Welcome to Wikipedia, Starke hathaway! Thank you foryour contributions. I amAvono and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message onmy talk page. You can also check outWikipedia:Questions or type{{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post ontalk pages you shouldsign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian!Avono (talk)21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Avono, thanks for the welcome. I've edited as an IP user here and there for years, but have never felt moved to register an account until now. I appreciate the links to resources.Starke Hathaway (talk)23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has an exception in his Topic Ban for arbcom. My advice to you would be to self-revert in order to not be boomeranged.Avono (talk)19:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Avono: I hatted so as to be transparent... wrong move?Starke Hathaway (talk)19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roy and Silo. Just for your reading pleasure. Giraffes are pretty interesting, too; seems they're more interested in same-sex (?same-gender) encounters than opposite-sex ones. Stumbled on that last night when I went to read about how their necks work.  :)Risker (talk)19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, a world with gay penguins and giraffes does seem to me to be a better and happier place than a world without. :)-Starke Hathaway (talk)20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I do appreciate that fix to my edits at AE and the courtesy note on my page. Cheers.Nishidani (talk)21:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note re corps numerical designators.CobraDragoon (talk)18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starke Hathaway,
It is highly unusual for a new account to spend a lot of time posting atWP:ARE andWP:ANI rather than editing articles. Did you have a different account you previously edited under? If so, you might want to acknowledge it on your user page. Just a suggestion.Liz^Read!Talk!16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. I have never had another account here, with the exception of "Starke hathaway" which I had changed through the proper procedures because the uncapitalized last name bothered me. Despite what seems to be the prevailing belief around here, not everyone who disagrees with the house POV at AE is a sock. If you're not satisfied with this response, please oh pretty please take me to the noticeboard of your choice rather than continuing to post this passive aggressive nonsense on my talk page.-Starke Hathaway (talk)18:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You just seemed to have a lot of experience for a new editor. I have no inclination to take this fact to a noticeboard because there is nothing wrong with being a quick study. I edited 7 years ago under a different username so I know from experience that sometimes people stop editing and return in a few years and prefer to start with a new account so I wondered if you had a similar situation. But it was merely curiosity I realize it is none of my business.

And, for what it's worth, I don't know if there is a house POV at AE. I've seen both new editors and experienced admins face sanctions. Most of the time, I find myself arguing against sanctions because the ones handed out at AE are often more severe than ANI. But I've also argued for sanctions when I felt someone was unlikely to change disruptive behavior. So, I'm not sure what POV I'm bringing except that I believe people make mistakes and I believe in second chances.Liz^Read!Talk!20:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your job to enforce topic bans. If there is an issue, discuss it with the user, point it out in the venue, or file anWP:AE. Don't revert them repeatedly.EvergreenFir(talk)Please {{re}}20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted NBSB twice, hardly "repeatedly." Have you also advised them to stop violating their ban? I did, before the second revert.-Starke Hathaway (talk)20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a violation, so no I did not advise them of that. Again, let the admins deal with it, asrequested by an admin.EvergreenFir(talk)Please {{re}}20:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This advice seems to conflict withWP:BANREVERT.Rhoark (talk)04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: edits were onWP:AE and were not in clear violation of topic ban. But you're right...WP:BANREVERT does apply. Honestly I typically think of BANREVERT for site banned users, not topic banned ones.EvergreenFir(talk)Please {{re}}00:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You know why. :)☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: Thanks! But actually I don't know why. Does that mean I have to give the barnstar back?-Starke Hathaway (talk)16:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Wrong guess, sorry. I'd be interested to know how you arrived at that conclusion. But I will cop to reading wikiinaction, which evidently puts me in the company of you, Liz, and, well, Ryulong.-Starke Hathaway (talk)18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've been misled indeed (in which case I apologize). I never meant to offend or impose. :)☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks forthis edit of yours. That vandalism is the reason why the Paulson article is currently protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit.Dismas|^(talk)18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dismas: Thanks for the kind note. While doing a quick Google to see if that was a good edit, I did notice that those two appear to be a popular pairing on Tumblr...-Starke Hathaway (talk)18:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message on the talk page of the article, thank you for your suggestions. I'll pay more attention from now on. I apologize for uploading a version not complete and accurate. I would give some information by adding to the paragraph "Historical Examples" two more subsectionsabout the 17th and 18th centuries. I would focus on how the penal system changed because of the introduction of the rewards and how its implementation simplified the fight against crime. Do you think it could be appropriate?Patrick.ucciardo (talk)17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Patrick.ucciardo, thanks for your note. First, please don't feel as though you need to apologize for trying to improve an article. If anyone should apologize, it's me for not taking the time to work on improving that section instead of just reverting it. I think your additions are good ones, especially for explaining the origins of the bounty. My main concern is that we make sure those additions are properly sourced and that the article doesn't focus too tightly on that one topic. This could mean trimming down that topic or expanding some of the other parts. I see that you have some draft copy up in your sandbox on this topic-- what if we were to work on that together?-Starke Hathaway (talk)20:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Starke Hathaway, it would be a pleasure to work with you on this article. Since I have to improve bounty (reward) page as a part of an exam, I have a deadline (last days of this month). So if you agree with that, there's no problem we can work together. Let me know what you're going to decide.Patrick.ucciardo (talk)10:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It doesnot imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authoriseddiscretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding 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, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision ishere.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This meansuninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behavior, or relevantpolicies. Administrators may impose sanctions such asediting restrictions,bans, orblocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Johnuniq (talk)08:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Yuletide!

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk)00:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Rhoark, season's greetings to you and yours, too. Here's hoping for a great 2016.-Starke Hathaway (talk)01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating atmy RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched.Brianhe (talk)03:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.This notification is being sent to those listed onthe case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee,Kevin (akaL235 ·t ·c) viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regardingGamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including fordisrupting Wikipedia to make a point,removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created,casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be aBLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited frominteracting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to theusual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk ·contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded thatedit warring, even ifexempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested atWP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existingWP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee,Kevin (akaL235 ·t ·c) viaMediaWiki message delivery (talk)03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at:Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

I've started a thread to determine whether or not we categorizeAR-15 pattern rifles as "assault rifles". SeeTalk:AR-15#‎Assault rifle, semi-automatic rifle, or both?Felsic2 (talk)21:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Gamergate. When the tag was added,@Rhoark: didn't start the discussion as to why he thinks it was unbalanced or out of date in the talk page. That smells of a drive-by to me.Zero Serenity^{(talk -contributions)}16:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. If you'd like a read of Rhoark's objections I'd suggest you take a look at the ongoing discussions of draft article he recently moved out of his userspace.-Starke Hathaway (talk)17:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starke Hathaway. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleLegitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved toLegitimacy (law)requesting your openion atTalk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Mahitgar (talk)02:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starke Hathaway. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Starke Hathaway: Enjoy theholiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expandWikipedia. Cheers,-- ψλ ●✉✓16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year!

Starke Hathaway,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyableNew Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ●✉✓23:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I am a lawyer (almost). So I can assure you all lawyers are lazy liars - ¿true or false?

¿Perhaps better to repairlies and linkperjury et. al. rather than be lazy and just eliminate? Saludos,Timpo (talk)17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Starke, long time, no see! I didn't know you were a wikipedian too! Come say hi sometime?Benjamin (talk)22:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]