Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! |
|
Guinea pig
Hi Floq, Sorry I was completely busy, Anyway I wouldn't of minded being your guinea pig ... infact I don't see much point to the new "rights" so had you removed it I probably wouldn't of bothered asking for it back anyway!, Ah well thanks for asking anyway I guess :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, I found another
suckervolunteer. I figured you wouldn't mind, but needed to ask someone actively editing, to see if it would be automatically re-granted by the software. Thanks anyway. -Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- I have the new user right. What does it actually mean? I was confused this morning. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Chesnaught555: You've probably run into an explanation by now, but it's a way to enforce the ArbCom 500/30 rule by protecting pages so only those with 500 edits/ 30 days experience can edit them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights, and probably a half dozen other threads sprinkled randomly around the site. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed the Gamergate article has a blue padlock on it now. Something about discretionary sanctions. Thanks for explaining! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome back, also. Glad to hear you've sorted that out - I've been meaning to join Procrastinators Anonymous myself for several years. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm still pretty much doomed IRL for another 2 weeks, but at least I can breath now, and at least I'm allowed to go home and eat dinner with the family, and at least I can now whack a vandal or something occasionally to unwind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome back, also. Glad to hear you've sorted that out - I've been meaning to join Procrastinators Anonymous myself for several years. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed the Gamergate article has a blue padlock on it now. Something about discretionary sanctions. Thanks for explaining! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Chesnaught555: You've probably run into an explanation by now, but it's a way to enforce the ArbCom 500/30 rule by protecting pages so only those with 500 edits/ 30 days experience can edit them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at Special:Log/rights, and probably a half dozen other threads sprinkled randomly around the site. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have the new user right. What does it actually mean? I was confused this morning. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Addict
Re your prior status [1]:
Your lights are on, but you're online Your mind is not your own Your heart sweats, your body shakes Another edit is what it takes You can't sleep, you can't eat There's no doubt, you're in deep Your throat is tight, you can't breathe Another edit is all you need Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i You see the pings, and you must read You're typing at a different speed Your heart beats in double time Another edit and you'll be ours, a one track mind You can't log out One more post is all you crave If there's some left for you You don't mind if you do Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Your lights are on, but you're online Your mind is not your own Your heart sweats, your body shakes Another edit is what it takes Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh yeah It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough You know you're gonna have to face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i Might as well face it, you're addicted to wik'i
NE Ent 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we all play at this?
Here's to the rules of Wikipedia
Where breach of "just a guideline" results in an instant block
And "edits in a similar way" means "obviously a sock"
Where "flexible policies" are as immovable as rocks
For they'll always be defended by a mindless admin flock
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Policies, go find yourselves another project to be part of.
Here's to the forums of Wikipedia
Where children sit in judgement over experts in their field
And accuracy is sacrificed for populist appeal
Where editors are blocked as the result of secret deals
And it's still as far as ever from the WMF ideal
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Forums, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.
Here's to the government of Wikipedia
Where despite "no formal power" the founder ought to wear a crown
Directing all the policies right from the top straight down
Where editors all quiver every time an admin frowns
And "policy discussions" are the ravings of a clown
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Bureaucrats, go find yourselves another project to be part of.
Here's to the admins of Wikipedia
Where academic knowledge is a thing to be despised
If it's not in their school library, it's suspect in their eyes
And if anyone's an expert, it's an "obvious COI"
For if you've your own opinion, you're just a troll in disguise
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Admins, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.
Here's to the Arbcom of Wikipedia
Who rubberstamp decisions that are made on IRC
And fight against every step towards increased transparency
Who defend their own decisions, no matter how arbitrary
For disagreement with them is a "breach of policy"
Here on this site you've torn out the heart of
Arbcom, go and find yourselves another project to be part of.
And here's to the critics of Wikipedia
Who can always spot a problem, but never find a cure
And all their proposed solutions make the simplest task a chore
Where every crank with an agenda finds themselves at home
And legitimate critics are drowned out by trolling drones
Your blogs with pretensions are nothing to speak of
Critics, go find something more worthwhile to go and write critiques of.
- ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Shamelessly ripped off Here's to the State of Mississippi, if it's not already obvious.
happy
I "demanded" the cat below also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Xboxmanwar
You may wish to take Magnolia's suggestion and block him for 3-12 hours. He blanked the talk page at Carnage (DJ). That being said, Magnolia may have been a bit reactive too. I don't see a downright bad nom, but a couple were marginal. Getting a handful of articles AfDd all at once might piss me off too. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see a point in blocking, since he seemed to have stopped removing the tags at the time, and, as you say, I can understand he was probably pissed off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- He did stop. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Please
I guess I will look over the next couple of weeks at who is in which clan, draw up a list, and start an ArbCom case in which I try to get +/-10 people site banned. Including @Winkelvi:, @MaranoFan:, and @Legacypac: (I'm pinging you so you have a heads up, not because I want any of you to continue to squabble here); I'm not sure who else yet. I mentioned a "ceasefire" at the ANI thread, but I've thought about it, and I have better things to do with my time than babysit. I would spend all my time fielding complaints from people that they'd been subtly insulted by someone from the other clan. In the mean time, I see no point to allowing this page to become, as Drmies says, ANI 3.0. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
explain to me how you came to fathom your edit summary? I don't have a feud with anyone, for the record. And I often redirect articles that FAIL WP:NSONGS. I do hope that I see you leave a comment on MaranoFan's user talk about the glaring WP:OWN issue. — Calvin999 19:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to me you do; you've participated in several Winkelvi/MaranoFan/Legacypac threads, always taking one side. If I read the community correctly, we have had more than enough of all of you. You redirected; he disagreed. You don't get to bulldoze your way through. Come to a consensus on the talk page. Undoing a redirect is not an WP:OWN issue. There are plenty of people editing that article and MaranoFan does not appear to be preventing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know me, and I don't with anyone. Many times I tried to help and even last week offered advice to the editor. I don't have to be engaged in a feud to take a side, and I am entitled to my opinion on a situation. "If I read the community correctly, we have had more than enough of all of you." - I've never even heard of you or spoken to you before, and I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone. That in itself makes you look bad. I redirected because I followed the GUIDELINES of Wikipedia, on which we all edit, and did so on the basis that it completely and utterly fails WP:NSONGS which is written in black and white. You reverting is a violation of the NSONG guideline. By MaranoFan disagreeing, that means she is ignoring the very policies that we are all supposed to be adhering by. You're apparently an admin, so you should know that. Undoing a redirect is not an OWN issue, you're right, but the edit summary, was. No one is editing the article presently, and I am the only person who has been prevented. I even removed an unsourced genre from the info box last week, and MaranoFan added a different unsourced genre straight after to spite me. Do you think that is okay? To re-add unsourced content? You're accusing me of picking a side, but your refusal to caution her on the comment forbidding me to edit any article she has worked on (we are all free to edit which ever article we like) when she has made countless un-constructive (and unfounded) edits to many articles I have worked on, you have quite clearly picked your side. — Calvin999 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- OMG Floq, is this ANI 3.0? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You won't believe what happened next [2]. Calidum ¤ 20:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't do that and deletion wasn't my intention. Floquenbeam actually suggested AfD Calidum, owing to the impartially presented on our guidelines for WP:NSONGS in the edit summary. — Calvin999 21:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- So just that we have this clear: Winkelvi said on ANI that he wouldn't involve himself in disputes with MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? To quote him from the ANI: "I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action." Yeah, I really think "involuntary" restrictions are needed. only (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- "MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? " - No one owns the article, you are condoning WP:OWN. And clearly people don't respect the guidelines set in place or taken notice of them at WP:NSONGS like they should, which is being demonstrated. The article fails the guidelines completely, it has nothing to do with MaranoFan. Lots of articles are redirected or nominated for deletion everyday. I'm shocked at the tunnel vision. — Calvin999 21:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- So just that we have this clear: Winkelvi said on ANI that he wouldn't involve himself in disputes with MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? To quote him from the ANI: "I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action." Yeah, I really think "involuntary" restrictions are needed. only (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per my comment at ANI, I'd lean not just towards involuntary action, but sending the entire group on an involuntary vacation; perhaps Wikia may appreciate their unusual approach better than we do. For those viewers just joining us, this is an argument about the notability of Meghan Trainor's promotional singles, not the authenticity of quantum mysticism or the legal status of Ariel. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, and it fails the guidelines that have been put in place for us all to adhere by. Anyone else/any other article and it would just be redirected for failing the guidelines no problem. But because it's MaranoFan who, as per Only above, "owns" the article, special treatment is being given. In fact, it's not even special. It's unfair treatment. The article violates every aspect of WP:NSONGS. — Calvin999 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per my comment at ANI, I'd lean not just towards involuntary action, but sending the entire group on an involuntary vacation; perhaps Wikia may appreciate their unusual approach better than we do. For those viewers just joining us, this is an argument about the notability of Meghan Trainor's promotional singles, not the authenticity of quantum mysticism or the legal status of Ariel. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- So just that we have this clear: Winkelvi said on ANI that he wouldn't involve himself in disputes with MaranoFan anymore, then decides to nominated one of his articles for deletion? To quote him from the ANI: "I will be the first to take the chance to voluntarily declare a truce. In so doing, I'm asking only (since he filed a close request for the other report above) to take note of my voluntary action." Yeah, I really think "involuntary" restrictions are needed. only (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
− Excuse me, but it's not any editor's article, it's a Wikipedia article that appears to not yet be ready for primetime. The AfD says clearly: delete or redirect, the reasons are sound. Was I wrong to start the AfD? It's a viable, relevant article that should stay as is? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's MaranoFan's article in the sense that she created it. Regardless of my phrasing, your action is complete inappropriate. If you're taking a "voluntary truce" you need to actually step away and NOT involve yourself in disputes involving MaranoFan. How is nominating this article for deletion staying away from MaranoFan at all? If it's a bad article, it'll be acted upon eventually. YOU should not be the one to act upon it. only (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not. No one owns any article. We all do this for free. Creating an article doesn't mean you get to decide what happens. It does not permit you exercise any action you want, or to tell others not to edit it. Both examples are OWN through and through. Wikipedia is a collaborative force, remember. — Calvin999 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- My god. Again, my phrasing is just saying that MaranoFan created it. I imply no ownership. Only that if you're being told to stay away from another user, you shoudl NOT be nominating articles that person creates for deletion! only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- What has creating it got to do with anything? It's a flawed concept. The creator doesn't exert any more influence, power, control, however you wish to dress it up, than the next person who edits it. MaranoFan has no right to tell me or any other Wiki editor not to edit any article, regardless of whether or not she created it. Wiki is a joint force. And I didn't nominate it for deletion by the way, but anyone can with valid reason. Again, Floquenbeam suggested it. There really is no case here on your part. Back the policy, not the person. — Calvin999 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- My god. Again, my phrasing is just saying that MaranoFan created it. I imply no ownership. Only that if you're being told to stay away from another user, you shoudl NOT be nominating articles that person creates for deletion! only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not. No one owns any article. We all do this for free. Creating an article doesn't mean you get to decide what happens. It does not permit you exercise any action you want, or to tell others not to edit it. Both examples are OWN through and through. Wikipedia is a collaborative force, remember. — Calvin999 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict)Sorry, but I call complete b.s. on your reasoning. Especially since Floquenbeam suggested an AfD. There were no stipulations. But why should there be? No article belongs to any one editor. "Eventually"? Good lord. Yes, let's just let Wikipedia suck even more by allowing shit articles that are policy vios to remain in place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to call B.S. on my reasoning. But, just as there was not "stipulations" on floquenbeam's AFD comment, there are not "exceptions" to your voluntary truce. There isn't a "I'm not going to interact with Maranofan....unless she makes an article that is 'shit'" exception. only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have explanations for calling the article MF's article, and I have an explanation for nominating the article for AfD after saying "truce": nominating an article for AfD should never be seen as a personal attack on anyone, hence, there's no truce being violated by doing so, and nominating an article for deletion isn't interaction with the article creator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ £
- You clearly don't get it. And I have more important things to do than explain this to you. I'll let others do it. It's hysterical that you think that nominating an article that someone created isn't interacting with them. only (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, it seems you are the one who truly doesn't get it. Any of it. Further, it appears MF has once again put themselves on a script enforced break, so no interaction is likely or even possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not interaction, Only. There's no dialogue between X, Y or Z, and AfD when done correctly is always above the editors. It's about the article and Wikipedia. AfD is something than shouldn't ever be taken personally, but some do take it personally. Basically, if MF had followed the guidelines, or at least read them for the first time, at WP:NSONGS, this thread would not exist. The article in question still 100% violates all aspects of the policy, and you know that. — Calvin999 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, it seems you are the one who truly doesn't get it. Any of it. Further, it appears MF has once again put themselves on a script enforced break, so no interaction is likely or even possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly don't get it. And I have more important things to do than explain this to you. I'll let others do it. It's hysterical that you think that nominating an article that someone created isn't interacting with them. only (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have explanations for calling the article MF's article, and I have an explanation for nominating the article for AfD after saying "truce": nominating an article for AfD should never be seen as a personal attack on anyone, hence, there's no truce being violated by doing so, and nominating an article for deletion isn't interaction with the article creator. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ £
- You're welcome to call B.S. on my reasoning. But, just as there was not "stipulations" on floquenbeam's AFD comment, there are not "exceptions" to your voluntary truce. There isn't a "I'm not going to interact with Maranofan....unless she makes an article that is 'shit'" exception. only (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Sorry, but I call complete b.s. on your reasoning. Especially since Floquenbeam suggested an AfD. There were no stipulations. But why should there be? No article belongs to any one editor. "Eventually"? Good lord. Yes, let's just let Wikipedia suck even more by allowing shit articles that are policy vios to remain in place. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Look, I seriously saw nothing wrong with doing what I thought was the right thing by opening the AfD. If it will make you all feel better, I will withdraw it - if that's possible at this point. The thought of being site banned over things I'm still not clear about (other than inconveniencing administrators), is literally making me physically ill. I had no intention to cause or be part of disruption. If leaving everything involving MF alone (where I haven't been first) is an answer, I will gladly do it. I'm not a jerk, I'm not a bad editor, I'm not an intentionally disruptive person. I will do whatever it takes to not be taken to Arbcom or get a site ban (even though I think sitebanning is uncalled for and overkill). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)