User talk:Floquenbeam

MEH

Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield! Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain. --Friedrich Schiller

mouthbreathers

Floq, I generally like you. I get what you're doing. I don't want to see you get embroiled in a dispute over something like that. If your cause is just, leave it to others to pursue. FWIW, I don't think you should redact perceived personal attacks. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not terribly concerned with getting embroiled in a dispute, and am aware what might happen. But if this had been a case of me doing something recklessly without thinking it through, your note would have been a very kind thing to do. (I mean, it was kind anyway... you get what I mean) We'll have to agree to disagree about removing personal attacks; I've found it better than templated warnings and threats of blocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You know what's even better than either of those options? Actually talking to people. You'll probably remove this also, but at least I know you'll have to read it to do so. Cheers. Sebthepleb (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You said you were uninterested in a conversation where I didn't immediately apologize to you. I find it hard to take someone seriously when they simultaneously call people "mouthbreathers" and demand that they be treated with respect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, what about the sentence that immediately follows? I thought that was what you removed when I saw your edit summary on my watchlist. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think my larger point, Floq, is that we have many good admins (and some editors who ought to be admins) doing the necessary but unpleasant work and they will get hemmed-up simply for stepping in the wrong puddle thereby diminishing their effectiveness. In the interests of not losing more of those folks doing the necessary but unpleasant work, I advocate the avoidance of puddles when there's very little to be gained from it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now I'm off to look up what "hemmed-up" means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

September

meadow saffron

I'm off to my first Ring. Highly promising opening! (more on my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy! --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Enjoyed first half tremendously! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

... and the end (when even the "dead" rose to listen to the music, turning their back to the audience because the orchestra is behind the actors on that stage). Das Wunder von Minden. I started an article, click on "my first Ring" again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Locking user page

Hi, I'm probably going to be writing up an Arbitration committee report this month for The Signpost. Before I start, I found this and wondered if you had anything to say about the reasoning behind it. Seems a bit unusual and – well – uneven-handed. If you could specifically address why you aren't following the policy-defined process in Wikipedia:Banning policy#User pages, I'd appreciate that. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a controversial tagging, which was edit warred over last month. It had died down and was quiet for quite a while, and then someone re-added it just to cause more drama. An arb or CU is still able to tag it if they think there’s a benefit to that. But now no more drive by shit stirring can happen. -Floquenbeam (talk)}