User talk:Bluest Bird

March 2022

Do not undo other editor's discussion closes, especially 13 months after the fact. Not only is it disruptive - the message literally and clearly instructs you not to alter it further - but quite frankly, it makes no sense even if it was proper. The discussion was closed 13 months ago for being unnecessary because it added nothing new to the discussion. And your answer to this is to quietly re-open it 13 months later without adding anything new to the discussion. How could you possibly think that was going to lead to a different outcome?

My request as an editor is that you stop wasting the community's time on this. But my warning as an Admin is to cease altering archived discussions immediately. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought the fact the original edit was clearly violating NPOV and trying to silence discussion by closing the talk because the editor didn't agree with someone's point guaranteed a revert. He might have felt that the new source didn't change anything, but the fact some editors did guaranteed its debate.

In that case may start a new section to continue discussing the matter like TheJoebro64 told me to, since the reason the original discussion stopped was its unwarranted closure. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't, as it is a waste of time, especially if you dont have anything new as far as evidence goes. It's a waste of time on a trivial matter.

Also, please note that WP:NPOV applies to article content, not discussion closes. Just wanted to throw that out there, since you've erroneously said that a few times now. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter whether I bring up new evidence or not? The old discussion didn't arrive at a conclusion, it was closed to silence debate.

The editor closed the discussion based on his own opinion. His stance that the source didn't change anything was his view, not an universally agreed stance, seeing how that was the very thing that was being debated. If that's not WP:NPOV, then what is it called? -- Bluest Bird (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's been debated countless times over the years, and it never comes to a different conclusion. If no info is being supplied, then why would it come to a different conclusion this time? You might want to take a look at WP:DEADHORSE while you're at it. It doesn't make sense and it's a waste of time. Go do something more constructive. Improve an article or something. It's also not uncommon practice to have unconstructive/repetitive/redundant discussions closed like that, and trying to cite NPOV about a discussion close is really just showing how poor your grasp on policy is. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion did provide new info, and it was promptly closed while said info was in the process of being debated.

NPOV rules that we should "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Closing a discussion that's basically debating "Is it X or Y?" by giving "It's X period" as the reason is passing off a POV as a fact. That's exactly what happened here. It was discussing whether the new source shed light on the game's status, and the editor closed it by saying "No it doesn't". -- Bluest Bird (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "new info" was a complete "non-starter". Pointing out that a source said a game distinguished itself from other entries was somehow indicative of it being a spin-off is ludicrous. That's a huuuuge reach to call something like that "new info". It's meaningless to the discussion at hand. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the line is for people to decide, not a single editor. Obviously not everyone felt like you, otherwise there wouldn't have been a discussion in the first place. -- Bluest Bird (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an extremely hard sell, considering the discussion sat as closed, uncontentiously, with no follow up discussion, for over 13 months. The fact that you are the only person to object, over the course of 13 months, is yet anothe reason why you should look at WP:STICK. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]