User talk:Ghost Lourde: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:55, 27 February 2015

Regarding your question

The "patrol" function is an odd little system. Whenever a new page is created, it appears on Special:NewPagesFeed, where there are a handful of editors who look through the pages to see if they're valid (as opposed to the kind of vandalism, hoaxes, spam, and so forth that new users often create). Experienced editors are able to click a link on a new page to list it as "patrolled", meaning somebody's looked over it and the dedicate new page patrollers don't have to look at it further. The patrollers often have a backlog of pages to look at, so although I don't actually do new page patrol, I often click the "patrolled" button on new pages I come across, so the patrollers can concentrate on more problematic stuff. In your case, I happened across your user page while looking at Special:RecentChanges. Once I'd skimmed it, I clicked the button.

So the short version is, I marked your user page as "patrolled" to signal that it's not junk and other editors don't have to worry that it is. Not a censorious action—rather the opposite.

FYI, though: new talk page topics generally go at the bottom of the page. So I moved your question to the bottom of mine. In the future, you can use the "create new section" button to start a new topic. More information on how to use talk pages is at Help:Using talk pages.

Because nobody's given you the formal welcome message, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and give you some handy links for new users:

If you need anything, you can 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. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia. A. Parrot (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey there, Ghost Lourde. I've removed some personal information from your userpage to protect your real-world identity. I'd recommend not re-adding this information. Thanks! — foxj 12:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations

That's fine, I suppose--It's unsolicited, yes, but it's nevertheless more than warranted. I'm not impervious to being remiss--as my editing so eagerly displays.

Thank you. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your userpage

It's very cromulent and embiggening.--MJH92^talk 20:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assessment with which I must reluctantly differ

Yes, yes, I'm inordinately garrulous--let's not allude to The Simpsons, please. :P Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Ostensibly, and arguably, using esoteric words to embiggen your intelligence quotia vis a vis the target audience makes you seem pedantic, ostenstatious, and narcissistic. And sometimes, it will obfuscate the real point of what you're trying to communicate to your audience, thereby causing dissoultion of their concentration as they try to glean what the obscure, yet cromulent, words mean.

I enjoin you to avoid doing committing such an atrocity of pettiness. Speaking plainly with good enunciation is always best.

So don't do that shit.

Arguably, indeed

......Pardon me, but are you parodying my loquacity in order to engender my misinterepretation? So as to, what, demonstrate a point? That, what, loquacity invariably engenders misinterpretation?

We'll work off the premise that *that's* your assertion--while noting the caveat that you did say 'sometimes' when purporting that it obfuscates.

Generally speaking, it's my sentiment that I speak with more lucidness and clarity when I'm not being laconic in doing so--this may seem counterintuitive, but it's difficult for me to elucidate upon my viewpoints with terseness. Perhaps I'm being incognizant, but, to me, my vernacular isn't *prohibitively* esoteric--at least, not to any audience that I'd care to court.

Besides, when writing upon such a multifaceted subject as one's own existence, well, shit--how could you not utilize an estimable degree of verbiage? No amount of writing will ever do that topic justice! Granted, my garrulity hasn't been confined merely to biographical snippets, but, again, it's never prohibitively sesquipedalian.

I suppose I'll make an effort to attenuate the verbosity of it, but be aware that your enjoining is taken with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your input--as it wasn't proffered in a petulantly disparaging fashion. How best to keep with this dialogue, should we wish to do so? I'm not sure--and talk pages seem rather inadequate, at that. :/ Ghost Lourde (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will just leave this here

http://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/comments/2pej9h/good_god_this_is_a_wikipedia_editors_user_page/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.234.30 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reddit

Yes, the random, bafflingly attractive young rogue in that thread is me. Ghost Lourde (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Really. Stop.

I'm sorry. But the fact that you attempt to use complex vocabulary, simply for the purpose of making yourself appear more intelligent obscures your meaning and makes you seem like a pompous idiot. Nobody cares that you're sixteen. Nobody gives a shit about your IQ. Showing off your admittedly extensive vocabulary is entirely irrelevant, and if you're writing like this in the articles to which you contribute, you're simply obfuscating the meaning of the pages, decreasing Wikipedia's readability for those without immediate access to a thesaurus. (If you're a troll, then I applaud you. You're good at this) 2601:8:AB80:6800:30E0:3355:F566:B87C (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On circumlocution

I can sympathize with the characterization of my prose as being pompous. It's lengthy, occasionally circuitous, and not in the least bit exoteric. However, it isn't casuistry. It isn't sophistic. I don't utilize all this tiresome verbiage for duplicity's sake--I do it to avoid allegations of inexperience. I'm 16. Admitting to that invariably entails...shall we say, patronization on the behalf of the audience. It isn't to bolster an intellectual pretense, however--I'm not that insecure.

I'm cognizant of the fact that the chief goal of an article is cogency and cohesiveness--and that utilizing rarefied words detracts from that noticeably. Thus, I don't. This degree of purple is reserved only for private discourses and off-page discussion/argumentation. Yes, yes, I know, it's ostentatious to cite my I.Q. in the course of describing myself. Here, allow me to counterbalance that: I didn't regularly wear underwear until I was in middle school. There. Happy?

Am I a troll? I could be, if I really wanted to be. This seriously isn't the appropriate milieu for that kind of thing, however--there's already a veritable bevy of slavering imbeciles who are pulling their thumbs out of their narrow asses long enough to attempt to derogate me over on Reddit. Ghost Lourde (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Obfuscation of Age in Online Conversation

While I appreciate the necessity of sometimes not disclosing your age in online discussion (my age, I shall not disclose, but it is most definitely one that would often provoke patronization), a simpler solution is to just not say anything about your age. If you don't say anything, people assume you're an adult, especially if you speak with sound grammar, though it is not necessary to write such overcomplicated prose as you do.

The point about your mention of your own IQ is that it adds to the image that your overcomplicated verbiage creates. It paints a picture of as others have previously mentioned, a "pompous idiot."

My intent with this message is to advise you that your use of overcomplicated verbiage is not the most effective way to avoid patronization in online discussion. The way you write makes people immediately target you as an "outsider," as it appears that you are speaking down to them. In my experience, the best way to participate in discussions on the internet without prejudice against you, is to simply write intelligently, and with sound sentence construction. That way, people assume that you are an adult, without feeling the need to attack you for your manner of speaking.

Your advice is noted

I'll deliberate over whether or not to modify my userpage in order to be commensurate with your...admonishments, shall we say. Ghost Lourde (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please do not edit war: it will possibly lead you to a block if you cntinue. There is a discussion on the talk page which I strongly advise you to take part in to discuss the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I was unaware that their was debate going on in the talk pane. I'll partake in that before reverting again.Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why the hell have you reverted again. Once more and I'm dropping you into an appropriate efn rum. USE THE TALK PAGE TO DISCUSS: do not revert once again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was before I had read your message. Again, apologies. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop.

You're edit is never going to fly. Give up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Talk:Gamergate controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I see no reason for this block--I merely elucidated what I felt would contribute to the article. In the talk page. I didn't dive into the editing-bin headfirst. Civil discourse is necessary in order to achieve cogency, of this I am aware. Now, if you're blocking me for elucidating in a decidedly vitriolic fashion--firstly, that's quite superficial of you, and secondly, I shall alter it so that it adheres strictly to a standard of cordiality, if you so wish. I am most certainly not contravening upon the rules concerning articles about living persons—am I smearing their articles with unsourced libel? No. I'm discussing the merits of their journalistic conduct. Again, in a talk page. Sure, I may have employed liberals amounts of expletives in the process, but all the information therein divulged was completely and wholly accurate. Ergo, I consider this block to work to the detriment of the article as a whole. Ghost Lourde (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

BLP applies everywhere, and you were using the talkpage as a soapbox to denigrate people. That's apart from refactoring other editors' comments and posting 210K of material. If this recurs you may expect sanctions, now that you've been notified. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

'A soapbox to denigrate people'? Pardon my incognizance, but when did espousing with the truth become an act of denigration? Furthermore, the truth is not always couched in innocuousness. Now, I would understand this ban if I was doing nothing other than highlighting the shortcomings of certain individuals, but I wasn't. I was using that as an avenue by which to explain the faults of the article. As for the refactoring of other editor's comments, that was actually accidental. You have my apologies, and I assume responsibility for all possible repercussions thereof. 210k of material? Why, that's hardly commensurate in regards to the leaning tower of mendacity that it was assigned to debunk--the very valid grievances contained therein notwithstanding, apparently. I do, however, apologize for the unmitigated acrimony. Vitriol isn't exactly conducive to productivity, I'm well aware. Ergo, you possess grounds enough to uphold your block, but I'd like to make perfectly lucid that the ostensible ones partially aforementioned are patently false. Ghost Lourde (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You still seem to be under the impression that it was your tone that resulted in the ban. It was not, it was repeating information that has been widely deemed to be in violation of our WP:BLP policy. This is not about acrimony or vitriol, it is about using Wikipedia to say harmful things about a living person. On most of Wikipedia you will not find reactions so swift or stern but the gamer scandal is one very sensitive area right now. I cannot unblock you given your current understanding of the situation.

I recommend that you avoid the entire subject when the block is over, if you do not understand the complex maze of BLP landmines that is that article then it is best to avoid it. Chillum 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.....

....A reluctant 'very well'. Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating

Just so you know, I like what you do. You comments on this site would have made Ignatious' pyloric valve whirl about in a fit of euphoria. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how I lack context for that allusion, I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether that was a compliment or a jeer. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius J. Reilly. He is a character from a novel. You should read it; it's very funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.187.69 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, it is a compliment of the highest degree. Keep doing you, my good man. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic replies

I said I would put them here, so here they are. Respond as thou wilt.

"I'm sorry, but as of yet, I haven't met any gamer who wants 'women to shut up'--at least, not any that have associated themselves with the subject of this article.

You seem a bit misguided about the ostensible purposes of the movement--as well as just who its members are, moreover. "

KiA, 8chan, twitter, pick a thread. If you really need, I can provide links on your talk page for each of the vectors -- large numbers of post, highly voted by the community, talking about the need to "tone down" the voices of feminists, women in gaming, and reflect the "true demographics of our subculture". (Sidenote: as someone who's been part of that subculture for longer than you (and most of the commentors) have been alive, those demographics claims seem suspect.) If you feel that none of these represent the "true gamergate community", then I invite you (on my talk page) to point out which vector, or even which individual, actually does.

"Additionally, I'm a bit curious as to why you felt compelled to solidify your merits as a gamer--I'm not exactly concerned with that. My complaints have surfaced as a result of a perceived lack of citations--whether or not that lack is actually present has yet to be cemented."

You claimed a subculture was under attack. Gamergate, per all reliable sources and even their own words, is variously a "consumer movement" or "controversy", not a subculture. As a member of the only subculture yet implied to be relevant (gaming), I wanted to let you know that I am #NotYourShield. I wanted to enhance your appreciation of the context belying your assertions, and all that. Wotcher.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's enthusing to know. I can't exactly be NotYourShield, however, seeing as how I'm, you know, white. And male. And heterosexual. That would run contrary to the entire point, I would think. I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. They're calling for 'women to be silenced', as it were. They're calling for a return to a much more pressing topic. As convolved as subjects such as feminism are with GG, It's not exactly pertinent to be debating the merits of modern feminism in a discussion about how gaming journalism is corrupt. Moreover, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop telling me that you've been gaming longer than I've been alive. You're beginning to sound like a geriatric. :D Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Hey I reverted your comment by deleting it instead of pressing the undo button, which means you wouldnt have got a notification. So here I am on your talk page notifying you instead. Bosstopher (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I fixed it. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning - BLP violating links

Do NOT post the link to the "dossier" page again. It is filled with WP:BLP violating content and posting it has lead to users being blocked and banned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it violates BLP. Block me, and I shall challenge you. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened it up for myself, and it's got all sorts of accusations that can't be supported using reliable, secondary sources. (In fact, many have been rejected by most.) Per WP:VNT and WP:OR, that means the accusations are BLP violations, and the dossier can't be linked to here - whether or not the accusations are true, or even provable. Random ^(?) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello! I've noticed that you've not been indenting your comments on talk pages. Please see this essay about indenting comments to help keep talk pages organized and easy to read. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies--I thought it would be more cogent if the OP didn't indent. I was wrong, apparently. :x Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

Do not post any further youtube videos on the GamerGate related articles, they are not reliable sources and may contain content that violates WP:BLP policy. Dreadstar ☥ 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 I fail to see how it violates BLP. Block me, and I shall challenge you. [[User:Ghost Lourde|Ghost Lourde]] ([[User talk:Ghost Lourde#top|talk]]) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
+:I just opened it up for myself, and it's got all sorts of accusations that can't be supported using reliable, secondary sources. (In fact, many have been rejected by most.) Per [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:OR]], that means the accusations are BLP violations, and the dossier can't be linked to here - whether or not the accusations are true, or even provable. [[User:Mr. Random|Random]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Random|(?)]]</sup> 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 == February 2015 ==