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
 * Questions

If you need anything, you can ask me on my talk page, or 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.--MJH92talk 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)

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)

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)

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)


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


 * Well, thank you, I suppose. :D Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 not 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)
 * 1) Then don't make claims about a subculture being libeled. Gaming is the closest relevant subculture and is not being libeled, Gamergate is not a subculture.
 * 2) The rather obvious nuance that nearly every media source is making is that (1) "AGG" isn't debating the merits of modern feminism, they're generally pointing out that GG's ends-justify-means method of slagging women for the ostensible purpose of obtaining journalistic ethics is beyond the pale, and that (2) making sure that women aren't being harassed (as well as focusing on the actual sources of journalistic corruption) is a more important conversation to be having than the conversation of whether women/SJW's voices should be excluded from gaming to try to eliminate corruption.
 * 3) "I wanted to let you know that I am #NotYourShield." Again: "I". Reading comprehension, dood. Words have meaning. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Words have meaning? Why, yes they do. In other news, trees cast shade, and grass is known to be green in pigment. All that, and sports at '11! :/

Woops! I didn't mean to say 'they're calling for women to be silenced'. I meant to say that they *aren't*. My mistake. Profuse apologies. In any case, I'm attempting to establish that no one is arguing for anyone's voices to be excluded from gaming in order to eliminate corruption. My bad. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a dubious claim to my eyes, as I've seen that exact request both made and popularized by GG supporters on twitter, 8chan, and reddit. If you're truly unaware of that sentiment, I can provide sources. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am truly unaware of it. I don't often frequent those places, frankly. I imagine there's ample evidence for it, though. Still, I'm thinking that those people are the exception, not the rule. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I fail to see how it violates BLP. Block me, and I shall challenge you. Ghost Lourde (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. Random (?) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I still fail how to see how it violates BLP. No accusations were made by the article, as it allowed the reader to deduce his or her own extrapolations and/or conclusions. It can be linked to here. Object at your own peril. Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request
This notification is to inform you of an Arbitration Enforcement Request involving you. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why you've decided to magnify this dispute to such superfluous heights, I may never know. Do know, however, that I am in considerable disagreement with your actions. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
Due to your disruptive editing, I'm imposing upon you an indefinite ban on 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 per Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥   23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'Disruptive editing', hmm? I should have known it would come to this. Very well. Sweep it all under the rug by whatever expedient means you see fit, Mr. Authority. The cited case has not been resolved yet, by the way. You might want to change that. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see my comments on the enforcement page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Suspected Vandalism on Ape
The first time I looked at the page, every image other than the one in the infobox was an identical image of a man shouting (looked like some sort of practical joke played on the man in the photo) - somehow my reverting it and you reinstating your changes has got rid of the photo. sheridan (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahhhh, so that's what that was about. Apologies for the misunderstanding, then. That's quite curious, though--I'll be sure to keep watching the page, just in case it comes back. Ghost Lourde (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope you like kittens
LOl

Zayn D (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC) 

Oh. Thanks! Ghost Lourde (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)