User talk:Halfhat

Halfhat, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

BLP Discretionary sanctions notice
Dreadstar ☥   18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This notice relates to Gamergate controversy, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and related articles, talk pages and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥   18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Draft Stuff
I'm probably going to be a bit busy tonight and tomorrow, but I figured I'd make a page here to work on the structure. I'm going to try to collect some good sources to get an idea of what the major agreed upon points are, but you can go ahead without me if you'd like :) Kaciemonster (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work man. I'll try to help when I have the chance. Halfhat (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record you don't seem like a single-purpose editor, just got a notification about being mentioned on a discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard which has already been closed, I think RyuL is just jumping the gun with paranoia. Some of us don't edit as much as he does, so do dedicate a similar amount of time to monitoring an article that is important to us may take up a greater portion of our time and edits, but that hardly makes it our ONLY purpose on Wikipedia. Busier and newer articles by their nature attract multiple edits with back-and-forth to create changes. Our contributions to less busy articles are often lost in that shuffle. Ranze (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ragweed
Talk:Ragweed Please explain why you reverted me, and put that information back into the article.  D r e a m Focus 01:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you seemed to have been based on original research, maybe I was mistaken, sorry I'm in the middle of some stuff, I don't mean to be rude. Halfhat (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633243890 your edit] to Gamergate controversy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * game-authority-art-video-games//|title=The Object of the Game: Authority, Art, and Video Games |date=February 14, 2013|accessdate=August 23, 2014}} -->

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks man. H a l f  Hat  08:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I copied this over to my userpage because I'm playing around with it ATM. H a l f  Hat

Friendly request
Hello there Halfhat! I'm going around Wikipedia trying to clean up some outdated, deprecated, and obsolete code that is being used around the site. I came across your signature and noticed that it is using obsolete  tags. I'd love to help you bring your signature up-to-date, and if you are interested in this, I suggest replacing:


 * with:


 * which will result in a 173 character long signature (3 characters shorter) with an appearance of: H a l f   Hat
 * compared to your existing 176 character long signature of: H a l f  Hat
 * — Either way. Happy editing! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. H a l f Hat     H a l f   Hat
 * , you seem to have appended my suggested code to the end of your signature (and since that would exceed the 255 character limit and there is a stray  in your new signature, I'm guessing you are subst:ing your signature from someplace).  You should be able to completely replace whatever you have in your signature box with my replacement code, or revert to what you were using and replace whatever code you have on your signature sub-page with the code I provided.  I suggest getting rid of the sub-page, as anyone could edit it and cause you to have a disruptive signature.  If you need assistance, ping me and I'd be happy to help in any way that I can. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I was just posting both to make sure I made the change, I've no idea where the stray  came from.  H a l f   Hat  21:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice indeed. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The H-word
No more references or comparisons to anything Hitler, it's inflammatory and unnecessary to make the point you're trying to make; and therefore disruptive. Find another way to communicate your meaning. Dreadstar ☥   07:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I find this rather questionable since I was making reference to the Hitler Wikipedia article, not comparing anyone or anyone's actions to Hitler. I make these comparisons because it's an obvious example of all RSs sharing a broad opinion to make a point about how we should write the GamerGate article. I am bringing this to the Arbitration Committee. H a l f   Hat  09:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to explain why Godwin's law invocations are a bad idea? By drawing more attention to your actions you're only asking to be sanctioned for the actions.  It's best to retract the assertions and to make an apology to everyone lest you be sanctioned for it. Hasteur (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using Tarc's favourite article for comparison as a comparison instead. You can make exactly the same point as with using the Hitler article, minus the whole godwin's law effect. Bosstopher (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Godwins law refers to fallacies such as "that's what Hitler thought" not every argument that is somehow connected to Hitler. I never compared anyone or anyone's actions to Hitler or Hitler's actions. I simply refered to how you'd write the Wikipedia article. H a l f   Hat  15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While you are right, it shouldn't be a big deal, it's probably not worth quibbling over. Just find another article to make comparisons to, I'm sure there has to be a few out there that would suffice. :) Happy editing. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see where you have come from but I have been threatened with sanctions, any other article to compare it to would have to be inflammatory in nature as well, and so it could be seen as a loophole, there are reasons this is a particularly good example such as notoriety, well written article, and RSs sharing an opinion (which was the key part in my argument). H a l f   Hat  16:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) edited at 23:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

List of subjects within earth science
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of subjects within earth science, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://writingacademicessays.blogspot.com/2013/02/earth-science.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed tag as the bot was in error - that blogpost was obviously copied from the WP article. Also moved the list back to the artcle, see talk there. Vsmith (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions to the Arb workshop
The "workshop" page is not for stating your personal opinions. It is for drafting building blocks you want the arbs to write into their final decision. For that reason it makes no sense at all to submit "proposals" there that speak of yourself and your opinions in your own voice. In the interest of avoiding more occasions for unproductive debate (as has already started in those sections), can I request you strike or reword your proposals? If you are not sure how arb decisions are normally structured and worded, just look at the final decisions of a few previous cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wanted to fix them up a bit but got but short, I'll move them to my sandbox, then finish them when I can. H a l f   Hat  14:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it's attracted comment I'll strikeout and reword, I have a preposed solution, but I want to set up the facts first. H a l f  Hat  14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate NPOV
Hi Halfhat,

I realise that you're not allowed to assume bad-faith in people and obviously I would never slyly imply such a thing, but I am... a little... confused by the comments of some of the people you've been talking to on the Gamer Gate talk page and their opinions. Keep on fighting for NPOV. Some people here really, really respect other folk who put their neck out to do the right thing even when it's unpopular. Theduinoelegy (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * two thumbs up

Copy of Heron, Belford, Goker
Hi, I saw that you were asking about the 'coordinated harassment' claims on the GamerGate article. The claims seem to rest on reference 19, a copy of which is here: http://www.academia.edu/9790919/Sexism_in_the_Circuitry_Female_Participation_in_Male_Dominated_Popular_Computer_Culture. It's interesting to note that the paper doesn't cite examples of coordinating harassment against Ms. Quinn. Rather, the log samples used show coordination of a) non-harassment ("keep it civil"), b) spreading information about her, c) recruiting others The whole paper is worth reading. Mracidglee (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)