TheRealVordox

Welcome

Hello, TheRealVordox, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is important to follow our policy on content about living people

Our policy about about content about living people WP:BLP is quite strict and applies to all pages. Be aware that linking to non reliable sites that make inappropriate claims about living people is cause for being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. I'll read the comments of said sources as well to avoid the risk of such a instance. TheRealVordox (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Alert about Gamergate Discretionary sanctions

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased offsite forum to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An outside discussion of said article, especially in a debate currently on the talk page of the article you refer to, may give further thoughts, perspectives, improvements of said article in question. With that in mind I thought I could have an non-wikipedian debate somewhere else to avoid cluttering or "non-civil" occuring. However I see the fault of it increasing the likelyhood of more people coming into the debate if the people in question on the forums would be active wikipedian editors. Objective as well as non-objective editors could join and hopefully gain something of value. I got the understanding of said warning and I'll follow it from now.TheRealVordox (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Subject

I doubt you'll be banned for this, but you could have just used the users talk page instead and to avoid the sanction all together. — Strongjam (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The source of the conversation was being used in talk page where everyone can see what's being written in clear sight, and even ridiculing anyone that's a part of GamerGate since they are mixing up Quinnspiracy(About Zoe) and GamerGate(About Grayson) on their topic. It's not even a good part of any article building focus nor any way contributing to it's extension. But it's still there and it's still open in the talk page to continue that conversation while I got my contribution removed which is even worse. As for Sanctions, I'd rather be blunt and say I do not fear the repercussions of said sanctions if not for knowing that I am attempting to help progress the article, since that's the focus of Wikipedia. But that's my opinion on this.TheRealVordox (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Just a reminder that there are editing restrictions on this article and its talk page:

• Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed.

Since you have made only 75 edits, please do not add, change or delete content on these pages until your account meets these minimum requirements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: GamerGate

I've seen the article, and while it's a good source I'm trying to confirm the author before I cite it in any way. Right now not turning up anything for that name other than a Japanese musician who only had involvement with one game (Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter), yet has 16 games under his belt. Better be safe than sorry when dealing with the mob on the talk page after all :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured it might've been. That's why I said not to use it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Good call. It's a shame it's from the website VGChartz, I had some respect for their site. Seems it was misplaced. I did jump too fast and while skeptical I still should've "verifiability not truth.". Each day is a learning experience I guess. TheRealVordox (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)