User:LambaJan/unfortunate

This is a cautionary tale about the importance of WP:AGF and how, especially when more than one party is hardheaded, adherence to it can help to avoid arguments.

What gives?

(Anon's talk page)

What's the reason for this? - Lambajan 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious symbols on Humanities ref desk

(my talk page)

I trimmed the unimportant formatting code because it was somewhat obnoxiously obtrusive in the context of editing the list in the Ref Desk question to add further information there. In future, it would be better not to clutter my user talk page with trivial issues having no ascertainable bearing on the improvement of Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Unimportant formatting code

(Anon's talk)(previous section removed)

Sorry to clutter your talk page again. Had you not removed my last comment I would respond there. I didn't mean to be confrontational in tone. I know summing your edits often makes little sense on the refdesk but in cases where you remove, move or change someone else's edit it's probably a good thing to do. Had you explained it in an edit summary I wouldn't have needed to come here. Btw, I purposely wrote a simpler sig than I had in mind precisely so it wouldn't take up too much space, and that table wasn't too hard to read. You've shown that by your actions. It was already nearly full and anyone could figure out how to add to it. I think this touches on protocol and interpersonal relations, both of which are important to making this project work. - Lambajan 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious symbols on Humanities ref desk

(my talk page)

I trimmed...

I'm sorry if you're PO'd, but your fancy-schmancy signature coloring code is simply not very important to Wikipedia, and I found it difficult to see what I was doing in editing the list unless I first trimmed it back drastically (while retaining all essential functionality, of course). AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

another new section

(Anon's talk)(previous section removed)

I'm not PO'd about the edit, though I'm beginning to get a bit frustrated with the way you've been treating me in asking about it. I thought I explained that. I think you've long since casted me as someone I'm not. I don't have any pride or significant attachment to my signature, or else I would've put it back up there. When you answered my question about why you changed my edit by removing that code I was satisfied with that part of the situation. Had you made an edit summary explaining that in the first place I never would've bothered you. I already mentioned this. When you treated me rudely for asking, that prompted me to defend myself. Ever since then this hasn't been about that edit. It's been about you casting me as someone who throws fits about trivial things while ignoring that what I'm actually bringing up is a serious matter. It's not about a fancy signature, it's about edit summaries and treating people with respect. I can understand not summarizing an edit on the refdesk. I think if you change, move or remove someone else's edit you should make a summary but if you don't I won't (and didn't) fault you for that, but if I'm curious and come asking for your rational I don't expect to be targeted for some sort of strawman character assassination. I would never have treated you the way you treated me, and I can't understand how you could think I deserve it. I've joked around a bit on the refdesk but I'm sure most of the people who are familiar with me would never think I'd be so immature as you're making me out to be to where I'd throw a fit because 'I want everyone to see my flashy signature.' I'm sorry for getting a bit riled up over this just now, but I'm not going to not say anything. This situation was completely avoidable. - Lambajan 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the matter

I didn't pull any punches (though maybe I should've), so my opinions on the matter are pretty well represented in what I already said. But other than that I think it's important to assume the other editors here are mature adults, which I think is part of WP:AGF.

When the last section was removed, the summary said 'rv trivia not about improving Wikipedia', which I thought was interesting. I haven't heard about any guidelines that usertalks should only include discussions on improving wikipedia. Even if that is the case, I don't see how my discussions would not be included. I was talking about edit summaries and, basically, AGF. I had half a mind to go through and delete all of Anon's talk sections that didn't fit what is apparently a very rigid definition of being 'about improving Wikipedia', but that would've been childish and would've violated WP:Don't break the system.

It's not my intention to put this here to embarrass Anon, and I considered changing the name to protect the identity of someone whose actions show they would clearly like to bury this, but that would've been impossible without removing the reference to the edit that sparked this argument. I also believe in openness, which is why I prepared a similar report for my WoW fiasco.

My original reason for asking was because my signature code is new and I thought it might've been a readability issue due to the fact that I used a light color. Had that been the answer I would've considered changing to a darker color. Had Anon simply asked me I would've revealed this a long time ago.

On my end of it the only thing I regret is my original heading of 'What gives?', which was not descriptive or helpful and may have steered Anon's perception. I assumed my values were well known to those who frequent the reference desk and I didn't anticipate it would've been taken the way it was, but my second post should've cleared that up. Other than that, maybe I made this situation bigger than it could've or should've been, but I'm not going to lay back and not say anything if I think I'm being wronged. An apology, or simply an acknowledgment of error, or even just a sign of recognition of the core issues would've prevented this from getting so out of hand. - Lambajan 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)