User talk:Gameking69

Welcome!

Hi Gameking69! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Shelby's Raid (1863). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I reject so called Wikiepdian editors taking 2-3+ weeks to review my article which is of higher quality that the crap I find.

2. Additionally a simple remove with a note will suffice without commenting on my homepage for everybody to read. It just comes off as snarky.

-Gameking69

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bazel F. Lazear has been accepted

Bazel F. Lazear, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the submission! I have some suggestions for the draft:

1. Replace Find a Grave(a wiki source) with a more reliable source

2. Do some copyediting

3. Some parts seem too close to the source material, try paraphrasing them more. [1] Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, guidance

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. First, thanks for leaving edit summaries for your edits, as it's a big help to your collaborators. That said, some of yours are quite lengthy, and I wanted to let you know that we try to avoid long ones as a rule. Here's some guidance: Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries. Eric ^talk 22:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Eric. I have already suggested that you chunk your edits into smaller pieces, then your edit summaries could be shorter and focus on one point at a time. Thanks for considering our suggestions on this matter. Mikeatnip (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Gameking69. Thank you for your work on Sarah Bishop (pirate). ARandomName123, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work on this article! I've marked this as reviewed, and also added some information I found on google books.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hi Gameking69! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Erbauliche_Monaths_Unterredungen 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. Thank you. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool article!

Thanks for writing about Sarah Bishop (hermit) — what an interesting character! How did you find out about her? Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time copyediting to make it more readable. I'm pretty happy with the progress but if you think I messed anything up, please let me know :-) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help, the article looks 100 times better. As to where I found her, Women in piracy is the place. Gameking69 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Gameking69. Thank you for your work on Brotherhood economics. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Gameking69 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Livingstone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New College and Corpus Christi College. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaling

Thanks for the images you're adding to previously unillustrated articles, but do be aware that Wikipedia's stance on AI-upscaled images at MOS:IMAGES is presently that:

AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption.

Belbury (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I’ll shall replace with originals Gameking69 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erbauliche Monaths-Unterredungen Front Page.png

Hi, I believe that File:Erbauliche Monaths-Unterredungen Front Page.png has been uploaded incorrectly at Commons:

• firstly, you have uploaded it as your own work, but I believe that it is an image of an old, public domain work. Do you remember where you got it from?
• secondly, it is not an page from the Erbauliche Monaths-Unterredungen, but a page from a song book, the Erbauliche Lieder-Sammlung. There is a scan of another edition of the song book at File:Erbauliche Lieder-Sammlung zum Gottesdienstlichen Gebrauch in den Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Gemeinen in Pennsylvanien und den benachbarten Staaten (IA erbaulichelieder00evang).pdf.

TSventon (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, im going to upload the 1663 cover, sourced from https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tPFCAAAAcAAJ Gameking69 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you fix File:Erbauliche Monaths-Unterredungen Front Page.png, too? It still has a misleading filename and incorrect description at Commons. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Gameking69. Thank you for your work on Consensus Patrum. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, Gameking69, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. In this connection, you may find it useful to follow the guidance in our Ten Simple Rules- Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of anti-suffragists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Lists of anti-suffragists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:NaomiSwartzentruber.png

Thanks for uploading File:NaomiSwartzentruber.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i feel the best decision is to delete. i will ask the subject for permission and reupload once permission is secured. Gameking69 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Cherie DeVille.

E-commerce websites such as Amazon Prime and user-generated content from IMDb are not reliable sources for biographical info. See WP:IMDB for more information.Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Gameking69. Thank you for your work on SS-Helferinnenkorps. Another editor, JBchrch, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great work, thank you!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|JBchrch}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JBchrch talk 20:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of Corinth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cephas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sewing Circle

Great article, and a glaring omission until you wrote it! (I reviewed it but neglected to leave you a message.) Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was indeed past due. Gameking69 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid large edits on established pages

Hi, I would encourage to chunk up changes to established pages into smaller bites. I see that user:Anupam is making some changes and/or reversions to the Head covering for Christian women page, little by little. If there are any doubts about specific changes, smaller changes make discussions easier. Thanks for considering my suggestion here. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree,

I prioritize scholarly work that specialize in Early Christianity, spent countless hours reading various books and the literature, I try to render paragraphs to be concise and encyclopedic.

And I'm supposed to accept:

• Sociologist Cory Anderson's take on historical Christian practices?
• Anonymous blog post from 2013?
• Random orthodox website which claims a Church father said this?
• A Christian devotional content by a non-scholar David Phillips? "Head covering Throughout Christian History" being used as evidence?
• LARGE GAPS OF HISTORY MISSING (5th century to 19th century) ?
• Random pictures scattered throughout the article without any reason why its relevant? (e.g. Amish group of women picture beside Second Temple context?)
• Dead links?
• Citations with missing page numbers?

This is your standard of an "established page"? I'm curious.

Assume I am doing this in good faith and respectfully, give me a break.

I believe you have not looked into this matter deeply. What is your level knowledge on this editing situation?

Objectively, whole swabs of the article needs to be rewritten to prioritize peer reviewed factual claims with an encyclopedic rendering. Gameking69 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the article cannot be improved. I am asking that edits be chunked into smaller bites so that they can be discussed if necessary. Such would be standard Wikipedia conduct. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gameking69, I corroborate User:Mikeatnip's comments, while acknowledging that you have made helpful contributions to the article too (which I appreciate). However, at the same time, you have removed sourced information and you have deleted relevant images. For example, you removed a depiction of an Old Testament figure next to the paragraph that discusses the Old Testament; you additionally removed an image of a painting from the catacombs that was properly juxtaposed with paragraphs of the ante-Nicene period. Please note that you do not WP:OWN the article. I have let a number of your edits stand and have restored referenced information that you removed where appropriate. Additionally, be careful that your editing does not cause reference errors; I have had to correct a number of the same, which took me several hours to do. Please be respectful and work in a collaborative fashion. Thank you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of WP:OWN. Based on the article's history log, you have been the primary contributor to this page for over a decade (Since 2011). It would be accurate you say you are effectively the steward of this article per the history log.

By contrast I have been only editing for a few months. You have made larger, more frequent edits, more reverts that I have ever done. I would define this as ownership especially after a decade.

I have no objections to you re-adding the pictures (It was removed unintentionally), but I insist you retrain from adding a picture of Hussite and Orthodox women beside a paragraph that explains Second Temple context (they have no historical baring). Images are aides to history, not decoration for the article.

You have yet to address my concerns on unreliable sources when there are clear academic alternatives. So insist you explain or refrain from re-adding them back. The pattern I see is Self-help Books, Non-expert opinion, Christian Devotionals, and Denominational blogs. You may see my detailed corners in your most recent post "September 2025".

It is my perceptive that there has been poor quality control in this regard to sourcing, in-which it was not corrected for a decade. I am merely exercising WP:BOLD when there is clear complacency on this matter.

Gameking69 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hello, I'm Anupam. I noticed that you recently removed content from Head covering for Christian women without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Anupam^Talk 01:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam,

I’ve deleted several citations because they don’t meet WP:RS for the claims they were supporting. As a consequence, paragraphs were deleted.

I insist you refrain from adding these sources back when there are ALTERNATIVE, CLEAR and AVAILABLE academic sources on this matter.

Please understand my reasoning behind my deletion:

• Free Presbyterian Church (2020) blog post for a 1969 event - This is a denominational, self-published page. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, such sources are usable only for non-contentious self-descriptions, not for historical claims about wider movements. A dead link also runs into WP:DEADLINK, we should replace with independent secondary coverage (e.g., academic histories or newspapers of record) rather than rely on a church blog.
• Anderson & Anderson, Fitted to Holiness (Acorn Publishing, 2019) - Cory Anderson is a solid scholar on Plain Anabaptist dress and modesty, but this title is from the authors' small press (not an academic press), and it is narrowly scoped. It is fine for Plain-community practices; it’s not appropriate as an authority for broad 19th-century Western fashion etiquette.
• Walsh, Saudi Arabia Undercover (Monsoon, 2019) - This is trade-press memoir/gonzo-style reportage, not peer-reviewed scholarship. Per WP:RS, it can serve (sparingly) as a primary, anecdotal account, but not as a secondary authority on historical or sociological dress norms.
• Fischer-Mirkin, Dress Code (Clarkson Potter, 1995) - Clarkson Potter is a lifestyle/trade imprint. The book is self-help/psychology of appearance, not a scholarly monograph. It's not suitable for claims about 19th-century dress history.

Regarding your pictures. See MOS:IMAGES.

• Please add them back, it was deleted by mistaken, I am sensing you may have thought this was deliberate.
• However, this doesn't warrant an entire revision.
• Some areas don't warrant/needs an alternative picture (for example a group of Hutterites women beside Second temple context).
• Moreover the Picture of Orthodox women beside Second Temple content. Pictures are not decorative
• A historian-artists interpretation of Second Temple dress would be appropriate.

Regarding the deletion of some paragraphs such as quoting the a lengthy portion (e.g. feminism material). See MOS:QUOTATIONS.

• While this is historically interesting, I believe it can be best rendered concisely explained by a secondary source/scholar, or expert.
• Same goes with quoting Tertullian in-verbatim, while interesting, it is not in encyclopedic format to have him take up a portion of the page when I'm trying to navigate the multiple Church Fathers thoughts (it appears to place emphasis where its not needed).

Gameking69 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the images are in the lede and they depict Orthodox and Hutterites. The lede serves as the introduction of the article and headcovering is known to be widely practiced among Orthodox and Anabaptist communities. It is for this reason that both images are appropriate for the introduction. The image of Tertullian is certainly appropriate for a section on the Church Fathers, especially when his quote references the practice of the Corinthians (which is the entire basis for this doctrine). There is no reason not to include images in the article when they can be included. With regard to sourcing, this is a theology-related article. Not all secondary sources will be from academic sources; secondary religious sources written by clerics and theologians are bound to be included as these are often the only sources available that discuss certain religious practices. I disagree with regard to your view on Cory Anderson's text, but will try to find an alternative reference; if not, I will apply WP:ATTRIBUTION and restore the statement. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anupam,

Thank your acknowledging the importance of sourcing. I want this article to withstand scrutiny, rather than just be dismissed.

I will drop the issue of images because that isn't really important to me, and is really subjective on its placement.

I disagree with the notion that is an entirely theology-related article. When I got to the history section I want to see experts in history. Not Clerics nor Theologians. Don't you agree? It is not helpful use clerics or theologians to as an authority on historical practices. If this cleric or theologian has an expertise on history, then I suppose it is permissible, however this is not the case in the deleted citations I've done.

Example:

• Anderson (2019) Author-run small press; niche scope (Plain Anabaptist communities); not peer-reviewed. Acceptable only for Plain-community practice when narrowly framed; not for general fashion/etiquette claims.
• Fischer-Mirkin (1995) is a self help book.
• Walsh (2019) is a trade-press, first-person “gonzo journalism” travel/memoir
• Gordon (2015) is opinion/blog piece on Evangelical Focus, not peer-reviewed research
• Phillips (2014) at most, it can be used as an attributed contemporary viewpoint in a "modern advocacy" context. It’s not reliable for broad historical claims about church practice over centuries (fails WP:RS; risks WP:SYNTH).
• Gleason (2018) for Devotional blog for Old Testament history, really? Dead link as well.
• Among others....

I also disagree with the notion that there is not much literature on the matter of "certain religious practices." This is perceptive is not helpful. I have dedicated an entire section of head coverings in the Church of Corinth article EXCLUSIVELY using reliable, creditable, academic, peer reviewed sources. Consult biography of the article.

Bottom-line:

• Use peer-reviewed secondary sources for all historical/exegetical claims. 
• Scholar but non expert in the field: used only narrowly and explicitly attributed.
• First-person anecdote not be to be used never for "ordinary practice" claims.
• Sources can be attributed for modern advocacy viewpoints only; minimal weight; not for history.
• For blogs, do not use to verify facts or history. When a better scholarly source exists, prefer it.

Gameking69 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a reference from an academic journal that makes a similar claim as Anderson and so I have placed it there. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 23:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any remaining discussion of any unresolved specific editorial improvements should be moved to the Headcovering talk page where consensus can better be established with the input of other editors. Thanks, Mikeatnip (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASSING. Your recent edits have included attempts to recruit others to a discussion in order to influence the outcome. I have reversed these as violations of Wikipedia policy. Please be careful next time. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC) @1990'sguy - Thank you for bring this to my attention. I’ve reviewed the suggested read, and I will comply with such policy in the future. I should have been more neutral in my wording, my intention is to check and compare alleged revision abuses (that I believe are systematic and abetted) not influence or disrupt consensus. I understand intentions don't matter, I will use the correct methods next time.[reply]

Church of Corinth

Hello! I have restored the statement that you removed in the "In scholarship" section of the article. The sources that I used were clear in noting the majority view held by biblical scholars. Perhaps you did not like the word "consensus" and so I have changed the wording to "majority of mainstream biblical scholars". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited works are thesis not-published reviewed scholarly work. They are students writing a paper. You've taken the students words and gave them weight in the conversation. You've also taken the partial words of Payne (2015) who thinks hair is the head covering. It would have been preferable to use multiple scholars who has critically examined both sides and wrote a conclusion.

Talk:Church of Corinth#Improper synthesis Gameking69 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]