User talk:NotThatAnonymous

Archives

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you know why you are blocked? Because you didn't tolerate a / in your <br>. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn’t tolerate that someone violated WP:TPO and edited my talk page comments.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO explicitly mentions several instances when editing another's comment is allowed. For instance, fixing format errors, fixing layout errors, that kind of stuff. You're throwing a WP:TANTRUM over a minor disagreement. Look, PapiDimmi, you do seem to care about Wikipedia, but you'll have to understand this is a collaborative effort. You don't have to be pals with everybody, but to be a contributing Wikipedian, you have to be at least a civil one. I hope you'll turn around. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what WP:TPO says. WP:TPO says that one is allowed to correct format errors that make a page unreadable, and <br> does not contain any format errors whatsoever.

Additionally, WP:TPO does not state that one is allowed to change the phrasing of a title if it is already descriptive, add unnecessary headings (especially headings with insults), and change the spacing of a comment which makes no visible difference when reading the page, yet Codename Lisa and FleetCommand where doing all of these things. FleetCommand and Codename Lisa were also edit warring by continuously reverting revisions.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you again for continuing this ridiculous disruption over HTML tags in signatures. The final straw was you attempting to close a subthread about your signature which was absolutely relevant to the discussion. It is not for you, the instigator of a thread, to tell people what is or is not relevant. Before you start editing again I would like you to remove that <br> from your signature to make it comply with the Wikipedia:Signatures guideline. And please take note that there will be one more chance before I make the block indefinite as patience is swiftly running out, and I am starting to doubt that you are here in good faith to contribute to an encyclopedia — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that if you had left the AN/I discussion closed when I closed it, you would probably not be blocked now. I hope that's a lesson learned for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: No, I have not learned any lesson, dad.

Please explain to me how a comment about me removing some spaces from somebody else’s comment is relevant to the topic. I still haven’t gotten an answer for that.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, much? E Eng 02:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply answering my question, you unnecessarily insult me by telling me that I have a disorder. Very mature of you, my friend. Maybe you should read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still has not complied with the administrator's order of removing <br> from your signature. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, administrators don't "order" editors to do things, but if PapiDimmi continues to thumb his nose at the community he'll end with an indefinite block. E Eng 11:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's something FleetCommand would say. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an editor of wisdom and discretion. E Eng 12:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You took an editor to ANI because they were refactoring your talk page comments on the basis of formatting. During that ANI thread, YOU yourself refactored another editor's comments on the basis of formatting. If you can't understand why its relevant that you did the very thing you were complaining about, I'm not sure what to tell you. Also, despite it being made clear in that same ANI thread, it appears that you are still violating the signature policy. Could you explain why you're persisting in this behavior? I can understand your basic argument regarding HTML5 and the BR tag, but I cannot understand why it remains in your signature after it was pointed out as against policy. If you have since removed it, thank you. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between mistakenly slightly changing somebody’s talk page comment and not continuing that behaviour; and continuing to change somebody’s talk page comments over and over again, after many times being told not to do it by several editors. Even if it is so ironic, it’s not related to the discussion.

I changed someone’s comment. Fine. So what? How is that related to anything? How is that connected to the incident report of Codename Lisa?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You knew what you were doing, and by the very basis on your ANI complaint, you knew it was wrong. The fact you only did it once is immaterial. It's not wrong on the basis of "doing it repeatedly", it's wrong on the basis of doing it at all. That's why it's relevant. You wasted people's time with disruptive complaining about another editor's behavior while committing that same behavior, when the entire time the issue was being essentially caused by you being in violation of a policy yourself and making declarations that you don't care if things you do effect or bother other editors. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you begging to get blocked again?

How about indefinitely this time? Because now you're tampering with archived discussions. [1]. E Eng 07:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the discussion because it is completely unrelated to the topic of the incident. Collapsing it makes the section easier to read. Someone reverted it without discussing this.

Per WP:TPO, off-topic discussions should either be removed or collapsed.

By the way, is your profile page supposed to be a big mess?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I'm going to sleep now but I look forward to others' thoughts about your inability to WP:DROPIT and its implications for your continued participation in the project. E Eng 08:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally giving you a final warning to leave these archived discussion alone. I'll block you if you touch that ANI discussion again, PapiDimmi. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cake day redirects

From my quick research it doesn't seem that cake day is unique to reddit (instead a few refer to a person's birthday as cake day). Also it seems unlikely that the casual browser would not likely use it. I wanted to ask here before putting this on RfD because there might be something that I missed. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 00:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term “cake day” or “cakeday” doesn’t seem to exist outside Reddit.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does on Imgur, not sure I can provide a reference for that easily however — IVORK _Discuss 00:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn’t mention “cake day” whatsoever.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it did, just that the term is not exclusive to Reddit and thus shouldn't really be a redirect for it.

Now that I have more time, reference is here. Not too sure that's worthy enough for inclusion in Imgurs article however. I have proposed RfD for each here, here and here. — IVORK _Discuss 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Stop using a substed template in your signature to get around WP:SIGLEN. You can either trim it to below 255 characters, or I can delete and salt it; you don't have any other options here. Given the number of warnings for disruption that have been ignored by you, AGF no longer applies to you. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures. My signature is not more than two or three lines in the edit window.

Using a substituted page as one’s signature is allowed.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just literally refuse to read policies linked to you? The software will automatically truncate both plain and raw signatures to 255 characters of code in the Signature field. If substitution of templates or another page is used, please be careful to verify that you are not violating the length limit, as the software will not do this automatically. You are over 255 characters. The guideline you JUST linked says: Substitution must not be used to circumvent the normal restrictions on signature content, including the use of images, obnoxious markup, or excessive length. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure. I’ll wait for an admin to say what he or she thinks before I take action.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Iridescent and myself are admins, so I'm not sure what you're waiting on. I would also like to know why you continue to include a line break in your signature on every post, despite it being pointed out that this is also against the signature policy. -- ferret (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen people with a longer signature than mine before. Do you do this just because you hate me?

Anyway, you realize that Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline, right (at it says on top of the page)? It’s not a policy; you’re not forced to follow it. Editing my signature and protecting the page against my will is unacceptable.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're apparently unwilling to comply with WP:Signatures, I've complied for you. If you have a legitimate reason to use a subst'ed template rather than doing what every other Wikipedia editor manages without difficulty and entering the wikitext code at Special:Preferences, and are willing to keep it below 255 characters displayed text, post a request at WP:UNPROTECT: I explicitly consent to any other admin lifting the protection if they're satisfied with your explanation, without having to consult with me first. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That signature looks bad, and I will not use it. Again, I’ve seen others using even longer signatures, but none of them are confronted.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That signature is the Wikipedia default and virtually every other editor manages to use it without difficulty. If you refuse to use it, you're more than welcome to change it to whatever you want provide it complies with policy; just go to Special:Preferences and enter whatever you want it to be in the signature box. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m well aware that it’s the default signature. No one has ever had a problem with my signature before. It’s not long at all. Wikipedia:Signatures states that it shouldn’t be over two lines in the edit window, and it’s not.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's four lines in my edit window, for what that's worth. Anyway, I think this conversation is done; you can do what you like on your own talkpage, but if I see a signature longer than 255 characters from you anywhere else, you'll be blocked. If you think that's unfair, you can either start a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Signatures to try to get the policy changed, or you can go to ANI, complain you think you're being treated unfairly for being told to follow policy, and see if anyone else agrees. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:SIGAPP, including WP:SIGLEN, is a policy, as denoted by the tags at the start of the guideline and the start of the section. You know where AN is. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]