SmashWiki talk:User pages: Difference between revisions

SmashWiki talk:User pages (edit)

Revision as of 16:09, September 27, 2010

7,768 bytes added , 14 years ago

m

→‎Re-proposal

Omega Tyrant

Administrators

16,371

edits

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 :"If this wiki were full of angry and immature people who were constantly guilty of posting these kinds of comments" Actually, I wouldn't put it past quite a few of our users... :/
 :So in addition to all of the above points being good/bad, I would again like to just put forth the idea that either admins or discussion can decide whether something warrants removal, especially considering the fact that admins are (supposed to be) well reasoned and impartial. Maybe I'm just crazy though. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 19:27, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
+::You know, the thing about having no negative comments only applies to userpage, I never said to apply it to everything on the Wiki. Despite not being in the best shape right now, I'll respond anyway.
+::''"As the old saying goes "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all", which I would apply to the policy. --OT" Terrible idea when applied to wikis. (<-- See? I just violated it, and yet made my point effectively.) Though there is obviously nothing to be gained by saying "X is a dumbass" (&rarr; why NPA was implemented), there are clearly also times where not bothering to sugarcoat everything is positive.''
+::This was only meant to apply to userpages, not the entire Wiki, hence why I said I would apply to to the '''policy''' and not the '''Wiki'''. Since this talk page is about the userpage policy, I wouldn't see how this could apply to any other policy on the Wiki. To my understanding, the saying applies to saying things about others, so you didn't really violate it when you said the idea sounds terrible. But anyway, I wouldn't support sugarcoating things said on the Wiki's talkpages, I simply brought the saying up as saying negative things about another user on your userpage isn't going to do any good.
+::''"Allowing users to post their negative opinion of another user on their userpage can cause unnecessary conflict that gets in the way of work on the Wiki. --OT" Know what else caused a massive, unnecessary conflict? Removing something that didn't matter in the slightest. To be perfectly honest, who cares if somebody else considers you their friend? I'm not "friends" with a number of people who have listed me, but I don't see that as important enough to spawn copious amounts of unnecessary drama, nor would I see it as important enough even if it wasn't a drama hive. See also [[User:Semicolon]]: those links are plainly jabs at me, and yet I still haven't removed them. It wasn't even a negative comment like you were talking about with your "nothing nice to say", it was someone saying you were a pretty cool guy. careface.jpg imo.''
+::You can bring up the recent talk page dispute, but it really doesn't have anything to do with the allowing of posting negative comments/opinions. Anyway, while my edit did caused the shit I'm talking about, it also happened because DP decided to start the argument with me over it, I wasn't the only one at fault. While you can argue that I shouldn't care over me removing myself from someone's friend list, the user in question shouldn't care either if I remove myself from it or not. The main thing that comes from another user from posting you in their friend list, is that it affiliates them with you and you should have full control over which user you get affiliated and which ones you don't. While you can argue this isn't important, there are going to be users that don't want to be affiliated with another user, and they should have to right to decide such affiliations. As for those links on Semicolon's page, they are clearly used in a humorous matter and I highly doubt he made them in ill intent. Though you may be fine with them, fine then, but you should still have the right anyway to remove them whenever you want.
+::''Also consider the oppose sections on RfX's-- negative opinions are not inherently horrible demonspawn that should be deleted on sight.''
+::''"You're wrong, good things don't rarely come from negative comments about other users, they never do. --OT" False, see my point right above this one.''
+::Again, I never meant that when applied to every single negative comment/opinion on anything ever said. It only applies to userpages, and are you really going to say good things can come from another user posting such negative things about another user in ill intent on their userpage?
+::''"Who are you to say Danny's Sonic edits aren't substantial? If a user is showing a good faith effort and aren't starting edit wars, you should never discourage them from editing. --OT" Complete BS. We've handed out multiple blocks recently for shitty editing that I'm pretty sure you supported too. Also, I like how you pointed out that negative comments on RfAs are beneficial to the wiki within the same post you denied that there could ever be use in negative comments. 1/10.''
+::If you read the bit later in that statement, I mentioned the edits being constructive. But anyway, while blocks got handed out in the past, I have never blocked a user simply for "shitty editing", and I never supported one. While I did support the blocks of ZS and Doc and their low quality, frequent edits were a factor, I supported the block for the other areas they were disruptive users in. Have their only problem been low quality edits, I would have never supported their blocks. As for the last thing, my comment about negative comments being good only applied to '''userpages''', not the '''entire Wiki'''. So, there was no contradiction there.
+::''"As said before, they bring absolutely nothing good and cause shit storms that unnecessarily disrupt the Wiki." PS. if you haven't realized yet, removing comments was what started this "shit storm that unnecessarily disrupt[ed] the Wiki". Perhaps we should just ban removing comments that aren't violations of policy altogether? (Now that I think about it, I like that idea a lot more than sometimes-removal. Censorship ftl.)''
+::Like the earlier point, my removal wasn't a removal of a negative comment and shouldn't be brought up in the discussion of the restriction of negative comments.
+::''"if the user gets the idea that they could post the negative comment in the first place" What about when you remove positive ones? Derp.''
+::Again, me removing a positive comment from a userpage is irrelevant to the discussion on whether negative comments/opinions should be allowed on userpages. So you can stop unnecessarily attacking me for it when it adds nothing to the discussion about negative comments/opinions on talk pages.
+::''"The main problem I have with this whole asking first thing is it brings more attention to the issue than a simple edit removing the offending statement will and extends the process more than it needs to be." Because clearly removing comments without asking first causes no drama at all. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but iirc DP99 has said multiple times that he would have removed it if you had just asked first.''
+::Once again, DP chose to aggravate the situation by bringing it up on my talk page. While it did caused more attention and what not then "asking" would have, in most cases, removing the mentioning of yourself from another user's userpage without the asking would be faster, simpler, more efficient, and would bring less attention than the asking would have. Should a user not get so worked up over someone making such a minor edit to their userpage that doesn't change its content, no wiki drama would occur.
+::So then, in response to Mako Shark, your argument is better than mine and I'll concede on the point of outright restricting negative comments/opinions of other users and settle for the discouragement. However, we should not discourage users from removing such offensive comments about themselves from other users' userpages without "permission". I would also like to perhaps see it written that with the mentioning of any user on your userpage, the other user has the right to remove it without notice if they want to or at the least, not discourage them from doing so. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span>[[Image: TyranitarMS.png|25px ]] 21:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)