Wikipedia talk:Don't be high-maintenance

This page was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

More unlikely content

From the essay (added 10/9/2012 by user Doc9871 [1]): IAR is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community [consensus].

Since this happens "often", can you give even one example occurring in the last several years? (I've seen people invoke IAR before. But never associated with also being labelled a "diva". So I'd be interested to see where this ever occurred.) IHTS (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again, you are trying to bait me by naming any specific user as a diva in the form of a diff. It's not going to happen, so just stop trying. Doc talk 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm challenging what appears to be stuff made up through fantasy (then added to the essay). As mentioned you can avoid identifying any individual by quoting text from an incident that backs up your "often" content. (And there is also WP Email.) But it seems to me the pattern is you like to be free to add anything you want to have in the essay, no matter how baseless, contrary to your claim all essay content comes from real-life WP experience. (It seems that boast is also made up.) IHTS (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

While I certainly take offense to your ill-informed view that it is "fantasy", your objections and misinterpretations matter very little. It's an essay, not anything that should be considered fact that requires citations. Get it right. Doc talk 06:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already was aware what an essay is. But I don't think that means one user (you) can add anything you want to see in it (i.e. the content is still subject to editor consensus; and that is what this discussion page is for). (I've contributed to the essay too, and as one voice re consensus, I've challenged your adds, for the reasons already given. That is not out-of-line, even though you like to "set [me] right". So I don't think your condescension on that point is either correct or appropriate.) IHTS (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comb through this essay with the same scrutiny. No citations there. Possibly even some outright "fantasy" added by one or more editors. Of course, I wrote none of it. But others here understand essays. You've gotten the best of me in the two above sections, so I will step back again and allow you to do so in this one as well. And then you can open another new section. Doc talk 06:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From you more off-topic & non-argument & sarcasm. BTW I never said the essay needs citations. (Rather to back up your fanciful adds when challenged after claiming all content came from real WP experiences.) IHTS (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could give you an example via a diff from a now banned user that was a truly great inspiration for what I added. But... I don't want to. And, I don't have to! No need for labelling, such as you have labelled me an "attacker", a "blah blah blah" and whatnot. Now then, have your final word on this section, please... Doc talk 08:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I agree with the point in the original wording, and retained it in the draft I rewrote, as Avoid abusing the often-misunderstood "Ignore all rules" policy as a rationale for not listening to the community. It is frequent enough to mention. It's not really fair in this case to demand proof, since providing it will necessarily entail a) a shipload of pointless diff-digging, and b) re-shaming people who already feel abused by this page (at least one of whom quit the project over it at least in part). I don't think it's sound reasoning to complain (as I do) that this, in its present wording, is essentially an attack page, and then re-highlight its questionable use. It would seem to be a "gravedancing" thing and a WP:CIVIL issue, at least in the abstract. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re your editsum, "proof not needed on this; it's common sense", it was common sense too, that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, until it was tested. IHTS (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the relevance; my point is that we needn't pick at old scabs. At any rate, Doc clearly will not provide examples. If you really want one, I can hint at where to find one. Look for someone exhibiting patterns described in this essay, participating in WT:MOS discussions about capitalization of common names of species, ca. early to mid 2012. It's someone who had been "retiring" loudly since 2005. The entire basis of said person's "resist MOS or die trying" act was an explicit IAR against a style recommendation that did not comport with what one particular organization was trying to promote as a standard in one biological field's journals. (The community rejected this approach firmly, i.e. denied it was a valid IAR, in a huge RfC in 2014, after said editor finally did quit, at least in part after this essay was cited at them, in its then-extant form which was pretty much the same borderline attack page it was just before this RM closed.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of essay

From 2/14/2014 editsum by user Doc9871: It's a borderline humour essay. Interesting! Then one would expect its invocation to be borderline humorous also, at least sometimes!? (Funny. I've only seen it invoked as a weapon or mud-throw, to discredit or criticize or insult someone. If there are invocation[s] that have ever been good-natured/good-humored, I'd appreciate to see the diff[s] supporting same.) IHTS (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

You want me to slap one of these on the top? Just say the word. Doc talk 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. (Tell me though, have you ever seen the essay invoked with humor? [When? Where? I've only seen it ever used to strike at/injure someone. Which will go on, since that seems to be not only the purpose of the essay, but your own clear purpose, no matter what banner you put at the top of it.]) IHTS (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Doc talk 09:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, which specific part(s) of the essay are supposed to be funny? (Could you quote those text portion[s] please, so we can all share a good laugh?) Thanks, I look forward ... p.s. I do think the pic of Jânio Quadros is funny (who wouldn't?). But that's not body text. IHTS (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "humor" thing is new for me, please be patient. (Is this an example of funny?: A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief.) Ha-ha-ha!! Funny! (Did I get it right!?) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about this (I think you added most if not all of this text)?: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community. Divas will likely engage in WikiBigotry against users that met a certain condition that make them less valuable to their eyes. However, the line between "good" and "bad" editors may be drawn anywhere, and it may even consist of an arbitrary condition invented by themselves. Ha-ha-ha-ha!! So funny! (Yeah? No?) IHTS (talk)

Or this (text you added)?: By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation. Ha-ha-he-he!! Oh God I'm in stitches now! (Yeah? No?) IHTS (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or this?: Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. So very funny!!! Who writes this stuff! I can hardly breathe! (Yes? No?) IHTS (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The humor is a bit dry. Glad you find it so funny! I am flattered by your praise! Doc talk 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the status of this essay -- your WP:OWNed and adopted little attack page. IMO it is even more fucked up now after your addition of the banner. (For obvious demo above.) IHTS (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag is gone; thanks Doc. Alakzi, the tag contains a contradiction, in claiming that humorous things shouldn't be taken seriously. That's nonsense, of course. Your claim that the essay is offensive may have value, or it may not, but if it's offensive its offensiveness is not alleviated by the fact that it was tagged as humorous. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, I'm disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by reverting the removal of the tag. The bullshit I've got to put up with in this place... Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's terrible, I know. (I defended you elsewhere already, in another case.) But the tag says "this material is kept because it's considered funny", and that is untrue--see the AfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:POINT as basis for revert made sense to me, but I was thinking it was being applied to the original add (not Alaksi's re-add). IHTS (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, Doc didn't remove the tag, Cambalachero did. IHTS (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS, Please stop with the sarcasm and irony and explain, in clear words, why do you think we should use the tag "humor" on this page. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't, since I never thought that. IHTS (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to beat the drum too loud, but wouldn't Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas/sandbox obviate these concerns? By turning it into an advice piece with a practical purpose instead of a borderline attack page, the problem seems to go away. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Solves no problems that were not there in the first place. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally conceding there were problems. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Diva" redirects nominated for deletion

Resolved

– Consensus was to {{soft redirect}} them, and tag them {{historical}}.

I have nominated the "diva" variant redirects for deletion here. Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rewrite"

It's clear that the total rewrite/watering down failed to consider such basics as psychodrama being something a Wikipedia editor is normally engaged in here. So I have taken the liberty of removing that nonsense. Any objections? Because there is more to be culled from this rewrite. WP:BRD. Doc talk 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LANCB. Seriously? Who the heck is ever going to adopt this and then link others to it? Absurd. It's not only neither a word nor an acronym: it's simply never going to catch on, Ever. WP:BYE is open... makes more sense, yes? (Sigh). Doc talk 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]