User talk:VideoGamePlaya

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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Parentheses around Phil Silvers' name

Hi,

I was concerned by your edit to It Ain't Half Hot Mum. While the edit mentioned in your edit summary was fine, your edit also added 33 pairs of parentheses around Phil Silvers' name in a wikilink. Quite apart from breaking the link, Given that Silvers was Jewish, and triple parentheses are a well-known antisemitic symbol, this seems concerning - can you explain what happened there? TSP (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

This was indeed puzzling as I had no recollection of doing that. As it happens, I've been seeing those brackets pop up around lots of names ever since I bought this laptop. I had no idea they had anti-Semitic connotations. It was irritating, but I always shrugged it off as a minor inconvenience. After some digging in light of the information you've given me, it turns out there was a surreptitious user script left by the previous owner which automatically added them to the names of any Jewish person. It appears to have added them to Silver's name in the edit I made and went unnoticed by me. I can only offer my sincere apologies for this and I'm glad you rectified it promptly, thanks. For the record, I love Phil Silvers. Bilko was one of my favourite shows growing up.

VideoGamePlaya

Ah, I wondered if it was something like a user script. Glad I could help you track it down (and that it wasn't your responsibility)! TSP (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, a quick google search revealed it was something [sinisterly] called "coincidence detector." The guy I bought the laptop off obviously an anti-Semitic troll. The machine had been factory reset, so I didn't bother doing it myself. Rookie mistake. Guy must have gone out of his way to install it afterwards. Makes me wonder what other malware could be present. Thanks, like you say I wouldn't know any of this without your help.

VideoGamePlaya

NPA

A word of advice, if multiple (experienced) users tell you you have done something wrong, it is a good idea to take note, and back off, not dig in. Continuing to fight your corner might be seen as wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I deal in facts, not pettiness over debate. A personal attack has to involve an attack on one's person. I have not insulted your character, your political beliefs, your argument or, indeed anything listed on the wikipedia personal attack page. It is a matter of indifference how "experienced" a user is. The guidance page is provided in writing for everyone and "experience" does not alter my ability to read and understand it. Your attempts to silence me have failed miserably I'm afraid. If I believe I am in the right (which I demonstrably am), I certainly will "dig in" as you term it. I certainly will not cave to a tiny mob ganging up on me simply because they don't like what I have to say in a debate. "Continuing to fight your corner may be seen as disruptive." This violates one of the fundamental principles of free speech and every fibre of my existence revolts against it. I don't know who you're used to dealing with, but I feel sorry for him if they actually swallow that bilge. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:FREE as freedom of speech does not apply. Three editors with a total 430,000 edits, one of whom is an administrator, disagree with you. You might consider they have a better understanding of the policies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am entitled to argue my case - backed up by reason, facts and logic. If I am not, then the whole purpose of this website is meaningless and these administrators are akin to dictators, Roland Freisler, arrogating themselves to the position of judge, jury and executioner. It is in my blood as an Englishman to revolt at the prospect of this and to reject authoritarianism wherever and whenever I see it. I will not be quiet on this matter if pressed on it, nor I will not submit to the iron will of authority figures here, and I will certainly not apologise or admit any wrongdoing if I believe none is exists. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but these principles are the most important thing to me and I will not abdicate them. I appreciate the advice, honestly, I do, but that is all I have to say. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We have not had an execution here for months. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am relieved to hear that, as I was genuinely growing concerned. Nonetheless, I'm sure my trial is only days away now, and I cling to the feint hope that I will not be denied the right to defend myself there, too. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

VGP, I didn't follow what was said on the talk page so I'm just offering my general takes. First, I've argued both with and against Slatersteven at various times. Clearly every time we disagreed it was because they were totally cl..[redacted]. /humor.

Slatersteven is a good faith editor and my experience is if we disagree I should check my notes just in case. But more to the point, as a general rule I would suggest never arguing the motives of another editor. Some people will see it as trying to personalize the argument even if that was never your intent. Editors are more likely to think your arguments are emotive rather than reasoned and, even worse, more likely to think you are disruptive (to be clear, I don't think you hit disruptive). There have been editors I have felt were extremely biased and making poor editorial choices due to their bias. However, I have learned that saying as much is more likely to reflect badly on me vs them. From a practical POV, you are more likely to convince others of your logic if you strictly avoid suggesting the other editor has a bias/ulterior motive etc. Springee (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I accept in hindsight it would have been wiser to keep it to myself given the absurdity of the fact that I've now spent more time debating this ridiculous tidbit than the actual matter at hand. I appreciate your input and will bear it in mind. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way (and to demonstrate Springee's point). I personally do not believe that Carlson is far right (Any more than Alex Jones or Donald Trump). I believe (like them) it is all an act to generate revenue through clicks (hell I believe Fox actually said that, it is all an act). But we go by what RS say, not what I think. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If that is indeed true, then I am obliged by common decency to offer you an apology. I clearly have misread you if you don't even consider the likes of Alex Jones to be on the far-right, because even I certainly do. Though I maintain that this same matter in regards to Mr Carlson is extremely contentious, and, unlike the notorious conspiracy theorist Jones, there is no unanimity (or even majority opinion) from reliable sources labeling him as far right, and certainly none from right-leaning reliable sources - which would represent an inherent breach of the maintenance of a neutral point of view - simply by reason. Though I'm sure this isn't the place for this discussion. Regardless, I apologise to you. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to check I have made that very argument on the Trump talk page, and am sure I have made it on the Jones one. My stance comes from the reaction there, we go by RS, not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If I didn't believe you, sir, trust me, I would not have apologised. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Alex Jones has no ideology. He’s nuts. Tucker Carlson is not nuts and I have no idea what his ideology is. But, I do know that he is an extreme right wing commentator. You don’t have to believe in xxx to be an xxx commentator. You can be a well-known preacher without believing in what you preach. Your beliefs and motives are irrelevant. What generally matters is what you are known for, not why you do it. Having said all that; this is just my opinion and is also irrelevant. Our job here is easy as we don’t have to think about what a person really believes. We just repeat what reliable source say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You may well be right about Jones. He refers to himself as a conservative, which I resent - as do all notable, mainstream conservatives. He is indeed a madman, though being a madman does not necessarily rule out him being an ideologue. Madmen are often ideologues - Hitler and Pol Pot, for example. His article on this website quite rightly refers to him as far-right in my opinion. You will struggle to find any reliable source from both left and right learning publications (mainstream that is) that fail to refer to him as such (provided one uses "conspiracy theorist" and "far-right" interchangeably, which is fair, given his theories). Whether or not Jones considers himself far-right, which he doesn't, it can still, regardless, be recognised as an widely accepted fact. As I point out above, however, this simply isn't the case for Mr Carlson. The issue here is far more contentious. Infinitely more. I don't deny that a large amount of left-leaning sources refer to him as an extremist, which is covered elsewhere in his article, but there isn't a unanimous consensus, or even a majority, and scarcely (if any) from reliable right-learning publications - which, in my opinion, would represent a clear imbalance if that fact is ignored, or, perhaps worse, dismissed. One has to be careful when an issue is sharply divided by purely political lines - it is the very definition of contention and is unlikely to change in the near future. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Division on party lines does not necessarily mean one has to capitulate and be amenable to the right’s point of view on the subject. What would Wikipedia do about the pronouns of transgender people in that case? Or articles about transgender healthcare? Based on your previous edit history, it’s clear you only care about “neutral point of view” when it affects conservative figures, which tells me you probably aren’t so neutral at all. 2603:6011:4200:B8B4:D983:B5EB:3806:57E6 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, how you arrived here, or what your interest is in writing to me, but that aside, enlighten me; what does any of that have to do with the point I was making? Where did I say Wikipedia has to capitulate to a certain point of view (please provide quotes as evidence)? The entire point of everything I have said above is that fair and neutral balance must be provided. If something is a contentious issue then it should not be proclaimed an axiomatic truth. That is the cornerstone of academic debate and society becomes a darker place without it. What you seem to be suggesting is that the default position of Wikipedia, is, and should be, that the left - the right being open to discard where appropriate because there is no obligation to "capitulate [or] be amenable" to their point of view despite there being legitimate contention highlighted in right-learning reliable sources?

And as you seem so interested, you will have undoubtedly learned from my exchange that commenting on others' motives around here is frowned upon. I had to fight a ridiculous, Stalingrad-like battle over this, so I'd advice you to not bother with it yourself in the future (although no-one will scold you for it as I was, because you're on the trendy, left-wing side of the debate). As it happens, I care about a neutral point of view in every and all instances and I will strive to defend it wherever and whenever I see it. As is, I am yet to find an example of right-wing bias on this website. That is simply because modern academia, by which I include Wikipedia, is heavily in the vested control of left-learning personage, as proclaimed by one of its founders, Larry Sanger (see his page). If you can find an example of right-wing bias, point it out to me, if only out of interest, I will argue for balance. Although I guarantee you will struggle. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can find an example of right-wing bias, point it out to me Umm, read your own post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your wit is as sharp as ever, Ret. That's what I like to see. But persons such as myself are like ants here, ready to be trodden on by the enormous liberal boot. There are literal legions of e-guardians who descend upon us, spawning seemingly from nowhere, parachuted down from the wikisphere - armed and ready to block and revert any foolish and feeble attempts we make to add right-wing thought. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I discovered you based on your alterations to Tucker Carlson’s page. As it turns out, the reason right-wing thought is blocked and reverted is because it is often incorrect. I’m a transgender woman; if you were creating a Wikipedia page for me, would you call me he or she? Your answer will show how much you really care about facts and logic, and how much you care about just inserting right-wing nonsense where it doesn’t belong. 2603:6011:4200:B8B4:90AA:7E52:B93D:AAC6 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In a free society, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. And I will always defend to the death your right to it, even (or, indeed, especially) if I disagree. But just because you disagree with something, you do not have the right to banish it from existence. This is a characteristic of unfree, dystopian, totalitarian police states, and I will endeavour to fight against it with every breath of air that my lungs permit me to draw - as should all, decent, honest people. If an opposing opinion in regards to a matter which is hotly contested has legitimate, widespread coverage from recognised, reliable, mainstream sources, it must be acknowledged and given the same credence as the equally valid point-of-view from the opposing side. Failure to do so is the quintessential manifestation of bias and an encyclopaedia, or at least any encyclopaedia that claims to be legitimate, should aim to he neutral. This is why I despise the so-called "Conservapaedia." It is nothing but a mouthpiece for a certain ideology. It is a joke. And as much as I'm sure you'd like Wikipedia to be "Liberalpeadia", a bastian of your own ideology, completely in control of the narrative, that is not, and should not be, how a free society operates. Once debate gets closed down, and only one point-of-view becomes legal, the rest declared "incorrect" and "nonsense" as you put it,which is looking increasingly likely in the modern world, society heads to a dark, nasty, hellish place that millions of good men sacrificed their lives in countless wars to defend. Thankfully this view remains in the minority at the moment, and free speech prevails, but for how long I often ponder? VideoGamePlaya (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question. 2603:6011:4200:B8B4:DCDF:A6A6:AC32:535 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And what pertinence does your question have to the discussion? How will my answer to this wholly unrelated subject have any effect on the debate? Why does my view on this subject interest you? These are the reasons I didn't answer.

Nonetheless, I will indeed answer as it's clearly so important to you. But I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. We are discussing neutrality here, and my above response pertains to exactly that. You have chosen to disregard it, for whatever reason, in the bizarre pursuit of an answer to this colossal irrelevance. I can only assume it's because you lack a logical response. That aside, I would refer to you as 'she' and treat you as female if that's what you want - simply because it is the polite thing to do. I do not strive to hurt peoples feelings - indeed, I believe rudeness and a lack of decorum to be a major plague in modern society and one that I won't contribute to. But I am a scientist, albeit of nuclear physics, not human biology, and I do know there are indisputable differences in regards to gender identity and biological sex. The two are not interchangeable. One is a social construct, the other is axiomatic scientific reality that politics cannot change. There are chromosomal differences between male and female, which I won't elaborate on, as every GCSE biology student should know it. Not to mention the more obvious facts - the physical differences that exist between the two; the absence/presence of a womb, estrogen, testosterone, and the other, less obvious aspects such as, for example, the female ability to experience multiple orgasms.

If, for arguments sake, you were notable enough to have an article here, I would refer to you as a woman, and, by extension 'she.' But obvious mention would have to be made to your birth as a man. I understand there to be a sustained, concentrated effort on this website to eliminate all traces of the past from notable transgender people, such as Caitlyn Jenner. This seems slightly orwellian to me. To completely obliterate any reference to the name 'Bruce' is reminiscent of the ministry of truth altering the past in 1984. Saying Bruce Jenner never existed, an unperson so to speak, is, to me, the real life equivalent of "We were never at war with East Asia." But I would not write an article referring to Caitlyn as a man, because that would simply be mean. I still don't know why you're interested in this, and what relevance it bears on anything, but you now have your answer. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)