User talk:Anythingyouwant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nice redraft of narrative last month[edit]

Hi Anythingyouwant. Your nice rewrite of the subsection on Crimea for the Vladimir Putin page last month was a nice redraft at that time. There have been multiple over-edits since then and the subsection on Crimea is starting to lack any narrative flow; it almost looks like a simple list now. I have updated the list to include recent notable events/quotes and was wondering if you could glance at the narrative flow of that subsection. Nice rewrite last month. FelixRosch (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felix, thanks for the message, but I am on an indefinite wikibreak.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence[edit]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I really don't have much confidence in your Committee (to put it very kindly), and anyway am on wikibreak. You may find my wikibreak notice to be of interest (at my user page). It's kind of amusing that you have extended this invitation, immediately after your Committee warned me to stay away from such things. User:Arzel is one of the best editors at Wikipedia, and I have every confidence that you will suck him into your web and make his life at Wikipedia miserable, as you have in my case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. Just to let you know I mentioned you here, not directly or by name but by linking to this. Onwards and, well, alongwards :~) . Writegeist (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
More greeting, I mentioned you much simpler, top of my talk, "just" (#2 of 3), wishing you well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Wells Cathedral[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Wells Cathedral know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The east end of the cathedral

Wells Cathedral is a Church of England place of worship in Wells, Somerset, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from 1175 to 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the city's dominant feature and a landmark in the Somerset countryside. Its architecture presents a harmonious whole which is entirely Gothic and mostly in a single style, the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In this Wells differs from most other English medieval cathedrals, which have parts in the earlier Romanesque style. The historian John Harvey considers it to be the first truly Gothic structure in Europe. Wells has an exceptional number of surviving secular buildings associated with its chapter of secular canons, such as the Bishop's Palace and the Vicars' Close, a residential street which has remained intact from the 15th century. The cathedral is a scheduled monument and is designated by English Heritage as a Grade I listed building. The eastern end retains much ancient stained glass, which is rare in England. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How right you are . . . .[edit]

Hi, I'm Ben. I highly agree with what you said on your User page:

Do not believe that the hierarchy here has no agenda. Wikipedia's hierarchy welcomes and relies upon malicious slander, particularly from those administrators who stalk & attack & push their POV with impunity. If they do not like you, then even your slightest garden-variety inadvertent editing error becomes deliberate "misrepresentation" and "manipulation". The hierarchy makes rules and then punishes people who follow them, by allowing others to break those very same rules in their interactions with you. Upset about it? They will smack you around for that as well. The list goes on and on. These people may well have good intentions, but so does the pavement along the road to hell. Power over individual editors is extremely centralized at Wikipedia, whereas any sort of jury system would necessitate clear rules that can be applied equally without systemic bias. Wikipedia should scrap its bureaucracy and start over.

Absolutely. Scrap it and start over.

There should be only two (2) classifications of users: Editors and Administrators. And the admins have an obligation to keep trying to fix things. I had one editor tell me, "I could issue reminders of WP:CIVIL to all sorts of people, but what good would that do?" She's already given up, and seems unwilling to take the next step and block someone. When a user gets a little status (between being a nobody and being an admin), they decide they don't have to follow the same rules or guidelines. And when I try to bring this to the attention of admins, they basically criticize me for speaking up. Meanwhile, people are abusing WP:BRD, which isn't policy anyway, but what they're doing is hovering over certain articles and reverting new edits without discussion. Naturally, without a discussion, no consensus can be made, and under WP:BRD, that means reverting to the previous edit.

The administrator I referred to above seems to do nothing but refer one to read multiple essays and guideline artices, most of which are far too long, complex, and not at all policy, anyway. Meanwhile, some users are running around saying "fuck off" and "shove it", and the admins do nothing, because the offenders have a long history and a little status. I ran afoul of this trying to edit The Final Cut (album); all my edits were reverted with little or no explanation. WP:BRD is a disaster. Now I have admins telling me I should try to get consensus before making edits. That flies in the face of WP:BOLD, Be bold in editing articles. We can't have both as policy. Wikipedia isn't working anymore, is my observation. Bad, slanted arguments are awarded "Feature Article" status, which doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it DOES mean a lot of people will revert your edits, no matter how good or well-sourced they are.

--Ben Culture (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)