User talk:Midcent
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Midcent! Thank you for your contributions. I am Theopolisme and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Theopolisme TALK 18:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Apology
[edit]Accepted. TY ```Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Please sign talk page posts
[edit]Would you please sign your talk pages posts. Talk pages posts are an individual's opinion and is not supposed to be edited by others. For the conversation to be accessible to others, posts need to be signed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
. It's easy. Unless you make it difficult. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not mandatory. What is it with you folk? You guys support someone who constantly uses personal attacks against other posters and say nothing, but I make a choice to not sign and you're all up in my rear.
- Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you are attempting to remain anonymous, you have failed. The sinebot has plastered both your user name and your ip address all over the place at Talk:Taiwan. So we know more about you than the vast majority of editors. If you are trying to prove a point, it's not working. If you are trying to be clever—let me clue you in—you are not being clever at all. If you are trying to be funny...another shocker...it ain't! If you are trying to waste a bunch of other editor's time and be a royal pain in the neck, then congratulations, you are succeeding at that tremendously. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to hide. And, as you say, sinebot is signing for me; I don't feel the need to sign for myself especially since it's not mandatory.
- Sinebot doesn't always get around to it (it hasn't noticed the post above yet), leaving some of your posts signed by Sinebot, and some with no sig at all. Editors who don't look at the History cannot tell who has made the unsigned posts. I'm sure you would want us to know which posts are from you and which aren't (maybe from some lazy, recalcitrant, obstinate POV pusher instead), otherwise your sequence of posts becomes quite unable to be followed. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to hide. And, as you say, sinebot is signing for me; I don't feel the need to sign for myself especially since it's not mandatory.
- Obstinately refusing to sign talk page posts amounts to disruption. It could see you blocked, whether registered account or IP. If it is a written rule that you'd like, can you suggest which project page would be most appropriate? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed. The relevant guidline is already clear to the point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. If you are attempting to remain anonymous, you have failed. The sinebot has plastered both your user name and your ip address all over the place at Talk:Taiwan. So we know more about you than the vast majority of editors. If you are trying to prove a point, it's not working. If you are trying to be clever—let me clue you in—you are not being clever at all. If you are trying to be funny...another shocker...it ain't! If you are trying to waste a bunch of other editor's time and be a royal pain in the neck, then congratulations, you are succeeding at that tremendously. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Adminstrator's Noticeboard - Incidents Discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
To cut this short...
[edit]It is very simple: If you don't start signing your posts, I will block you until you promise to do so. Simple. Have I made myself clear enough? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Based upon what Wikipedia rule would you be blocking my account? There is no rule that says I have to sign my posts. Your blocking my account would be riding the line on abuse of power because there is no rule that shows I've committed a blockable offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs)
- Okay. Since you prefer to keep wiki-lawyering rather than behaving in a cooperative fashion, I've kept my word and blocked you. You know what to do in order to be unblocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Midcent, the policy that you flaunt is essentially distilled down to WP:Civility which is a policy and pillar of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. We're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and as such, we have to collaborate, and without signing or otherwise differentiating your posts, it is easy to confuse your words for those of the person who follows you in a discussion thread. Generally people would want to be heard and understood and you seem to have latched onto the idea that because there is no strict rule, you are somehow immune from anyone suggesting or promoting the idea that you sign your work. We work by consensus generally in Wikipedia, and by generally, I mean 99% of the time. Your insistence on being the rogue outsider who just does things his way and won't acknowledge others makes it sort of clear that you're less inclined to work toward consensus. While it is great to have a different opinion, its awful for the rest of us to even see that you have it when you're not signing your posts. In short, I want to acknowledge that you appear to be new and cut you a lot more slack for that, but at the same time, there are community standards here and you're really just causing a problem for no real reason other than to prove you're right. That's not the reason any of us should be here. If you do want to contribute in productive discussions and help, a good start is to follow the lead of your fellow editors. If you aren't wanting to do that, there might be other things out on the Internet that would be more of a good fit for your perspective. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You got what you wanted. Leave me be. Not that you can see this. I do find it ironic that you got a barnstar for your commitment to freedom of speech but you won't allow me my freedom to express myself by not signing.
- There is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" on this private website. This is a community that relies on communication, and you accepted that when you made a single edit, and fully agreed when you created an account. You've been told that signing is needed. Fine, we all forget sometimes - but to do it intentionally is pure disruption, and at this point seems pointy. Once again, you do not have a right to free speech here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- You got what you wanted. Leave me be. Not that you can see this. I do find it ironic that you got a barnstar for your commitment to freedom of speech but you won't allow me my freedom to express myself by not signing.
- Midcent, the policy that you flaunt is essentially distilled down to WP:Civility which is a policy and pillar of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Five pillars. We're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and as such, we have to collaborate, and without signing or otherwise differentiating your posts, it is easy to confuse your words for those of the person who follows you in a discussion thread. Generally people would want to be heard and understood and you seem to have latched onto the idea that because there is no strict rule, you are somehow immune from anyone suggesting or promoting the idea that you sign your work. We work by consensus generally in Wikipedia, and by generally, I mean 99% of the time. Your insistence on being the rogue outsider who just does things his way and won't acknowledge others makes it sort of clear that you're less inclined to work toward consensus. While it is great to have a different opinion, its awful for the rest of us to even see that you have it when you're not signing your posts. In short, I want to acknowledge that you appear to be new and cut you a lot more slack for that, but at the same time, there are community standards here and you're really just causing a problem for no real reason other than to prove you're right. That's not the reason any of us should be here. If you do want to contribute in productive discussions and help, a good start is to follow the lead of your fellow editors. If you aren't wanting to do that, there might be other things out on the Internet that would be more of a good fit for your perspective. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Midcent, to be clear, I only asked for a BAN. This would have allowed you to keep editing without any problem other than requiring you to start signing your posts. Other editors thought that your behavior was so bad that they blocked you, which entirely prevents you from editing. Freedom of expression is not absolute. If it were, then we could all scream our heads off and no one would be heard because of the noise. True freedom of expression means that we each work collaboratively to ensure that we are all heard. You deliberately continued to not sign posts, despite people telling you it was confusing for them. You don't seem to want to be heard, as much as to make a fuss about not being able to do whatever you like. The goal of Wikipedia is not to be your platform for showing up others or endlessly debating how you can do whatever you like. The goal of Wikipedia is to help categorize knowledge and inform others in an encyclopedic format. I want your voice to be heard as much as anyone else's, but unless you are the only voice, you have to take turns and obey conventions on how people communicate. You might as well gripe about having to use all 26 letters or punctuation or even spaces.
- ifididthatitmakesitalothardertobeunderstoodbyothereditorsandreallyispointless
- We follow norms and conventions in order to convey ideas. You don't like one little request and make it into your crusade, and that's your choice, but it is also the choice of the community to exclude those who simply want to make problems. -- Avanu (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I asked Fut.Perf. ☼ about the rule to sign; that I was committing a blockable offense on his/her Talk page (the comment has been undone by him/her). Had he/she shown me the rule, I would have shut up and I probably would have started signing. Instead, he/she went straight for the block: "listen to me or I block you" instead of, "here's the rule, we all must follow it including you". With that kind of Admining, it's best I don't stick around.
- See WP:SIGNHERE.
- See meta:Don't be a dick. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are lots of things people ask for that aren't "rules" or policies. But as I said to you before, this ultimately goes back to the WP:Civility pillar. There is also a pillar that says there are no firm rules, but Midcent, I am beginning to wonder why you have a such a huge problem with simply working in a productive fashion with others. Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline asks us to try and see your actions in a positive light, but the fact that you want this phrased in the form of a 'rule' when half a dozen or more people have now told you plainly that it is what needs to be done is just you being stubborn. Wikipedia has a set of customs and practices. You seem to feel like these shouldn't apply to you unless they are a hard and fast rule. Given the pillar that says there are zero firm rules on Wikipedia, you can, in a literal sense ignore everything we say. But, you end up paying a price for wanting to be that person. That price is that you get excluded by the rest of the community that is willing to compromise and work as a team. If my ban had been enacted for you, you could have continued to make productive edits on any topic until you started to hit a Talk page and not sign your posts. As it stands, your reluctance to change and work as a team means you're going to stay on the sidelines until you decide otherwise. This is entirely and completely something that you can change anytime you like by talking it over with FuturePerfect. I'll leave it at that, but it's a shame you've decided to let this take place. -- Avanu (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Avanu, I'm blocked. You got it even better than what you wanted. Now, can you and your overwrought sensibilities please leave me and my talk page alone?
- Actually, all Av wanted was for you to sign your posts. Why this is such a big deal for you is beyond me. SÆdontalk 03:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- He could have shown me WP:SIGNHERE (I know, SmokeyJoe showed it up there, but I didn't click on it, though I would have if he did: WP:SIGNHERE like he did the 2nd time). Avanu never told me that he wanted me to sign, Avanu went straight to the Admins and asked that I get banned. When someone tries to get you banned out of the gate before even talking to you, that raises hackles. I asked HiLo48 3 times to leave me alone before I posted the Wikiquette. I'm not totally unreasonable, when I committed a wrong with Buster Seven, I apologized unreservedly. But when someone goes straight to Ban; that's a different ballgame.
- Ok, but now it's been shown to you and yet you still won't sign. How about just agreeing to sign and then requesting an unblock so we can all move on? SÆdontalk 03:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the way my blocking was handled. I asked Fut.Perf. ☼ to show me what rule I was breaking that was a blockable offense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=496490674&oldid=496489082. Instead of showing me WP:SIGNHERE and answering my question and tell me that I was breaking the rules, he/she went straight to block. As I noted above, ""listen to me or I block you" instead of, "here's the rule, we all must follow it including you"." At best, it's arrogance (note the comment in the undo) and at worst it's a bit of a power trip.
- Unfortunately my time machine is broken otherwise I would happily lend it to you so we could go back in time and handle it better. As it stands now what's done is done. Do you still want to edit here? If so then you'll have to agree to sign. If you don't then I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway. SÆdontalk 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since it began with him/her, let it end with him/her. HiLo48, should I continue being able to edit here?
- Who said that? HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- ;)
- Who said that? HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since it began with him/her, let it end with him/her. HiLo48, should I continue being able to edit here?
- Unfortunately my time machine is broken otherwise I would happily lend it to you so we could go back in time and handle it better. As it stands now what's done is done. Do you still want to edit here? If so then you'll have to agree to sign. If you don't then I suppose it doesn't really matter anyway. SÆdontalk 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the way my blocking was handled. I asked Fut.Perf. ☼ to show me what rule I was breaking that was a blockable offense: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=496490674&oldid=496489082. Instead of showing me WP:SIGNHERE and answering my question and tell me that I was breaking the rules, he/she went straight to block. As I noted above, ""listen to me or I block you" instead of, "here's the rule, we all must follow it including you"." At best, it's arrogance (note the comment in the undo) and at worst it's a bit of a power trip.
- Ok, but now it's been shown to you and yet you still won't sign. How about just agreeing to sign and then requesting an unblock so we can all move on? SÆdontalk 03:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- He could have shown me WP:SIGNHERE (I know, SmokeyJoe showed it up there, but I didn't click on it, though I would have if he did: WP:SIGNHERE like he did the 2nd time). Avanu never told me that he wanted me to sign, Avanu went straight to the Admins and asked that I get banned. When someone tries to get you banned out of the gate before even talking to you, that raises hackles. I asked HiLo48 3 times to leave me alone before I posted the Wikiquette. I'm not totally unreasonable, when I committed a wrong with Buster Seven, I apologized unreservedly. But when someone goes straight to Ban; that's a different ballgame.
- Actually, all Av wanted was for you to sign your posts. Why this is such a big deal for you is beyond me. SÆdontalk 03:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Avanu, I'm blocked. You got it even better than what you wanted. Now, can you and your overwrought sensibilities please leave me and my talk page alone?
- I asked Fut.Perf. ☼ about the rule to sign; that I was committing a blockable offense on his/her Talk page (the comment has been undone by him/her). Had he/she shown me the rule, I would have shut up and I probably would have started signing. Instead, he/she went straight for the block: "listen to me or I block you" instead of, "here's the rule, we all must follow it including you". With that kind of Admining, it's best I don't stick around.
- We follow norms and conventions in order to convey ideas. You don't like one little request and make it into your crusade, and that's your choice, but it is also the choice of the community to exclude those who simply want to make problems. -- Avanu (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Midcent, I went to AN/I after you brought this situation to Wikiquette and confused the heck out of everyone there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist here to see that you're continuing to be obstinate. By the time I got to Wikiquette, you had been told numerous times, and when you can't even follow a complaintant's complaint in Wikiquette, you know there's a problem. Like I said there, I will often go to great lengths in Wikiquette to get people to think about the other's position and get along and be nice, but you're just being stubborn, not much more. You're not proving how dignified or elevated you are by refusing to sign.
FuturePerfect is only blocking you until you agree to be a team player. You haven't (from what anyone has said) done anything else worthy of a block or ban. Honestly, your blocking was handled awfully fairly. I've seen several admin actions where the admin was an ass, and FuturePerfect was actually being pretty reasonable, even though he went farther than I would have. You say above that this began with HiLo48, but really it began when you decided that you didn't want to listen to others.
As for why I didn't mention WP:SIGNHERE, it is because I didn't know about it. I did know about the Talk Page Guidelines, and I referred to those, and I did mention the WP:Civility pillar/policy. Dude, when are you going to stop being a lawyer about it all and just realize you're digging a hole for no reason? As I said above, Wikipedia isn't about 'firm rules' in the most strict sense. However, that doesn't really mean that we don't have firm rules. Wonderful contradiction isn't it? Like I told you before, 99% of the time, Wikipedia just operates by community consensus. The community ruled on your case and said "hey, get a clue and help us out by signing your posts". If you don't like this, get unblocked, and push for consensus on changing this. (It is pretty unlikely to happen however). But civil disobedience type actions where you "go rogue" are usually hit with blocks and bans here. I'm sorry that you're still blocked, but honestly the fault at this point is entirely yours. -- Avanu (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, this. While there are more guidelines on Wikipedia than any human being could reasonably be expected to remember, a lot of them boil down to: don't be a jerk. As long as you approach this business with a mindset of "what do the rules let me get away with?" then you're probably being a jerk and can expect to be banned for it. When somebody tells you that not-signing is causing inconvenience and annoyance to other editors, perhaps instead of asking "do I have to stop?" you should ask "would it really hurt me to change?" AFAICT you haven't even offered a reason for your refusal to sign; rightly or wrongly, that gives other editors the impression that you're being stubborn just for the sake of it. --GenericBob (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Read this before posting
[edit]Anybody else wants to weigh in: don't. Stop the drama. Let it go.
- Who said that? DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- ;)
Signing is not optional
[edit]As noted here,[1] it's required. You asked for the rule. There it is, in plain English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad I'm already blocked.
- Yes indeed. Too soon old, and too late smart. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing. But still wise words. Albeit judgemental.
- Duh, yup. I may be an idiot, but guess which one of us is not currently blocked? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- And your words were so wise...
- Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- More like the squirrel in "Ice Age". ;)
- Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- And your words were so wise...
- Duh, yup. I may be an idiot, but guess which one of us is not currently blocked? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing. But still wise words. Albeit judgemental.
- Yes indeed. Too soon old, and too late smart. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Midcent, just to mention that you are blocked indefinitely, not infinitely. If you are willing to communicate under community norms, I'm sure you will be unblocked. WormTT(talk) 11:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have also full-protected as well, to avoid further pile-on / time-wasting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)