User talk:Ghost Lourde

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:

• 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
• Wikipedia:Questions

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)

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)

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)

I like your userpage

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

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)

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)

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)

Dear Reddit

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Just stop.

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

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)

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.

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