User talk:Mandarax

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

A peaburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Guess who's making totally animal-free burgers today? Drmies (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the burger, and congratulations on making 'em. This is quite a coincidence. Just yesterday I was going through some papers, and came across a recipe I've had for a long time, but never made. I set it aside to be sure to make it soon. Now, it'll be a super-coincidence if they turn out to be the same recipe. I printed my Split Pea Burgers recipe years ago from the site after seeing Alton Brown make it on Good Eats. Could that possibly be the one you're using? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It could possibly be, and in fact of veracity, going forward AND backward, it IS! Drmies (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow! Well, how did they turn out? Should I go ahead with my plan to make them? (Of course, my taste in burgers may skew slightly differently than yours.) I'm amazed at the coincidence. That recipe really was buried in that stack of papers literally for years until I excavated it just before you left your note. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • They weren't bad, Mandarax--really, though, they were a bit too solid for my taste. But not bad. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the report. A "not bad" from a meat eater actually sounds very promising, so I'll probably make a batch one of these days. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Mandarax's disappearance and the WT:DYK cesspool[edit]

Note: I inserted the above section heading. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Mandarax Mandarax, where art thou? Matty.007 08:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Matty. I left a brief explanation at User talk:Drmies#Mandarax is not dead, since the good doctor had emailed me, wondering if I was alive. Considering my extensive editing history around here, me being dead would certainly be the most logical explanation for my disappearance. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't an animal free burger a salad? Glad to see you are still on the green side of the grass. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed your absence. At first, I thought it was an extended vacation. But in the back of my mind, I wondered if it was what we have all experienced at DYK lately. The admin activity has abated, but someone else seems to be full steam ahead. At the least, as witnessed by a rather recent revert of a long-time and valued admin. And there is such a viciousness to the communications. And, oh my goodness, the absolute arrogance of someone who has to come along behind and re-edit what you wrote because they know better than God Awmighty. Quite frankly, I don't even feel like gnome work over there these days. I miss the old gang over there, but no contributors should experience that kind of non-stop attack, I-know-better-than-anyone-else-in-the-world attitude, and downright nastiness. I unchecked WTDYK from my watchlist a while back - can't stand to see it happen to anyone else, either. Best wishes to you and all the old DYK gang, but drinking turpentine would be more pleasant than DYK is right now. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I remember Christmas when it was just Kierano, Maile66 and I holding the fort. Good times. I ventured to start building a prep today for the first time in a while, waiting for results. Mandarax: so are you going to return to DYK? And Maile, are you going to keep gnoming? I don't want to loose 2 such valued contributors... All the best, Matty.007 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been gnoming on things having nothing to do with DYK. At the moment, participating at DYK seem to be like giving an-attention-needy peacock a forum. I choose not to do that. Nothing at WP is forever, people drift in and out. We'll have to wait and see. To quote Sean Connery's wife Micheline Roquebrune, "Never Say Never Again". Oh, what a good name for a movie! — Maile (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody.

I obviously agree with everything above. I'll probably return to editing (there are still plenty of artists without articles, or with inadequate ones), and will probably even return to DYK. I may further expound on my feelings about the deplorable situation at WT:DYK when I'm more in a mood for writing. For now, I'll just mention my first encounter with the "attention-needy peacock". It was when he asked me why I had changed something on his nomination template, and I gave him three reasons. None of them was the answer he'd apparently been anticipating, but evidently not wanting to waste his outrage at receiving that expected response, he replied, "just so long as you're not one of those idiots saying [what he expected me to say]" I thought "uh oh, this guy's gonna be trouble". Sure enough, soon after that he made his first appearance at WT:DYK. I think I remember one thread a long time ago where he actually didn't feel the need to join in (or, more likely, he just accidentally missed it). But I think he's the lesser of two evils, and he even takes care of some of the errors and other issues created by the eviler evil. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See ya around. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That DYK nom was an interesting read. There are few things I hate more than this ant-fucking "Oh it's not in the rules so you can't not promote it". Sometimes shit is shit. Those ant fuckers who can't be bothered to nominate a clean article need to clean up their act and not expect others to do the dirty work for them. There's already way too much work done by reviewers--or, way too much work not done by writers/nominators. I will try and keep an eye on matters, Mandarax--in the meantime, welcome back. We sorely need you. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. But I dunno if I'd say I'm "back" yet. My only edits so far have been to user talk pages in response to pings from during my absence. Then again, Wikipedia is a social networking site.... MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As it happens, a certain painter you and I both know showed up on my Facebook feed today--I wonder how Facebook knows that I know them. I'm still awaiting your friend request, Mandarax. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The WT:DYK Cesspool: The Sequel[edit]

As semi-promised above, here's a little about the situation which drove me away from Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with my work here knows that I just keep plugging away as a very active user no matter what, but an administrator's reign of terror at WT:DYK was so horrible that I was strongly motivated to discontinue my contributions, and I simply left for an unprecedented nine weeks.[1] None of the attacks were directed at me or anything I did; as a matter of fact, if he were aware of me at all, he would certainly approve of my activities: fixing syntax, grammar, spelling, and accuracy issues, plus the occasional finding of gross factual errors, all done quietly without complaining or objecting to everything the critics point out. But I couldn't stand the extremely oppressive, contentious and antagonistic atmosphere which had been created and perpetuated for so long. (For anyone unfamiliar with the situation, to see the full extent of the problem, you would really have to suffer through reading several months worth of DYK archives.)

This has absolutely nothing to do with error reports, corrections, or suggestions, and it's certainly not because I'm a "regular" who resents an interloper trying to change our flawless DYK system. This is entirely about the unrelenting incivility (I'll use "incivility" as shorthand for the whole range of negative behavior exhibited).

Every time anybody complained about his incivility, the response was that DYK regulars say that there's no problem and they resent outsiders coming in and suggesting otherwise. What the "outsider" refused to see was that, while helpful suggestions and error reports are welcome, incivility is not. I know that there are problems with DYK. After all, I've made sixteen thousand corrections to DYK.

What this admin did was much worse than vandalism. You can deal with a vandal, and when you've done that, you can feel a sense of accomplishment, that you've done something to help the encyclopedia. What this supposed crusader did was alienate everyone involved, creating bad feelings and destroying morale. If everyone is driven away, there won't be any encylopedia for him to defend.

He repeated over and over and over that people claim there's no problem with DYK. But I never saw anybody say any such thing. The irony is that many people repeatedly told him about the problem with his incivility, yet he failed to see this problem. He was content enough to discuss DYK's problems with Shubinator, until he realized that it was really about his incivility, at which point he abruptly and childishly terminated the conversation.

It made me sick when he sarcastically and repeatedly claimed that the DYK regulars think "There is no problem. Repeat." Everybody knows that there are problems, but the one HUGE problem was him.

He said if "we lose people who can't see there's a problem, so be it". What he refused to see is that he drove away people who do see that there are problems, and would help to solve them if he didn't drive them away. Shubinator's insightful but unappreciated comment to him: "You are driving away the very support you need for positive change."

Sometimes I felt bad about abandoning the people left behind to work on DYK. But, although it may sometimes seem otherwise, this is not a job; if it were, I would have filed a complaint with the HR department about the hostile work environment. But, since this is all voluntary, I simply left, as I didn't wish to contribute when such an unfriendly, uninviting, unsupportive, uncivil atmosphere had been created.

I'll never understand how an administrator could be allowed to rampage so shamefully through DYK. I know that admins are just regular users, but I think that admins should be held to a higher standard of conduct. His conduct was simply despicable.

It was all supposedly done to help Wikipedia, but the horrible manner in which it was being perpetrated was doing far more harm than good. I actually agree with many of the points he was attempting to make, but his conduct while expressing them was absolutely despicable.

I think that conventions concerning wikicivility are somewhat murky, but basic practices of decency should dictate that no user (especially an admin) should be allowed to behave so horribly that it creates conditions which are so intolerable that they drive away innocent users.

I apologize for this being too long, repetitive, and (appropriately enough) rambling. But if I had to edit it down, it might've taken another nine weeks. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah yes. Him. Ordinarily I'd suggest an RfC/U. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That was hinted at by Prioryman, but nothing ever came of it. Hopefully it's over now, so this can all become nothing more than a horrible, bitter memory. The aftereffects, however, remain, including the users who were driven away and still have not returned. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Since he appears to have given up (at least for now) I didn't think it worth taking that forward, but it remains an option if there is a repetition. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a deeply unpleasant episode and it's very regrettable that it ended up driving away not only you, but others as well. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. I sure hope there's no repetition! MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mandarax, I feel for you. And I feel guilty that not only do I not have any suggestions for improving DYK, but I abandoned it over a different issue that for me is a deal-breaker. But ... if you look back at WT:DYK prior to my leaving in November 2012, you'll see the exact same thing happening, with different editors doing it. I only recently realized that that was what drove Sharktopus away - and he had been one of those working hardest to help DYK. This is a long, long-running issue, with the same drumbeat of attacks on "the regulars" and the same red herring about "regulars" supposedly saying there's nothing wrong with DYK. It may well pre-date my involvement - I haven't looked into the discussions that led to the institution of QPQ reviewing, but I know that came about as a result of criticism of DYK. This all doesn't make it better, but this admin is just the latest point person for this attacking of DYK participants. As I say, I wish I could offer any useful suggestions. I valued DYK, I enjoyed helping there, I miss helping there, and I've slaughtered many, many electrons defending it and trying to make it better. And some good and hardworking editors have been badly burnt over its unpopularity. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Yngvadottir. Your thoughtful, intelligent, and helpful input is very much missed at DYK. Yes, there have been previous periods of intense attacks on DYK, but the recent one was by far the worst. I don't recall any other time when there was such a high level of extreme, unrelenting incivility continuing for months. I found the viciousness of attacks by the admin and his sidekick (who eventually became a critic of the admin's methods) to be unbearable, even though none of it was directed at me personally. There may have been some kind of mob dynamic wherein one person's incivility induced other critics to join in. I'm proud to note that the "regulars" did not succumb to this affliction (possibly with some very minor exceptions where a user may have responded in kind). There was another admin who had been a harsh critic of DYK for a long time, while always managing to remain civil in their criticism, but during these dark days turned uncivil too. As for me, I'm resuming my DYK gnoming, but I think I'll be avoiding WT:DYK. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, we have lost another one, hopefully only temporarily. I won't "out" the person here, but the one who is retiring has not cited DYK specifically, but the overall culture being too weighty to deal with at the moment. One benign editor who sincerely tried to sidestep all the nonsense and work with everybody. The admin sidekick is more of an irritant to me than either of you, I suppose. Besides being the needy peacock who will not give up the stage, I have been concerned of late that this individual is targeting one of the good admins, to the point of can figure it out. That targeting really surprised me, and I have no idea why the peacock feels so threatened by this admin. Does this seem like it all came out of the blue, with no warning? The demoralizing of the troops at DYK could not have worked out better if it had been planned that way on some other site. Disruptive in a way that is hard to prove in the WP set up. Why is little old DYK is so threatening to some people? The only thing that comes to mind is that one or more persons want their own show on the main page, but first they have to clear a block of space. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
It sometimes seemed to me that the admin wanted to hailed far and wide as the brave individual who singlehandedly either saved or destroyed DYK, preferably the latter. He may misguidedly believe that he actually achieved some positive results, but all he accomplished was the creation of a bleak period of oppression and disruption, and DYK is now simply proceeding the same as it always did, before his unwelcome intrusion. As for the "peacock", yes, I do find him incredibly irritating, uncivil, and disruptive, but I focused above on the even more heinous party. I wish the peacock would leave here and go on the road as a stand-up comedian. That would provide him with the attention he so desperately craves, and he could see if anybody appreciates his humor. At least he does some good. In a bizarre exchange, the admin showed that he's so sure that he's always right that he edit warred with the peacock in a ridiculous attempt to push through his ungrammatical, nonsensical hook, then accused the peacock – who tried to restore it to a grammatically correct hook that made sense – of edit warring.

I can think of two good admins who have both been particularly abused in all of this, and I hope it hasn't prompted either of them to consider leaving. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The admin I was thinking of is American. But now that you mention it, I think at least one in Asia and at least one in the UK have also taken substantive hits. Thanks for the link - you're right, it was "ridiculous" edit warring. You know...are you familiar with George Costanza's parents on Seinfeld? I mean, if the two of them went on the road together, it would almost be the same thing.— Maile (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same American, and the other one I had in mind – who had to endure harsh personal insults – is indeed from the UK. As for the only DYK admin I know of in Asia, I'm not aware of any particular abuse he's been subjected to, although I believe his quarrel with the peacock is what prompted him to begin his occupation of WT:DYK. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
We're on he same wave length straight across it all. The quarrel, from my reading, was the warm-up act to the rest. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I was right. He really thinks that he whipped DYK into shape and made a positive difference. Let me repeat what I said above: "all he accomplished was the creation of a bleak period of oppression and disruption, and DYK is now simply proceeding the same as it always did, before his unwelcome intrusion". In any case, I'm certainly content to let him live in his little fantasy world as long as his delusion keeps him away. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Plus, I realize that I'll never catch up to Bgwhite.

Something to cheer you up[edit]

Thanks, that's good news!

Now, I'm about to do what I intend to do every Sunday through October 5, which is turn on AMC for what they call the Breaking Bad Binge: eight glorious continuous hours every week of the show including bonus features about each episode. I've only seen the entire series twice, and I'm excited to embark on number three. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the very reason to get Netflix... every Braking Bad episode commercial free. I'm almost finished watching The Wire. I hadn't seen it before. Alot of critics name it the best TV show ever. I can't name any TV show the best ever, but I would put The Wire in my top 20. The writing and the intricacies of the plot are what makes the show. One writer was a Baltimore Cop turned teacher. They other writer was a Baltimore newsman turned writer, which includes the TV show Homicide: Life on the Streets. The first season is cop vs drug dealer, 2nd adds in crime at the docks, third season adds politicians, 4th season adds in schools and the 5th adds in the newspaper. The character, Omar Little, is one of the best parts on TV. The only other show I've seen recently that I would recommend is Orange is the new Black, but that is only on Netflix. Bgwhite (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
My first instinct is that I would watch a lot more TV if I had Netflix. But, realistically, I think the opposite would be true. I would always think "oh, this is on Netflix, so I don't have to watch it now; I can see it anytime", and I'd end up never watching anything. Promos during last night's episodes announced that Better Call Saul would premiere in February. By the way, I recently made a second-hand recommendation of Orange Is the New Black to a friend with Netflix. Even though I've never seen it and don't even know what it's about, your recommendation was all I needed. (By the way, I commend you on your self-control for not blocking the admin who reverted your post above.) MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I finally found the article. I think this article says why I like Orange. The last paragraph sums it up perfectly. It is probably the closest to Breaking than any other show I can recall. First season was funny and set things up. Second was still funny, but it turned dark and had amazing acting. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question about . . . you guessed it . . . DYK[edit]

Thanks for your comments on my nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Bart Bok. When I raised this nomination, I selected the option for "BLP expansion" (or something very similar). I realize now this was a mistake, because the subject passed away some years ago, and you made that correction for me - thanks again.

My question is: by choosing "BLP expansion", it automatically added the additional criteria for "2x expanded and sourced" when it was finalized and added to the list at T:TDYK - is there a way to avoid that? Or to ask another way: if I expand a BLP which originally had sources, which option should I choose when creating a DYK nomination so it is classified correctly? --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't even notice that the subject was no longer living. I'm just used to people selecting the unsourced BLP option when the previous version was not unsourced, so that's all I checked. I would recommend using the "expanded" option for any expansions unless you're sure the subject is living and the prior version had no sources of any kind. What I've found is that the "BLP expanded" option is almost always invalid. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Great; thanks for that, Mandarax. It makes me wonder whether it is worthwhile proposing a change to the process which generates the DYK nomination templates. At the moment, the option simply says something like "BLP expansion" but does not mention anything about sourcing etc. To my naive eye, it looks like it should be a relatively simple change of wording to something like "expansion of previously unsourced BLP", and it should cut down on this unproductive admin "busy work". Do you know the mechanism to suggest such a change? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if it's worthwhile. The option is used very, very infrequently. If you want to suggest a change, you could do so at WT:DYK. Alternatively, since this seems like an uncontroversial change, if you're adept at working with templates, you could just edit Template:NewDYKnomination. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 21:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take your judgement that it isn't a big problem. Keep smiling! --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

New day[edit]

So good to see you doing the daily adjustments to T:TDYK again. I did my best while you were away, when I remembered (and when was online myself), but it wasn't nearly as satisfactory in terms of timing. (At one point, the "Current nominations" section was up to 13 or 14 days, and the daily headers lost their instruction comments on more than one occasion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it's nice to know that my little contributions have been noticed and appreciated. As I mentioned above, after being driven away by all of the extreme incivility, I sometimes felt bad about abandoning the good people left behind to work on DYK, so thanks for being one of those who managed to put up with the unpleasantness during the Dark Days, and keep DYK running.

Upon quickly scanning just a little bit of the DYK talk page and archives to see what I'd missed, I had noticed a few pleas for help with problems that people couldn't figure out. Well, these were things that I would've normally stealthily fixed long before anybody else even discovered that something was wrong. More often than not, you were the one who fixed these issues in my absence, so thanks again. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

JimCubb passed away.[edit]

I was always worried about his sudden departure. Unfortunately, he passed away due to lung cancer back in 2011. JimCubb, Chzz and you are the reasons that I stayed around here. Darn. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that. I remember that he posted a note with the simple but ominous edit summary "I'm sick", and I've always wondered. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


The new version of the Edit count tool on Labs includes some interesting statistics. My edits have only been reverted 63 times, and I know that a significant number of those are self-reverts and vandal reverts. I think that's a very low number. And out of 248,679 live edits, I've included an edit summary on all but three. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Jimbo is on vacation so someone else will have to mail you the medal. I'm afraid to look what my stats are, but just to make sure I'll leave an edit summary for this one. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hehe. Well, after that, I guess I have to check. You've been reverted 885 times, and you've failed to leave an edit summary on 7,767 of your 155,452 live edits. But you put me to shame in the important area of using the "thank" feature. I've only done it 31 times, while you're at 978. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen the new tool and WOW, it is impressive. Thank you for sharing. 330,786 live edits, 628 reverts and an edit summary on all but 2,500. I bet when I hit "rollback" on an edit, that counts towards not having an edit summary. #1 user talk page I edit on, Drmies, #2 Magioladitis and that vile Mandarax at #3. Did you notice at the bottom that it lists the amount of semi-automatic edits, such as AWB and Twinkle? The gadget is also impressive Bgwhite (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done plenty of rollbacks, and it does count those as having an edit summary (unless it counts admin rollback differently, which seems unlikely). You're my number three also, after Drmies and LadyofShalott. I actually thought a larger portion of my edits were AWB; it's about half for me, but I see that it's 88% for you. THAT vilє MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM эliv TAHT 21:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very grateful that you and so many others enjoy my happy place. Mandarax, you're a fantastic editor and I'm glad you're back. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing a happy place, although, since it's also a very busy place, I haven't been posting there with the frequency I used to. Thanks for the kind words. It was prudent of you to wait a bit before welcoming me back, since the last time I was back, I wasn't. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it do. Hey, I'll never forget your kind help with Pindakaasvloer and associated articles. I thought about that the other day. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think about that exhibit whenever I see art on the floor. Sometimes you're not allowed to walk on it (in one instance, I saw people stepping on fortune cookies piled up on the floor, and the guard just brushed the broken pieces back into the pile), sometimes you're allowed to walk on it, but most people avoid it, and sometimes the whole point is to walk on it, such as an ethereally illuminated room which visitors step into after putting on booties to protect the exhibit. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Xtools gadget is proving interesting.

Drmies talk page: 39,587 Revisions, 2,978 Authors, 623 Page watchers, 8,898 Pageviews (30 days)
Mandarax talk page: 3,305 Revisions, 444 Authors, 94 Page watchers, 540 Pageviews (30 days)
Bgwhite talk page: 6,113 Revisions, 992 Authors, 198 Page watchers, 1,794 Pageviews (30 days)
Jimbo talk page: 107,255 Revisions, 11,252 Authors, 3,137 Page watchers, 32,466 Pageviews (30 days)

I'm really surprised at how many revisions Drmies' page has compared to Jimbo's. I would have thought the spread would have been more. But it proves how popular Drmies is. Bgwhite (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Popular? You should see who I'm involved with these days. Wait--you did, haha, and reverted a warning they made to another helpful editor. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My head is spinning; my entire concept of consensus has been turned upside down (assuming we're talking about the same user). MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm reading my watchlist for the first time today. I read this page and I think, they will be blocked by Friday. Two messages up on my watchlist and they are blocked. Wow. I need to set aside an hour, make some popcorn and have a drink ready before I start reading anything about that mess.
  • Well, Floq doesn't fuck around, that's clear. Yes, Mandarax, that's a new idea of consensus, as Gerda pointed out as well. Bg, sometimes things happen more quickly than one thinks they might go. Mind you, I would not oppose an unblock if they managed to say a couple of things, but it's clear they can't. Also, please, no popcorn on my talk page, I don't like the smell. :) Drmies (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)