User talk:voidxor

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

XHTML[edit]

Hi, why did you do this? MediaWiki has not served XHTML for several years - it now serves HTML5, where the <br> and <br /> forms are equally valid. Also, what does it have to do with accessibility? As it's a list, an edit like this would significantly improve accessibility. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Because that's the way that it's done in 99% of infoboxes?! If that's not correct then you're welcome to update the syntax as you see fit (i.e. across all articles). I am not familiar with HTML5 and was unaware the servers had switched; I was just following the previously established norm. – voidxor 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spats (footwear)[edit]

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice try, but I did not re-revert; I reverted for the first time. A "re-revert" is a second revert performed by a single user in a short period of time (i.e. 24 hours). The only person here who has re-reverted is you just now (hypocritically, I might add). 3RR only applies on the fourth such revert (a re-re-re-revert, to use your terminology). I got nowhere near that.
As to WP:BRD, that's an essay, not a policy nor even a guideline. Although you're citing it, you apparently haven't even read the first sentence: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus."
As to discussion, not all discussion occurs on an article's talk page. I have been making my case all along in my original edit summary, revert edit summary, and a pertinent thread I started on your talk page (although let the record reflect that you rapidly expunged my attempt at discussion and simultaneously came here to lecture me about failing to discuss). Again, and again, and again, and again, you've failed to counter my arguments on a point-by-point basis—choosing instead to troll with inarticulate and combative arguments such as "better before" and "Your layour sucks, it's made the article worse then it was. Our aim is to *improve* article not to make them worse." If you truly were committed to BRD, you would be articulating why we shall exempt one particular article from the wiki-wide policies and guidelines that I cited. – voidxor 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and BRD is somewhat inapplicable here because my original edit was not bold; it was a minor maintenance edit to bring the article in line with consensus-established style guidelines. These guidelines are critical to applying a consistent layout across all articles, and also for accessibility reasons (as is the case for WP:IMGSIZE). My edit didn't even affect the body of the article. I've made thousands of such edits and you are the only editor to take issue. If either of us is not here to move the article forward, it's you. – voidxor 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting User talk page comments[edit]

Did you know that reverting a user talk page comment which has been deleted by the user can be, and has been, considered to be disruptive editing, and that editors have been blocked for doing so? Please do not do so on my talk page again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Can you cite policy on that? You have yet to cite a single policy to justify any of your arguments. Also, would you mind explaining why you are intent on expunging the discussion that you accuse me of not having? I know you're adverse to meaningful edit summaries, but I feel I'm owed a little explanation. – voidxor 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just ask your favorite admin. BMK (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Voidxor, if you haven't already, please read WP:TPG for accepted guidelines regarding user talk page comments. Nowhere in that explanation will you see anything that resembles an editor's right to "ban" another editor from posting on their talk page or from pinging them. It's considered acceptable for an editor to request you no longer post on their talk page, it's considered wise to respond to that request; however, it can also be seen as hostile to make the request and for the individual on the receiving end of the request to ignore it. There's no bright-line rule in this area, and there is certainly a catch-22 involved, but it's probably best to use WP:COMMONSENSE in how to approach and respond while keeping WP:CIVIL always in mind. That said, anyone who is not an admin and not seeking for formal sanctions to use the word "banned" in the context of user talk pages is neither common-sense nor civil and such use of the word truly has no true weight except in the mind of the person issuing the proclamation. Hope this helps. -- WV 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: While I knew most of that already, I always appreciate help navigating policy—especially when it comes to nuances like these. Thanks. Let the record reflect (because I'm not sure if you're suggesting otherwise) that I did not post to Beyond My Ken's talk page after he asked me not to (other than the mandatory ANI notification, of course). – voidxor 20:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hi, I have reverted your closing of your own thread. If you want to withdraw your ANI filing, do so at the bottom of the thread and let an uninvolved person close it. Do not close your own ANI thread unless you are going to simply state "Withdrawn". Anything more than that is involved POV and not allowed. Alternatively, the thread will be automatically archived by bot after 72 hours of non-activity. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Fine. I'm learning as I go and this was my first incident report. Thanks for clarifying. – voidxor 05:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)