User talk:Wandering Ghost

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)[edit]

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!--Edchilvers 17:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Crasniye Solleetsi[edit]

An editor has nominated Crasniye Solleetsi, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crasniye Solleetsi (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hi, just a friendly reminder to you to avoid edit warring. For instance there's a policy called the three revert rule. In the past twenty-four hours you have exceeded three reverts on this article [1] [2] [3] [4]. That's blockable behavior, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone if you don't.

--Tony Sidaway 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity[edit]

There's been talk about the coordination and co-operation of the anti-spoiler side. That may be an exaggeration, but it's painfully clear that we can shout into the woods all we want without getting anywhere without laid-out goals and viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy, not just criticisms of it, however justified they may be. I'm open to suggestions, and feel free to reply to any that other people make on my talk page.

In the meantime, here's a symbol. Please put it on your user page or keep it on your talk page; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. --Kizor 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

Hope you don't mind[edit]

Hi, I wanted to read your comment in the section "Spoiler warnings may be temporarily added for very new media" on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, but it's very long and so I paragraphed it so I could read it. I didn't change the text or the meaning, I hope. --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic number identification[edit]

Your edits have been reverted: the table and phrack reference. Just FYI, in case you wanted to address the concerns someone raised and re-add them. They seemed valuable.--Elvey 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of misconduct[edit]

FYI, I removed your allegations of misconduct from Wikipedia talk: Spoiler, and I will continue to do so unless and administrator asks me to desist. If you are alleging misconduct, you need to take it to a forum where it can be adjudicated—and a project talk page isn't that forum.

You may believe that ArbCom is "stacked" in favor of the administrators you're complaining about, though I would note that ArbCom has ruled against administrators on plenty of occasions. If it is stacked in their favor, then it probably means that Wikipedia lacks the institutional capability of dealing with this issue in the manner that you would like. At that point, you'll have to decide whether this is a project in which you can productively participate, despite its many limitations.

The one absolute certainty is that accusing others of misconduct poisons the debate. It warps the discussion. Instead of talking about how to improve the encyclopedia, we're talking about whether fellow editors have (or have not) misbehaved. At some point, your accusation must either be proved or dropped. I think that point has arrived. Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing out a problem that has got us to this point in the spoiler policy improperly, and needs to be considered if discussion is to continue with any credibility. Most of what I've said is either self-evident, or has been admitted. Phil Sandifier threatening to block people? I told you where to see it. Archive 11 of the spoiler debate. Editors using what links here to remove spoiler warnings en masse? Has been admitted to on a number of occasions. Now, whether that's a bad thing may not be 'proved', but I've yet to see anybody pointing out any flaws in my reasoning.

1) Mass removing uses of a template is an assymetrical process, because it's easy to remove and comparatively difficult to add. It's also possible for editors to seek out new additions of the template, but people as interested on the other side can't seek out removals.

2) This allows a small group of people, working on every article, to overrule much larger groups working on individual articles. As such, consensus is impossible to determine with any reliability.

3) That which obscures consensus is a bad thing, and reflects afailure to compromise. It may not be technically a violation, but it certainly seems to be gaming the system.

4) A small group of editors (composed in large part by the most vocal part of the anti-spoiler-warning side in the WP: Spoiler discussion) _was_ suppressing the spoiler template in exactly this manner. It's been admitted to. Maybe they didn't realize the problem at first, but once they do they're acting in bad faith.

5) (Less proved, but the evidence is there if you dig for it)- Throughout the spoiler debate, spoilers were often removed with the edit summary 'removed per WP: Spoiler' _even while the spoiler policy was marked as in dispute_, despite being asked not to, lending a false air of authority which served to discourage people arguing with them. Anyone who did attempt to revert the spoiler template removal was again reverted, and unless there were large numbers of them on that individual page, if they continued the fight they were threatened with 3RR violations.

In the whole 'allegations of misconduct' thing that was moved to the noticeboard, Tony Sidaway (laughably) brought up Wikipedia is not a battlefield. But that's exactly how he and others have been handling the debate. They found a weapon they could use that the other side couldn't, and without shame used that weapon to win. That's what you do in a battlefield, not a consensus-based decision making venue that should be based on compromise.

Now, if you can't see that as a problem in this discussion and an attempt to find a compromise or consensus, you're a little blind, a little dim, or you're also not acting in the best of faith. Considering your first _big, decisive, public action_ in this debate that I've seen, beyond vaguely suggesting what the pro-warning people _might_ do, or what long projects they might want to get into to _perhaps_ sway people, was not to actually _support_ any particular compromise policy that mandated spoilers in some limited cases when it was brought up, not saying, "hey, dude, threatening people with blocking is not cool" when Sandifer threatened a block for anybody even thinking of adding spoiler warnings without the template, not voting that the TfD might have been closed improperly and so it was best to err on the side of caution, no, it was to actually censor somebody for saying "hey, this is wrong" on the opposite side once too often, I'm afraid it doesn't speak well for your ethics. I've reluctantly decided to remove you from my assumption of good faith until you begin acting otherwise. I will continue to add my comments as I see fit, and if you feel a problem with them, you're free to take it up with ArbCom. Deleting text is contraindicated by many guidelines, but if you want to do that to mine, be warned I'll feel free to do the same to you when you insult actual people (despite acting in bad faith, you're _usually_ fairly civil, but there are times you have, IIRC you called several pro-warning people trolls more than once). Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WG, the time has come to give it up and move on. The people whom you are accusing of misconduct are widely respected contributors. Continuing a pissing match with people who have demonstrated themselves as reasonable many times in many forums just doesn't hold water. I know that it is not pleasant to lose, but the community is not supporting your efforts in this case. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)<[reply]

Whoa there! "Give it up and move on?!?" That's crazy talk. What instead needs to happen is that you actually do something about it. I've repeated this ad nauseum but Tony Sidaway is correct, dispute resolution exists and should be used.

I do understand that the existing structures are intimidating, and that the previous attempts appear to have come to nought. I also understand that the process (we’re talking about arbitration here, obviously) takes a tremendous amount of effort. But, have just a little bit of faith in the system and give it a go. I’m willing to lend support, help to refactor, even host the draft version in my user space: User talk:CygnetSaIad/Requests for arbitration/Long term disruption/Workshop.

Because if you (and your cohort) don’t either take up this offer or "give it up and move on," you are going to end up getting the rough end of the pineapple.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clinic for Paranormal Research[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Clinic for Paranormal Research. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinic for Paranormal Research. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]