User talk:GeneralHamster

Welcome!

Hello, GeneralHamster, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

GeneralHamster, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Steam Deck has been reverted.
Your edit here to Steam Deck was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.vgchartz.com/article/455068/report-steam-deck-ships-over-1-million-units/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello, I'm GA Melbourne. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rupert Murdoch have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeneralHamster! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. Also see the WP:BRD policy.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of video games considered the best, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games considered the best, you may be blocked from editing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and threaten me just because you don't agree, I have good reason for including NV on the all time greatest list - there's the minimum 6 references on there where it's cited amongst top scores / influential lists. I re-read the FAQ and agree - yes, for now - DMC5 and GOW Ragnarok don't yet meet the criteria, but FO NV certainly does. GeneralHamster (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I "don't agree"—I don't have an opinion about the game—it's that it simply doesn't meet the criteria. Most of the references you've provided are not "best games of all time" lists, and some are unreliable. As it stands, Fallout: New Vegas is currently on three lists. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes vandalism. Just because you disagree with my content does not qualify it as vandalism, and I will not back down just because someone tells me to. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but you should "back down" when guidelines and consensus tell you to. Your edits are disruptive. I suggest you engage in the talk page and gain a consensus before continuing to edit war. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Hi GeneralHamster! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Closhund (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, didn't realise it was an issue. Can you clarify maybe what defines meaning? Is that including adding photos etc? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a firm rule, but because adding a picture is something that someone might object to, adding pictures is probably never minor. It's adding content. Moving a picture slightly might be minor.

The reason minor edits exist is to allow people to filter the edits they see to remove the non-controversial, simple ones. A cleaner view of edit history. So it's important they be non-controversial. I would say most of the edits you've marked as minor are not minor as evidenced by many of them being reverted. It's safe to not mark an edit as minor even if it might be, but the reverse is frowned upon. Cheers. Closhund (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could I be blocked for inappropriately marking an edit as minor? Or is this just the risk of attracting the ire of a few meticulous wikipedes? I'll keep in mind either way. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games considered the best, you may be blocked from editing. To further clarify why your edit was reverted: of your 19 references, two are unreliable, five are "best of the decade" lists, six are "best RPGs" lists, two require a discussion first, and two aren't actually lists. Fallout: New Vegas still sits at four of the six necessary lists as outlined atop the article's talk page. Please let me know if I can clarify this further. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruption. Take it to arbitration. I have spoken. (this was meant to be a Mandalorian reference but in retrospect I realise it kinda seems.... edgy, sorry) GeneralHamster (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm afraid you haven't really spoken; you simply revert without explanation, despite my several attempts at explaining the situation to you. Please read the criteria atop the article's talk page. I hope you choose to engage in conversation before reverting again. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, quick one here my friend - I thought the criteria had been met? GeneralHamster (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I'm afraid. The criteria (see the FAQ here) requires each game to be included on at least six "best games of all time" lists (i.e. not "best RPGs" or "best games of the 2010s") from separate publications. New Vegas is getting closer (currently at four) but somehow it's not quite there yet. I imagine it won't take much longer for two more publications to include it. If you come across more lists that you believe fit the criteria, please start a discussion on the talk page so they can be assessed. I hope that makes sense. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is inherently a problem with the nature of media, because of the way video games have diverged over the years. I mean it's a hot potato, because FO3 is a somewhat disputed title - some hate it, some love it. I'm between, FO3 introduced me to the franchise and I think it deserves to be there, but I also think FONV deserves that title as it does stand apart story wise. I won't bore you with details but I do wish Bethesda/Zenimax had given Obsidian more time....

Just finding articles that explicitly list it in "best of X" rather than "best of RPG" is a pain in the ass. Ah well. GeneralHamster (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, and I'm sure most people who played New Vegas agree it deserves a spot on the list too. I think when it comes to games like this, the publications tend to limit themselves to choose one game from the series, and New Vegas gets the short straw. But I think it'll see more of a "comeback" soon; a recent list from GQ ranked it at 66 (only a bit behind Fallout 3 at 59), and that was based on a survey of 200+ people in the industry, so it has the love. It won't be long before it hits six lists, in my opinion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a little combative before. I guess I took your statement the wrong way. Will work to be better! GeneralHamster (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for taking the time to discuss this. Hope to see your name 'round these parts more! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhain, would you mind giving me a hand, friend? I have been blocked for reasons that do not seem very clear to me, all of my contributions have been reverted. This includes 2 articles which I had created and other editors had made amendments to. It seems highly unfair to destroy this work. I would be grateful if these could be reinstated. BattleBit Remastered and Sandbox (video game) are my two primary concerns. GeneralHamster (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:No Nazis. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is actually a genuine belief among Neo-Nazis (or at least the pople I've been around) that there's a non-white conspiracy to cause Global Warming. I wasn't joking. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the essence of the essay. Belief in weather modification by Other People is not on the same level as denying Other People the right to exist, which is the core issue that makes them incompatible with this encyclopedia project. A recitation of loony beliefs that may accompany bigotry is beside the point.. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Outwood Academy Newbold. Tacyarg (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, can you back off a little instead of coming in with both barrels? I suggest you change your tone instead of coming in with no regard for WP:AGF GeneralHamster (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies if tone was inappropriate - but I don't understand why you have added unsourced information to this article? I accept you are a former student of this school, but you are making an allegation about someone without providing sources. I did look yesterday when I reverted this change by an IP editor, and could not find a source to back it up. The reference given was dead so I added an archive link, but that does not verify this specific claim. Tacyarg (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough - just getting the warning sign and commentary of vandalism got me riled up. Which section of information are you disputing, that the staff were all suspended overnight without explanation, or that students were excluded for making allegations? GeneralHamster (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg This is a blocked sock, just fyi. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. This is not correct, as I have been an active user since December '22 and prior to that have intermittently made IP edits over the years on my travels. I last created an account on wikipedia circa 2015, but I do not remember the account name and never took it seriously back then. It may be worth disclosing - I frequently use a corporate VPN service as I edit wikipedia during my lunch breaks & spare time. So if there are other blocked accounts associated with my address, I would like to stress that I am sharing a range and carrier with others. I would be happy to have a conversation to prove this if required.

Also - I am very disappointed that you have seen fit to delete the two articles that I had entered. Surely, this is counterproductive to the project? BattleBit Remastered especially, as other editors had contributed to these, which does not make sense. This is taking a guilty until proven innocent approach, which I do not approve of. Please can this be corrected immediately? Also, I did go to IRC to ask for reason why this was done, and the response was to kick me and tell me I should wait for a response here. I am happy to work with people here, but I think I have reasonably acted in good faith since I fully committed to the project late last year.

I am not going to lie, this makes me very angry and frustrated, as I spent significant time and effort working towards improving and adding new content and do not think it appropriate that someone has arbitrarily smeared it all away without having the human decency to come and speak with me or give me a chance to prove otherwise. I am going to keep calm about this, but surely you should not operate on a policy of guilty until proven innocent. Please respond here, and allow me to respond accordingly and we will go from there. GeneralHamster (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you're almost certainly Zombiedude101z. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am rewriting this appeal because that seemed sensible to do it with a cooler head. I am not the user stated above. I am me. I would like an explanation of why people think otherwise, and how I can prove that I am not another user. I am happy to point to my travel / mobile service provider, or the corporate VPN service which I use as part of my day to day work bearing in mind that I often contribute during my lunch breaks. These are both services shared with other people. Although I did have a brief clash with Rhain where we eventually settled things, I can also point to contributions such as those made to the Garry's Mod and Zen 2 pages, as well as such as the creation of articles such as Sandbox (video game) and BattleBit Remastered among other works as proof of good faith activity. The latter two were actually deleted, before other users saw this, questioned the sensibility of such a decision and stepped in to correct that. I still don't understand that, but I am somewhat more at peace knowing they have been restored. I don't think "no" is an acceptable answer for either party here. I would like a clear, concise breakdown of where the problem is and what I can do to correct that. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your explanation that you are using a VPN that you might share with other people is not persuasive. Confirmed sockpuppetry through various accounts, including KCIDGODSKCUSALMAY and HailHortler44 as well as logged-out block evasion. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

UTRS appeal #77455

is closed. Checkuser block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to UTRS appeal #40020--Zombiedude101 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra you say to contact the ArbCom, and say what? What is it I need to do to prove I am not another user?

I am moving soon (just found out this week) so will presumably be changing to a different dynamic/static IP range. What are my options there - should I appeal from there with this account, or am I now expected to start a new account since the well has been poisoned by my association with a prior account? Some clarification will be appreciated please, otherwise I am going to have to make assumptions and act accordingly. GeneralHamster (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new account would be block evasion. That is what you are expected not to do. If you are not Zombiedude, you need to email the Arbs and explain how the evidence that you are Zombiedude is incorrect. If you are Zombiedude, you need to wait six months. Go without editing for six months. Not create anymore sock puppets and then request unblocking via your original account. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra What I need to understand is, I will tell the ArbCom what I have explained above. What if that is not deemed to be sufficient? I have no other means of proving my point apart from giving my word and referring to my prior edits made in good faith. Am I just permanently exiled from wikipedia? I do not have access to Zombie dude's account, so I can't exactly request an unblock via the original account caught in this chain. So am I just expected to do nothing? Even if I change address, and by extension change IP to prove I have no relation to anyone else? Or would I effectively be forced to start over from fresh with a clean slate. That is what I am trying to anticipate here. GeneralHamster (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom deems it not sufficient, you are effectively out of luck. You do not get a WP:CLEANSTART, so creating a new account would constitute block evasion, and get that new account blocked when it is discovered.

Provided this is truly a case of mistaken identity, the best thing you can do is just take a break for 6 months, then come back and file a new appeal. At that point, provided there have been no further attempts at creating alternate accounts, you might be able to be reinstated, regardless of whether or not there was previous socking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that something I can do from this account, at least? Because I do not have access to Zombiedude's account and I don't want to get stuck in a loophole of "appeal from your original account" when I don't even have access to the account since it was never mine to begin with. GeneralHamster (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #82367 is closed.

UTRS ban for abuse. This talk page remains available. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal. Because you asked, tell them what you told us-- that you are not Zombiedude (or whoever). Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am GH although I have no way to verify this. I've actually lost access to my account and the email associated with it, and would assume I otherwise have no means of proving that I am the real GeneralHamster, and to be honest with how I was treated previously have no interest in returning to it - just feels like I will go through the same headache again for which I just cannot be bothered to deal with anymore (my life is stressful enough as it is).

To be clear: I have not made any further UTRS appeals since the summer, and cannot actually log an appeal via UTRS as it has been disabled. I don't know what the last appeal contained but I can tell you I haven't reached out since the summer. To be clear, I have moved to another part of the country, am no longer operating from my old machine, and have borrowed a machine just to drop this message. You will not see me here again. I am sorry if this comes across as abrupt but I feel my previous treatment (blocking me, destroying articles I had worked on - later rerolling them out with any credit attributed to me removed all while accusing me of being someone else) warrants my approach here. I have no interest in spending more time mailing the Arbcom, and am unable to prove what I say... I suppose what I want to ask is what the way forward would be, because I can't prove who I am and yet don't want to be in trouble for making a new account. If I make a new account from my current machine (which is wholly separated from whatever caused me to be flagged as associated with other users), knowing I am innocent, and am acting under good intention, is that a problem? I would counsel you to consider WP:BITE in future but I'm not sure there is sufficient self-awareness to expect that. Best of luck to you all. 217.33.165.88 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evading your block to appeal your block is never a good strategy. We're not interested in helping people who choose to disregard policies and instructions when they find them inconvienent. If you make a new account, that is further block evasion. You personally are blocked, not just your account, and you personally are not permitted to edit Wikipedia under any account or IP address until your original block is removed. If you have emailed ArbCom and they declined to help you, that is the end of the road, for a long while, at least. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.