User talk:Yooden
|
Note: Please continue a discussion where it was started. This makes them easier to read, especially for other editors. I will remove such half-threads here. I will watch pages where I contribute at least for a little while, so there is no need to notify me of a reply elsewhere. Thanks for your consideration. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"Please log in to remove your comment"[edit]
Please cite me the policy that tells me to. I'm going to log out now and remove it right again, just for the heck of it. Dorftrottel (ask) 05:14, April 18, 2008
- Do you start every conversation by demanding legal justification for one's actions? Seems a little excessive to me.
- It's not policy, you were just not authenticated. Your message here is enough authentication for me, so I'll have to quench your little your edit war, sorry. --Yooden ☮
- (i) As someone who first registered their account in 2001 should be well aware, the word policy has a special meaning on Wikipedia, unrelated to any "legal" matters. (ii) Why did you restore my comment? Based on what piece of Wikipedia policy? (iii) As an aside, your username could be considered offensive and disruptive. You may or may not be aware of it, but its natural English pronounciation is exactly the same as the German word for Jews. Dorftrottel (criticise) 05:35, April 18, 2008
- (i) What I meant is this: Policy is what amounts to to law on Wikipedia. You started this friendly discussion by demanding legal (ie. policy) justification for my actions instead of just asking for my motives. I don't know, it's just not the way I ususally talk to people.
- (ii) Look at it this way: I didn't revert your change, I reverted an IP vandal. How was I supposed to know the difference?
- (iii) My pronounciation is different (German, incidentally). Anyway, why would anybody to be offended by that? --Yooden ☮
- (i) Please see WP:NLT for why the difference between "legal" matters and policy cannot be overemphasised.
- (ii) Please see WP:VAND for what vandalism is, and particularly for what vandalism is not. The edit was certainly not vandalism, and there is no good reason to assume that the edit summary did not state the truth. A more careful course of action would have been to drop a note at my (=the logged-in account's) talk page to ask whether or not I did indeed make that edit.
- (iii) So the homophony is a pure coincidence, do I understand that correctly? Dorftrottel (complain) 08:36, April 18, 2008
- Dorftrottel, there is nothing against user names that coincide with the name of a people. There are many such names on Wikipedia as well as off-wiki. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Off-wiki is irrelevant. On-wiki, it's a different issue. Personally, I'm not easily offended, but I wouldn't edit much in e.g. WWII-related articles with that username. I'd just appreciate some sort of reassurance that it's a pure coincidence. Dorftrottel (ask) 09:01, April 18, 2008
- Well, you have no business asking that and invade someone's privacy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- "no business"? "Invade someone's privacy"? I asked politely, and the reason is because I noticed and couldn't help but make a connection between the user's edits to several WWII-related articles (including e.g. Adolf Hitler) and the username. But please let Yooden speak for himself, I think he's quite capable of doing so. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:25, April 18, 2008
- No, you never asked politely, you called it "offensive and disruptive" (plus some weasel words), a far cry from simply pointing out the coincidence. If you find errors in my edits to Adolf Hitler, please point them out in detail. --Yooden ☮
- Look directly above where I wrote: "As an aside, your username could be considered offensive and disruptive." Where did I say I personally considered it either of that? Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:10, April 18, 2008
- So it's polite to call something "offensive and disruptive" (plus some weasel words) if one claims that one is not affected oneself? I don't think so. --Yooden ☮
- Where did I call your username anything? Ich habe lediglich gesagt, dein Benutzername könnte so empfunden werden (mir selbst geht es kilometerweit am Allerwertesten vorbei). So please don't shoot the messenger. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:42, April 18, 2008
- Please read WP:WEASEL. --Yooden ☮
- WP:WEASEL applies only to mainspace content. The pages you're looking for are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Myself, on the other hand, I should probably reread Hanlon's razor. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:51, April 18, 2008
- Please read WP:WEASEL. --Yooden ☮
- Where did I call your username anything? Ich habe lediglich gesagt, dein Benutzername könnte so empfunden werden (mir selbst geht es kilometerweit am Allerwertesten vorbei). So please don't shoot the messenger. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:42, April 18, 2008
- So it's polite to call something "offensive and disruptive" (plus some weasel words) if one claims that one is not affected oneself? I don't think so. --Yooden ☮
- Look directly above where I wrote: "As an aside, your username could be considered offensive and disruptive." Where did I say I personally considered it either of that? Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:10, April 18, 2008
- No, you never asked politely, you called it "offensive and disruptive" (plus some weasel words), a far cry from simply pointing out the coincidence. If you find errors in my edits to Adolf Hitler, please point them out in detail. --Yooden ☮
- "no business"? "Invade someone's privacy"? I asked politely, and the reason is because I noticed and couldn't help but make a connection between the user's edits to several WWII-related articles (including e.g. Adolf Hitler) and the username. But please let Yooden speak for himself, I think he's quite capable of doing so. Dorftrottel (talk) 09:25, April 18, 2008
- Well, you have no business asking that and invade someone's privacy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Off-wiki is irrelevant. On-wiki, it's a different issue. Personally, I'm not easily offended, but I wouldn't edit much in e.g. WWII-related articles with that username. I'd just appreciate some sort of reassurance that it's a pure coincidence. Dorftrottel (ask) 09:01, April 18, 2008
- Dorftrottel, there is nothing against user names that coincide with the name of a people. There are many such names on Wikipedia as well as off-wiki. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- (i) As someone who first registered their account in 2001 should be well aware, the word policy has a special meaning on Wikipedia, unrelated to any "legal" matters. (ii) Why did you restore my comment? Based on what piece of Wikipedia policy? (iii) As an aside, your username could be considered offensive and disruptive. You may or may not be aware of it, but its natural English pronounciation is exactly the same as the German word for Jews. Dorftrottel (criticise) 05:35, April 18, 2008
- (i) Nobody made legal threats, and I kindly ask you to stop claiming or implying it. I know the difference, but as explained, I used the term legal as an analogy. I possibly should have checked whether my recipients would be able to understand that beforehand, but my explanation should have made it clear.
- (ii) On WP:VAND, search for "Modifying users' comments" and "Discussion page vandalism". I couldn't find anything pertinent in WP:VAND#NOT, please point out what you are referring to. A more careful course of action would have been to log in before making that comment.
- (iii) There is no homophony, as I pronounce it different. If you would make one up, it would obviously be unrelated to whatever devious plan I might hide.
- If you can find the time, please have another look at our discussion next week and let me know if you still think then that you had some valid concerns. Thanks. --Yooden ☮
- (i) Erm... you asked me above "Do you start every conversation by demanding legal justification" — Which I didn't, and I tried to explain just that to you.
- (ii) The link to WP:VAND is a general recommendation. There was no reason to immediately revert that comment, especially since your edit summary clearly implies you actually believed that it was me removing my own comment. If you believed it was myself, then why did you revert it as vandalism? There is a bit of a logical gap right there, you see.
- (iii) Ok, thanks. Dorftrottel (canvass) 11:10, April 18, 2008
- Oh, and please make sure to sign with four tildes: ~~~~. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 11:12, April 18, 2008
- (i) Yeah, whatever, I can't follow you anymore, and I'm kind of glad about it.
- (ii) Have you read the two passages I pointed out? It's your link, remember? Do they fit? I really couldn't give a fuck whether your edit was true or not, I just don't think that using edit comments as a method of authentication is very practical.
- You have a nice sig, how do you do the rotation? --Yooden ☮
- See User:Dorftrottel/s. In my preferences, I have my signature defined as
{{subst:User:Dorftrottel/s}}and since the date is included in that subpage, I sign with only three tildes (normally returning only the username). I took the whole thing from User:East718/s and tweaked it. Actually, the effect he uses is far more subtle but just copying would have been a bit cheap. Dorftrottel (talk) 11:52, April 18, 2008
- See User:Dorftrottel/s. In my preferences, I have my signature defined as
Image:National Museum Lebanon.png[edit]
homework done :) Eli+ 07:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that it worked out. I was a bit reluctant to point out the possible problem, since the image took probably some time to do, but Wikipedia shouldn't be burdened with dubious images. Which it weren't, in this case, so all is good. Have fun! --Yooden ☮
Signing posts[edit]
Please sign your posts using 4 tildes (~~~~) so that the software adds a timstamp. This is necessary for auto-archiving purposes on most pages, and as a general convenience to your fellow editors. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not, the archiver will work anyway. --Yooden ☮
- No, actually most will not, without the signature. That's why, when we subpage a discussion, and want to keep it on the main page for a while, we usually will post-date our signatures temporarily, to prevent the bot from archiving. Anyhow, I would like to echo the sentiment below, and have seen this requested of you now in several places. Please, please, sign your posts properly. SQLQuery me! 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I admit I only checked MiszaBot III. --Yooden ☮
- No, actually most will not, without the signature. That's why, when we subpage a discussion, and want to keep it on the main page for a while, we usually will post-date our signatures temporarily, to prevent the bot from archiving. Anyhow, I would like to echo the sentiment below, and have seen this requested of you now in several places. Please, please, sign your posts properly. SQLQuery me! 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
4 tildes[edit]
(edit conflict) You might want to very thoughtfully consider signing from now on with four tildes (~~~~), which will put a time and date stamp on your posts. Some editors are finding the lack of it mildly disruptive. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- How much of this disruption is inherent and how much is secondary, ie. comes from editors who don't like it? --Yooden ☮
- You'll be blocked if you don't start doing it. It's disruptive to make it difficult to see the flow of a conversation or know when a message was left without a datestamp.
- That's a joke, isn't it? You threaten me of blocking for using a non-standard signature - using an unsigned comment?
- Hah, I can't believe I did that. John Reaves 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, how much of this disruption is inherent and how much is secondary, ie. comes from editors who don't like it? --Yooden ☮
- It's all inherent and that's why people don't like it. John Reaves 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know you don't mean to be disruptive by not leaving the time stamp, but many editors find it unsettling when they can't glance at the date and time of a post, even more so when there's any kind of a kerfuffle going on over something editors care about. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, here is my suggestion: We drop this now, because things are hot and ANI reports are dropping dead like flies nowadays; one of you pick it up in the middle of May (vacation) and we discuss it. Deal? --Yooden ☮
- Actually, no. As an uninvolved administrator, if you do not abide by in signing your posts, per reasons stated earlier, then you will be blocked in accordance. It's not only for archival purposes, but it's for our convenience. We have to dig through the page's history to locate who said what and when, and that becomes not only burdensome, but confusing and frankly, it is a waste of time. There is no reason why you can't type out four tildes. seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, point out the policy and I will back off. --Yooden ☮
- Wikipedia:SIG#How_to_sign_your_posts says use 4 tildes and I don't see a way to skirt by how it's worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would be a guideline.
- Again, please look at this thread and answer this question: How much of this disruption is inherent and how much is secondary, ie. comes from editors who don't like it? --Yooden ☮
- At the top of the page it characterizes a guideline as a generally accepted standard that editors should follow along with a passing reference to WP:IAR. So, I might ask, how would using 4 tildes prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- At the moment, nobody could give me a good reason why it would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Archiver robots were mentioned, but they actually cope quite well with my sigs. Discussion flow was mentioned but indentation takes care of that. Disruption was mentioned but I claim that the only disruption caused is secondary. Basically (glad you asked) I see no reason to dump date strings by the megabyte on Wikipedia without good reason. --Yooden ☮
- Look, no need for me to wikilawyer or anything here, so I'm asking this only to show you my thinking. The exception to not using 4 tildes is referenced to IAR, which talks about how ignoring this might prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia and you haven't answered this. As for how it prevents others from doing this, I think it does slow them down along with stirring up a needless distraction. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- At the moment, nobody could give me a good reason why it would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Archiver robots were mentioned, but they actually cope quite well with my sigs. Discussion flow was mentioned but indentation takes care of that. Disruption was mentioned but I claim that the only disruption caused is secondary. Basically (glad you asked) I see no reason to dump date strings by the megabyte on Wikipedia without good reason. --Yooden ☮
- At the top of the page it characterizes a guideline as a generally accepted standard that editors should follow along with a passing reference to WP:IAR. So, I might ask, how would using 4 tildes prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:SIG#How_to_sign_your_posts says use 4 tildes and I don't see a way to skirt by how it's worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, point out the policy and I will back off. --Yooden ☮
- Actually, no. As an uninvolved administrator, if you do not abide by in signing your posts, per reasons stated earlier, then you will be blocked in accordance. It's not only for archival purposes, but it's for our convenience. We have to dig through the page's history to locate who said what and when, and that becomes not only burdensome, but confusing and frankly, it is a waste of time. There is no reason why you can't type out four tildes. seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, here is my suggestion: We drop this now, because things are hot and ANI reports are dropping dead like flies nowadays; one of you pick it up in the middle of May (vacation) and we discuss it. Deal? --Yooden ☮
- That's a joke, isn't it? You threaten me of blocking for using a non-standard signature - using an unsigned comment?
- You'll be blocked if you don't start doing it. It's disruptive to make it difficult to see the flow of a conversation or know when a message was left without a datestamp.
- WP:CIVIL is probably the more applicable one. I'd explain it but I think Yooden understands. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Personally targeted behavior? I actually don't think anything matches. If short sigs would have inherent disruptive value one might claim I'd like to make a WP:POINT, but that would be pointless: If I would think this to be the case, I would stop immediately. I just don't like to be harassed into something I don't want.
- But anyway, even after the threats above, I'm willing to discuss it after a cool-off period. --Yooden ☮
- WP:CIVIL is probably the more applicable one. I'd explain it but I think Yooden understands. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something: Why does nobody ask why I use short sigs? --Yooden ☮
My take: I would be very sad to see Yooden blocked for not using 4 tildes (even though I'd like him to start using them) when this has been stirred up by his posts to ANI (which I did not agree with). Can we give him and everyone else some time to think about it? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- It actually stemmed from his posts at my talk page. We frequently block people who fail to get a clue, no need to make exceptions here. John Reaves 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
AN/I[edit]
The original thread was archived because it was agreed by everyone, admin and non-admin(myself) that there was no reasonable claim of admin abuse. The thread was adding NO additional help to the discussion already opened on the RfA talk page. I'm posting this here because I would like to openly discuss your concerns here, but I don't believe further drama on the AN/I page will be tolerated. I am not an admin myself and have no reason to defend an admin over any other user. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I look forward to discussing the issue with you later. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You said you were going to take a break, cool off. Why aren't you doing so? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)