User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2021/April

An objection to a couple of edits you made

So, this edit closing the "Sensitive TFA images" thread at the Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article page, and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AToday%27s_featured_article&type=revision&diff=1014079835&oldid=1014079512 this edit doubling down when gainsaid were not good edits, no.

I'm going to assume that you were having a bad day, and that happens. Still, I feel compelled to point out why these were pretty poor edits. So here're my problems with the edits:

1. The thread was active for less than 24 ours. It's way out of process to close threads after a single day except in exceptional circumstances. Yes I know that WP:SNOW exists (it's toxic IMO), but there are lot of guidelines and essays here. WP:PI also exists, and so does WP:NOHURRY. And Wikipedia:Steamroll minority opinions, and Meta:Snowball ("Even a long list of 'supports' does not preclude the appearance of a single and important objection. An important comment giving deeper insights can often change the whole course of a discussion.") As you surely know anyone can cherry-pick rules here to support a whole lot of different things.
2. And I mean even if you think WP:SNOW applies as a regular thing, this thread surely was not one of the cases to use it. By my count there there 18 "votes" and it was running 11-7 to against the proposition, That is only 61% against. And with six days to go.
3. And on the merits, a the arguments against were sometimes weak and jejune. Of course that's subjective, but I think I have a reasonable case for believing that: "I am still not seeing the problem. I don’t know how we can guess what some people will find sensitive until ... we hear that what some people see as commonplace, others find shocking. Who knew?" expresses simple ignorance. "'images that could potentially be regarded as graphic' includes almost all images" is risible nonsense. "I don't get offended by anything really apart from cruelty to animals and humans" express an inability to care about readers who don't share one's idiosyncracies. "[T]hen [to] call for censoring Wikipedia based on a subjective standard really casts your argument as being rather imprecise" uses the toxic and inflammatory term "censor" which is designed cast the other editor as not merely wrong but out of line. Because "censor" doesn't apply here -- only entities with police powers can censor us, we are talking here about editorial judgement. "[Most] schools block Commons already" is probably not correct. (To be fair, some of the Oppose arguments were better; but the Support side had good arguments too.) There's no "Clearly and resoundingly rejected" here, I think that any disinterested person would avow.
4. And your closing statement was four words, two of which were misspelled. I assume you are literate and were sober, but it is not a good look. I would guess that you were in a big hurry. That's fine; life is busy; but if you were in such a hurry you could have gone on to whatever you were in a hurry about, and come back at the end of the seven days or left it someone else. There wasn't any imminent deadline. I think it's import for the community to be reassured that closes (especially ones made contrary to process) are made with some thought. Your close statement didn't do that/
5. And an editor properly reverted your edit which is her right per WP:BRD, which means you're supposed to take it take it (somehwhere -- her page for instance) rather than double down the edit and say "If you dispute, please discuss this with me". Some new editors have to learn this. I assume you don't, in which case it's not a good look, at all.
6. And given all that, the edit looks a lot like a supervote, and it's insulting. It's insulting to the community, basically telling them to shut up. If people care to spend their time discussing matters of this sort -- and after all there were about 20 people who chose to, just on the first day -- it's really not your place to tell them they can't.

As I said I'm going to assume you were just having a bad day. It's alright, we all have bad days and we all make mistakes. God knows I have. We all learn from them, you and me and most people, I hope and assume. I'm have to assume you were just having a bad day, because I write articles and I don't have the interest to dig into you record and look for patterns. I assume there's no pattern.

One takeaway from this mistake might be to back off some of the more fraught edits when you're having a bad day. Another might be to consider removing the toxic page WP:SNOW from your tool box, since it generates more work than it saves and engenders bad feeling, as here for instance. And it is frequently misunderstood and misused (as it was here). This is not a good way to administer a volunteer organization, no.

And as a moment's consideration should show, discussion threads are time-sensitive, unlike articles. Closing a discussion damages damages it even if undone, as people tend to drop it from their immediate purview. We don't know how many cogent comments have been lost already by people seeing the thread as closed. Mine was. So although you should roll back your edits, it almost doesn't matter now. What's done is done. Another reason to be prudent and careful in matters like these.

Thanking you for your attention, Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm dyslexic and don't have any strong feelings on this subject. In general, participants in a discussion should not revert a close by an uninvolved admin without at least chatting with them. If you would like to start a discussion about depreciating WP:SNOW, you have been here long enough to know where to do it. But, until then, it is part of the way the English Wikipedia works. Besides, this wasn't an RfC, it was an informal discussion of what the coords should do. If you would like to start a larger formal RfC about all images on the main page, VPP is that-a-way. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the episodes of dyslexia and that must suck, but that's only one of my points, and anyway the Wikipedia is a respecter only of competencies and not persons; I'm a maniac and I don't get a pass for that.

Wow, I was expecting a mea culpa, not a doubling down. It's not "the way the English Wikipedia" works", it's what you personally did. See the difference? In the real world, constructions of the form "Sure I'm a racist but that's just the way America rolls" etc. aren't particularly edifying. Not to mention I really took it as an anapodoton: "That's the way the English Wikipedia works and you'll take it and like it". If you meant something different you could consider choosing your phrasing more carefully.

It's kind of insulting for you to suggest that I try to get SNOW deprecated. We both know that it's a good source of extrajudicial power for the admin corps (just saw it here!), and so it's not going away ever. You know this, so I can't see your statement as much more than a taunt and an avowal to continue egregiously and deliberately misusing it. Not what I was hoping for...

Alright. So, no self-reflection and mea culpa. No indication that you aren't going to keep doing stuff like this in future. That's not OK, so... what's the next step we should take together, here? Maybe I'm dead wrong here, one never knows, so let's get some more eyes on this to figure that out... all I can think of is Deletion Review... Maybe you'll get a lot of backup! OK? See you there! Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"You must fold because I want you to" is an interesting way to go through life, but enjoy. These sorts of things go to AN and not DRV since I deleted nothing. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not enjoying it. You're still saying "I though the consensus was rather clear here" but you don't have a reason for that that you've shared yet. Again: it's alright if you made a mistake, mistakes only become problems when they're not admitted and addressed. We count on the members of our Admin Corps to learn and grow in skill, and that's one way to do that. Hey, it's nothing personal, it's just business. Anyway, you seem to be getting a wound up right now so let's go do something else for a while and get back to this later, OK? Herostratus (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no desire to speak with you over email or any other forum until, such a time, that you decide to stop speaking down to me and demanding I acquiesce to your wishes. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, roger that. I'll just make this one last post, and then for my part we'll be done here, alright?

So, sorry if I came across as condescending, I was just trying hard not to be pugnacious. But here I'll speak man-to-man, and excuse me if I come off as a dutch uncle, but, yeah, I sure do demand that you acquiesce to my wishes. You'd better, and you know why? Because my wish is for you to not make objectively toxic edits like the ones we're talking about here.

So, usually, the next step would be to go to WP:ANI and get some more eyes on the matter and air out the discussion. I'd ask for a topic ban. I probably wouldn't get it, but not because I'm wrong, but because you're a big shot and also you probably have lots of friends there. That's OK (well not really, but whatever) -- where there're humans there's politics. But I'd rather remove my appendix with a rusty soup can lid than go there, and my guess is I don't have to.

Because my guess is that you're not going to do this again. I mean it's been an annoying hassle I'm sure (it has been for me), and that's nothing compared to what'll happen if you do it again. And I've the got these diffs, and there's only so many times you can get away with stuff like this. And who needs to go thru this again. Sure hope I'm right.

Usually I'd close by thanking for what I'm sure is the 99+++% of your work here which I'm confident is excellent and critical and arduous, and that nobody holds a random single mistake against you, certainly not me, and sorry I had to add stress. But maybe that'd be talking down to you, so I'll just say, if you want to look for fault here look in the mirror, and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Carry on and if you're fortunate you won't see me again anytime soon! Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

American Football

For the record, the bassline in Never Meant is making me cry. Having scanned, and then gotten stuck here and there, the whole album is brilliant. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I vividly remember being blown away when I first listened to album. I found it at a small used record store by chance when I was 16 and it changed my life. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I am impress[1]. Never Meant is very immediate; the rest are growers...the more you listen the more they click...I'm too old for it to "change[] my life", but its certainly going to be something I'll be listening to on and off in 10 years. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There is something special about listening to an album at 16. Thank you for the copy edit! It looks great. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for American Football discography

On 19 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Football discography, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that all three albums in the discography of the emo band American Football are eponymous, so the media and Polyvinyl Records refer to them as LP1, LP2, and LP3? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Football discography. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, American Football discography), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Turnover discography

On 24 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Turnover discography, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the music styles in the discography of Turnover range from pop-punk to dream pop? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turnover discography. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Turnover discography), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)