Like your homepage. Love your slant. Admire your vigorous removal of cant. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice picture. Got any more? (particularly related to Chekhov, that is.) ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. :) Could you please comment here on the latest outbreak of activity from Gavin.collins? Thank you. BOZ ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to make sure that you saw new discussion on WT:D&D, where Shadzar has left the WikiProject because of discussion regarding Gavin.collins, although Gavin WAS NOT involved in the discussion itself. I thought you might want to comment. - Drilnoth ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, ColorOfSuffering. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ ( talk) 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ ( talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I would just like to say thank you for being able to edit this article (JWL) without being like the rest of the users who cannot disagree without being disagreeable (i.e. feeling the need to insult someone who says something they don't accept rather than rationally approach and fix the problem). I did massive editing to the article because prior to me doing so, the only image presented of JWL was VERY biased in my opinion. It literally had no information that was negative towards him; it simply made him out to be a victim.
Again, thank you for not being ridiculous. I'm a law school student so I'm very used to having to converse with people arguing the opposite side of whatever I take, but not in an insulting way. So I suppose thank you for not being childish.
Thank you and Merry Christmas,
John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcoving ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?
I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)
If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
HI there,
Thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.
You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to " Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. I don't see any reason we at the D&D WikiProject can't get Dave's article promoted now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.
Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ ( talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ ( talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Serrell.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just spent waaaaaaaaay too much time looking through your contributions just so I could read all of your edit summaries. They're so fun! Thanks for putting so much humour into things that pop up on my watchlist, :-) Maedin\ talk 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your message - I've been away. I assure you I'm familiar with the guidelines for citing sources. I just find the end result is a sloppy mess at the bottom of the page. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it constantly evolves as new ideas are introduced. If people weren't bold enough to make changes, the site would still be the same as the day it was created.
I don't quite understand your contention that citing references your way makes it much easier to identify the reliability of a given source. The definitive way to know how reliable a source is is to click on the link and access the web page that was referenced. Knowing who wrote the article, on what date it was written, and where it was published can be learned just as easily from clicking on my style of citing as yours. I don't feel it needs to be spelled out in such a messy fashion at the bottom of the article.
My personal policy is never to create an article and leave it in this state [1], or to bring it only as far as this [2]. I try to add as many details as possible in the initial draft. I think that's more important than worrying about the formatting of references, especially when either way is going to bring you to the same point. Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding some references to this article. To answer your question [3], not exactly, but there are certain facts that have to be referenced on articles, and more so on biographies of living persons. Those include specific facts about box office gross, critical commentary, such as referring to something as being "critically panned", "box office failure", "mixed reviews" and the like. Quotes always need to have specific quotes, whether from printed sources or a verbal quote. That would seem to me to be the reason the facts tags were placed. Thanks again for placing refs. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to this editing game, but I'm glad to see someone else is as semi-neurotic as I am when it comes to maintaining NPOV in two sentences in a page about a mediocre comedian. Also, lovely user page. Godspeed out there. -- RachulAdmas ( talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
OH BOY! HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!LOLOLOL!!!!
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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.
Johnuniq ( talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
<note> I see that you received a formal notice above, while the article was still fully under community sanctions. Yes, I understand the hesitation. However, as a rule of thumb when jumping into a very controversial subject, it's usually best to read all the relevant articles and their talk pages and talk page histories to see what's already been resolved, what best fits where, and so on. Risker ( talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on the discussion in the section above, you may be interested in an ArbCom Clarification Request and/or the discussion at WT:BLP. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*snrk* Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :D -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Please don't use edit summaries to insult other editors, as you did at the Gamergate talk page. This [6] edit summary ("I wrote a bunch of stuff on the Gamergate talk page today, mom. Are you proud of me?!?!?" "No, son. No one is proud of you.") is more than a bit uncivil, and I don't know what I've said to invoke your ire. Let's all be friends, okay? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your contributions to the GamerGate article today.
It was really refreshing to see someone citing RS in this way :-) Racuce ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Delicious! Thanks! ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You know what?
Before we progress any further, gather around the Cosby recliner, children, because it's anecdote time.
One day, as I was listlessly browsing YouTube, a notification appeared in my Google+ box: "[Kitschy pseudonym]: Commented on, +1'd your comment on [Video]". Consumed, as I was, by adolescent boredom, I partook out of pure curiosity...and was met with this:
"Old king cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he....". The rest of the comment, I forget. Which is fine, because that little preface is what we'll be discussing today.
I don't quite think I can adequately convey just how fatuously discordant that sentence was with the rest of the comment. It would be like opening up a super-mart by first setting it on fire. Sure, it creates quite a spectacle, but what are you left with in the aftermath?
Ashes.
I began to hate that commenter almost instantaneously. It was such a non-sequitur, such a faux pas. It was ludicrous.
Why do I bring this up? Chiefly because I felt like it, frankly.
With that tangent thusly divulged, let's address something marginally more salient, I suppose.
I see you've been...'fighting the good fight', as it were. Against a very...shall we say...obdurate opposition?
That's enthusing to know--truly, it is. You have my...'support', for what little good it will do. Hit me up sometime--I'm beginning to enjoy conversing with you. Ghost Lourde ( talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sanction lifted per agreement described below.
Zad
68
03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
} The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned for trolling: [7] [8] [9]. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. |
ColorOfSuffering, per your agreement
here, I am lifting your topic ban under the condition that, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, you commit to adhering to the guidelines at
WP:TPG, and in particular that you will commit to using plain, straightforward communication about the article content and sourcing. Failing to do this will likely result in a sanction. I will log this change to the sanction in the DS logs.
Zad
68
03:50, 11 June 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)
16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters but this made me laugh. Prominent is a synonym of notable. — Strongjam ( talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Like your homepage. Love your slant. Admire your vigorous removal of cant. ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 20:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice picture. Got any more? (particularly related to Chekhov, that is.) ~ Alcmaeonid ( talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. :) Could you please comment here on the latest outbreak of activity from Gavin.collins? Thank you. BOZ ( talk) 21:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I know that you have recently been active in some Dungeons & Dragons articles, so I thought that I'd point out a new proposition that I made regarding their notability at WT:D&D#A new proposition. Any input on the idea would be much appreciated. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 14:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to make sure that you saw new discussion on WT:D&D, where Shadzar has left the WikiProject because of discussion regarding Gavin.collins, although Gavin WAS NOT involved in the discussion itself. I thought you might want to comment. - Drilnoth ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, ColorOfSuffering. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ ( talk) 18:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed against Gavin.collins. Since you have been involved in the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. - Drilnoth ( talk) 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ ( talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I would just like to say thank you for being able to edit this article (JWL) without being like the rest of the users who cannot disagree without being disagreeable (i.e. feeling the need to insult someone who says something they don't accept rather than rationally approach and fix the problem). I did massive editing to the article because prior to me doing so, the only image presented of JWL was VERY biased in my opinion. It literally had no information that was negative towards him; it simply made him out to be a victim.
Again, thank you for not being ridiculous. I'm a law school student so I'm very used to having to converse with people arguing the opposite side of whatever I take, but not in an insulting way. So I suppose thank you for not being childish.
Thank you and Merry Christmas,
John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcoving ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship. How's everything going?
I don't know if you've been around in a while, but I'd like to point out to you the success we've had with the D&D GA-drive so far: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and we plan to hit Dave Arneson and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) after some work. :)
If you're interested in coming around to check out what we've been up to, you are welcome as always. :) BOZ ( talk) 17:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
HI there,
Thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.
You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to " Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. I don't see any reason we at the D&D WikiProject can't get Dave's article promoted now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.
Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ ( talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ ( talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Serrell.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I just spent waaaaaaaaay too much time looking through your contributions just so I could read all of your edit summaries. They're so fun! Thanks for putting so much humour into things that pop up on my watchlist, :-) Maedin\ talk 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your message - I've been away. I assure you I'm familiar with the guidelines for citing sources. I just find the end result is a sloppy mess at the bottom of the page. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it constantly evolves as new ideas are introduced. If people weren't bold enough to make changes, the site would still be the same as the day it was created.
I don't quite understand your contention that citing references your way makes it much easier to identify the reliability of a given source. The definitive way to know how reliable a source is is to click on the link and access the web page that was referenced. Knowing who wrote the article, on what date it was written, and where it was published can be learned just as easily from clicking on my style of citing as yours. I don't feel it needs to be spelled out in such a messy fashion at the bottom of the article.
My personal policy is never to create an article and leave it in this state [1], or to bring it only as far as this [2]. I try to add as many details as possible in the initial draft. I think that's more important than worrying about the formatting of references, especially when either way is going to bring you to the same point. Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven ( talk • contrib) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding some references to this article. To answer your question [3], not exactly, but there are certain facts that have to be referenced on articles, and more so on biographies of living persons. Those include specific facts about box office gross, critical commentary, such as referring to something as being "critically panned", "box office failure", "mixed reviews" and the like. Quotes always need to have specific quotes, whether from printed sources or a verbal quote. That would seem to me to be the reason the facts tags were placed. Thanks again for placing refs. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly new to this editing game, but I'm glad to see someone else is as semi-neurotic as I am when it comes to maintaining NPOV in two sentences in a page about a mediocre comedian. Also, lovely user page. Godspeed out there. -- RachulAdmas ( talk) 14:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
OH BOY! HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!LOLOLOL!!!!
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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.
Johnuniq ( talk) 09:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you closed a section I had created on the 4Chan talk page due to "BLP reasons." Now I understand that there is some sensitivity regarding this topic, and I know for a fact that I can be incredibly dense at times, but I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on the specific BLP reasons so I might not repeat this error in the future. From what I found in my research, the fact that allegations were made against Ms. Quinn has been covered in more than 15 articles from highly reliable sources -- top tier news organizations like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and the BBC. The fact that allegations were made is not gossip or a fringe theory, and basic details of the allegations were included in nearly every article I reviewed. My research was about as far from "unsourced or poorly sourced" as a talk page comment can possibly get. I believe there is an important discussion to be had regarding the proper use of the sources in that article space. I'm not interested in the veracity of the allegations, only in striking a more dispassionate, disinterested tone. I'm concerned that the sources are not being properly reflected in the article space at present, and I would like to have the ability to discuss them without being immediately shut down for unspecified "BLP reasons." ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 09:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
<note> I see that you received a formal notice above, while the article was still fully under community sanctions. Yes, I understand the hesitation. However, as a rule of thumb when jumping into a very controversial subject, it's usually best to read all the relevant articles and their talk pages and talk page histories to see what's already been resolved, what best fits where, and so on. Risker ( talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on the discussion in the section above, you may be interested in an ArbCom Clarification Request and/or the discussion at WT:BLP. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
*snrk* Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help :D -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Please don't use edit summaries to insult other editors, as you did at the Gamergate talk page. This [6] edit summary ("I wrote a bunch of stuff on the Gamergate talk page today, mom. Are you proud of me?!?!?" "No, son. No one is proud of you.") is more than a bit uncivil, and I don't know what I've said to invoke your ire. Let's all be friends, okay? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 20:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your contributions to the GamerGate article today.
It was really refreshing to see someone citing RS in this way :-) Racuce ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Delicious! Thanks! ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 03:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You know what?
Before we progress any further, gather around the Cosby recliner, children, because it's anecdote time.
One day, as I was listlessly browsing YouTube, a notification appeared in my Google+ box: "[Kitschy pseudonym]: Commented on, +1'd your comment on [Video]". Consumed, as I was, by adolescent boredom, I partook out of pure curiosity...and was met with this:
"Old king cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he....". The rest of the comment, I forget. Which is fine, because that little preface is what we'll be discussing today.
I don't quite think I can adequately convey just how fatuously discordant that sentence was with the rest of the comment. It would be like opening up a super-mart by first setting it on fire. Sure, it creates quite a spectacle, but what are you left with in the aftermath?
Ashes.
I began to hate that commenter almost instantaneously. It was such a non-sequitur, such a faux pas. It was ludicrous.
Why do I bring this up? Chiefly because I felt like it, frankly.
With that tangent thusly divulged, let's address something marginally more salient, I suppose.
I see you've been...'fighting the good fight', as it were. Against a very...shall we say...obdurate opposition?
That's enthusing to know--truly, it is. You have my...'support', for what little good it will do. Hit me up sometime--I'm beginning to enjoy conversing with you. Ghost Lourde ( talk) 09:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sanction lifted per agreement described below.
Zad
68
03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
} The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned for trolling: [7] [8] [9]. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described
here. I recommend that you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. |
ColorOfSuffering, per your agreement
here, I am lifting your topic ban under the condition that, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, you commit to adhering to the guidelines at
WP:TPG, and in particular that you will commit to using plain, straightforward communication about the article content and sourcing. Failing to do this will likely result in a sanction. I will log this change to the sanction in the DS logs.
Zad
68
03:50, 11 June 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)
16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not that it matters but this made me laugh. Prominent is a synonym of notable. — Strongjam ( talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)