User:Mendel/Talk Archive 11



I reserve the right to edit section titles to coincide with the section content. Size: bytes. =Comments= * gets out spray paint and writes "HI MENDEL!"* Jink  01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This section title does not coincide with the section contents.
These contents coincide with their corresponding section title. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * this comment is completely unrelated, insulting, and starts lots of drama.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment rebukes the previous comment and despairs at the state of our youth today. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 15:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment is nonsensical in an attempt to derail the drama. Jink  16:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This would-be comment was cut off short by b& threat. The resulting nonsense guarantees much section lengthening, and of course my world-famous drama.  Yes, that sounds quite wondrous, Scythe's drama emporium, I can see the wiki beginning to thrive as people flock to us like vultures to a festering corpse.  I shall start a shop for it in real life pending the success of it here, and my fifth birthday.  &mdash;  Scythe   19:26, 20 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Questions and Answers
You've been asking a lot of questions lately, M.mendel. Demanding answers from our bureaucrats-to-be, and not giving straight answers yourself. You answer in riddles, backwards contradictions, indirect statements, and lawyering that their answer is wrong. What puts you above this? Is it just that no one else has the courage to confront you on this, or no one cares? Or maybe they are the content with bureaucratic bullshit like this, just maybe. I think almost everyone expects their RfAs to pass without the pointless WoT, questioning, and over-reading into the wiki's userbase. Personally, I think that the wiki is nearly purely populated and activated by various peoples' ramblings. But that's getting off-topic.

What puts you in a position where you are qualified to ask these questions? What puts you in a position to decide that they are worth asking? No, I don't think I have the right to say they're not, I'm merely voicing an opinion and not immediately acting on it without consensus. What makes you so superior, so exempt from common procedure, and better?

What should happen when the votes are say, 14/15 for/against in an RfA? Should it be run again, extended, or should bias and bureaucracy happen? The only way you present for it to happen is for the content of, and makers of the votes to be weighed. According to policy this is disallowed. In a one-vote-to-one-vote situation basing the pass or fail of the petition on a user's time on the wiki, or contributions to the wiki is acting on a public bias of a user's theoretical worth, and goes against most ideals. As far as I know, you should strive towards not away from these ideals. Therefore, weighing users on anything other than community rank (aka sysops, bureaucrat, regular user, and rollback) is negative, and should be frowned upon.

Cunning personal attacks are no better than regular personal attacks. neither are ones burying in 'legitimate'. "Thanks for putting your debating prowess into perspective for me." The immediately preceding quote was a sly, implicit personal attack made by none other than you. Why are you allowed to make them -repeatedly -without consequence?

I expect the following: A legitimate, straightforward, non-lawyering of "you are so wrong" answer.

I will be severely disappointed if I get: "you've failed so bad so many times I'm not even going to answer.

So, M.mendel, what do you have to say for yourself? &mdash; Scythe   0:16, 21 Feb 2011 (UTC)


 * What puts you above this? -- Nobody puts me above anything, I asked some questions of the candidates because I was curious what their answers would be. It turned out I see things differently than they do, and I tried to explain that.
 * What puts you in a position where you are qualified to ask these questions? -- I didn't know one had to be qualified. What's wrong with the questions?
 * What puts you in a position to decide that they are worth asking? -- I am a member of this wiki community; when I feel a question is worth asking, I ask it.
 * What makes you so superior, so exempt from common procedure, and better? -- With respect to this issue only, I am superior because I came up with questions and asked them; if anybody else had done the same, they would have been my equal.
 * What should happen when the votes are say, 14/15 for/against in an RfA? -- This is currently impossible, as we only have one active bureaucrat, so it would be either one vote for or one vote against. This is not gww:, where admins or bureaucrats are voted in; our bureaucrats hand out promotions based on reasoned argument, which the whole community is invited to participate in.
 * Should it be run again, extended, or should bias and bureaucracy happen? -- "Bureaucacy" happens. The bureaucrat determines what's best for the wiki and promotes other bureaucrats and admins on that basis. The bureaucrat will do whatever is needed to ensure this.
 * Therefore, weighing users on anything other than community rank (aka sysops, bureaucrat, regular user, and rollback) is negative -- you misunderstood GW:YAV; that policy says the exact opposite, namely, that a user's opinion will not be weighed according to their "community rank", but stands on its own (and the editor's own) merits.
 * Cunning/sly personal attacks -- I am sorry that came across as an attack. I knew you claimed to be good at scholastic debate, and I overestimated your general debating abilities based on that, because apparently I know very little about the school debate system. That overestimation of you that I had is now somewhat corrected, that's all. (The second link adresses Giga's post, not yours.)
 * I consider my wiki discussions as conversations among equals. I hope I was able to answer all your questions. --◄mendel► 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you misunderstand me somewhat. I'm asking what puts you in a position where you are eligible to ask bureaocrats about their wiki-related theories.  Some people hold these thoughts as private, and some are either unsure, or haven't conjured them yet.  I'm asking what makes you think you should be able to decide when they should reveal these.
 * 14/15 was a user-vote circumstance ie: 15 support 14 against.
 * Doing whatever is needed is somewhat disturbing.
 * You misunderstand my use of YAV, I'm saying the only possible way to rank user's votes is by community rank-that was a separate thought. I was saying YAV says you cannot weigh them on anything else.
 * Oh, on the second link, we are having communication issues. &mdash; Scythe   3:02, 21 Feb 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the key points of a wiki is transparency. If a candidate wished to hide their views on running the wiki they could simply ignore the question, but it wouldn't make them very supportable. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think you should be able to decide when they should reveal these -- I don't decide what the answers reveal, I just ask the question and leave the answering up to the others. As I've said, I consider my wiki discussions as conversations among equals. I did ask you what was wrong with my questions; it's not as if I'd asked anyone for their underwear sizes (though I wouldn't be surprised if the candidates chose to reveal them ;).
 * I seem to not understand your notion of "community rank", could you please clarify: what is "community rank"? I've never heard of the concept before. --◄mendel► 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Community rank is a concept I have. It's basically built around a wiki social hierarchy, consisting of Users, Sysopses, and Bureaucrats.  The what they reveal business is less a matter of learning something about a user, and more a matter of them possibly not having a ready answer, or thinking one is not necessary.  I do not consider your conversations, which read as interrogations, as among equals. &mdash;  Scythe   17:30, 21 Feb 2011 (UTC)


 * Scythe, I think you're seriously out of line with this. Anyone can ask questions, and the ones that get asked can decide for themselves whether they'll answer. As seen in YAV, there is no "community rank" here. Everyone is perfectly equal. Some people have shown themselves to be trustworthy and useful and could get admin powers, but that does not in any way elevate them above other users in social status, they actually just get some more responsibilities that they're willing to fulfil. If someone has serious issues with an admin candidate, he/she can say so and outline his/her reasoning, and it's not that if he's not a regular user or admin or something that people won't listen to him. I think I'm getting slightly off topic with that last bit, but let me just tell you that if I was Mendel, I would have been offended by what you wrote there.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 18:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * re 14/15: The votes aren't actually votes, just opinions of The People(TM). Even a 1/15 RFA can pass if the bcrat wills it so. --Vipermagi 18:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the opposition had a convincing argument against, even a 26/3 RfA would not pass - and vice versa. Have a look here for an example. El Nazgir is correct, btw, GW:YAV means we cannot have a rank system based on user/sysop/bureaucrat. If one user's opinion carries more weight than another's, that is because we know from their past record here that they understand the issues concerned well. --◄mendel► 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ehh, it appears I have been looking at all of this completely wrong, sorry guys. &mdash; Scythe   21:59, 22 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Category confusion
If you take a look here, under the B area, you'll notice Bay of Sirens there. However, there are no categories in said page. I think I saw another article like this, but I don't recall which. What's up with this? :/ -- Konig / talk 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Coming from the fact that it's redirected to Sea of Sorrows, which does include those cats? It is strange that both BoS and SoS are listed in two of the three categories, but not Category:Regions. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would chalk it up to a laggy database server that failed to complete all the necessary database transactions when you converted Bay of Sirens into a redirect. I just performed a null edit, and it no longer shows up in the Lore category.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

re: IRC
Yeah, I'd noticed those entries in WantedFiles earlier. They appear to be generated only because the DPL can't actually run on those pages, so MW parses the raw DPL code as standard wiki-text before it gets replaced by the DPL warning. Yet another reason to get Curse to lift the DPL restriction. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Ranger armor page did generate an entry as well although it is/was protected, until I changed it (and WhatLinksHere for that entry apparently took a while to update). Apparently the link parser does parse inside tags, but with the PAGE parameter being passed by DPL it doesn't see that, so we have a way to avoid this behaviour. Going through Special:WantedFiles 500 at a time and looking for % signs, right now this only affects pages in your and my namespace (and I think I found a way to fix the MTG galleries). It's only 4 entries though, so it's doubtful whether it's worth much effort at this point (and if you pre-tag your Sandbox2, only 2 entries). --◄mendel► 09:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)