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

Denali

just FYI, In fact everything the IP wrote is true. It is also already covered in the "climbing history" section of the article, with appropriate references, so removing it was still the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, Beeblebrox. Something seemed... "off" about the edit, but I should've looked deeper into it before just reverting. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 06:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping new editors

The nature of a troll is that it's difficult to tell whether or not they are sincere. In this case [1], my suspicions come from the marked difference in English language competence between the edits made to articles, and the responses given on talk pages. But I still hold out the possibility that their efforts are in good faith, and are potentially productive. Seeming incompetence can sometimes come from a physical disability, such as my fat thumbs on a cell phone, and lack of patience in getting it right. Two years of typing class in high school… down the toilet. In my day, we used all the fingers, and nothing went to waste. But anyway….

I've made a few reach-outs here at Wikipedia, too, so I wanted you to know that your efforts [2] are appreciated, and that even in this case, I would encourage them further if you feel it's worth your time. Wikipedia is built from a variety of viewpoints and skills, so good cops and bad cops are both important. Though we sit on opposite sides of the fence this time, I wouldn't want to discourage our shared belief that there are potentially productive contributors out there, except for the mass of policies and guidelines, and a barrage of impersonal template warnings. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. It seems, from the wide ranging disagreement, that my viewpoint on this editor is likely wrong. I still think that what he was trying to do (add burial information to the articles of non-living persons) isn't inherently disruptive, and I'm trying to understand what his angle might be for having used several sources that didn't reference said information. The ones he sourced to Findagrave, well, I was just wrong about that, since I didn't realize that Findagrave has been condemned as a non-reliable source, so my apologies for that one. Finally, I guess we'll see what happens when Drmies' 1 week block ends. I hope that editor comes back and makes a real attempt to learn and grow. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the burial information is being added to articles of non-living persons. We can be appreciative of that, at least. Reminds me of an old friend's wishes: "When I'm gone, I want my remains scattered over my old high school. And I don't want to be cremated." Willondon (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Now that's a super-gross visual! :) Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hallward's Ghost. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 09:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Just a head's up on the ANI, that I mentioned the conduct of a few of us should be considered. I'm not suggested that anything we've have done is or isn't wrong particularly, only that the closing administrator should look at the whole story. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I'll keep an eye on that thread. That was a really strange meltdown. I'll candidly admit that it's possible I read the article wrong as to what was being claimed by the Birley reference. In the context of the AFD, and people using the offline refs as support for the notability of that neologism, it perhaps struck me as more sinister than it should have. But I don't feel like anything I did was worth that sort of angry, antagonistic attack from GnGn. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket - possible merge

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)