Kainedamo

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

DS Alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jorm (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You guys won't even let me have my say on my own talk page

It's not your private blog. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:C02B:D270:4669:E985 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep a record. Kainedamo (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

In which I try to reason with wikipedia janitors about GamerGate

My latest attempts:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#%22Reliable_sources%22_aren%27t_reliable_and_plenty_has_happened_that_they_don%27t_cover https://archive.ph/Nnrze

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Artw#GamerGate_closed_discussion https://archive.ph/VU9p6#GamerGate_closed_discussion

Three points: 1. The entire paragraph about Capitol Hill should be removed from the GamerGate wiki page, because it doesn't make any sense, and is wildly off topic from GamerGate. None of the sources provided show a case with actual evidence to support the insane proposition put forward in that paragraph.

2. Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project is currently 1369 days late in delivering a product to people who collectively paid $85,448. This simple fact should be included somewhere in the GamerGate wiki page. If the "reliable sources" aren't covering that simple fact, it speaks volumes about "reliable sources" and "consensus". IE, that anybody who thinks that the GG wiki page relies on a consensus of reliable sources is kidding themselves, when big heckin' gaps of information with the potential to change people's minds about the topic aren't included anywhere. It speaks to the weakness of the Wikipedia architecture. Instead of relying on CNN or PBS, you could just use original sources, like the kickstarter page for the project, or original research like the kickscammed article, but the rules or at least how they're interpreted, forbid it, therefore key information is missing from the page, therefore wikipedia is not fit for its purpose. Which surely is to actually give people accurate information, instead of baffling them with propaganda like "gamergate led to capitol hill".

3. The Ferguson/Glasgow GamerGate data study published in Psychology of Popular Media should be included in the GamerGate wiki page. https://www.christopherjferguson.com/GamerGate.pdf

What's the obsession with the Kickstarter? I really don't see how it's relevant to the GG page, and frankly, it's not that relevant to the Zoe Quinn page either. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:C02B:D270:4669:E985 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It makes the case that it's about ethics. One of the original figures whom along with Nathan Grayson had the appearance of unethical impropriety. The ethics consumer revolt known as GamerGate also pointed out how certain journalists rallied around Zoe with defenses and marketing, opening the door for further unethical impropriety, such as screwing people out of their cash. Video games. Ethics. GamerGate is an ethics consumer revolt. It's more relevant than much of the junk currently on the wiki page. Kainedamo (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Simply railing against other editors and accusing them of "cronyism" is not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Every suggestion and challenge to the editors I make is in the hopes that one day the page will be improved. You ever play Metal Gear Solid 2? You remember the speech The Patriots gave? Wikipedia jannies! Kainedamo (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ValarianB (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kainedamo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I debated back and forth in my mind whether or not to spell out the point of what follows, unfortunately I think I have to because I think some may be missing the context. I questioned a source about dogwhistles. It was Ashley Peckford's claim that KiA posters talking about freedom of speech was a dogwhistle for far right extremism. Freedom of speech is not a far right extremist dogwhsitle. There are no shortage of sources which defend freedom of speech as a principle. I'm banned because I don't agree with the narrative of the GG page, because I think it was about ethics, and because I think your guys concept of dogwhistles is a broad-brush that paints people as guilty of the worst kind of extremist ideology, when there's every reason to think otherwise. In what follows, I am John Stuart Mill, the wikipedia editors are the Patriot AI from Metal Gear Solid 2. :Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument; but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process. :It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warrant their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonisation of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a “devil’s advocate.” The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the mean time we may rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it. - On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. (COPYRIGHTED TEXT COPY AND PASTE DELETED) Kainedamo (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests aren't vehicles for continuation of arguments. This is not an unblock request, it's a wall-of-text polemic that extends the problematic behavior you've been displaying. If this happens again, you may lose talkpage access. If the template syntax allows, I will collapse this argument, since it's not germane to any useful unblock request. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just a note to say you made a slight syntax error. You want to add "unblock" at the beginning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Any repetition of copyright violation, or abuse of the unblock process to post a polemic will result in loss of talkpage privileges. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)