Ithinkiplaygames

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Some baklava for you!

Your introduction on your userpage was nice to read. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The Expendables Go to Hell

Hi. I noticed you restored content I deleted in reference to this. I have voiced my concerns in greater detail about the comic in question on the talk page of it's own article. My issue is that the comic has been written by two rather infamous individuals, Chuck Dixon and Richard C Meyer, who acquired the license relatively recently, and have a small but vocal fanbase who have who have a history of promoting the POV of the rather unsavory political movement they are affiliated with. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for informing me. In that case, removal might be warranted until a more NPOV summary that addresses the creators' status as Comicsgate weirdos can be written up.Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The comic's own article cites a bleeding cool article that explicitly states that this is a comicsgate product, but the article itself conveniently forgets to mention that. But the article has this rather amusing statement Meyer, known online as Comics MATTER w/Ya Boi Zack, had announced this as a secret project in July 2019 on his YouTube channel, suggesting that it was written by one of his youtube subscribers. Dixon's own article mentions in passing that he collaborated with Vox Day, but seems to downplay the connection. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yikes. I think the comic definitely meets notability, but if anything, it might not be because of its connection to the Expendables license.Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Bottom Ten

The disambiguation page Bottom Ten includes only one entry (and I couldn't find any other articles to add). Since the purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers distinguish between similarly-named articles, Bottom Ten really isn't serving a useful purpose. It would probably be more helpful to readers if Bottom Ten simply redirected to ESPN's Bottom 10 - one less click for readers to get where they want to be. Leschnei (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Stampede

Hello
I tried to ping you about a new proposal here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Ithinkiplaygames. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 03:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

George Fitzhugh Edits

Hi, it appears you have reverted several good faith edits I made to the George Fitzhugh page, namely edits I made to correct parts of the page which inaccurately downplayed his racism, as well to give a more nuanced view on his position in relation to socialism (while he at one point favorably compared slavery to socialism, and said slavery could deliver what socialism promised, he also at one point said "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism: the former proposes to abolish negro slavery, the latter all kinds of slavery - religion, government, marriage, families, property - nay, human nature itself. Yet the former contains the germ of the latter, and very soon ripens into it; Abolition is Socialism in its infancy" and also said "Socialists, Communists, Anti-Renters, and a thousand other agrarian sects that have arisen in these countries, and threaten to subvert the whole social fabric" and this should be acknowledged to create a more accurate and fuller picture of his views.) The edits I made were backed with citations of Fitzhugh's own words, and were made in good faith to make the page more accurate and complete. I will be re-making similar edits, starting with the most indisputable ones relating to his racism, though i will be making changes to add more citations and quotes to hopefully meet your criteria for constructive edits. I will also be logging in to make these edits. Hopefully if you still have any issues with my additions and revisions we can discuss these issues until we can arrive at a compromise we are both satisfied with. 76.175.119.47 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm. I legitimately don't remember making those reverts. My apologies; looking back, they do seem to be good faith, constructive edits. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Chris Hurst (Virginia politician)

A note on the recent revert that you made that is under discussion at BLPN.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your rollback

You have no idea what the privation theory of evil is. That much is clear from just glancing at your profile. So, stop undoing what I'm an expert in (and you're not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:840:8681:9690:0:0:0:6C40 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I needlessly reverted your edit; the edit I happened to see in recent changes looked like unexplained content removal, and I clearly didn't review thoroughly enough before reverting. However, you don't have to be so rude in raising an objection. Remember: assume good faith. Everyone is editing for the betterment of Wikipedia, and reverts aren't meant as personal slights.Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

kitten for you

mow lol

Eatingbugs (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)