User talk:Lumenos/Debate Map:Measuring consensus

I am so embarrassed for you, in advance. Your utter lack of knowledge as to how the Community Standards were developed and approved, and your bizarre quest to get us to change how we have worked stuff out here for over 3 years baffles me sometimes. ħuman 04:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Y y y you mean we get to keep it? Thank you Daddy! I knew you'd understand. <huggles> Lumenos (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Change?!?!? What change? Who change? Where change? I like this system. You realize the only part of my proposal that we haven't implemented, is linking directly from the Community Standards. We only get to link from the archives, but we get a whole section in the archive (and in the table of contents). Plus we could link from any talk page or our signatures (every message we write)! It seems that I am assimilating adapting to your community quite nicely. ;-) Lumenos (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TL/DR

What's this all about, then? P-Foster (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been following none of this an expect an explanation. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, Sir. You are most deserving of an explanation. It all started when some renegade bureaucrats created a poll in a forum that showed up in the Saloon Bar. This poll conclusively demonstrated, without a doubt, that things appearing on the Community Standards page were not reflective of even some of those who may have thought they were in the Cabal. I've added a link at the end of that forum, so you can see where the discussion went before it was eeaarrrm... archived.

Or perhaps you were hoping someone could provide a summary wrap up? Here's one. Mine would be a little more difficult to produce, because I usually do that with a bunch of evidence. But if you look at this discussion on the Community Standards talk page you might notice Human moving my comments. And if you look at the history of this debate map, you may notice Weaseloid editing my comments. I do implore of the court, am I the only one who is not permitted to do a little improvement here and there, to my very own comments? Lumenos (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Only clear to you, you insane person. ħuman 07:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Has someone edited Human's post? I can't seem to find an expletive.

I'm not following; do you have some evidence that I altered the discussion in some deceptive way? Or that I failed to make the case?

~Lumenos (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That you're a fucking idiot? 09:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I corrected much of my idiocy. If I have failed, I would like to know where. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wittering on, on numerous pages, about something which, while clear and apparent to you, is total gibberish to the rest of us. 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't understand something, does this mean it must be wrong? Can't you ask a question about it, or comment on something specific? ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in your ideas unless you can express them concisely^{[TM Aschlafly]} and understandably. When attempting to reform something which already works well you need to make your point powerfully and intelligibly. Do so and you might receive more positive attention until then, I don't see why the onus should be on me to ask questions which you see as relevant. 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The story so far: Some racist guy vents on Metapedia's RW article -> Saloon Bar discussion -> forum discussion about Nazi links -> removal of tacked-on Community Standards bit -> ??? -> Lumenos suggests everyone post their own personal ruleset rather than propose CS adjustments. I think. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiight, makes errr, some sense. I guess. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

??? I suggested not putting things on the CS page unless there was widespread support measured with poles. When I observed disapproval, I suggested linking CS to evidence of support or lack thereof. When that was poo pooed I (and earlier Π) suggested having subpages where I would do this myself. Apparently this is also controversial now. ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean that SusanG, seems to be against it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against it: I don't know what the fuck you're on about! (Hee! Hee! he said measured with poles ) 11:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Π's rules

The following are some rules Π apparently thinks I have broken:

"Don't protect or delete a page without discussing it on the talk page first."

Does this apply to a page in one's own userspace that no one else edited? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Talk pages, including this one, are community property. Don't edit other uses comments or remove them without archiving (you have a box for this now). "

I removed your comment when it wasn't on a talk page, and I restored it. One might argue it was a "trolling" or "attack" comment, but I just thought it was off topic and no one would care. Is it really important to you? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now located your Chicken coop. Prepare for assimilation.

Weaseloid is liar, I thinks. After I made subpage as suggested by Human, ey led me to believe that ey had deleted discussion that had been archived. Why did Weaseloid not say the rest of the section was archived? Ey said it was "preserved elsewhere" next to my message of where I had put discussion! ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Last week Weaseloid said I was the reason for the revamp, this week I am the reason it does not work. I thinks what happened was the lasers of lumenism were turned upon the Weasel and it shrieked, recoiled, and scurried to dark place to summon a mob for vengeance. Little was known, lumenati lurk in every corner! ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am told so many times that I have to stop arguing or I am forcing the will. This is why I went to subpage in my userspace. I was followed there! Clearly anyone who saw my edits pop up in Recent Change or wherever you look to find me, could see that I was posting only on the topic of measuring consensus. Bob made appropriate response along with voters and all those who continued with life despite knowing I might be talking with someone. ~ Lumenos - (Wong's chattery) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)