reorient my ambitions towards mopping this mendacious floor with your daffy little head. Bah. In any case, I do hope that you can succeed where I have failed. Something something, assessino, something something, Jade Raymond can't do research for beans, something something, hey, look, we're in Italy, so let me teach you some italian expletives. Molto bene. Ghost Lourde (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction lifted per agreement described below. Zad68 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} The following sanction now applies to you: You are banned from the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, for three months. You have been sanctioned for trolling: [7][8][9]. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Zad68 03:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Oh. "Trolling." How interesting. You see

personal attack against the other editors on the talk page? Didn't feel like taking administrative action there? Curious. I know, I know, "Go ahead and appeal yadda yadda". Unfortunately only certain users have the privilege of using satire in their talk page posts, or commenting on the behavior of other editors. Everyone else gets the "zero warning topic ban" treatment, which is then upheld by the administrative allies monitoring WP:AE. It's now my turn to churn through the futile appeals process for the honor of contributing to the broken Gamergate article space. I'm really looking forward to it! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This does seem a tad bit selective when you consider the Gamergate topic is pretty much a hub for edgy sarcastic trolling, and I think a caution would probably have served better. See some recent examples of people engaged in trolling without sanctions: [10][11] (including insults to the autistic), [12][13] (has boasted of purposefuly being engaged in disruptive trolling on reddit),[14][15] (should really know better).

talk) 16:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't agree more. Sarcasm? Yes. Facetiousness? Sure. Satire? Boy I hope so. But disruptive trolling? It did seem a tad inconsistent. But it appears that the sanction is being overturned so long as I adhere strictly to the talk page guidelines and promise to only say the things that I mean. I wouldn't mind seeing this rule applied to all editors in the talk page, but I suppose someone had to be first, right? Thanks you for your message. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColorOfSuffering, per your agreement here, I am lifting your topic ban under the condition that, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, you commit to adhering to the guidelines at

Totally! I know how to use a thesaurus too, but I do appreciate the tip! Notable is listed on

IAC/InterActiveCorp. Crazy, right? So let's dig in a bit. While synonyms are similar, you can't just swap them out willy-nilly, you silly-billy! Like, we wouldn't just swap notable out with other synonyms like serious, evident, notorious, or rare, would we? That'd be just bonkers! When a person is "notable," they are labelled as such because they are "worthy of note." Prominence does not always carry a similar worthiness value, and typically only implies that the subject is "readily noticeable." For example, you would never have described Snooki as a notable celebrity, right? But she was certainly prominent at one time. A mountain peak can be prominent, but that doesn't mean it's always notable. Does that make sense? Or, to go a different route, it might help to dig into the etymology a bit. Prominent is from the Latin prominere meaning "jut or stand out, be prominent, overhang." While notable is from the Latin notabilis, meaning "noteworthy, extraordinary." I'm glad you see no difference between the two words, because that was the objective -- to remove the puffery inherent in the word "notable." If you have any future confusion about words, or heck if you just really need a really good laugh, feel free to drop by my talk page again and ask! I'm more than happy to help. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Lol, quite the response. Anyway, it's a small thing, I see no difference between the words and it made me chuckle. I didn't mean to argue, just wanted to share my gaiety. —

Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. lol indeed -- I share your bemusement! What convivial joviality! What...uh...hang on...mirthful jocosity! Such fun times! ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a veritable font of sanguinity. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]