User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/archive

Siol Alpin[edit]

Glad to see you back at the keyboard. If you have a mo' could you take a look at Siol Alpin? Ben Mac Dui 10:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd be too surprised to hear what I think of that article! :) Always stayed away from clan articles; pretty much everyone knows clan articles will be trash, so as long as the guys behind them stayed away from mainstream articles I always just left them to it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "everyone" I fear you are not including our dear readers. Sadly, I have next to no decent material on the subject, but no matter - the wikiworld is large and I have quite enough on my watch list already. Ben Mac Dui 21:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe, but c'est la vie. You work on productive areas and those are probably the best areas. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's with frying the history?[edit]

I thought talk pages were supposed to stay more-or-less intact.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dunno about that. You'd need to ask the Strong of Wikipedia. They make the rules up as they go along and I don't get their newsletter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So long and thanks for all the fish^Whelp![edit]

Hope by the time I unretire myself you'll have changed your mind. If not, very best wishes for the future. Look forward to seeing a book in print with your name on the cover. (I'll be after a signed copy.) Thanks for all your help over the years, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no bother. Mind that door's not closed to you. Just email if youever need anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. And I can't say I blame you... Wikipedia has long ceased to be an attractive or worthwhile endeavour for those with actual professional expertise in a field. Not when equal value is given to the opinions of a Canadian teenager who once saw Braveheart. Good luck. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly this place has more problems than that. Thanks for the kind words and good luck to yourself!Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes saw you tidying up and knew what was coming. Very sorry to see you go and wish you all the best for the future. Can truly say that your contributions to the bit of WP that I used to enjoy will be impoverished immensely. When I see that new insight into our medieval history in print, I'll know the style. All the very best, Bill --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Bill! The great thing these days is that the quality of contributions to that area, your own included, is very high. Certainly the area is at a different level than when I started all those years ago. Don't forget to email if you need anything! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Rs chen 7754 10:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mob of mean-spirited self-entitled fools. While you run around wasting your own time looking for various actions and trying to undelete what is basically a sandbox mixed with some Edwardsbot spam to forcibly deny a departing user some privacy on an extremely expansive interpretation of some guideline, you don't even realise that my talkpage still exists. Well, enjoy yourselves! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hi Deacon. I get the feeling something here flipped your switch. That part I understand, I took a two year break back from 08-10, the place is maddening at times, to say the least. There is an issue with the deletes, but I'm not that interested in that, and there is already a line forming to complain so I will leave it to them. I'm more interested in just talking with you, privately. I don't think we have crossed paths before, but I'm pretty familiar with retention issues and the frustration around this place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. There are many reasons I won't edit Wikipedia again. It's a gigantic time hole, with few well-functioning rules, which too often glorifies the lowest common denominator, exposes one to insult, grudge and harassment, is overrun by misguided ideologues, and 'overseen' by networking socializers who are either (with one or two fine exceptions) undisposed or unable to be judicious or look after the interests of a public encyclopedia. The idea that one needs to bring a lot of friends to the counter to be 'right' is both silly and repugnant, but is nevertheless the central operating dictum of this place. All in all, the wrong people are, daily, allowed to make up rules and move goal posts as they go along; by contrast, other users trying to stick by or follow what purport to be the rules do nothing but make themselves the hostage of fortune and politics (which is what, btw, I was referring to in my response to my old fan Sarek of Vulcan above).

I am happy to accept that having an independent mind makes me a mad psychopath in Wikiland, but you needn't worry that I have gone bonkers in any Saneland sense; I was just wanting to leave quietly, and reduce leftover and any unknown risks to myself by removing much of my sprawl and minimizing access. In the case of me 'deleting my talk page against policy', the 'policy' (in fact a guideline) in question does not prohibit deletion of one's talk page, but vaguely lists general practice. It is interesting to know that the editors of that page believe this to be general practice, but I neither feel compelled nor obliged to follow this, as indeed I am entitled not to on various Wikipedia (for instance the page's own header! or WP:IAR) and on moral grounds; and of course the principle being asserted, besides not actually existing in any policy, is firmly against the trend of thinking and legislation in Europe and elsewhere in Saneland supporting and enforcing such wishes irrespective of any website's assertion of contrary rights. I understand the AN/I mob doesn't realise the limitations of the 'rules' in place, and unfortunately without the institutions and quality control mechanisms to force such people to act judiciously (as they would have to in Saneland), I probably probably won't 'be allowed' to dispose of my talk page the way I wish.

I didn't of course realise when I started nearly a decade ago that my own talkpage was to become the property of some frivolous drama queens who would later join and declaim with the greatest outrage and indignation if anyone were to violate their future rights over my page. But the idea that so many people would actually in practice decide to dedicate their time to undoing or opposing my wishes in this respect is itself a sour reflection of what happens in one place when people internalize and sheepishly propagate poorly conceived 'norms' simply because these are asserted as such. However, the only further harm such people could do me would come from me continuing to edit here, something I am able both morally and in practice to deny them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deacon, frivolous dramah princess here (I am working on achieving higher status): thanks for creating articles such as Vita Sancti Cuthberti (anonymous), and a ton of other high-quality articles in the field of Anglo-Saxon culture and hagiography. They are what makes this still a worthwhile encyclopedia. All the best in your future venues. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue about how screwed up the place is, like I said, I left for two years myself and my coming back wasn't because I felt I was wrong. Instead, it was driven by the understanding that a flawed free encyclopedia was better than none, so I got the bit and just do what I can to make the place a bit more sane when I can. I claim no success. As to deleting, that is a touchy subject and my understanding of the consensus is that folks don't want it and when they see someone deleting their own, well, some freak out a bit. In the end, it will end up getting reverted back into being via delete review, not by my choice, but based on my experience here.

Wikipedia is like a bipolar girlfriend, no doubt, and you never know which side of her you will get until it is too late. This kind of situation is why I started Editor Retention, to both learn, sometimes try to fix, and at the very least, understand what is going on with people leaving. I hate to see anyone go, but I do understand, and like the good Doctor Mies, I would say thank for you for years of quality contributions and everything you have done to make Wikipedia a better place. Again, I offer my email if you would like to share some experiences or just want to vent. I've been told I'm fairly sane, although not everyone appreciates my independent ways of dealing with situations. Regardless, thanks again, and I wish you the best of success on whatever the future brings you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis. I had been planning at least one thing to do before I leave for good (an almost complete article in my userspace), but I may also or instead add some comments that may help you in your quest to retain other editors; in which case I'd let you know. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go Deacon. Always sad to see a quality contributor go, but I understand your frustration. Best wishes to you for a successful escape from WP, life definitely IS greener on the other side .... bon voyage. Send some Red Cross Parcels to the remaining inmates :) --Cactus.man ✍ 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Indeed it is very true that the grass is much greener, I've bassically been gone since last September anyway. All the best to you while you're here (and indeed later). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember why I have your talkpage watchlisted, but... "The idea that one needs to bring a lot of friends to the counter to be 'right' is both silly and repugnant, but is nevertheless the central operating dictum of this place. All in all, the wrong people are, daily, allowed to make up rules and move goal posts as they go along..." Well said. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the discussion at ANI, and hope you don't mind me leaving a few comments. The issue of the history of user talk pages, IMO, centres mainly on the contributions of non-admins (the vast majority of users). Admins can see their own deleted contributions, including the contributions they made to now-deleted user talk pages. Thus they have the ability (though not often used) to browse back through their history and see what they said on various user talk pages (or other pages) over months or years regardless of deletion. That isn't possible for non-admins once user talk pages (or other pages) are deleted. That is, as far as I'm aware, the reason that user talk pages are treated differently from user pages (mostly edited only by the user). Compare it to e-mails. People feel free to delete e-mails they received that they no longer want to keep, while the sender usually keeps a copy. In terms of a post to a Wikipedia user talk page, the 'sender's copy' (and the recipient's copy) is essentially the diff in the talk page history, so if that is deleted and they are not an admin, they have no way to see what they said without asking an admin. A better comparison is probably with an internet forum or bulletin board. The usual convention there is that retiring editors can delete their own posts, but not those of others. Wikipedia user talk pages are a strange entity though, a public version of personal message options (do any other internet sites have anything equivalent?). About privacy issues, there should be more guidance to make clear to people that they should avoid putting such information on user talk pages, and limit it to user pages, but some Wikipedians use user talk pages to chat and exchange personal information, which is human nature, so it is difficult to undo that without requesting deletion. Anyway, I agree with what Dennis said above, and parts of what you said as well. Sad to see you go, and thanks for all the content contributions. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. Thank you for your message and appreciation.

I think your explanation gives it credit it doesn't deserve. Even supposing your suggestion were correct, there are plenty of ways those goals could be achieved without intruding on (what most people regard as) an internet user's more natural rights. In truth there is no great brain behind practices like this. The 'Pedia's interest in keeping such diffs is very small, and dwarved by an individual's moral right to privacy/disappearance.

Really ,though, that's almost a side issue. A rational person reading the 'rules' as written in Wikipedia (e.g. the head of WP:UP, or WP:IAR) will recognize that there's ample scope to delete one's talk page if one wants to. If any group of people dislikes the effect, the solution should be to change or tighten the wording, not start a witch hunt or pressurise people to pretend they are dumber than they really are.

But as I said above, judiciousness is alien to this website and to the culture of its dominant users, and there is no way to pursue your goals AND free yourself from bullying and hardship simply by following what purport to be the 'rules'. Real rules on Wikipedia are in practice not what is written in any guideline or policy page. Instead they are events where 'rules' are applied now one way, now another, determined by politics, gansterism and selective interventionism by IRC mob lords and other well placed users. Yes it is true that most of the written 'rules' are adhered to most of the time, but that is a side-effect of power held by those forces over these pages as well as the platforms from which they are enforced. The system of written 'rules' on Wikipedia is purposely incoherent, so there is no way the 'Pedia could actually run any other way.

That's fine for some people. It's not for me.

Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this perspective. You identify these problems very well I think, Deacon of Pndapetzim. In the English speaking world power justifies and ennobles everything, and all other things are secondary. So this is why judiciousness will mean nothing to most people. It is good to move away if you feel unwilling to tolerate this. 85.16.215.183 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]