Welcome to Wikipedia, Xkcdreader! Thank you for your contributions. I am SudoGhost 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! SudoGhost 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Xkcdreader, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Got In Trouble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, A bit of advice. You may want to back away from the topic you are discussing on the Star Trek Into Darkness talk page, the one about the title section. You are arguing strongly, which is good. But a growing cadre of editors are against the inclusion, which would make a consensus against the change. In the grand old scheme of things, it is a small trivial detail. I know I have recently said I oppose such a change, if you recall, I was pro it's inclusion at the beginning, I have just since realised that it's a trivial issue that has only been reported in few outlets and it hardly meet's the notability criteria. MisterShiney ✉ 00:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Grammar Another bit of advice. Don't arrogantly engage in complex discussions involving details of proper use of the English language when you write lines such as "PS: Remember, nomatter how historic this message becomes (/s) you can never write about it on wikipedia, because I posted it here first and not in a newspaper, as per rules 1, 7, 9 and eleventythousand." ...because "as per" is redundant. It's also very commonly known to be incorrect. I refer you to google.com for verification. --Aquishix (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] There's BOLD, and there's disruptive And that last major addition of yours, clearly against consensus, crossed the line. If you continue to waste other editors' time on this subject, I will be requesting a block on the administrators' noticeboard. Switch topics for a while, edit some other articles (preferably not Trek-related), and maybe come back to the topic later. Much later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Trout! Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. Please, do yourself a favour and back off. We've offered you multiple get out clauses. From your talk page, I can see someone's already taking action against you. This is getting beyond helpful contribution. Step back and let due process have a chance; a compromise was met recently regarding your inclusions, and it's not believed by 4 editors (so far), that any extension is needed. drewmunn talk 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness Please stop confusing the issue even more by adding in summaries[1] to earlier sections that do not relate to the ongoing discussion. There is an element of revisionism to these edits, as they respond to later events. We all need to back off a bit and wait for the dust to settle. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC) [reply] Inappropriate Outburst "Stop dictating who can have a say. - Rob Sinden" I added a NEW section, it is not revision. You need to stop telling me how to present my side of this case. Thank you. Your silence is appreciated. Xkcdreader (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm trying to help you to understand talk page etiquette which will help you to stop pissing off other editors. It's a new section, but it has been entered into the middle of a previous discussion, so that it appears above any discussion that was had on the points you made. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I wrote the section initially, I can amend another section to it. It should not be a problem. Stop trying to suppress my rebuttal to your claims. Your way of using a talk page leaves an incoherent debate. I am trying to add some structure. I would not have even need to add the summary, had you not said "And to be honest, who the f*ck wants to read your thesis and summary of all the guidelines of Wikipedia? HOW is that helpful? PLEASE... GIVE IT A REST!!!". The summary is specifically there to address your claim that me covering the rules was too long. I DO NOT WANT IT AFTER THE DISCUSSION. I don't want people to have to read all your repetitive nonsense to see my case presented clearly. I asked you quite a while ago, to stop repeating your position. It. has. not. changed. It. does. not. need. to. be. re-voiced! If your position changes, re-voice it. Your way left a 6 month debate that no person could possibly read, so the argument went in circles OVER AND OVER. I am trying to keep everything in one place, so people are not forced to read all your repetition. Thank you for being concerned about my perception in the community, I will try not to piss people off by saving my posts as much, and using the preview feature more. I really don't need a reply to this, this is getting to borderline harassment. NOTICE: my proposal has CLEAR Beginning and End tags. That is on purpose. Please do not modify it. I want every relevant part in one place. If you want to add your own section, please do it AFTER the END tag. Also, could we PLEASE use collapse tags to keep the thing from growing out of hand? (that part you can reply to.) "so that it appears above any discussion that was had on the points you made" YOU HAVE NOT MADE ANY NEW POINTS. YOU KEEP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER.!! Do you understand how frustrating you are? Its like a dog that wont stop barking. I'm on edge, if you cant tell. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You opened the same discussion approximately 5 times. As each was treated as a new discussion and a new proposal, then every editor had a right to express there concerns with each proposal. If you had left it as one continued discussion, rather than reopening separate proposals and making inappropriate summaries misrepresenting the views of others, maybe there wouldn't have been the necessity to respond. The mess on the talk page has been caused by you, and the reason it went round in circles is because of your reopening arguments as new proposals. This new addition will only make the mess worse. I tried to offer you an olive branch here, and tried to talk to you, offering friendly advice regarding talk page etiquette, but this has just been met with hostility. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Then say "oppose", and offer a link to your previous reasons. "You opened the same discussion approximately 5 times." NO I DID NOT. I took the previous one, I addressed MOST peoples concerns and I re-proposed new writing with necessary improvements. (except all of yours and some of Scjessey [I did take his suggestions to heart, too many citations, too verbose etc.] He helped me revise it, you did not. You have yet to offer any help what so ever. To quote you "I am not going to help you rewrite sentences." You are an unhelpful person.) You seem to be under the impression your objections were the only ones that mattered. I was also dealing with Frungi, Nsign, and other people who were offering objections, that could be fixed. (Nsign even said, it went from a Joke to "Much Better". That CLEARLY proves it was not the same proposal, no person would change their mind this fast.) (Originally I was modifying the proposals inline to address concerns. I stopped that when I realized it was causing people to think concerns had not been addressed. So what they say now, is not necessarily what they originally said. That was a newbie error, and won't keep happening. I will stick to fixing typos, and amending not revising. Consider that a lesson learned.) Part of the problem was that my first half had consensus and the second half didnt. I re-proposed it specifically because the debate was only over the second half. There was no reason to keep arguing about the part we agreed on. Then after I submitted the part that reached consensus, you had the debate closed. It was not a compromise, the debate was not over. Let me repeat this: there was no compromise, there was consensus on the first half and not the second half. I resubmitted it, because you seem to think consensus was that it should NOT be included. No consensus was reached over the second half. EVER. It is fairly evenly split. You guys closed the debate while it was still happening. It was reopened because you keep unfairly closing it. Even Scjessey agrees you are prematurely closing it. You have to give people more than an hour to respond. As you can see, supporters are slowly trickling in. ----- I find your "I said it is over, so it is over" type attitude most disrespectful, and that is why I am semi-hostile with you. ----- You need to let the debate run its course and stop closing it. It was opened multiple times because it changed substantially (not all of that is evident by the final product, do to my misguided inline editing) and the criticisms no longer reflected the proposal. My repeated proposals was not the issue, it was your constant harping of the same response. Once was enough, UNLESS YOUR OPINION CHANGES. Link to your previous response if you are going to repeat yourself. That is what I will do from now on, and hence why the summary of my argument was added. If you guys let me collapse all the RESPONSES, maybe I wouldn't be reproposing. What is the problem with collapsing the responses to a claim/support/oppose. People can click "show" if they want to see the replies. Editing the document with thousands of lines of arguing is worthless. It needed to be resubmitted so people could actually edit the document without getting lost in all the circular debate. Furthermore, I know for a FACT you opposed my latest proposal without reading through it all. You said so yourself. And then you closed the debate. Do you feel empathy, and do you understand why I am frustrated with your constant closings? Or is that not registering? Can you admit that a lot of this is caused by you rushing to respond without actually reading what other people say? And let's stop pretending my summary of the lengthy rules section will add to the confusion. I added a Bill Clinton analogy too, so sue me. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Okay, you're clearly unreasonable. I give up. You won't listen to established and experienced editors' advice and act like only you know how things work, and how everyone else is wrong, when you're new around here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Did you even read what I wrote? You are an established bully. I repeat, Do you feel empathy, and do you understand why I am frustrated with your constant closings of debates that were not over? Or is that not registering? Let me repeat, I find your "I said it is over, so it is over" type attitude most disrespectful, and that is why I am semi-hostile with you. Let me reclarify what I found to be the most important line, just in case you responded without reading again. Can you admit that a lot of this is caused by you rushing to respond without actually reading what other people say? Your "Established editor" attitude has done one thing. It makes you think you are superior and everyone should listen to you, but that you don't have to listen to other people. End this and please stop talking to me until you read what I write. Now this is harassment. Address the empathy question, and admit some of this is your fault, or stop talking to me. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I only closed one discussion which was one that you had re-opened not 24-hours after reaching an apparent compromise on the previous discussion. Another editor reverted this close, which I conceded may have been inappropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] There was never a compromise, stop pretending that putting the first five sentences in (which reached FULL CONSENSUS) was a compromise. It was not. You are blatantly and maliciously misrepresenting what happened, to try and win this. I asked you twice now to stop replying on my talk page unless you will acknowledge you made mistakes. If I have to ask again, I am reporting this. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I said "apparent compromise". And I also conceded that my closing may have been inappropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] OK now you are pissing me off. Including content that reached FULL CONSENSUS is not a compromise just because you say it is. I don't have to appease you, to add content to the page. You do not OWN the Star Trek Into Darkness page!! Leave me alone, please. Decease from adding text to my talk page. Thank you. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] February 2013 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Can you ask them to tell you to leave me alone? Xkcdreader (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Let's Make a Deal This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Xkcdreader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: How am I suppose to defend myself against the allegation of disruption if I can't speak? I stopped editing the talk page. I am purely discussing this in the incident report. I may have exaggerated when I said "I won't give up." Let's not take that out of context to justify a block. What I mean is, I am being persistent because there is bureaucratic injustice afloat, and if no one speaks up it will continue. SarekOfVulcan is involved in this conflict and a PARTIAL judge. I would support other admins silencing me, but because it is someone involved, something feels wrong about this. I am not WP:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, my conduct may have been disruptive, but in retrospect if it were not, this would never get elevated. If it got washed under the rug, or I was told to wait a month, nothing would ever change. I threw what seems now to look like a tamper tantrum to get Wikipedia functioning again. I have the best interests of the project at heart. I will stop editing any pages the admins ask me to, BUT I should be allowed to continue in the "incident discussion." ""xkcdreader's I may have exaggerated when I said "I won't give up." was not encouraging. "May have"????? --SarekOfVulcan" - Yea exaggerated aka Hyperbole. "Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally." Exaggerated means I didn't literally mean "I won't give up", it was just a figure of speech, used in political addresses as a rallying call for support. I was trying to be kind of funny. I am bad at conveying levity (Humor or frivolity, esp. the treatment of a serious matter with humor or in a manner lacking due respect) over the internet. I am a little disappointed you would use it out of context to block me, especially when you're involved, when I had stopped being disruptive, and was making my case in the appropriate channels. That said, I'm sure someone else would have done it eventually. I needed a cage. You win some you lose some. Spilt milk and all. I am guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and earned this block fair and square. Famous last words: Final thoughts on this issue. WP:UNDUE is a terrible rule. It is a massive Catch-22. You can't add content until there is content. It enforces the practice of adding one sentence to each section, instead of building sections one at a time. WP:UNDUE completely undermines the purpose of Wikipedia, which is suppose to be conveying information to people that don't give a shit about talk pages (aka most regular people). Until Wikipedia favors contributions to arguing, it is irrevocably broken. Good day, ladies and gents, maybe I'll see you from a well behaved account long, long into the future. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Accept reason: You have a point regarding WP:INVOLVED. That said, I'm unblocking you on the sole condition that you stop entirely with the Star Trek discussion, on the talk page, on AN/I, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. If you want to continue to edit, you'll need to find some other topic to work on. If you're not willing to accept that condition, let me know and I will restore the block and take ownership of it. 28bytes (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] We have a compromise as long as I am allowed to keep editing my own user pages. I would like to make some personal backups of things under my own account, before they get archived. I would also like to keep maintaining my parody of this event featured here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xkcdreader/Interpretation_of_the_movie_title_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness. Is adding a link to MY parody version of the article into my proposal a fair compromise between us, or should I just quit while I'm not completely behind? Xkcdreader (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] No link; quit while you're not completely behind. (Note that I am also an uninvolved admin who would have blocked you after your performance at AN/I.) Horologium (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] deal. you guys should add a "don't explain yourself, and don't tell your side of the story" to that page, so people know. I thought it was a court of some sort. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Glad we've got a deal. You've made a ton of edits, but have only been here a week, so it's understandable that you'd not quite grok everything about how things work here. It does take a while to pick up some of the nuances of the editing culture around here. 28bytes (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, "anywhere else on Wikipedia" means "anywhere else on Wikipedia", including user pages. You have, at this point, two options: make edits completely unrelated to the Star Trek title, or make no edits. Let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isnt the first sentence of my compromise "We have a compromise as long as I am allowed to keep editing my own user pages." Youre really not allowing me to goof around on my own pages? Im not talking to anyone else, Im minding my own business. Please? Isn't the DIFF you sent from before the block was removed? That's how I was communicating. I said "I would like to maintain my parody", and the admin said I couldn't link to it. That was the deal. I thought. Let me know if I am reading our compromise incorrectly. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can sandbox here or here or here but trust me, if your en-wiki contributions list shows Star Trek-related activity, that will Not Be Good. Agreeing to avoid that topic here is pretty much the only reason you're unblocked. (And you could not have made that edit while blocked; this page is the only page the software would have let you edit while blocked.) 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that isnt explained well. Did I not make the user pages correctly? Im really confused. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This diff IS my talk page..... Youre confusing me en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xkcdreader&diff=prev&oldid=536877423 Xkcdreader (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links I gave are to our sister projects: Simple English, Commons, and meta. Since you have a global login, you have access to make sandboxes there. If you make Star Trek edits on those projects, no one here will mind. What we'd like you to do on this project is make edits entirely unrelated to Star Trek titling. Does that help clear it up? 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to contribute here anymore. I want to maintain my parody article for shits and giggles, and I backed up two documents I wanted. That is exactly what I said in our initial deal. Are you telling me I have to move them and recreate them? Are they fine where they are? I added the no index thinger. I have no desire to contribute at the moment, I just want to learn how to use the software better for future reference and leave. Xkcdreader (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're done editing them, they're fine to leave where they are. If you plan to maintain/update/tweak them some more, I suggest cutting and pasting them to one of the sister project sandboxes I linked for you. If you want to just tinker with the software, either do that on a sister project (it's the same software, after all) or do it here on a topic other than Star Trek titling. 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ook. So if I move them, how do I get rid of the outdated ones here? I reallllly have no plans to ever contribute to this project again. Maybe in 5-10 years when the userbase has turned over. This was a miserable, exhausting, terrifying, and painful experience. I know I gave Scjessey a lot of flack, but he was at least being fairly respectful and helpful with his criticism. I could probably apologize to him for being overly argumentative, abrasive or rash to judgement. I didn't agree with him but he was useful. Rob Sinden on the other hand probably could have done almost nothing to make this experience worse. Not once did Rob ever make a step towards me in compromise. He couldn't put himself in my shoes and understand why I was frustrated with him. Even the admins got semi-mean. How was I suppose to know I wasn't suppose to talk on that incident report? I was already labeled a lulz account before I even got to speak. Assume good faith did not happen today. If I run the risk of stumbling into these types of editors even just once a month, I know staying here isn't a good idea. My point here is, I TRIED to work together with people. I read through pages and pages of rules, and they all made the same point, that you are suppose to work together to create something. You post your content and experienced people help you edit it. READ my very first comment here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness/Archive_7 I bent over backwards over and over to meet people half way. And Rob walks away from this and I am banned to the corner? How would you feel? Xkcdreader (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete them for you once you've copied them over; just let me know. I'm sorry it's been an unpleasant experience here for you. You may find working on another topic to be more enjoyable, but if you just want to take a break from here for a while, I understand, and that's OK too. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why his behavior is considered acceptable, just because he has been here longer. He was the one that should have known better, not me. That's why I'm leaving, because you all condone treating the ignorant like shit. If it was unacceptable behavior, something would have been done about it. Clearly its the norm to just brush this stuff off because "it happens all the time." It happens all the time because nothing is done about it.

And for the record, I tried moving one of the pages to meta, and it breaks all the links and tables and stuff. It makes no sense to me why I can't just edit my user pages here in peace. See example: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Xkcdreader/Interpretation_of_the_movie_title_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness

And ... I really don't think you understand. I came here and my idea was bad right away. What kind of community goes "you have bad ideas" go away, instead of helping rewrite them? I know you probably have better things to do, but seriously look over this page. It is almost completely criticism and belittlement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness/Archive_7HOW MANY of the people in opposition offered to help rewrite? None. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} You done yet (I keep getting edit conflicts)? First - Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia. It's not a webhost for you to keep your shits and giggles. Try Wordpress for that. Second, you might give some regard to the old joke about the preacher in the flood zone, who ignored the radio warning to evacuate, and sent away the sherrif in his pickup, the emergency services and their rubber boat, and the Navy helicopter, on the grounds that God would save him. When his drowned ass turned up at the pearly gates he complained that God hadn't saved him, to which St Peter replied "well, he sent you a weatherman on the radio, the sherrif, a fire crew with a rubber boat and even the damn Navy. What else did you want." Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

duly noted. my own talk page is off limits too. understood. For the record, this is what I was trying to contribute, I was not just here to screw around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_Title Xkcdreader (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the links for you. [2] 28bytes (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, most appreciated. Do the templates still not work? Xkcdreader (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. You'll have to do without the templates and categories, I'm afraid. 28bytes (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and the collapse tags, and reference list, and all the formatting and jazz I would use on wikipedia? Is all that broken too? Either way I'm getting kicked off so it doesnt matter. If you could delete (link removed) that would be great. Xkcdreader (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You're a glass-half-empty type, eh? There are roughly 6,932,123 other articles you could edit. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin just came in and yelled at me for talking on my own talk page. My entire thesis was that these situations are happening because people are chiming in without examining the context of the situation first. Im out. Xkcdreader (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eee lad. What actually happened was another admin swung by and observed that there seemed to be a mismatch of expectation going on. You didn't seem to be grokking the responses you were getting, and were frustrated because you kept expecting something else. In a collaborative project, its important that everyone listens to everyone else - that whole talkpage was a bit of a dialogue of the deaf (and not just on your side, I do agree). And most editors find they have to give way quite a bit, or nothing ever gets done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had already been asked to stop participation on the talk page, so I assumed your comment was in reference to me not having completely shut up (here on my own talk page) ... anyway. I am leaving now so it doesn't matter. I just want to point out that anyone not willing to work towards consensus should have their vote thrown out. Consensus should be a the decision made by the group of people who are willing to work together. Maybe in the future it will start to work out that way. "Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." If you care, check out what I was trying to contribute, and if you can, offer some helpful input if it ever comes up again. I am sure compromise exists somewhere. User:Xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_Title | As for the shits and giggles, I just wanted a page of nonsense so I could play around with the software. I didn't realize it needed to be moved to a different service. I wish I didn't have to move it though, because a lot of the interlinking functionality is broken, which sort of defeats the purpose of practice. Xkcdreader (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see, if most people are disagreeing with you, even if you are absolutely sure you are right, on this project, you are the one that needs to compromise, give way, back down, or find another way round. Not always true in real life (or we wouldn't have any notable reformers, no Florence Nightingale, heck! no Winston Churchill) but pretty much always true on Wikipedia. Come back in a year, when the article is three times the size with details of the reception, awards, brickbats, merchandising etc, and you'll be able to add whatever it is that's set your britches on fire without anyone bothering. But for now, you're just going to have to give it best and either find some other article to edit, or give up on the project (if you feel you really must). If you just want to play around with the software, you can create other sandbox pages on other subjects, just leave this one alone for the moment. Or (since you moved it to meta I think), you can learn how to use Interwiki links to fix your breaks. That might keep you entertained for a bit. And I did genuinely only mean "have you finished making all these edits yet", because I kept edit conflicting with you (did again just now). Not "shut up". If I mean that, I'll say it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"if most people are disagreeing with you" Most of the people disagreeing were willing to work on a solution. User:Xkcdreader (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's that mismatch of expectation again. You are expecting that only people willing to work with you on a compromise get a voice. Doesn't work like that here. As you've found, if you keep trying to ignore the ones that just say no, all you get is trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But but but one of the founding principles of the site was to ignore the uncooperative. That was Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles himself. The difference is, if they present their problems in a constructive way vs refusing to join the discussion. There was a lot of plugging of ears going on. And that isnt an accusation, that is an all around generalization. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading that as if it says "if someone totally disagrees you and you can't come to any agreement, you can just ignore them". But that's not what it says. Other editors don't have to agree to a compromise that you might like. They only have to take a civil part in the discussion, putting forward their opinions. The reality is that the "uncooperative" were taking part in the discussion even if you didn't like anything they were saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it just seemed to be the opposite of constructive. I already knew exactly what their complaints were, and re-voicing them was making it harder for other people to talk. I guess where I started to lose my temper is when they were interjecting into my conversations with other editors. I would say something like "ok we have a compromise" in reference to me and the other editor, and one of them would respond NO WE DONT, as if I were talking about everybody. It felt like it moved from productive to bullying. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there was a degree of ownership going on there. Some discussions can be interminable because it is impossible to get all the parties to agree (just try reading any of the archives of Talk:Monty Hall problem if you want an exercise in futility.) But the truth is that unless you can get them to give ground, or you establish that their view really is a minority of all the voices (which it wasn't, it was about an even split), then you won't get to make the changes you want to an article. That's just how it goes. And in this case everyone did agree on something - it just wasn't as much as you wanted to add. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if even split is the most accurate way to describe it. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A spectrum, between 'whang the whole lot in' at one end, and 'over my dead body' at the other. But it seemed kind of evenly weighted between the extremes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill give you that. It was about three fuck no's three fuck why nots, and a bunch of people going both way in the middle who didn't really care. Can you help me with a page undelete? The page I was asked to move to metawiki was deleted because he thought it was a duplicate. Admins can recover data right? Xkcdreader (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin on Meta so I can't I'm afraid. Just leave a note on the talkpage of the person who deleted it, ask if you can have it back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant from a technical perspective, you can still see the deleted page on en, right? Xkcdreader (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no probs with that. Sorry, I thought you meant the page on meta. Give me a mo and I'll put it back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, it's back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of my initial unban was that I could screw around with that page and learn wikipedia (sandbox) as long as I didn't post a link to it in the stid talk page. Then it seemed it was necessary to move it, I'm not exactly sure why. Is this something I can edit and play with or are you just restoring it so I can save the data? Xkcdreader (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 28bytes closed the discussion and said above that you can't edit on that subject anywhere onwiki. If you want to try moving the page to userspace on another project, Commons is probably a better bet than Meta. Ping them the occasional picture and they don't seem overly bothered about stuff in userspace. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons deleted it too. I am nearing wits end. I tried wikidata this time, of all places, they seem the most likely to let random data sit. I hope it stays up. I can't figure out what that place is even for. I have one backup document left to submit here and since I won't be editing it ever, I think everything should be kosher. 28bytes said "If you're done editing them, they're fine to leave where they are. If you plan to maintain/update/tweak them some more, I suggest cutting and pasting them to one of the sister project sandboxes I linked for you." Xkcdreader (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xkcdreader,

Your subpages contain very interesting stuff. However, you really need to demonstrate some little breadth of experience and ability to work before telling others how to build content. I suggested not touching Star Trek for a week or two. i think that really is a minimum. You are intense, and I don't want to see you burn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I learned most of that from the link you provided. (User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles) "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal." The two parties were not working towards a common goal. One half were looking to include something, the other half were trying to block it unconditionally." Literally, and by definition, there will never be consensus until opposing side agrees to work towards a common goal that isn't "you can't add anything about the verb/colon confusion" (or the content creators give up out of exhaustion) which is an attitude that is incompatible with "You can edit this page right now", a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Sacred principles should take precedent over minor issues such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFREF. "The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at Wikipedia itself" appears to be a suggestion, and should be flexible when unique situations arise. From my perspective of the ensuing events, the blocking maneuvers without any attempt to help rewrite (even as just a gesture of good will), flew directly in the face of the principles this site was founded on. That got me worked up. I was attempting to work towards a middle ground with compromise. I had already taken quite a few steps towards center. Can you see where I am coming from, that, as content was re-re-rewritten to take various criticisms into account, the remaining criticisms used to block the content became increasingly pedantic and petty? In light of all this, thank you for providing the (User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles) link. It was educational. The way I see it, it feels as if established editors slightly lost sight of the way things were intended to work, and got caught up in current practices. In that case, it takes external eyes, people who have not been conditioned into and molded by the current hivemind of the site, to point out incompatibilities and hint at course correction. Sometimes your head gets stuck so far down a hole you lose sight of daylight. (That's an ostrich not an asshole reference.) In that event, it's good to have a friend around to pull you out and save you. "A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while." "While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience." This both discourages new editors and deprives Wikipedia of much-needed insights." Xkcdreader (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I appreciate the sentiment offered on the first line of your user page, but I'm afraid Wikipedia doesn't work like that; not much operates by votes anyway, and even if they did, you writing blanket support for me on your user page wouldn't actually give me any extra power.

If you do want to do something helpful though, something that could improve your own reputation around here too, I would invite you to bring some of your passion and vigor over to a long discussion at Talk:Free will that has been dragging on forever and which I am running out of time to engage in due to outside constraints in my life. I am not -- note well, NOT -- asking you to come there and argue my points for me, and if you blatantly do that it will both make you look bad and also reflect badly on me, so out of whatever gratitude you may have, please don't do that.

I have, however, been trying to stir up outside opinions in the discussion with little luck so far, and if you'd like to try your hand at an unrelated topic, perhaps you could dedicate some of your apparently boundless energy and ability to argue and research, to trying to help mediate the dispute there as an outside party. The main other person there is also a good editor who has a lot of valuable material to bring to the article, I mostly object to the way he is bringing it and unfortunately am having to resort to reverts and mostly curt rejections now that I have less time to dedicate to it, and I regret not being able to give his contributions the thoughtful response and integration they deserve.

If you, being uninvolved in the matter, could help to find more productive ways of integrating his contributions to the article without running into the points I'm objecting to, that would help the both of us there, lead to a better article, fix your reputation here, and help you learn the ins-and-outs of the way of wiki in a much slower and less intense venue than all of this Star Trek related stuff.

What say you? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, i was being cheeky or some other better word to describe a stupid joke. This account is still going in the garbage as soon as I find a project that allows me to have and edit a sandbox without deleting it. That's all I'm asking for at this point, a page to dick around on and learn the wiki syntax. En, meta, and commons all refuse. I tried Wikidata, we will see how that goes. I misunderstood and thought the admins and I had agreed to a compromise "as long as I am allowed to keep editing my own user pages, including making some personal backups, and maintaining my parody of this event" instead of "never talk about star trek again or leave." Apparently the userpage stipulation got glossed over in the deal, and now I'm without a home. I think SarekOfVulcan tattled on me or something, and I'm still really not sure how the cabals or "in" factions work here yet, so I don't even know who to talk to about it without running into pre-formed opinions or bias favoring the admins to newbies.

I don't know what to tell you. I don't like this place. At all. The talk pages are an awful way to communicate. The community just bickers instead of editing and publishing work. There are an ungodly amount of dispute channels. It takes six months AND admin intervention to change the orthography of an article title. That doesn't strike you as a "bad sign?" Slow movement and "waiting" for issues to cross through red tape and into the appropriate court of opinion isn't for me. I don't have time to sit here and babysit creations all the way through into adulthood. I'd rather just go read wikipedia pages like I used to and stay off the talk ones. It seems you can't contribute without debating whether the contribution is WP:UNDUE (if that rule isn't a catch-22, I don't know what is,) so I prefer neither. When I read User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles it became obviously apparent this community is exactly what it was founded not to be. I just want to be left in peace, learn how to use the software, create a final draft of a parody article documenting this whole shitstorm, and leave. Xkcdreader (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is concurrently a wonderful and seriously messed up place. Wonderful, 'cause it's likely the best general information source the world has ever known and messed up 'cause it's run by imperfect people. There are, in fact, at least two sets of rules -- the ones that are written and the unwritten ones. Briefly, one of the unwritten ones is if you argue too much about something you'll annoy the other editors and you've already seen what happens after that happens. I don't have an opinion on whether the ban from ST discussions is appropriate -- I don't have time or inclination to wade through the discussions -- but as a heuristic I've found 28bytes to be one of the more reasonable admins around here. I do think the stalking you to your user pages was a bit much and have let him know that, but please do not be encouraged by that and resume discussion with him.

One of the positives of Wikipedia is that, generally speaking, the "community" has the attention span of a gnat and if you decide to edit other areas and learn the unwritten Wikipedia ways -- which is best done by observation -- folks will eventually pretty much leave you alone to edit. But you gotta be willing to "lose" -- sometimes your edits will stick, and sometimes they won't.

Regarding your post to Elen's talk page: first of all, don't do that. Way too long and way too much content discussion on something she may not care about -- discussion about content is best on the corresponding article talk page. Secondly you seem to be implying you feel like you're being wikistalked? Is that true?

If you really want a do-over, there's an option to clean start, but we'd have to get 28bytes or the community to sign off it, which I suspect -- but can't actually promise, unfortunately -- we could make happen if you promise to never, ever edit ST stuff with the new account. What I'd recommend instead is simply editing elsewhere for a while -- six months is the standard number, and then ask the ST topic ban be lifted. NE Ent 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, 28bytes is more than generous. I probably got at least two extra chances I didn't deserve. As for Elen_of_the_Roads page, I am aware it could be ignored. Elen found me and started a discussion on my talk page. I went to Elen because Elen came to me and seemed to be a very upstanding person. I guess I would prefer Elen tell me directly if it would be preferred I don't write her letters. If you read what I wrote, I said "My entire reason for treating this as a cup half empty situation was because no matter how small of a chance you make, it gets reverted and you have to write a paragraph justifying your thoughts. And when you do justify your thoughts, they fall on deaf ears because people prefer Newspeak to actual communication. We are becoming a place where anything more than a sentence or two is glossed over and ignored." I specifically maintained contact with Elen because it seemed she understood that I prefer not to speak in soundbites. IF you read through it all, at the bottom, it addresses why I put it on her talk page and not the article talk page. My decision was made with purpose. As far as the topic ban goes, I don't really have a opinion because I don't know how this place works or how regular that type of thing is. I understand why 28bytes did it, so I wouldn't carry the argument over to other places across the site. I am sure 28bytes has better things to do. I still think limiting my own userpages was a bit unreasonable but I was not about to fight about it. drewmunn/Sonicdrewdriver was pretty insistent that IF I dropped the issue it would work itself out. I didn't right away, so if it fails now and nobody picks up the ball, its probably my fault. If walls of text are not your thing, you probably wont want to keep talking to me. Yea, I do feel wikistalked. I posted this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xkcdreader/%22Title_Section_Into_Darkness%22_Revisit&action=history 14:37, 7 February 2013 and it had been reported by the user I had a confrontation with by 14:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)‎ It had a very "MOOOOOOMMMMMM hes doing it again" ring to it. And then my edits are reverted in a completely unrelated section of wikipedia (dry glue of all places,) AND the reverter later acknowledges they read my entry on Elen's talk page. If wikistalking is reading everything I do, yea that's how it feels. Hopefully the problem resolves itself without any necessary admin action. Xkcdreader (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you’d be interested in a change to Wikipedia policy I’ve proposed at WT:AT#Proposal: WP:COMMONNAME should use common orthography. If you are, please share your opinion of it there. —Frungi (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xkcdreader. You have new messages at Robsinden's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• First, my comment on the examination of academic and non-academic sources in English stands.
• Second, the title of the page above is The Papal Basilica Santa Maria Maggiore
• Third if you take the Italian version of the paragraph you cite (from the same website):

(La Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, situata sulla sommità del colle Esquilino, è una delle quattro Basiliche patriarcali di Roma ed è la sola che abbia conservato le strutture paleocristiane. Una nota tradizione vuole che sia stata la Vergine ad indicare ed ispirare la costruzione della sua dimora sull'Esquilino. Apparendo in sogno al patrizio Giovanni ed al papa Liberio, chiese la costruzione di una chiesa in suo onore, in un luogo che Essa avrebbe miracolosamente indicato. La mattina del 5 agosto, il colle Esquilino apparve ammantato di neve.)

and compare it to the same paragraph translated using google translate; you get:

The following is the translated version: The Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, situated on the summit of the Esquiline Hill is one of the four patriarchal basilicas of Rome and is the only one which has preserved early Christian structures. A note tradition has it that the Virgin Mary herself and govern the construction of the Esquiline Hill. Appearing in a dream to the patrician John and Pope Liberius, she asked to build a church in his honor, in a place that she would miraculously indicated. On the morning of August 5, the Esquiline Hill was covered with snow.

The following is the English version as found on the page you cite: Situated on the summit of the Esquiline Hill, St. Mary Major is the only patriarchal basilica of the four in Rome to have retained its paleo-Christian structures.

Tradition has it that the Virgin Mary herself inspired the choice of the Esquiline Hill for the church's construction. Appearing in a dream to both the Patrician John and Pope Liberius, she asked that a church be built in her honor on a site she would miraculously indicate.

The morning of August 5th, the Esquiline Hill was covered with a blanket of snow.

Ultimately I get the sense, that the sentence order of the English and Italian versions are identical; one is a translation of the other. Ultimately, I think the Italian preceded the English. I get a sense that the English is a translated version, bcause the sentence starting with Appearing has an akward structure; it is somewhat run on and ends in a somewhat dangling phrase. My question, to which I do not have the answer is whether the translator in this exercise tried to translate Santa Maria Maggiore to make an effort to have all the words in English for the paragraph. He obviously did not translate the title. However, how did he come up then with Mary Major, since most of the translation engines I tried (Babelfish, Google, Bing) did not make that leap. I don't know. As I said before looking at literature sources, there are a few sources that use St Mary Major, but they are clearly a minority, and some of them have an anglophile disdain of Italian use, calling Livorno, Leghorn, etc. I still don't think it translates to common use. Again, I stand by the title of the website you cite: The Papal Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican has been referring to it as St. Mary Major in their press releases. http://www.news.va/en/news/new-pope-francis-visits-st-mary-major-collects-sui I don't think it's a one off translation mistake. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xkcdreader, I see you made a series of changes to the section on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but you ended up with "because temptation itself sinful," which I think is a typo of some sort on your part, since (at least to me) it's not good English, and I'm not sure it means what you are trying to say. I think "temptation in and of itself is not sinful" made sense. Because you made a number of changes I don't want to fool around with your work right now, but could you take another look at your "final product" in this section? NearTheZoo (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it, not why I deleted some words. Opps. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your last comment on WT:AT: From my read, no one was attempting to silence you. I know you’ve had issues with Rob, but it seems to me he was just saying that you should probably avoid talking about a specific subject that could get you into trouble. No one was barring you from discussing the proposed change; just the one troublesome example. Blueboar even asked you to use different examples. Please do continue to contribute to that debate. We don’t quite see eye-to-eye on the matter (popular use vs publisher use), but differing viewpoints is a good thing. —Frungi (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think he is concerned if I get banned? For my well-being? He's looking out for me? It seems more like a way to either a) divert and derail the conversation by shifting it from the issue to my character or b) call attention to it so some admin who doesnt understand the context takes action. He does not want to lose this argument, and anytime anyone starts making sense, the conversation goes off the rails into unrelated territory or debate over minute and irrelevant details. I don't have another example of a lowercase letter being debated for 4+ months before an admin had to come end the madness. If you do have one, I could use that. I don't even know how you would search for such a situation. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong (as you may be), but it seemed to me that he was warning you against invoking that related subject so that you could avoid the possibility of some admin who doesn’t understand the context taking action. But I don’t see why you need such a specific example in order to make your point, or why you can’t point out the article titles with non-standard formatting that are actually uncontroversial regardless of apparently violating the rules, or that were briefly debated and then resolved. —Frungi (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my "it's broken" point is that it is broken BECAUSE there are two opposite interpretations of the rules. I can't really make that point without an example. I did point out Some Like It Hot but that doesn't illustrate the issue, it's just an example of an article where they went with a capital It, and common sense / common name style prevailed. The easiest way to fix this issue is to extend the trademark exception (do not create your own styles that don't exist elsewhere) to commonname. IMHO problem solved. (And digging up some random articles where an uninformed person typed the title wrong doesnt count.) Xkcdreader (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get your point with Some Like It Hot. I think you mean that the "It" would be lowercase, but it wouldn't be since pronouns are always capitalized in title case, so I don't get it. —Frungi (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the debate is going in circles and going nowhere. Side a) the current guidelines are broken or at least contradictory and trademark/common name needs to be weighted heavier, including style. Side b) the MOS is the word of god, and every letter must be restyled to be internally consistent. It is an ideological difference, and no ones minds are getting changed. We aren't going to get anywhere because it is very easy for a couple people to put up a brick wall to any proposed changes, which ironically is what got me in trouble in the first place. Let's face it, it's about 1000% times easier to prevent change than to make it happen. Xkcdreader (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you may be right, but still hold out hope that one side or the other will make a persuasive enough argument to do something. —Frungi (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do what? X says "wikipedia should be documenting how names are actually used" and in the same paragraph says he doesn't see why Pretty Maids All in a Row is capitalized the way it is. Can't have it both ways. Most of those sites probably have a manual of style sort of like ours, or pretty close. But how would be decide who to follow if not our own guide? It doesn't make much difference often, and when it does few care usually, but then in odd cases you run into things like fans hung up on movie posters and such. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he values the way that publishers/creators label their own works over the way anyone else refers to those works. The movie poster, I think it is, reads “Pretty Maids all in a row”. And to answer your other question, my proposal was to follow the prevalent style if there is one (i.e. follow everyone because they all style it the same way), and MOS if not; that is, I value the way the world outside of Wikipedia styles things over the way the creators or Wikipedia prefer.

What I was referring to when I said “do something,” however, is what I urged in my most recent post on WT:AT: COMMONNAME is ambiguous and needs to either include or exclude styling. —Frungi (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xkcdreader. I moved your comment (along with Smowton's response) at WT:Manual of Style from the middle of my comment to the end to make it clearer who said what. -- ToE 10:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]