User talk:Too Small a Fish to Fry

What does it mean to be "too small a fish to fry"?

Pluralised wikilinks

Hello. Regarding your recent edits on Fish - putting the 's' outside of a simple unpiped link makes the source code much cleaner and easier for others to edit and is usually a good idea (eg. [[fish]]es vs [[fish|fishes]]), but it doesn't make any difference if you're already using a pipe (the original [[Shoaling and schooling|schools]] vs your [[Shoaling and schooling|school]]s). In fact, it actually makes things slightly less clear, because the plural outside the brackets makes it look, at first glance, as if you're pluralising an unpiped article title.

This isn't a very big deal either way, but it's not something that benefits an article, so don't feel that you have to do it. MOS:PIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are worth a read.--McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your username...

...could just as easily work in reverse: Too small a fry to fish. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean, Baseball Bugs? Do you belong on my incivility report too? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just the way my brain works - plays on words. But I forgot to add the smiley. Now done. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. But how did you even spot me, anyway? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the fact that you posted at two of the most-watched drama boards on the entire site, perhaps...?

_Muffled ^Pocketed 14:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, LOLz.... Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you on WP:ANI. I have no opinion on your complaint there. But your ID caught my eye, due to the multiple meanings of "fry". You could also have used "too small a fry to fry". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, so the "fortune teller" was right about that one point, I guess. Thanks for being mildly entertaining for a bit, Bugs. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting comments on talk pages

Take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation for how best to keep talk page comments in shape when you add a new one - they were getting a bit confusing over at Talk:Fish. --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing redirects

There's no need to fix redirects to link to their actual destinations, by the way, as you did here - see WP:NOTBROKEN. --McGeddon (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my freakin' gosh! So you guys would rather see the clutter of the little "redirected from..." every time ya go to that from another article that uses the other term? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's balanced against keeping the page source easy to read and edit. That and a few other reasons behind the WP:NOTBROKEN link. It's not a big deal, but if you want to spend some time improving articles, there are much more useful things you could be doing. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess, but you know... along the way.... Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no real harm in it - just thought you should know that this isn't something that needs to be fixed, if you're checking articles for problems. Thanks for your contributions. --McGeddon (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh. K. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, changing to avoid redirects is, or at least was, a common practice at Wikipedia. It may not be "necessary", but there's nothing wrong with it either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugs. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To bo fair, I don't think he means any harm. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who: Bugs? Yeah, I know he doesn't. And Geddon doesn't either.

No, you, minnow! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I updated epi's talk page after your reply there. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what he's saying is that avoiding redirects is more likely to be something incidental to other edits. I myself seldom bother with avoiding redirects. With a word like Edelweiss, I let it redirect from the common name to the silly approach taken by someone here. As with this classic song:

Leontopodium alpinum

Every morning you greet me

Small and platinum

Leontopodium alpinum

You look Latin and/or Greek to me.

Or something like that.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huhh, Bugs... :) Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who, then, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? And why hadn't you answered my question over at user talk:Epipelagic? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-summaries

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Muhammad Ali, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". An attempt to change the subject's name is not a minor edit. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what my edits there are, C.Fred. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which? Mislabeled as minor? Intentionally deceptive? CNN says Ali changed his name in 1964;[1] your edit to the introduction could easily be interpreted as intentional introduction of an error, or at least deviation from the sources cited elsewhere in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Minor edit for an explanation of what constitutes a minor edit. Also, please stop using edit summaries for discussion. That's what talk pages are for. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is your warning to C.Fred also to not use edit-summaries for discussion? And what are edit summaries supposedly for, then, if you "can't talk in them"? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no obligation to balance my stated concerns. If he is doing the same thing, he shouldn't be either. As for edit summaries, they are for describing the change made, not for discussion. As for keeping this discussion here, and not bouncing between yours and my page, it's more clear to the reader what's going on in the discussion (and it's a rule I have on my talk page). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then why did you believe I "deserve to be scolded" about that but not him, even though he was doing the same thing? And how is describing the changes made "not discussion"? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not scolded anyone. I have provided information intended to assist you in working on this site. Also, I have commented on your work as that is the work I have come across. I haven't run into C Fred's similar mistakes. I am a regular editor on Muhammad Ali, and I'm seeing your 'minor' edits that aren't minor. If I was a significant editor where C Fred was making this mistake, I would point that out to him as well. Why would I go out of my line of editing sight to comment on mistakes? I honestly can't make sense of doing that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Stevietheman, what's the supposed "difference" between C.Fred's "Sources say he changed his name; what's your source for it being a ring name?" and his "This is established consensus in the talk page; take it to talk and get new consensus if you disagree," and anything I've said back to him also in the edit-summaries? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said those things while making edits to return the article to its former state -- that's all right. You made two statements in successive edit summaries without changing anything. Those should have been done on the article's talk page or not done at all. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, Stevietheman, why do the rules about edit-summaries themselves say that it's actually fine for us to make what are officially known as dummy edits in order to make an additional statement about the edits that have been going on? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use in that regard is a mis-use. A dummy edit is used to further explain something you did in a previous edit, but perhaps saved by mistake or you didn't have enough space to fully describe the edit. What you were doing was conducting a discussion, not explaining a previous edit. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people can remove stuff from their own talk pages

This edit of yours to User talk:Epipelagic suggests that you have been unaware of WP:OWNTALK.

Now that I have pointed you to it, I can assume that you are aware of it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I was aware of it. I had forgotten that another way to refer to it is "OWNTALK" though. He just needs to remove it without insulting it by trying to render it as "invalid," since it's not. See your talk page. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Having read what I wrote, you reverted an entirely legitimate removal for your own odd reason, and did so for the third time within very much less than 24 hours. And therefore:

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Here's some advice for you after the block is lifted: take policies and guidelines to mean what they say, rather than what you want them to say; and take an average of no less than five minutes for each of your edits. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep hammering home the point that you are treated differently now than you were as "just an IP address".[2] I mean, you really do mention it quite a lot. Out of curiosity: do you remember any IP addresses you may have used prior to this account? Doc talk 08:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Doc9871 and Hoary, I was not saying that I'm treated differently now than when I was just an IP address. I'm trying to make the point that what I do to someone else right now, such as warning them for edit-warring, is not treated the same way as it was when it was done to me. I just add the "when I was an IP address" part) because you can see that there's no record of it here with my user name, and without that explanation you might go, "Where? I don't see anything like that in your history." And no, of course I don't have a record of the IP addresses that I've had over the time.

So to go back over what I'm asking, and hopefully you will answer it for me since nobody else has been willing to give me the information, these, again, are what I'm asking:

1. Why is it that when an admin or even a regular user can see that I made 2-3 reversions to the same thing within the same day, and they know that I'm not breaking 3RR (but you know that even without breaking 3RR you can still be ed-warring), when I give someone else that same warning though, it gets treated by at least two users (the warned one himself and one of his cronies) as if it were "trolling" even though it follows the same criteria as that which was used on me to send me the same kind of warnings, but a. I would not now get any support from others that it is actually not trolling, and b. I would not get any support from others that that same kind of warning against me was trolling?

2. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user reports me for edit-warring, even if I did not yet break 3RR, the admin(s) who review the report will block me will acknowledge that I've violated the edit-warring rules (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), but when I report someone for warring without breaking 3RR (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), that admin goes, "Ohh, it's 'not a violation because this user didn't break 3RR'," and then I have to remind him that even though it's not a violation of 3RR it is still edit-warring (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway)?

3. This one makes you guys sound like you are very, very picky!

a. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user says I'm "edit-warring" or calls me an "edit-warrior," nobody scolds them for being uncivil against me, but then when I tell someone they're edit-warring or that they're an edit-warrior, you guys will tell me, "NO! Naughty boy! You cannot use terms like that on people, because that's 'being uncivil against them'!"

b. Or if there's some supposed "difference" between telling a person that they do a certain bad thing and calling them the doer of that certain bad thing, i. why do you guys think there's that supposed "difference," and ii. what is the supposed "difference," and iii. why should the "they are a person who does that thing" version be considered any more of a supposed "insult" than the "that person does that thing" version?

c. Why is it that even if there is a supposed "difference" between "you're edit-warring" and "you are that which edit-wars" (oh my freakin' heck, really?), if an admin or a regular just uses that term against me, it's supposedly "okay," but then when I use it against someone else, it's supposedly "not okay"?

4. a. Why is it that when I was supposedly "uncivil" with someone in the past, someone would scold me for it and threaten to report, or even actually report, me even the first time, but now when I report i. one person for calling my warning "nonsense," "trolling," and "pollution," and ii. the other person for that similar thing plus for calling me a "jerk" and saying that my writings are "shit," they don't get scolded at all?

b. And then, why is it that when I call the one guy a jerk back, I'm the one who gets scolded for it even though he never did?

Do you guys have some sort of unwritten "rule" that "people who appear to have been editing on the WP longer, or at least who have had a user name longer, should get cut more slack than people who either appear new or who have at least had their user name for a lot less time"? If that's supposedly "not the case," or if you won't admit to that, then why are 1-4 above, with all their a.-b.-c. and i.-ii.-iii. subitems, happening to me?

Explain this, please. Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: You're blocked. I'll recycle something from above:

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: [...]

Feel free to follow that invitation. As long as you are blocked, you'll have particular difficulty in persuading others to read what you write, let alone to respond to it. (And once you're unblocked, remember that concision is a virtue.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, @Hoary:, I'm blocked; I know that. Why should just because someone is blocked that supposedly ridiculously means "their questions should not be answered"? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't supply even one IP address you've used prior to this account? Meaning you can't even remember any article you ever edited as an IP? A serious red flag. We are old salts here. Just go away now. Doc talk 07:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sro23 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]