Welcome!
Hello, Hallward's Ghost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this list of links--I think they will be pretty useful! Hallward's Ghost (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hallward's Ghost, you are invited to the Teahouse!
![]() |
Hi Hallward's Ghost! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) |
How to alert other editors
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Peanut_butter_chocolate_chip_cookies%2C_stacked%2C_November_2009.jpg/220px-Peanut_butter_chocolate_chip_cookies%2C_stacked%2C_November_2009.jpg)
Hello Mr Gost and welcome to the Wikipedia. :) I sometimes help out at the Teahouse and guide newbies (that is what you are now) so I saw your entry and became intrigued. Always a pleasure to meet someone who appreciate good literature, especially that of Mr. Wilde. To facilitate your communication with other editors, I'm just dropping by to post a little handy note on "how to use the phone" here on the WP. If you have any questions, no matter how trivial (those are always the first ones to arise...) just give me a 'ping' or come visit at my talk page. Here is the com guide:
When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a red square followed by a long yellow box (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in a just the red box notification on that users pages. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write {{ping|W.carter}} resulting in @W.carter: or [[User:W.carter|W.carter]] resulting in W.carter and sign with the four "squiggles" ~~~~ at the end and hit "Save". There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert.
The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page. All the best, w.carter-Talk 19:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I just noticed this message, @W.carter:, sorry about that! It's very useful, and I will be referring back to it frequently. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see
File:The Picture of Dorian Gray- Ivan Albright.jpg. Our copy is a bit dark and it's use on Wikipedia is under fair-use law, so I can't post it here directly. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is an amazing image! Were you wanting my input on it in some way, or just to share it with me? Either way, thanks for sharing it--it's fantastic! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just sharing - I figured anybody interested in any other version of Dorian Gray would be interested in this. It's a shame that all of Albright's work is still under copyright, so that we can't display it here, but if you ever have a chance go to the Art Institute of Chicago where you can see a half-dozen of his works in a very similar style. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is there no valid Fair Use claim for any of our articles for that beautiful image? Or by "here" do you just mean "on Hallward's Ghosts' talkpage"? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just sharing - I figured anybody interested in any other version of Dorian Gray would be interested in this. It's a shame that all of Albright's work is still under copyright, so that we can't display it here, but if you ever have a chance go to the Art Institute of Chicago where you can see a half-dozen of his works in a very similar style. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:WikiProject Novels
Welcome to WikiProject Novels! Great to have another contributor with enthusiasm. If you need any help, let me know; I would be more than interested in giving feedback! Cheers, Sadads (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Sadads:! I've added all of your Wikiproject's top and high importance articles to my watchlist, to allow me to help protect them from people who try to vandalize them. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, me and a few other students are doing edits on the Wikipedia article, "Le Morte D'Arthur" and you recently reverted some deletions I made. Much of this article is phrased like an opinion piece and I was trying to fix that without having to redo the entire page. Our group added the two sections "Life of Sir Thomas Malory" and "Style and Theme of Le Morte D'Arthur." Would you have any advice you could give us? Thank you. Cylons4life (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I will take a look. It's quite possible that I was wrong in my reversions. Let me check what I did and get back to you. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Cylons4life: After re-examining my reversion, I concluded that you were right about one portion (the larger piece) that you removed. Its tone DOES seem inappropriate. The other part still seems supported by the references cited, though. What do you think about the portion I re-removed? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Hallward's Ghost: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I think the text you re-removed helps with the clarity of the article, but in my honest opinion I think the page itself needs a lot of work. This will do for now, maybe someday some brave soul will undertake re-writing all these summaries. Although the information that's offered by the author is interesting, it goes into more than just a summary of the books. Maybe each summary could have a sub-section with this commentary? Cylons4life (talk)
- That sounds good, Cylons. Why don't YOU take another pass at fixing the article? I won't revert your work until you're finished, and we can see what the article looks like after you're done. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, well, our initial project is due tomorrow and the guidelines only required adding a certain amount of text. However, I do love a challenge; maybe I'll take a shot at it over Winter break on my own. Cylons4life (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
User templates
I saw your talk page comment. FYI the way to put the plain welcome on a user's talk is to edit the talk page (creating it) and put the following text on it with no heading:
{{subst:welcome}} ~~~~
You can try that here (on your talk) by editing the whole page, select all text in the edit window and delete it, then paste in the above, then preview the result. Close the edit window to cancel. The "subst:" means that the text displayed in the preview is substituted into the page—if the subst: were omitted, editing the talk page would show "{{welcome}}
" and if that template were ever changed, the text displayed on the talk page would change. Most templates designed to be substituted include the name of the template in a hidden comment. There are lots of welcome templates, some of them extremely intrusive IMHO. You can see these at the "See also" link at the bottom of the documentation shown at {{welcome}}. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tips--I did what you said, and that's a pretty cool function. I appreciate the help, and I'll use that template in the future. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can also use Twinkle to welcome users and FYI (in case you missed it): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Gadgets_not_working --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Thanks for this tip, as I've been using it regularly in recent days. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You can also use Twinkle to welcome users and FYI (in case you missed it): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Gadgets_not_working --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy Jewel (climber)
Hi, I've reverted your recent edit on the above page where you changed a hyperlink from "trainers" to "sneakers". This link is named "trainers" because the article is about a British climber and the term for this shoe type in common parlance in British climbing is "trainer". The link specifically links to the page for "sneakers" to provide disambiguation for North American readers. Hopefully you will agree with this differentiation. Boatgypsy (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
Collapsing this silliness as well
|
---|
![]() This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! This is relation to the Talk:Edgar Allan_Poe#On_the_precise_description_of_Poe_and_Others dispute. I am not the filing party. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) PS. I fixed some bad coding/formatting on the page that was messing with the Visual Editor display |
October 2015
Hide condescending & disruptive silliness. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 08:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
![]()
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Comment on content, not on contributors. Interfering with moderator control of discussions is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
- The above is pompous nonsense. I have seen several cases play out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard but have not noticed anything helpful. In this case, as in many others, the DRN moderators attempt to be useful but are totally out of their depth with no knowledge of the issue or of how to moderate. Fortunately there is a simple way to handle the issue: ignore it, and ignore the misguided editor who started the DRN—just revert if their edit is repeated per talk page consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. Robert has been accusing me of personal attacks and all sorts of other nonsense. I've collapsed his ludicrous warning. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea, and happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. Robert has been accusing me of personal attacks and all sorts of other nonsense. I've collapsed his ludicrous warning. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Denali
just FYI, In fact everything the IP wrote is true. It is also already covered in the "climbing history" section of the article, with appropriate references, so removing it was still the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Beeblebrox. Something seemed... "off" about the edit, but I should've looked deeper into it before just reverting. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for helping new editors
The nature of a troll is that it's difficult to tell whether or not they are sincere. In this case [1], my suspicions come from the marked difference in English language competence between the edits made to articles, and the responses given on talk pages. But I still hold out the possibility that their efforts are in good faith, and are potentially productive. Seeming incompetence can sometimes come from a physical disability, such as my fat thumbs on a cell phone, and lack of patience in getting it right. Two years of typing class in high school… down the toilet. In my day, we used all the fingers, and nothing went to waste. But anyway….
I've made a few reach-outs here at Wikipedia, too, so I wanted you to know that your efforts [2] are appreciated, and that even in this case, I would encourage them further if you feel it's worth your time. Wikipedia is built from a variety of viewpoints and skills, so good cops and bad cops are both important. Though we sit on opposite sides of the fence this time, I wouldn't want to discourage our shared belief that there are potentially productive contributors out there, except for the mass of policies and guidelines, and a barrage of impersonal template warnings. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. It seems, from the wide ranging disagreement, that my viewpoint on this editor is likely wrong. I still think that what he was trying to do (add burial information to the articles of non-living persons) isn't inherently disruptive, and I'm trying to understand what his angle might be for having used several sources that didn't reference said information. The ones he sourced to Findagrave, well, I was just wrong about that, since I didn't realize that Findagrave has been condemned as a non-reliable source, so my apologies for that one. Finally, I guess we'll see what happens when Drmies' 1 week block ends. I hope that editor comes back and makes a real attempt to learn and grow. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the burial information is being added to articles of non-living persons. We can be appreciative of that, at least. Reminds me of an old friend's wishes: "When I'm gone, I want my remains scattered over my old high school. And I don't want to be cremated." Willondon (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Now that's a super-gross visual! :) Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the burial information is being added to articles of non-living persons. We can be appreciative of that, at least. Reminds me of an old friend's wishes: "When I'm gone, I want my remains scattered over my old high school. And I don't want to be cremated." Willondon (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 09:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ANI
Just a head's up on the ANI, that I mentioned the conduct of a few of us should be considered. I'm not suggested that anything we've have done is or isn't wrong particularly, only that the closing administrator should look at the whole story. Harrias talk 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on that thread. That was a really strange meltdown. I'll candidly admit that it's possible I read the article wrong as to what was being claimed by the Birley reference. In the context of the AFD, and people using the offline refs as support for the notability of that neologism, it perhaps struck me as more sinister than it should have. But I don't feel like anything I did was worth that sort of angry, antagonistic attack from GnGn. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Major cricket - possible merge
Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
HTD
There are some biblical references which often refer encouraging or speeding the second coming of Christ. In this context, it refers (I believe) to a hurry up and tear down the current structure of Wikipedia so that a newer and better system can be established in its place.
My take on it is that one is supporting via HTD, it intends to say "yes, put this into place so that it will help destroy the current system. We can then build a better one." In a sense, it presumes that the current system is broken beyond repair, so destroy it completely; thus, we can begin anew. Just my interpretation from various on-wiki posts I've seen over the years. Hope it helps. — Ched : ? 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Ched: Isn't that a pretty overt admission of bad-faith in the !vote, though? Basically saying, "I'm supporting this person who I think would be a bad admin because I want to see Wikipedia destroyed"? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- In a word: yes. But you have to understand certain degrees of subtle posts too. Many of those who despise the current construct of this project actually do cherish the concept of "free online knowledge". It might be different if there were a viable competitor to EN-WP, but this is pretty much a monopoly. There are people who love the concept, but absolutely hate how it's currently being managed. — Ched : ? 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's certainly understandable. I'd think in such a situation, though, that a "reform it from within" philosophy would be the best tactic. A "burn it down" philosophy accomplishes nothing except self-gratification, in that even a "victory" would be Pyrrhic in nature. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree; but I also understand the thinking that the status quo is too firmly entrenched for any meaningful change to happen. Wikipedia has a fairly lengthy history, and things are certainly far different now than they were in say 2001-200x. Some feel that the changes that have occurred are detrimental, while others feel there haven't been enough sweeping changes. It can be difficult to feel all too strongly one way or the other when you understand how both sides see things. — Ched : ? 18:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's certainly understandable. I'd think in such a situation, though, that a "reform it from within" philosophy would be the best tactic. A "burn it down" philosophy accomplishes nothing except self-gratification, in that even a "victory" would be Pyrrhic in nature. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- In a word: yes. But you have to understand certain degrees of subtle posts too. Many of those who despise the current construct of this project actually do cherish the concept of "free online knowledge". It might be different if there were a viable competitor to EN-WP, but this is pretty much a monopoly. There are people who love the concept, but absolutely hate how it's currently being managed. — Ched : ? 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
my style
For myself, I think there is a point after which continued participation in a debate become counter-productive. For myself personally, I long ago decided to set it at 2 comments, and I try to never to do 3 except to correct an error. For me, that refers in particular to AfD, but elsewhere also, including RfA--tho it can be different in a very long running policy talk discussion covering multiple issues where I tend to interpret it as twice per issue. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for this sound counsel. The dogpile has started there after some respected editors weighed in with opposition, allowing all the "per X" people to dive on as well. Continued participation is probably pointless, as the RFA is likely going to end unsuccessfully. It's too bad, really. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DGG:-Also, I think that Peacemaker and Brianhe's RFAs may well be the last to which I contribute to the discussion. It's frustrating, distracting, and--I'm becoming convinced--pointless. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the way to do this as will as anything else at WP is to add your view, but not become too focused on anything in particular. I've lost a good many arguments. The only time I stop participating in an area is where there is a permanently entrenched cabal. I don't think there is one at RfA--it varies from candidate to candidate. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The only "cabal-ish" behavior I see is from editors who seem to have not done much research, and just sort of "hop on the back" of guys who actually do some research to say, basically, "Yeah! Me too! Me too!", though not in so many words. I guess I just don't understand why we don't just have a non-numbered discussion, divided into something like "Pros & Cons" (or whatever), where each comment is separated by the "----" and can be discussed for a certain period of time. At the end of that time, the elected Bureaucrats would do a straight up or down vote, in which some set standard of the crat vote promoted the candidate. That seems like it would turn RFA into an ACTUAL discussion, as is now (finally) happening in the "General Comments" section at Brianhe's RFA. And, in my opinion, the basic standard should be: 1) The editor passes X level of experience, in whatever areas of the project s/he chooses to focus; 2) The editor do good work in the primary areas in which they focus; 3)The editor has demonstrated that they're not just a complete, power-hungry prick. If those three bars are cleared, I think that editor should be given a chance to use the administrative tools. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the way to do this as will as anything else at WP is to add your view, but not become too focused on anything in particular. I've lost a good many arguments. The only time I stop participating in an area is where there is a permanently entrenched cabal. I don't think there is one at RfA--it varies from candidate to candidate. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
![]() |
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
- I hate seeing a good editor torpedoed like you were at that RFA. It was patently unfair. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
![]() |
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
- Congratulations! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
To let you know that you impressed me with your involvement in Brianhe's RfA, and it is not only because I concurred with your position, but more so because I saw your arguments convincing and coherent. On many occasions, I just wanted to write "ditto, me too!" below your comments. You had stolen my thoughts and repackaged them neatly in words and sentences better than I could have. It was not merely that, however. There were a good number of supporters who were similarly eloquent. The difference was that you accompanied clarity with sincere passion. You opposed until the end what you thought (me too) was an unfair treatment of a dedicated and resourceful editor, and fought against an unstable system. I have seen many slighted contributors become disillusioned because most users have taken their work for granted. But you are not one of those. I may have disagreed with you in the previous RfA, but what you showed in Brianhe's RfA has made me think very highly of you. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 06:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
- It's been a tough night for me in real life, Caballero. I appreciate these kind words very much, and really wish that our viewpoint had carried the day, instead of those who tore down Brianhe's record as a long-term editor of this project. This has been the first time since I've created an account (I edited sporadically for years as an IP) that I've truly been completely disheartened by something that happened on here. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- To tell you the truth, the despair would have been inconsolable if somebody like you would not have been there. You explained to me that I was not insane (or at least, not the only insane) and that there is hope. Changes do not occur suddenly. I once gave up on WP thinking little could be achieved here. But after witnessing up and close the devotion and ingenuity of so many editors, I now prefer this company than many others. It is an open community populated by some amazing and hardworking people like Brian, and now you (I did not know Brian before, but similar editors). Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 07:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- RfAs are a brutal process. And the candidates who sail through with unanimous approval are few and fortunate indeed. For most of the candidates. it's an experience of peering into ones editing past and highlighting every misstatement one made. One can't deny ones edits, only state that you've learned from your mistakes. Still, it is a "scorching" experience and one I don't recommend unless an editor is confident they have significant community approval.
- And, as Kudpung states, a lot of RfAs are determined by which editors decide to show up and participate. On this RfA, I noted a few editors who had been inactive, probably editing logged out, who logged in and cast a vote from their user account. The participation of those folks is a wild card, unpredictable, because you don't know who will show up, how many there will be and what opinions they bring to the process. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar |
While I may disagree with some of your viewpoints, you courageously and eloquently advocate for controversial viewpoints–exactly what is needed to at least bring more-than-trivial change to Wikipedia, which hasn't happened in the last 15 years. Esquivalience t 05:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks. It all gets a bit discouraging sometimes, particularly when I see fine editors torn down and rejected for adminship simply because some people disagree with their views on some aspect of Wikipedia. There are times when I wish I'd just stayed an IP editor. It was less stressful, that's for sure. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, what Nihonjoe was trying to do was to nudge the discussion to a centralized page, such as the bureaucrats' noticeboard as opposed to the talkpage associated with the individual RfA, which is meant for discussion of the specific RfA itself. To be fair, that's the discussion started with the Brianhe RfA, but now, when we are discussing broader concerns related to crat chats and the discretionary zone, it would make sense to hold the discussion in a more centralized location such that a broader range of opinions and interested parties could find the discussion and to contribute to it. We are not trying to stifle discussion. Maxim(talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine. And if an editor who doesn't happen to be the one whose close initiated the discussion there wants to archive that page, I think that would be much more in order than Nihonjoe doing it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would you feel better if I put my name on it? Or, you are welcome to reinstate the close too... Maxim(talk) 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would feel better mainly because in this way it does not appear as evading confrontation (which is not necessarily what is happening). But I don't know about Hallward's Ghost. It is just me. Please, ad a clear link to the new discussion. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I concur with CH here. If you (Maxim) want to put your name on it and provide a clear link to where the discussion surrounding the issues Nihonjoe's close stirred up, that would be fine. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Would you feel better if I put my name on it? Or, you are welcome to reinstate the close too... Maxim(talk) 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Since Coffee is attempting to stifle discussion of his bad AFD close at his talkpage, moving my comments here, with pings
@Cavarrone: Given his comments [at his talkpage], I doubt Coffee ever had any intention of deleting that "article." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- ...which was rather obvious just considering the spurious relisting rationale. There was no ground for the relisting, and it is highly inappropriate it was Coffee again the one who close the discussion. They should had voted, not relisted and closed the discussion. This is that kind of absurd stuff which feeds sites like Wikipediocracy and that makes it look Wikipedia worse than it is... Cavarrone 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(Attempted discussion with Coffee that he whitewashed from his talkpage) The "strong arguments" were presented at the AFD. You ignored them, and weighed them equally with the WELIKEIT arguments that mangled the straightforward language of CRYSTAL to pretend their position held any policy-based weight. I suppose Reywas92 should now get to work on those other speculative future presidential election articles he noted that your illogical interpretation of that discussion now allow for. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Even if it's not a !vote, I'm not sure where you got the 56% from, with the stats reporting 16-26-3-1 and my count a bit higher. I would say that I would have liked to engage in further conversation about the meaning of Crystal and such, but I wanted to avoid the bludgeon that LavaBaron had been criticized for and which I have engaged in previously and sought to avoid (what's up with his comparison to the 2024 Olympics in the last comment?! Completely different). I feel that people saw the article and thought, 'hey there's content, there's sources, it must be good', where in fact none of the sources had any substantive information about the election, and those that seemed to just used that election year as a future reference date. I (and perhaps User:Hallward's Ghost?) am definitely considering DRV though I share his concerns since I have not been there before. This is just so far in the future, I'd consider a new AFD later this year otherwise, and the folks at WP:NOT should be asked their thoughts (I know that direct reference line to elections and Olympics is actually a math formula that has changed before). Regardless, the new material added since is even less appropriate: meaningless pop culture references (we don't mention The West Wing in the 2000 article) and a 2008 documentary that again just picked a random future year, and I wish to avoid dealing with LavaBaron. Reywas92Talk 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: I echo your sentiments on dealing with LavaBaron. That nonsense about "destroying knowledge" was the last straw for me. While I am beyond frustrated that Coffee has basically used a supervote to keep the article (by oddly finding a "no consensus" in a discussion where one side cited policy and the other side did not, their intentional skewing of CRYSTAL notwithstanding), I don't anticipate that those who frequent DRV would have the stomach to actually overturn Coffee's close. If you DO take it there, though, please ping me, and I'll at least drop a futile comment as I've done here at Coffee's talk. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I've not used DRV before but I wouldn't guess it would help since it was already open for more than a month. I'm thinking of opening a discussion on WP:NOT. I know the Crystal section mentioned only the next election as explicitly okay, it was updated at some point to cover 2020 despite the previous consensus. Disappointed that Coffee only counted delete/total since the merges/redirect would tilt that way too. Reywas92Talk 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm shocked at how Coffee -- an admin I have (maybe had?) -- a lot of respect for prior to this has responded at his talkpage. Just no willingness at all to even consider that he might have been mistaken in how he judged the results of that discussion. If you do start a discussion at CRYSTAL, please let me know. I'll at least drop by to put in my $0.02 on the issue. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I've not used DRV before but I wouldn't guess it would help since it was already open for more than a month. I'm thinking of opening a discussion on WP:NOT. I know the Crystal section mentioned only the next election as explicitly okay, it was updated at some point to cover 2020 despite the previous consensus. Disappointed that Coffee only counted delete/total since the merges/redirect would tilt that way too. Reywas92Talk 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Closing ANI discussions
Hallward's Ghost, be careful in closing ANI discussions, even frivolous ones and remember to post {{NAC}} before your signature to identify it as a non-admin close. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't know about the "NAC" thing. Sorry about that. Seemed like a fairly straightforward close. I'll not be stomping around at ANI, though, rest assured, Liz! :) Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, HG. I used to close discussion on ANI before I became an admin after they had been resolved (like a topic ban issued or an editor blocked) but I noticed on the Village Pump that some editors are sensitive to non-admin closings and see it as less official even though a discussion closure can always be reversed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's the first time I've ever taken the liberty, and it likely won't happen again. I had no idea that editors like those at the VP might take offense to it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- In passing, thank you for the close, which was entirely appropriate given the content of the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's the first time I've ever taken the liberty, and it likely won't happen again. I had no idea that editors like those at the VP might take offense to it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, HG. I used to close discussion on ANI before I became an admin after they had been resolved (like a topic ban issued or an editor blocked) but I noticed on the Village Pump that some editors are sensitive to non-admin closings and see it as less official even though a discussion closure can always be reversed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
BtK
The large scale change was a total reversion of the work I did last night on the article to remove a reference per instructions at the GA review. The IP geolocates to Bronx, New York, where a WP:LTA IP vandal is known to edit from (or at least have their IP locate to). Thanks for the reversion. I have asked for page protection to keep this kind of vandalism from happening again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm glad to help out at Billy the Kid however I can, Winkelvi. I don't know that referring to that IP edit as "vandalism" is probably the best tack to take, though I'll defer to you with regards to your previous experiences in re: similar IP reversions of your work. I think you're doing good work there, though, and I hope the article is promoted to GA as a result. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kudos. I think I bit off a little more than I should have (it's a pretty big and involved article for my first GA nom), but now that I'm in the thick of it, I see no reason to turn back. I've never been very good at quitting and am working for it to be passed by the end of the weekend. That's my hope, anyway! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
A.ha!
I see [3], the quotes occured unnecesary to me (didn't go to check that reference, sorry), but a quote is a quote, indeed = untouchable. You do have a cool Username there, actually :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
- I made the same mistake initially, so no worries. As for the username, I've always loved the Wilde quote about Basil Hallward, and who Wilde himself was in relationship to the characters in The Picture of Dorian Gray. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING
Regarding [4]'s edit summary. According to WP:BLANKING, they actually are allowed to blank their own talk page for warnings, block notices and etc. They are not allowed to remove declined block lift requests and some others. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is true, DatGuy. My initial thought was that, given his trolling of WV, I didn't want someone to think he hadn't been warned. But in looking into it after he blanked it again, I realized it didn't matter if he blanked it. Blanking it in itself is an acknowledgement that he read and understood the warning. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I forget what the template is called, but there is a template that states there are previous, now deleted, warnings. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I tried to find something like that, but couldn't. If you run across it, would you mind pinging me? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I forget what the template is called, but there is a template that states there are previous, now deleted, warnings. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- You certainly do seem interested in edits, articles, talk pages, and situations involving me, DatGuy. The BtK article, the situation you addressed above, and others. The BtK Ga nomination/review. So far, in your short editing career, you've ended up at 14 editor talk pages where I've been and 14 articles I've edited, not to mention suddenly showing up in at least one of the AN3 filings where I've been involved. In a number of cases not long after I've been there. Any specific reason why? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: Seriously, I didn't know that. I was watching a top 10 myth video and wondered what Billy the kid is. I also have RfPP on my watchlist. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- You certainly do seem interested in edits, articles, talk pages, and situations involving me, DatGuy. The BtK article, the situation you addressed above, and others. The BtK Ga nomination/review. So far, in your short editing career, you've ended up at 14 editor talk pages where I've been and 14 articles I've edited, not to mention suddenly showing up in at least one of the AN3 filings where I've been involved. In a number of cases not long after I've been there. Any specific reason why? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, pardon me for bumping into this discussion (I was above in another discussion). The template you are both refering to (and pinging DatGuy) seems to be {{OW}}, or, for that matter {{older}}, to be put somewhere atop an IP Usertalkpage like here [5] and here [6]. I had to dig a little but I was sure I saw it a couple of days ago. The template, with usage information, is found at Template:OW. Note also the other option mentioned there, to use collapsibles for old warnings. I haven't seen this template very often, really. Its main use seems to be for old, now redundant, user warnings, maybe BD2412, if I may ping you here, knows more about them (since you are an admin and use(d) them)? For recent warning removals, as part of a vandal IP's vandalising spree, I always look at the contribs page (after reverting and warning) of such IPs, if they removed stuff from their Usertalkpage, it is obvious right away from that list. If it comes to AIV for that vIP, I will comment that user removed warnings from his usertalkpage (I presume admins at AIV take a quick glance at the contribs anyways, they will notice). However, only after a level 4 warning can an IP be brought to AIV for blocking, at the discretion of the admins around. I am not sure if this template has profound use for recent warning removals? (at least for IPs, as they change often/daily; for Usernames it may be useful indeed for other editors doing countervandalism to be pointed towards previous recent warnings, so they can continue counting). Horseless Headman (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
- Thanks, HH--I appreciate the wealth of information! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
- {{OW}} tags are for older pages (generally several years without activity), to prevent them from carrying a lot of unnecessary link load. bd2412 T 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, BD2412. Is there any template for IPs that have previously blanked warnings? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- The {{OW}} template itself contemplates that there may be previous warnings in the edit history of the page. I suppose it could be improved by the addition of an optional parameter to specify that there are such warnings. bd2412 T 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- {{OW}} tags are for older pages (generally several years without activity), to prevent them from carrying a lot of unnecessary link load. bd2412 T 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hallward's Ghost, If you insist :-) and if I am correct, one can ask for template creation or adaptations at Wikipedia:Requested templates. Another option is perhaps to use this do-it-yourself Notice template Template:Notice where you insert your own text. Please note that the page says "It should be used sparingly and only for significant information for which a more specific template doesn't exist." However, beware that vandals who blank their own usertalkpage from userwarnings, will have no problem also blanking such templates :-). Actually, I wonder if adding such an infotemplate on a vandal's usertalkpage is in line with the general idea of not reverting such Usertalkpage blanking (it means vandal read and likely understood it). And then what, if he removed the infotemplate as well? Add it again? And again? And again? Because, hope I may please also ask Drmies, if the rule is to not revert userwarnings / usertalkpage blanking by vandals, the same likely applies to the removal of such template? Horseless Headman (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
- Sorry, I haven't had enough coffee yet. Given the time difference, it's best to ping Kelapstick. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
Question from IP about Lemony Snicket
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.188.108.26&redirect=no You unedited Lemony Snickets page, his birth year is wrong according to Dan's wiki page...So logically speaking one of the pages has to be wrong, i believe it is the lemony snicket page. Please fix the problem...its your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.108.26 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
First of all, thank you for supporting me throughout the GA review of BtK. It's greatly appreciated. I also want to thank you for your comments (as well as those of Chesnaught555) at the article talk page regarding the possibility of having the close of the review reviewed. Considering that the harassment and attempts at sabotage were continual and ultimately led to the fail of the nomination, I would hope it could be reopened based on same. For the record, one of the things I noticed soon after the sock account started with the harassment was his use of "Not an improvement" in an edit summary. Not only was the change I made an improvement, but the use of that phrase was my first clue that the account was a sock and likely someone I had tangled with previously: "Not an improvement" is a phrase I have used numerous times when reverting unhelpful and unproductive edits from status quo, established articles. It didn't take me long to remember who had used that phrase when reverting edits I had made as a taunt: Yep. WordSeventeen. He's VERY good at misbehaving just slightly enough below the radar to give other editors and admins reason to say, "AGF". My experiences with him, however, told me very early on that this individual is crafty and good at patient, long-term harassing behaviors that develop over time, escalate, and then are quite obvious. It's what got him in trouble with me before, it's what got him blocked for six months. Now, he's indeffed. Whatever the now blocked sock account says to you at this point (I note he's left words for you at his talk page a bit ago), don't buy into it. Besides, of course he's WS - the CU results would not have come back as they did if they were not one and the same. Oh, and the other account we question? Time will tell (if you get my meaning), but - have you thought any further about doing an SPI on the ZPH and the other account named in the SPI that failed the CU? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I try to steer clear of drama as much as possible, unless it just finds its way to my door. That's not to say I think your concerns are without merit, just that I prefer my WikiLife to stay clear of most of these kinds of things. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Completely understand. I have re-nom'd the BtK article, by the way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are my edits being shown as "pending"?
Can someone explain to me why my edits here are shown as "pending" while a redlink editor's are accepted? At this point, shouldn't my edits be automatically accepted? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits are accepted now; I can't tell why they might have been displayed as "pending" earlier. It's technically possible to un-accept edits; possibly that happened by accident. Whether you (or some other editor) have created a user page is irrelevant to pending changes protection, though. Het0002's edits were not automatically accepted because that editor is not yet autoconfirmed; some of that editor's changes were confirmed by reviewers (others weren't). Huon (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- How do I acquire the ability to be a pending changes reviewer? I see these "pending changes" fairly regularly in my watchlist, but I'm currently unable to either accept or reject them. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tiger Lily (Peter Pan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piccaninny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Women_of_Britain_Say_-_%22Go%22_-_World_War_I_British_poster_by_the_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee%2C_art_by_E_J_Kealey_%28Restoration%29.jpg/220px-Women_of_Britain_Say_-_%22Go%22_-_World_War_I_British_poster_by_the_Parliamentary_Recruiting_Committee%2C_art_by_E_J_Kealey_%28Restoration%29.jpg)
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by
MPJ-DK (submissions),
Hurricanehink (submissions),
12george1 (submissions), and
Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by
Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by
Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with
J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Your edit to Phil Ochs
Hello. With this edit, you removed almost three dozen musical artists who have covered Ochs's songs. Your edit summary said "paired down this overlong list of artists who have covered Ochs' songs, by rm'ing artists who were A) unref'd, B) not as notable, or C) both."
While I agree that the list was overlong, and one of the artists you removed is non-notable (i.e., she doesn't have a Wikipedia article), every one of the names was referenced, with a citation either after the artist's name or at the end of the sentence.
I appreciate your shortening the list—I can be terrible at that sometimes, and I find myself adding too much and hoping somebody else will cut it back—but I don't understand why you removed some notable artists and left some artists who don't have Wikipedia articles. Would you mind explaining the rationale behind your selection process? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of things: First, I don't think any of the artists I removed from that insanely long list were referenced; and second, I didn't say I was removing NON-notable artists, but rather artists that were not AS notable. There's a big difference there. The ones I left in are either referenced, very notable, or both. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)