Not weird, just decontextualized/disembodied... You didn't mention which fight. Moreover, that's been true of Wikipedia since my first edit more than a decade ago (I think). So... you didn't say anything helpful.Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we, the editorial team, thought the WWI context was clear both from the (uncaptioned) memorial statue depicted, the guest "reflections" piece, and the general culture during the writing period which included Armistice/Veterans Day. Which doesn't justify reader confusion but, err, contextualizes it? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. In order to achieve peace between nations we first have to learn and practice how to behave peaceably in our own lives. Lumos3 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got the WWI context, but I thought this was more specifically referring to the accumulating vitriol at ANI and the Arbcom elections about civility and the use of certain unsavory words to admonish other editors. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to those not historically inclined, such as us Americans, in trying to find out the context behind this picture. The file's metadata gives us no such clue, only its geolocation. Speaking as an American, we don't do so well when it comes to WWI, in which we were late to the game. WWII was our shining hour (late to that game too) but that's what we love to reminisce about. We'll be wondering who these figures in this statue are, why they're shaking hands, and why they appear to be standing over a basketball. Spintendo 22:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I find weird is that after an article about getting along with each other and the tragedy of conflict some have posted an unkind comment about the editor who works his *bleep* off to keep the Signpost running. I think that was naughty. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉15:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any comment about the editor, unkind or not, just a comment that this was a rather odd piece, given it is without any proper context. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is never weird to suggest that people should stop throwing bricks at each other and give peace a chance instead. The sentiment is well intentioned and welcome at any time.
It is a little weird, because it's trivializing real-world massive violent conflict (I'm strongly reminded of Godwin's Law). Millions of lives will not be lost because two Wikipedians ankle-bit each other. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivializing massive world conflict, nor is it odd; it is touching. It is a reminder that even small actions, such as holding forth common decency to our fellow Wikismiths on this project that many in the world see, are still important to keep us human. The month of December is when many attempt to stanch their lesser impulses in exchange for more charitable ones, and hope for peace. For those who are not familiar with the 1914 Christmas truce, may I suggest watching the excellent film Joyeux Noël. It is fiction based in fact. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a song "Belleau Wood" by Garth Brooks about the 1914 Christmas truce. "But for just one fleeting moment, the answer seemed so clear, Heaven's not beyond the clouds, It's just beyond the fear." That's a nice Christmas message. Smallchief (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was an informal truce carried out mostly by the lower ranks without authorization from military leaders, and only in some sectors of the front. Higher authorities were appalled and attempted to repress fraternization between the two sides. Their thinking was (I suppose): if you know your enemy personally, you might be reluctant to kill him.Smallchief (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wikipedia users could bear that in mind when hastening to be unpleasant to each other, exerting authority over others, and turning some discussion venues into a sordid mire of grave dancing and battlefield behaviour.
First, who are the Wikipedia users? Anyone can be a Wikipedia user, even a plain idiot. Even a plain idiot can become Wikipedia administrator, i.e. a user with unlimited power. Could you then call upon common sense and avoid unpleasance, exterting authority, grave dancing and battlefield behaviour? The power is not given to knowledge and hierarchy of knowledge does not hierarchise users. In reality, knowledge is not offered for free and expecting to get it for free from a man of knowledge is an illision knowing that a complete idiot can extert power over such man.--Богаљ Рајовић (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to From the editor