Information icon.svg Survey Closing: The RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 will close this Friday, November 24th. See the results.

User talk:FAMAS

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Modhats (sticky)[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

@everyone: FAMAS talks weird. We're not sure why. FAMAS says "this user" instead of "I" and uses formalism at all times. FAMAS also tends to create small stubs on missional or semi-missional articles. Nonetheless, they're a good faith contributor and shouldn't be blocked. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

@everyone: This is an addition to the above. FAMAS will probably forget to sign his/her posts. Also, asking him/her to stop referring to him/her self in the third person will probably result in a third person response.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, FAMAS nearly always remembers to sign. Christopher (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your Stubs[edit]

I'll stop deleting them, as I've been assured you're a good faith user, but I would like to ask you to expand upon them at least a tiny bit after you created them. And apologies for my rude attitude last night. --Spoony (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying templates from Wikipedia[edit]

Please stop doing that, a lot of them don't even work due to differences between us and Wikipedia and most of them are never going to be used. Christopher (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Blank slate[edit]

This user has removed user FAMAS from category sysoprevoke, allowing any other user to re-sysop user FAMAS if said user thinks user FAMAS is being a useful editor.

This user requests that user FAMAS not fuck this up. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 16:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user asserts the fact that this user never did anything to misuse the privileges, contrary to the claims by user fuzzycatpotato. this user is requesting a return of the privileges in order to restore deleted pages.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[1]] [[2]] 19:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's an idea: how about you try writing a page that isn't a one-line stub so it doesn't get deleted in the first place? Nog Bogmire (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@FAMAS Do something good with your regular editing powers, and then we will give you back your mop. Add sections, use drafts. Do something with the regular tools. We see no reason to give you more powers if you're not using the ones already at your disposal. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This user would like to ask you to consider the following: If you believe you did nothing to get them revoked, maybe it's what you didn't do? Most, if not all, of your edits are downright unproductive at best. You have an opportunity to show you can be productive around here, and no one here wants a good-faith user perma'd. We know it might be tedious, but maybe lurking a bit or consulting what makes a good RationalWiki article could put you on the right track. If you agree, your record is wiped, and you have an opportunity to prove yourself.--Spoony (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @RoninMacbeth, FuzzyCatPotato, Spoony, and Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user has been reblocked while this user asserted the fact that this user will perform discussion for reasons for the edits by this user. this user advises checking the block logs for the current block incident followed by the edit summaries of this user and to decide whether the block is one made in justification in accordance with the rules laid out by the authorities.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[3]] [[4]] 10:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That block was unnecessary, I've unblocked you. Christopher (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, he's only doing the same thing he's constantly been told not to do by everyone with a pulse. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
this user enquires to user @Nog Bogmire as to whether the users who do not find any problem with the conversational mode utilized by this user to lack possession of any form of pulse and the basis of said claim by user nog bogmire.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[5]] [[6]] 10:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
[EC]What specifically was that block for? FAMAS' only edits today were changing the number of articles randomly displayed on a few navsidebars and discussing those edits. Christopher (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Undoing your edits on those articles, edit-warring afterwards, and creating yet another useless stub (deleted). Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the stub. To be fair to FAMAS, they did end up taking it to the talkpage. Christopher (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but my internal asshole moderator sense tells me that's only because I have a rollback button and he doesn't. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Christopher and Nog Bogmire, this user advises checking the edit summary of said useless stub which this user claims and holds the opinion that said stub is of highest priority in that bypassing other article priorities.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[7]] [[8]] 10:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You've been told before on several occasions that it doesn't matter how important you think an article is if you're not willing to write it. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to users @Nog Bogmire, Christopher, RoninMacbeth, and Spoony, this user refers to http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis&action=history showing attempts by this user to build up from the useless stub format, additionally referring to the timestamp of edits performed by this user with the aid gotten from user @Spud regarding the useless stubs. this user asserts the fact that it is the nature of power relations that disagreements amongst the nodes involved in a power structure occur and in such matters of disagreements which are formally referred to as insurrection, the nodes with the higher levels within the power structure as in numerical strength and connection in mobocracy/democracy or connection to the elites of the power structure in tyranny or so on, would possess the final words within the structure. this user has in past and in present is representing the policy proposals in various matters by this user which may or may not be accepted by the commanders possessing the final words in all policy matters and that said system applies to all users wishing to establish their policies as the final word.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[9]] [[10]] 10:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Then build up the article in a word processor application before posting it. Also stop talking about power structures, I don't care and neither does anyone else. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Nog Bogmire, this user asserts the fact that the user nog bogmire would have to attempt an increase in rank within the power structure for the self in order to ensure that the words of user nog bogmire becomes the final word and bypasses the words of anyone within the rank that may agree to the policy changes presented by this user if any such rankholder exists.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[11]] [[12]] 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoda. Nog Bogmire (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
What Nog said, only I'm a tech (there are only 17 techs on the wiki). I know that techs, just like mods or plain sysops, have no community authority but FAMAS doesn't seem to understand that. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
[[ping|FAMAS}} I am going to try and express this as clearly as possible. No one, mot even Trent, has any more "authority" over the wiki than anyone else does. The mods have more power, sure. But you cannot invoke the RW hierarchy because there is no RW hierarchy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

People are being dicks and deleting your stubs before they can grow. I suggest:

Please draft articles in your userspace before creating stubs. Stubs aren't useful to our usual readership: People who find some bullshit they haven't heard of, turn to Google for answers, and stumble upon the RationalWiki page. A useful metric is: Does the article provide any information that a casual reader would have a hard time getting? If not, it's not worth it. It's better to have 1 thorough debunking than 10 sources-needed stubs. Pick one bullshit idea, one crank idiot, one nutty website. Sit down, get a dozen sources quoting of them saying crazy shit (or debunking the crazy shit they say), and put it in a sandbox draft:

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user asserts the opinion that articles be made first regardless of size and the userbase will expand on it upon noticing the stub template. this user asserts the fact that user fuzzycatpotato possesses the authority to bypass the authority of other users and establish the words of the self as a final word and thus to utilize it.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[13]] [[14]] 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Wrong -- people often add to articles in userspace. That's why {{draft}} exists. See example: User:Onychoprion/sandbox Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @FuzzyCatPotato, this user took notice to the fact for some years that draftspace articles are not worked on anywhere near as much as mainspace and rationalwikispace articles. this user deleted two dead redirects from draftspace during the time of elevated privileges for this user.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[15]] [[16]] 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Getting people to work on your pet projects is your problem, FAMAS. Use the drafts. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As Supreme Commander, I order you to create workable drafts before putting them into mainspace. While most users can create and leave stubs -- because they have built up a trust that they will eventually finish the article -- you cannot, as you have created so many stubs. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As an example, see Johanna Michaelsen. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"{{stub}} Health woo is every [[woo]] that claims to give the user good health, boosted immune system, cure for cancer, aids, hepatitis, fit body, fit mind, extreme muscle, fat burning in 12 seconds etc. =Major Offenders= *[[Alternative Medicine]] *[[Acupuncture]] *[[Psychic Healing]] *[[Exercise woo]] " isn't really comparable to the last revision of Johanna Michaelsen before it was edited by anyone else other than the initial author. Christopher (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in reply to user @Christopher, this user asserts the fact that this user is attempting to design health woo as a hub page for links to all forms of woo regarding medicine, health, alternative medicine, new age healing and so on.FAMAS (Talk) (Contribs) [[17]] [[18]] 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, just try to make it a bit longer (try drafting something here, and before you say "sandbox pages are edited less", remember the Supreme Commander of RationalWiki has commanded you to draft your articles first). Christopher (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)