User talk:Hallward's Ghost/Archives/2016/February

HTD
There are some biblical references which often refer encouraging or speeding the second coming of Christ. In this context, it refers (I believe) to a hurry up and tear down the current structure of Wikipedia so that a newer and better system can be established in its place.

My take on it is that one is supporting via HTD, it intends to say "yes, put this into place so that it will help destroy the current system. We can then build a better one." In a sense, it presumes that the current system is broken beyond repair, so destroy it completely; thus, we can begin anew. Just my interpretation from various on-wiki posts I've seen over the years. Hope it helps. — Ched : ?  18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a pretty overt admission of bad-faith in the !vote, though? Basically saying, "I'm supporting this person who I think would be a bad admin because I want to see Wikipedia destroyed"? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In a word: yes. But you have to understand certain degrees of subtle posts too.  Many of those who despise the current construct of this project actually do cherish the concept of "free online knowledge".  It might be different if there were a viable competitor to EN-WP, but this is pretty much a monopoly.  There are people who love the concept, but absolutely hate how it's currently being managed. — Ched :  ?  18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's certainly understandable. I'd think in such a situation, though, that a "reform it from within" philosophy would be the best tactic. A "burn it down" philosophy accomplishes nothing except self-gratification, in that even a "victory" would be Pyrrhic in nature. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree; but I also understand the thinking that the status quo is too firmly entrenched for any meaningful change to happen. Wikipedia has a fairly lengthy history, and things are certainly far different now than they were in say 2001-200x.  Some feel that the changes that have occurred are detrimental, while others feel there haven't been enough sweeping changes.  It can be difficult to feel all too strongly one way or the other when you understand how both sides see things.  — Ched :  ?  18:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

my style
For myself, I think there is a point after which continued participation in a debate become counter-productive. For myself personally, I long ago decided to set it at 2 comments, and I try to never to do 3 except to correct an error. For me, that refers in particular to AfD, but elsewhere also, including RfA--tho it can be different in a very long running policy talk discussion covering multiple issues where I tend to interpret it as twice per issue.  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this sound counsel. The dogpile has started there after some respected editors weighed in with opposition, allowing all the "per X" people to dive on as well. Continued participation is probably pointless, as the RFA is likely going to end unsuccessfully. It's too bad, really. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * -Also, I think that Peacemaker and Brianhe's RFAs may well be the last to which I contribute to the discussion. It's frustrating, distracting, and--I'm becoming convinced--pointless. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way to do this as will as anything else at WP is to add your view, but not become too focused on anything in particular. I've lost a good many arguments. The only time I stop participating in an area is where there is a permanently entrenched cabal. I don't think there is one at RfA--it varies from candidate to candidate.  DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only "cabal-ish" behavior I see is from editors who seem to have not done much research, and just sort of "hop on the back" of guys who actually do some research to say, basically, "Yeah! Me too! Me too!", though not in so many words. I guess I just don't understand why we don't just have a non-numbered discussion, divided into something like "Pros & Cons" (or whatever), where each comment is separated by the "" and can be discussed for a certain period of time. At the end of that time, the elected Bureaucrats would do a straight up or down vote, in which some set standard of the crat vote promoted the candidate. That seems like it would turn RFA into an ACTUAL discussion, as is now (finally) happening in the "General Comments" section at Brianhe's RFA. And, in my opinion, the basic standard should be: 1) The editor passes X level of experience, in whatever areas of the project s/he chooses to focus; 2) The editor do good work in the primary areas in which they focus; 3)The editor has demonstrated that they're not just a complete, power-hungry prick. If those three bars are cleared, I think that editor should be given a chance to use the administrative tools. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 * I hate seeing a good editor torpedoed like you were at that RFA. It was patently unfair. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

 * Congratulations! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * It's been a tough night for me in real life, Caballero. I appreciate these kind words very much, and really wish that our viewpoint had carried the day, instead of those who tore down Brianhe's record as a long-term editor of this project. This has been the first time since I've created an account (I edited sporadically for years as an IP) that I've truly been completely disheartened by something that happened on here. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, the despair would have been inconsolable if somebody like you would not have been there. You explained to me that I was not insane (or at least, not the only insane) and that there is hope. Changes do not occur suddenly. I once gave up on WP thinking little could be achieved here. But after witnessing up and close the devotion and ingenuity of so many editors, I now prefer this company than many others. It is an open community populated by some amazing and hardworking people like Brian, and now you (I did not know Brian before, but similar editors). Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  07:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RfAs are a brutal process. And the candidates who sail through with unanimous approval are few and fortunate indeed. For most of the candidates. it's an experience of peering into ones editing past and highlighting every misstatement one made. One can't deny ones edits, only state that you've learned from your mistakes. Still, it is a "scorching" experience and one I don't recommend unless an editor is confident they have significant community approval.
 * And, as Kudpung states, a lot of RfAs are determined by which editors decide to show up and participate. On this RfA, I noted a few editors who had been inactive, probably editing logged out, who logged in and cast a vote from their user account. The participation of those folks is a wild card, unpredictable, because you don't know who will show up, how many there will be and what opinions they bring to the process. Liz  Read! Talk! 03:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. It all gets a bit discouraging sometimes, particularly when I see fine editors torn down and rejected for adminship simply because some people disagree with their views on some aspect of Wikipedia. There are times when I wish I'd just stayed an IP editor. It was less stressful, that's for sure. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe
Hi Kevin, what Nihonjoe was trying to do was to nudge the discussion to a centralized page, such as the bureaucrats' noticeboard as opposed to the talkpage associated with the individual RfA, which is meant for discussion of the specific RfA itself. To be fair, that's the discussion started with the Brianhe RfA, but now, when we are discussing broader concerns related to crat chats and the discretionary zone, it would make sense to hold the discussion in a more centralized location such that a broader range of opinions and interested parties could find the discussion and to contribute to it. We are not trying to stifle discussion.  Maxim (talk)  20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. And if an editor who doesn't happen to be the one whose close initiated the discussion there wants to archive that page, I think that would be much more in order than Nihonjoe doing it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you feel better if I put my name on it? Or, you are welcome to reinstate the close too...  Maxim (talk)  20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would feel better mainly because in this way it does not appear as evading confrontation (which is not necessarily what is happening). But I don't know about Hallward's Ghost. It is just me. Please, ad a clear link to the new discussion.   Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with CH here. If you (Maxim) want to put your name on it and provide a clear link to where the discussion surrounding the issues Nihonjoe's close stirred up, that would be fine. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Since is attempting to stifle discussion of his bad AFD close at his talkpage, moving my comments here, with pings
Given his comments [at his talkpage], I doubt ever had any intention of deleting that "article." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...which was rather obvious just considering the spurious relisting rationale. There was no ground for the relisting, and it is highly inappropriate it was Coffee again the one who close the discussion. They should had voted, not relisted and closed the discussion. This is that kind of absurd stuff which feeds sites like Wikipediocracy and that makes it look Wikipedia worse than it is... Cavarrone 19:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(Attempted discussion with that he whitewashed from his talkpage) The "strong arguments" were presented at the AFD. You ignored them, and weighed them equally with the WELIKEIT arguments that mangled the straightforward language of CRYSTAL to pretend their position held any policy-based weight. I suppose should now get to work on those other speculative future presidential election articles he noted that your illogical interpretation of that discussion now allow for. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's not a !vote, I'm not sure where you got the 56% from, with the stats reporting 16-26-3-1 and my count a bit higher. I would say that I would have liked to engage in further conversation about the meaning of Crystal and such, but I wanted to avoid the bludgeon that LavaBaron had been criticized for and which I have engaged in previously and sought to avoid (what's up with his comparison to the 2024 Olympics in the last comment?! Completely different). I feel that people saw the article and thought, 'hey there's content, there's sources, it must be good', where in fact none of the sources had any substantive information about the election, and those that seemed to just used that election year as a future reference date. I (and perhaps User:Hallward's Ghost?) am definitely considering DRV though I share his concerns since I have not been there before. This is just so far in the future, I'd consider a new AFD later this year otherwise, and the folks at WP:NOT should be asked their thoughts (I know that direct reference line to elections and Olympics is actually a math formula that has changed before). Regardless, the new material added since is even less appropriate: meaningless pop culture references (we don't mention The West Wing in the 2000 article) and a 2008 documentary that again just picked a random future year, and I wish to avoid dealing with LavaBaron. Reywas92Talk 20:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I echo your sentiments on dealing with LavaBaron. That nonsense about "destroying knowledge" was the last straw for me. While I am beyond frustrated that Coffee has basically used a supervote to keep the article (by oddly finding a "no consensus" in a discussion where one side cited policy and the other side did not, their intentional skewing of CRYSTAL notwithstanding), I don't anticipate that those who frequent DRV would have the stomach to actually overturn Coffee's close. If you DO take it there, though, please ping me, and I'll at least drop a futile comment as I've done here at Coffee's talk. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I've not used DRV before but I wouldn't guess it would help since it was already open for more than a month. I'm thinking of opening a discussion on WP:NOT. I know the Crystal section mentioned only the next election as explicitly okay, it was updated at some point to cover 2020 despite the previous consensus. Disappointed that Coffee only counted delete/total since the merges/redirect would tilt that way too. Reywas92 Talk  23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked at how -- an admin I have (maybe had?) -- a lot of respect for prior to this has responded at his talkpage. Just no willingness at all to even consider that he might have been mistaken in how he judged the results of that discussion. If you do start a discussion at CRYSTAL, please let me know. I'll at least drop by to put in my $0.02 on the issue.  Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing ANI discussions
Hallward's Ghost, be careful in closing ANI discussions, even frivolous ones and remember to post before your signature to identify it as a non-admin close. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't know about the "NAC" thing. Sorry about that. Seemed like a fairly straightforward close. I'll not be stomping around at ANI, though, rest assured, ! :) Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, HG. I used to close discussion on ANI before I became an admin after they had been resolved (like a topic ban issued or an editor blocked) but I noticed on the Village Pump that some editors are sensitive to non-admin closings and see it as less official even though a discussion closure can always be reversed. Liz  Read! Talk! 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the first time I've ever taken the liberty, and it likely won't happen again. I had no idea that editors like those at the VP might take offense to it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 02:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In passing, thank you for the close, which was entirely appropriate given the content of the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

BtK
The large scale change was a total reversion of the work I did last night on the article to remove a reference per instructions at the GA review. The IP geolocates to Bronx, New York, where a WP:LTA IP vandal is known to edit from (or at least have their IP locate to). Thanks for the reversion. I have asked for page protection to keep this kind of vandalism from happening again. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to help out at Billy the Kid however I can, . I don't know that referring to that IP edit as "vandalism" is probably the best tack to take, though I'll defer to you with regards to your previous experiences in re: similar IP reversions of your work. I think you're doing good work there, though, and I hope the article is promoted to GA as a result. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kudos. I think I bit off a little more than I should have (it's a pretty big and involved article for my first GA nom), but now that I'm in the thick of it, I see no reason to turn back.  I've never been very good at quitting and am working for it to be passed by the end of the weekend.  That's my hope, anyway! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A.ha!
I see, the quotes occured unnecesary to me (didn't go to check that reference, sorry), but a quote is a quote, indeed = untouchable. You do have a cool Username there, actually :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I made the same mistake initially, so no worries. As for the username, I've always loved the Wilde quote about Basil Hallward, and who Wilde himself was in relationship to the characters in The Picture of Dorian Gray. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING
Regarding 's edit summary. According to WP:BLANKING, they actually are allowed to blank their own talk page for warnings, block notices and etc. They are not allowed to remove declined block lift requests and some others. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is true, . My initial thought was that, given his trolling of WV, I didn't want someone to think he hadn't been warned. But in looking into it after he blanked it again, I realized it didn't matter if he blanked it. Blanking it in itself is an acknowledgement that he read and understood the warning. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I forget what the template is called, but there is a template that states there are previous, now deleted, warnings. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to find something like that, but couldn't. If you run across it, would you mind pinging me? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You certainly do seem interested in edits, articles, talk pages, and situations involving me, . The BtK article, the situation you addressed above, and others.  The BtK Ga nomination/review.  So far, in your short editing career, you've ended up at 14 editor talk pages where I've been and 14 articles I've edited, not to mention suddenly showing up in at least one of the AN3 filings where I've been involved.  In a number of cases not long after I've been there.  Any specific reason why?  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I didn't know that. I was watching a top 10 myth video and wondered what Billy the kid is. I also have RfPP on my watchlist. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, pardon me for bumping into this discussion (I was above in another discussion). The template you are both refering to (and pinging ) seems to be , or, for that matter  , to be put somewhere atop an IP Usertalkpage like here  and here. I had to dig a little but I was sure I saw it a couple of days ago. The template, with usage information, is found at Template:OW. Note also the other option mentioned there, to use collapsibles for old warnings. I haven't seen this template very often, really. Its main use seems to be for old, now redundant, user warnings, maybe, if I may ping you here, knows more about them (since you are an admin and use(d) them)? For recent warning removals, as part of a vandal IP's vandalising spree, I always look at the contribs page (after reverting and warning) of such IPs, if they removed stuff from their Usertalkpage, it is obvious right away from that list. If it comes to AIV for that vIP, I will comment that user removed warnings from his usertalkpage (I presume admins at AIV take a quick glance at the contribs anyways, they will notice). However, only after a level 4 warning can an IP be brought to AIV for blocking, at the discretion of the admins around. I am not sure if this template has profound use for recent warning removals? (at least for IPs, as they change often/daily; for Usernames it may be useful indeed for other editors doing countervandalism to be pointed towards previous recent warnings, so they can continue counting). Horseless Headman (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks, HH--I appreciate the wealth of information! Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :-) Horseless Headman (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC).
 * OW tags are for older pages (generally several years without activity), to prevent them from carrying a lot of unnecessary link load. bd2412  T 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Is there any template for IPs that have previously blanked warnings? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The OW template itself contemplates that there may be previous warnings in the edit history of the page. I suppose it could be improved by the addition of an optional parameter to specify that there are such warnings. bd2412  T 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hallward's Ghost, If you insist :-) and if I am correct, one can ask for template creation or adaptations at Requested templates. Another option is perhaps to use this do-it-yourself Notice template Template:Notice where you insert your own text. Please note that the page says "It should be used sparingly and only for significant information for which a more specific template doesn't exist." However, beware that vandals who blank their own usertalkpage from userwarnings, will have no problem also blanking such templates :-). Actually, I wonder if adding such an infotemplate on a vandal's usertalkpage is in line with the general idea of not reverting such Usertalkpage blanking (it means vandal read and likely understood it). And then what, if he removed the infotemplate as well? Add it again? And again? And again? Because, hope I may please also ask, if the rule is to not revert userwarnings / usertalkpage blanking by vandals, the same likely applies to the removal of such template? Horseless Headman (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I haven't had enough coffee yet. Given the time difference, it's best to ping . Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Question from IP about Lemony Snicket
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72.188.108.26&redirect=no You unedited Lemony Snickets page, his birth year is wrong according to Dan's wiki page...So logically speaking one of the pages has to be wrong, i believe it is the lemony snicket page. Please fix the problem...its your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.108.26 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
First of all, thank you for supporting me throughout the GA review of BtK. It's greatly appreciated. I also want to thank you for your comments (as well as those of ) at the article talk page regarding the possibility of having the close of the review reviewed. Considering that the harassment and attempts at sabotage were continual and ultimately led to the fail of the nomination, I would hope it could be reopened based on same. For the record, one of the things I noticed soon after the sock account started with the harassment was his use of "Not an improvement" in an edit summary. Not only was the change I made an improvement, but the use of that phrase was my first clue that the account was a sock and likely someone I had tangled with previously: "Not an improvement" is a phrase I have used numerous times when reverting unhelpful and unproductive edits from status quo, established articles. It didn't take me long to remember who had used that phrase when reverting edits I had made as a taunt: Yep. WordSeventeen. He's VERY good at misbehaving just slightly enough below the radar to give other editors and admins reason to say, "AGF". My experiences with him, however, told me very early on that this individual is crafty and good at patient, long-term harassing behaviors that develop over time, escalate, and then are quite obvious. It's what got him in trouble with me before, it's what got him blocked for six months. Now, he's indeffed. Whatever the now blocked sock account says to you at this point (I note he's left words for you at his talk page a bit ago), don't buy into it. Besides, of course he's WS - the CU results would not have come back as they did if they were not one and the same. Oh, and the other account we question? Time will tell (if you get my meaning), but - have you thought any further about doing an SPI on the ZPH and the other account named in the SPI that failed the CU? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I try to steer clear of drama as much as possible, unless it just finds its way to my door. That's not to say I think your concerns are without merit, just that I prefer my WikiLife to stay clear of most of these kinds of things. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely understand. I have re-nom'd the BtK article, by the way. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are my edits being shown as "pending"?
Can someone explain to me why my edits here are shown as "pending" while a redlink editor's are accepted? At this point, shouldn't my edits be automatically accepted? Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your edits are accepted now; I can't tell why they might have been displayed as "pending" earlier. It's technically possible to un-accept edits; possibly that happened by accident. Whether you (or some other editor) have created a user page is irrelevant to pending changes protection, though. Het0002's edits were not automatically accepted because that editor is not yet autoconfirmed; some of that editor's changes were confirmed by reviewers (others weren't). Huon (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do I acquire the ability to be a pending changes reviewer? I see these "pending changes" fairly regularly in my watchlist, but I'm currently unable to either accept or reject them. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. Huon (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tiger Lily (Peter Pan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piccaninny. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)