User talk:PeterTheFourth

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

June 2016

Hi Peter. You appear to have broken the 1RR restriction on Gamergate with these two reverts within 24 hours: [1] [2]. I'm sure it was unintentional. A self-revert would be the easiest way to settle it. Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Per WP:EW- "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.". I don't believe the first diff you linked is a revert- it's a change to wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both edits removed the following text:

"...began principally in the area of video game journalism"

Neither replaced it in substance.

You're welcome to consult more senior editors but the case is straightforward. If necessary I'll link AE requests you filed and/or participated in concerning similar reverts, showing your understanding these edits fall within the definition of "revert" and the scope of the restriction, but they'll come in an enforcement request and I'd prefer to keep this collegial. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll phone a friend- The Wordsmith, do you believe the first diff linked by James J. Lambden is a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They both remove some of the same phrasing. While some of the content is different, they both are substantially a revert by the standards used here, and Arbcom Findings of Fact, AE and AN3 have sanctioned for similar edits. I do believe that it was an accident, and not in bad faith. To avoid giving anyone ammunition to cause drama, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert as a gesture of good faith. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being reasonable. It is rare in this topic area, as I'm sure you're aware. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia

Thanks for your edits to List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia. If you follow the edit history you'll see I have been trying to weed out non-reliable accounts and uncritical acceptance of the fringe view that real ghosts exist in all of these places, but another editor has been blind reverting me. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters

Not sure how to create a new section for Ghostbusters/July 2016, so I'll just use this one. The two sources given basically say "Critics give lots of legitimate reasons why they don't like the idea of the new Ghostbusters and think that it will suck, but we're pretty sure it's just because they hate women." I just wanted to discuss this with you before the GB article gets even more messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs)

@MegaSolipsist: To create a new section, either click the 'new section' button next to the 'edit' button, or tag it as such- == Section name ==. I think the best place to discuss your problem with the sources used for the statement (and your preferred alternative) is the talk page for the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE request closed

I have closed an arbitration enforcement request that you filed regarding Ranze. The result is that no action was taken since the topic ban had expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, you're not at fault for mistakenly believing that the ban was still in force. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why are you a dumb Mutherfucker? You answered no to the following Shouldn't there be a mention of Jones own use of racial slurs during and prior to the exchange? Who the fuck do you think you are just stating no, like you're the fucking Boss of Wikipedia? Jones is a racist, that's a fact. Did you even bother to read her tweets? You're such a dumb Asshole. 76.123.200.158 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]