User talk:Edokter

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

Thank you[edit]

I've been following your efforts for the redesign for a while and I understand your frustration at the lack of progress. I just wanted to tell you that we all appreciate what you're doing. Regardless of what happens to your current proposal or in the future, I hope you will continue to be as passionate about Wikipedia as you are right now. Your heart is in the right place. Thank you. Isa (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thnaks. But honestly... I'm on the brink of quitting. I cannot fight a vocal minority while the rest stay silent. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
He, it's what I did and for good reason. Anger is more dangerous than giving up. I made myself mostly powerless, because I don't want to have the mop whenever I flip out about the 'community'. I'm waiting for full community collapse to kick in before I'll ask my tools back. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
Here, have a barnstar, and enjoy the technology of subst placing an archaic presentational table on your talk page :) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Edokter: You talk about "a vocal minority while the rest stay silent" and that isn't so. There is no silent majority that agrees with you. There are editors like me that think you've been tilting at windmills and you construct this fantasy in your head that you're doing God's work and you're not. Leave Wikipedia if you like but don't maintain the idea that any great mass of Wikipedians agreed with you or your actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:: I don't think that you possess any knowledge of the thoughts of this former user. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fram (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

AN Notice[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request for clarification regarding WP:INVOLVED". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


"Congratulations to the rogue force: you won." Wow, oh wow. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As a response to what Edokter implied with his "Congratulations to the rogue force: you won" comment, [1] I tried to warn Edokter that his behavior would blow up his face[2] and that what he was doing would not end well for him.[3] It is sad when a veteran editor leaves Wikipedia when all he would have had to do is change his behavior.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Edokter, I'm sorry to see the events unfold as they did around your main page redesign. I don't know if you remember, but I engaged you some time last year and we discussed user-centered design briefly. I admire the initiative you took to create this new design, and I often empathized with you as I saw various aspects of the design criticized. I've designed many user interfaces and it's never easy to read criticism. So I understand your emotional reaction (although I don't condone some of the ways in which you chose to act on it). I hope you will take some time to reflect on these events and return to the project with fresh energy and perspective. --Laser brain (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I echo Laser brain's comment, please take some time before you finalize your decisions. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Same. Legoktm (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey Edokter, soms is de soep erg heet als ze op tafel gezet wordt. Even blazen en het is beter. Ik hoop dat we je hier weer terug zien. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. We do need somebody to be bold and make a change, as there's stalemate in many decision making processes on here. Wikipedia has long looked dated and amateurish. Something more along Wikiwand's style would look a lot better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem for a lot of us has been that Edokter has too often been one of the most immovable impediments to actually doing something about the problem of WP looking dated and amateurish (not programmatically in opposition to the idea, just usually unwilling to accept most steps in that direction for one niggling reason or another, and too often on basis of what WCAG wants versus what the actual W3 specs really say). I don't know anyone who thinks Edokter should quit Wikipedia forever, simply over being challenged on the level of control, and tooth-gnashing in defense of it, that the editor exerted over certain things. I'm sad to see a long-term and productive editor just leave entirely. But it was definitely time for him to let other people ever do anything with CSS on this site. I was on the verge of lodging an RFARB about this stonewalling behavior, after about a decade of gritting my teeth and just trying to work within but mostly having to work around Edokter's personal over-control of "everything CSS on Wikipedia", when someone beat me to it at ANI and obviated the ArbCom route.

I don't blame him for storming off. I left, angry and feeling unjustly treated myself, and stayed away for an entire year, other than to respond to a handful of things people e-mailed me directly about, but otherwise not even editing to fix a typo. The 99.9% break for a year was very useful, both for me and my life, and for WP in that I was a more useful Wikipedian when I came back. I hope Edokter has a great break and comes back to us, after however much time is needed to shake it off and reconsider what he wants to put into and get out of the project, and the subtle but crucial difference between stewardship and ownership.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Very old edit[edit]

sorry, i hadn't logged into my account in ages, so i saw your revert just now.

just letting you know that your revert was unjustified and it has been this way since forever.

no harm done though. best, k,- Kritzikratzi (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)