User talk:Opabinia regalis

"Civility"

Thank you, Opabinia, for this edit, which I found via the ongoing ArbCom election. A month ago, I wouldn't have attached much significance to it. But I recently helped a friend User:Andras Bereznay make a contribution to Commons (I didn't help with the content, I just showed him which buttons to click to get the upload done), and he consequently found himself involved in what he described in his first, and probably final, contribution to en:Wikipedia as "tangible seething hatred ... enwarapped into a pseudo polite, bogus academic wording" .

I've become slowly inured to that kind of shit. But he found himself thrown straight into it. You have helped me to understand that his attitude is sane and normal. Maproom (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, starting on commons would give anyone a headache. It may not be exactly a fit for the situation you ran into, because it's about enwiki, but IIRC this research project shaped a lot of the thinking in that post about how our typical interactions with new editors are off-putting and unproductive, and about the significance of those dynamics compared to the more high-profile concerns about "civility". Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@OR, this thread is worth reading for context. It's an exceptional situation, because Andras Bereznay landed in the wearily intractible East Europe disputes before ever making an en-wiki edit owing to the map he uploaded to Commons, but sadly not a unique one. (Just ask any Z-list celebrity who's tried to correct a fact about themselves on a Wikipedia bio how pleasant they found the experience; indeed, IIRC Talk:Beki Bondage was where as a newcomer I first bumped into a guy who signed up a couple of weeks after me called Newyorkbrad.) One of the perversities of Wikipedia's culture is that very often the more a newcomer knows about a topic, the more hostile the reception they get; yes, part of that is that experts are often used to working in an environment where sticking to your guns and shouting down opponents to make one's views heard is considered acceptable, but it can't all be chalked down to that. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, talk about getting thrown into the fire. And of course that kind of stuff disproportionately chases off the competent newer arrivals, instead of the ones mostly interested in fighting for their side. Z-list celebrities and similar seem like a slightly different problem - the topics themselves aren't contentious, but the edits attract the self-appointed COI Defense Squad to accuse the subject of either self-promotion or whitewashing (usually, these days, in the form of an impenetrable tangle of templates they'll accuse you of disruption for removing). Makes me glad my early edits were mostly about boring niche topics. Though I figure bluelinking your own userpage on the third edit gets you +10 Sock Points nowadays. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There's an even better example just today at User talk:Mate Bulic Fakjea. Here's someone who's fairly clearly trying to edit in good faith but who's never had the complicated intersection of BLP and RS explained to them, and has been met with a talkpage full of gobbledegook templates and ultimately blocked (and now I have someone baying for my blood at WP:AN for refusing to remove his talk page access altogether because he became frustrated at the block and said A Bad Word). ‑ Iridescent 23:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As I think OR is aware (probably more than most now), pretty much every instance of me being dragged off to ANI has a root cause in an incident like the one described above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait for it.....titillating!

Love the team stories...so I'll try to win just one for the Kipper - you haven't lived until you've been blocked and/or t-banned for humor or because you combined humor and told another editor to put on their big boy/girl panties and stop whining! Now that's when things escalate from simple🖕🏼incivility to downright disruption. And if that doesn't do the trick, wait for it....WP:TARAGESLAW. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the AN thread was closed without so much as an admonishment. Good lord, what are admins even good for if they're going to be such lazybones about getting interrupted by random pings from randos demanding that they sanction people for frustration with our own grinding wheels of bureaucracy?

*clicks link* *sees the word "infobox"* now there's A Bad Word. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of boy/girl stuff, I'm still waiting for the hammer to fall for this one [1]. EEng 02:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of where I asked candidates about their attitude to said edit (not a question about civility, but "can you go with a solid minority to decline a case?"), I expanded my list of this year's answers by the ultimate guide to arbitration (which I discovered after my kafkaesque encounter with the committee was over). We now sort of fight about how to preserve best what its author thought and said, sadly. When a user dies, I'd think keeping his talk page as he left it would be the most obvious choice. Please do that when I die. Do we have any rulez for that? Or at least a place to discuss? A talk page doesn't come with its talk page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt We actually do have formal guidelines on this, drawn up following some very unpleasant exchanges over whether our then-current practice of blocking the accounts of deceased editors (on the grounds that they would by definition never need them again and they presented an obvious risk of compromise as nobody would ever change the passwords) was disrespectful. I'd wholeheartedly disagree with When a user dies, I'd think keeping his talk page as he left it would be the most obvious choice unless that user left specific instructions that those were their wishes; most user talk pages are a melange of warning messages, spurious complaints from disgruntled newcomers, spam messages from bots, and bad-tempered but ephemeral arguments. If you were to drop dead today, would you really want The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes to be your on-wiki obituary for the rest of time? ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Last question first: yes. I usually archive, but kept the DS for irony. As I kept a certain barnstar for a while, for the same reason. - Back to the case that troubles me: simply look at the history of User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Two ways of archiving were tried, chronological by last edit, and chronological by entry. We have now an archive box from the former attempt, but filled with the latter. Imagine you are an innocent reader trying to find something. Why archive at all, in that case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

... and now I even read the guideline (sorry, I rarely read guidelines): "Consider archiving any unseemly disputes, warnings or deletion notices." Yes, please. Says nothing about archiving the user's wise and funny comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the specific case, I'd consider that something of an extreme exception. A page 417,733 bytes in size causes genuine issues; as Risker has pointed out recently in a different context, it's easy for those in countries where internet access is cheap, or who have unlimited data plans, to lose sight of the fact that many Wikipedia readers and editors pay quite significant sums for access, and those sums add up quickly. (A cost of 5c–10c per pageview adds up very quickly, particularly if someone is regularly visiting the page as new comments are added.) Yes, I'm well aware that my talkpage currently scores even worse, but that's because there are three very long threads that are still active; once the bot archives those it will be at more reasonable levels. Having a page that long also has the potential to crash older browsers—again, those of us in developed countries can lose sight of the fact that many Wikipedia editors and readers are using very old computers or rely on phones. Even for those with fast connections and up-to-date technology, long pages can still cause issues; try opening EEng's talk page in VisualEditor and see how your computer likes it. ‑ Iridescent 10:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree as long as it's articles. List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach - I avoid to link to it. I don't open Eeng's talk unless I have to, but yours often, and often a pleasure. The talk of someone who died, though, seems a different story. It is likely to attract people who remember him or her fondly and may be quite willing to wait for loading. I wouldn't object to archiving some, but to leave not a single word by the one whose talk it represents seems not a good idea - to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad someone around here is competent, because I had no idea there were rules for that. I read on my phone a lot, so I'd generally agree on the archiving of a very long page - which in this case also helps keep the focus on that great top template and makes the memorial posts easy to reach. I don't recall ever directly interacting with SBHB, but I always read what he'd written if I saw his username around, because it was always funny or smart or both (plus he had one of the best usernames around). I think it's nice to keep the page as accessible as possible to everyone who wants to stop by now. I guess if I dropped dead tomorrow I'd at least have cute cats on my talk. Quick, somebody give me a good ironic DS alert! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I won't give anybody a DS alert, not even an ironic one (because irony is so often misunderstood). You could copy SchroCat's top note, or could give yourself one, - only yesterday I gave Precious to someone who did. I came to love SBHB for the edit with "have a laugh" (which probably saved my wiki life). - Any admin (watching): if the talk is archived, can there be a better way to access the treasures hidden? Instead of 9 archives with only numbers, the last 3 being empty? (Such as: delete those three, - allegedly, it's now all in 1-6.) How would anybody find have a laugh? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I keep hoping someone will give me a DS alert about a sanction I voted for, just to push the absurdity of this "awareness" stuff to the breaking point :)

I deleted the empty archive pages - shouldn't matter one way or the other for searching, but of course it's better not to have empty ones linked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Toshio Hosokawa is skeptical

I don't think a DS you voted for would be more absurd than telling me that mentioning the word infobox can be considered a crime. I think we made some progress in the field, thanks to me linking to your musing about how else those who don't like infoboxes would serve those who don't read English so well or have impaired vision ;) - Thank you for deleting, because where would you look for someones latest comments if you see archives 1-9? I'd look in 9. His last comment is in 4, and was a reply to me which makes me blush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

+ Toshio Hosokawa - Zazà --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the image! I heard him say what is quoted at the end of this review: "Komponisten sind einsam, und wir freuen uns, wenn wirklich jemand tief unsere Musik hört." (Composers are lonely, and we are hapy when someone really listens deeply." Said it to the one who is quoted in his article: "Musik entspannt, es sei denn man hört zu." (Music is relaxing - unless one listens.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who said music is relaxing has presumably never seen Ut live. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

When I want to relax, I definitely turn to the inheritors of a fertile collision. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Your recent comments at ARCA

File:Cats clawing couch.jpg

Posting here rather than there so as not to further inflame an already tetchy situation with a marginal sidetrack, but is if I had to make a list of the most unpleasant behavior patterns on Wikipedia, this kind of self-righteous, me-against-the-world, everything-would-fall-apart-without-me, Defender of the Wiki business would be right up there aimed at anyone in particular? In this case I could reasonably use it to describe both the filer and the subject—both of whom consider themselves the WP:OWN-ers of their particular fiefdoms (AE and ERRORS respectively)—and probably at least half the participants in that thread to boot. You and I are unusual in having had extended absences and seeing empirical evidence that Wikipedia hasn't fallen apart without us to hold it together; most people have a natural tendency to grossly overinflate their own perceived significance to any given situation. ‑ Iridescent 09:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Completely off topic, but it has to be said, @Iridescent: that your cats (assuming they’re yours) are absolutely gorgeous. What’s the background of the one lying on the floor? Aiken D 19:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Skinny stray kitten, grew up into a fat orange blob; if there is any pedigree there it's so diluted no trace remains. Going by shape and fur, there might be some British Shorthair in her somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yay, a visit from the esoteric file kittens! Those adorable monsters are having a bad influence; as soon as I opened the edit window one of mine started vigorously scratching the couch. Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw this thread header on my phone earlier without opening the section and thought sure someone was here to tell me I wasn't being very civil :) I was mainly thinking of the subject, but I definitely had a broad brush in mind on that one. (Come to think of it, it applies to more than one current item of business.)

You're right, being gone for that long does bring a certain amount of perspective (though I was mostly forgettable to begin with). I suspect I overinflate the significance of my own advice to other people not to overinflate their own significance, though.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I can think of at least three members of your esteemed committee whom I'd say it describes perfectly (and I don't mean the one you're probably assuming I mean). ‑ Iridescent 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oooh, oooh, is it me? I was looking for an old discussion this morning and came across one of my own old posts that was so self-righteous I wanted to reach back in time and smack myself in the head. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Name them. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the one who wrote this rant which has a reasonable claim to be the most pompously self-righteous talk-page post in the history of Wikipedia. (Even at the time I had the self-awareness to refer to it as a "sermon".) ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"...the 33-year-old who changes the world"? Oh man, that's some good shit. I secretly kinda like it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In some fairness to me, that part was an attempt to explain what Jimmy Wales actually meant by Frankly, and let me be blunt, Wikipedia as a readable product is not for us. It's for them. It's for that girl in Africa who can save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around her, but only if she's empowered with the knowledge to do so., which a lot of people—then and now—interpret as "Wikipedia's mission it to become an adequate alternative to other information sources for people who don't have access to anything better", rather than what Jimmy was trying to say. Much as I like to criticize Jimmy Wales, he did have a genuine knack when it came to avoiding intervening directly, while nudging Wikipedia onto a course that avoided falling into the pitfalls of either the free-for-all repository the "information wants to be free" hardliners wanted (see Commons for a glimpse of what Wikipedia could have been), or the stagnation of becoming Nupedia 2.0 with everything graded and assessed like it was a term paper. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh, my first reaction to that quote is "what a bunch of neocolonialist claptrap", but never mind... I'm sure it worked as a quotable soundbite. I suppose I shouldn't complain without looking up the full context, but what stands out in your formulation vs the quoted one is that you have the hypothetical kid as a contributor to Wikipedia itself, and Jimbo's quote has her as a consumer who goes on to use that information elsewhere. In any event, I thought the two primary use cases for Wikipedia articles were looking up stuff you saw in the news but don't know or remember much about, and cribbing stuff for that paper that's due tomorrow when you haven't done any of the reading. For as much shit as we may have gotten for all the Pokemon articles, I'm pretty sure my usage as a reader is at least 75% pop culture related. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, you know, I was thinking "what a bunch of neocolonialist claptrap" as well... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the original context of the "girl in Africa" line; it wasn't a speech made on a public platform, but an internal email during one of Wikipedia's periodic existential crises about whether the board were getting uncomfortably close to a private company. (TL;DR version; Jimmy wanted to cross-promote Wikipedia with the commercial Answers.com as a revenue- and profile-raising exercise. This was the time when this was considered 'one of Wikipedia's best articles' while Silicosis and Chemical weapon were both redlinks, and it wasn't yet obvious that Wikipedia would grow into something approaching adequate quality without some kind of external stimulus.) The actual context was his plans to use the sponsorship money from Answers.com to fund print and CD-ROM distributions of Wikipedia and "that girl in Africa" represented people without internet access, but the quote has long since been shorn of context.

One generation's popular culture is the next generation's archaeological treasure; why is it respectable to have an article on Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele but trivia to have an article on Space Seed? As I wasn't the first to point out, something like Pokemon is a multi-billion-dollar industry and it would be perverse not to cover it in detail. (My personal usage breakdown would be 1⁄4 "I'm about to visit this town I've never heard of, is there anything there that looks interesting?". 1⁄4 "Where do I know that guy on TV from?", 1⁄4 "What the hell is naproxen and why is it ubiquitous in the US but nonexistent everywhere else?" and other variants on "what is this thing?", 1⁄4 randomly flipping through wikilinks.) ‑ Iridescent 10:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I learned something today. I hadn't realized that kind of commercial partnership had been considered. I guess that context makes sense out of the contributor/consumer distinction.

Today I was attempting to explain arbcom to someone who doesn't edit and realized we even have an article on ourselves. If we have room for that, then we sure as hell have room for all the pop-culture stuff we can write. (I used to be way on the deletionist side of this particular fence and now recognize it as pointless defensiveness about all the Britannica comparisons that used to float around. 2007 me was totally wrong.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sushi and fish tacos

File:Cat dozing on cushion.jpg

Did someone say tuna?

Love the analogy, but especially the resolution! One minor nitpick: tuna rolls are never sad. Lonely, maybe, but never sad. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes tuna rolls are sad. Like when you give up on meeting friends and just get takeout and then the cat successfully steals a piece.

Gray fluffball here looks much lazier than the nose-smudges up the page, do they get along? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

She's fairly elderly and was never the most active of animals, and spends most of her time lounging on that cushion (to the extent that she'll have a tantrum if it's taken away to be washed), studiously ignoring the rest of the world unless there's the potential for food. ‑ Iridescent 15:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Lazy older gray fluffball with an enthusiasm for tuna and an obsession with a very specific cushion solidarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh look at that expression ‑ Iridescent 08:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen a better epitome of the phrase "dripping with disdain." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying I should put him in the ANI editnotice? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

snakes!

I was also working on black mamba, so any input at Wikipedia:Peer review/Black mamba/archive2 would be greatly appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't, I'm on a plane! ;) Will look this week after I get home. Opabinia externa (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays! May your winter holidays be filled with joy, laughter and good health. Wishing you all the best in 2019 and beyond.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron, you too!