User talk:JzG

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>

This user likes a troll-free talk page. Revert away!

Archiving, not deleting.

Please archive old talk page posts instead of deleting them. Thanks! Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We already had that conversation. The discussion has long since served what little purpose it had (which was mainly Abd bringing a battle here fomr Wikipedia, where he got his ass kicked). It's in the fossil record, preeserving it serves absolutely no useful purpose other than to annoy me. JzG (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So be it. We have very few hard-and-fast rules, so please respect the ones that we tend to be sticklers on. Thanks! Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do. And keeping all comments on user talk forever and ever amen is not one of them, as was established previously. It's safe to assume that if I remove a comment, I have read it, and it has therefore served its purpose. JzG (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Then don't keep it on a talk page forever. Put it in an archive. Thanks! Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See Community Standards #Talk pages. The talk page is community ground & isn't exclusively for you to read. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Users may archive or delete comments from their own user talk page (not article talk pages, or the talk pages of other users) at their discretion. Comments by others may not be selectively redacted."—what exactly does that bullet mean then? Peter ^mqzp 00:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It means we've fought years of battles over how to handle user talk pages and still have no clear consensus. Blue (pester) 00:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Some guy I've never heard of sneaked that in without prior discussion three months ago. It's probably gone largely unnoticed till now. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Peter ^mqzp 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Said guy's been here ages, and what he said comes a hell of a lot closer to consensus that some rule-wanking sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning who? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably Abd. Confusingly, part of the discussion above is already in the archive. Just add the rest and be done with it. Peter ^mqzp 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck this. No, really.

3edit conflicts, so this time I will try to forestall it.

At this point we can go one of two ways.

1. People can try to enforce the non-existent policy forbidding the removal of stale threads of fuck all importance from a user talk page in whose edit history the original will be preserved until the bits rot
2. People can remember we already had this discussion, and the consensus was, more or less, "meh".

One of these reduces the editor count by one. Not a threat, not LANCB, I just honestly cannot be arsed to deal with people who would go to war over a policy so asinine that it is not, in fact, policy. JzG (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Or 3: You respect the community standards and do a little tiny thing that makes other folks happy. Thanks! Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How about these two ways:

1. Link to the prior discussion & consensus you keep talking about so we can actually see what was actually said.
2. Just keep repeating the same assertions & insist that people remember that such a conversation took place, whether they were involved in it or no.

Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The prior discussion is right above you, if you can scroll up - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not deleting talk page material has been our policy for as long as I remember.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a policy, it never was. We already had that discussion. If the site wants to make it policy then I am simply not interested. As a policy, it would be utterly irrational. A site where you have a shit fight every time you want to remove a discussion which has no further purpose, is a site which has suffered terminal cranioproctosis. JzG (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the term is "cranial rectosis." And if I may inform you, not a single person in the history of the wiki has succeeded in wholesale deleting content off their talk page. Removing a single conversation might pass muster if you think you're being trolled, but the Wikipedia policy on talk pages doesn't work here. Blue (is useful) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not care what others do, the consensus last time was that it should not be an issue, the people who lost that argument have decided to pretend it never happened, the result is an insistence on an asinine non-policy. Since I have no time for any site that basically insists that the value of trolling fuckwittery by Abd on my talk page outweighs any potential value I might have to the project, I'm off. JzG (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There was exactly one user who gave you the OK in the last discussion if I am reading the right one (at the top of this page), and that user was neither a mod nor a longstanding community member. I don't get why the extra few clicks to archive, so the history is searchable, instead of deleting, are such a problem for you that you'd just leave the site. By the way, David Gerard set up Pibot for you, so hopefully you won't have to archive or delete anything from now on. Blue (pester) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)