User talk:OpenFuture/Archive4

Time Person of the Year

From what I could tell, the Rfc you opened was likely going to result in the deletion of the flag/country column, an option you've decided to support. Therefore, why did you abort the Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Because we can't have two RfC's about the same topic. Or, in shorter word: Because fuck it. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well. BTW - If an administrator will respond to my request at WP:AN & closes the previous Rfc, we'll have a clearer picture. I made the request there, as you were getting too much mud thrown at you, for having closed it earlier. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I made option D in the latest Rfc, a no countries option. It's highly unlikely that folks would want to delete the entire Notes column from the article :) GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it's highly likely that your preferred no countries option, will be adopted. Particularly, when you consider that Elizabeth II's successors will likely be chosen TPOTY someday & trying to squeeze 16 countries into their Notes Box, would be very interesting. This potential problem (of course) would also be avoided, if the United Kingdom alone (with or without a footnote) were adopted. Anyways, thanks for giving your input there (your further participation is encouraged, as welll) & not being harsh on me. I appreciate that :) GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not pushing a Canadian republican agenda, there. Not sure what the other individual is going on about. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you notice? He is a monarchist, or at least a royalist, and a very patriotic Canadian, who spends a lot of effort not only on the Canadian royalty articles, but also in trying to get the Canadian flag into as many articles as possible. NOT doing that automatically makes you an evil republican. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve

Please see 1, 2. Baking Soda (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I had every right to revert his BOLD edits. He should have discussed his proposed changes on the talkpage beforehand.--Neve–selbert 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Zeitgeist Movement page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Take a look?

Would you mind taking a look at this page Epistemic democracy‎ and possibly getting involved in it? It seems pretty out of control to me with O.r., it has just been mono edited mostly so I am trying to reorganize it. The one editor removed a couple of tags and does not leave edit summaries. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Japanese Idol

Sorry to bother you again, but there seems to have been a misunderstanding regarding the dispute. I guess this is mostly my fault for not providing a proper summary, but you missed the fact that my last edit actually was properly sourced. I put a link to the relevant version on the talk page [1] (under your response). Can you revise your 3O? MugiMafin (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Then the conflict should be resolved as the issue discussed was clearly that you didn't have sources. You need to discuss constructively at least to that point that you agree on what you disagree about. Then you can ask for a third opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a "my source versus his source" kind of thing. We do actually agree that that's our disagreement. Our sources offer different definitions, and the question for the 3O was "Which definition is the more appropriate one to use for the article". MugiMafin (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion again, and I disagree. Neither you, nor Moscow Connection are arguing from sources. You are arguing from WP:TRUTH and Moscow Connection are arguing that you lack sources and that the current version has a long standing consensus. Neither argument is good. Also, the version that Moscow Connection defends has terrible sourcing. You both needs to find reliable sources and work from there. That is my third opinion. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thank you for your time. MugiMafin (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your message on User talk:Eric Corbett

I have removed your message on User talk:Eric Corbett as it seems to clearly be baiting and inflammatory, by making a non-specific, yet templated, warning to Eric Corbett, following a judgment by another administrator that a previous complaint by you about him was stale. If you feel that a particular comment by this user warrants action, then raise the issue using specific and linked examples of what you think are actionable examples of poor behaviour on his part to the relevant Administrator's noticeboard.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You mean I should go directly to the noticeboard and not warn him first? That seems strange. Yes, it's following another incident. Eric Corbett this Saturday evening violated the 3RR rule. Since I wasn't there at that time, I didn't file an incident until Monday morning. That was apparently too late. He also insults people frequently. These things are not exclusive, so I don't see how that's relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: I also have to say that it's pretty absurd to claim that a warning of personal attacks is baiting and inflammatory. Isn't it the personal attacks that are baiting and inflammatory? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am starting to see why admins are so overwhelemed though. Apparently any form of trying to reason with people has become pointless, every little disagreement nowadays turns into an RfC, and at least five ANI's on the way. It's very tiring. What happened to constructive discussions? I know I used to have them here a few years ago, that worked, and they very rarely turned into RfC's or incident reports. Man, what happened to Wikipedia? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:DTR

I suspect you have templated Eric and I simply to get a reaction, so I suppose you've got what you wanted. I would, however, ask you to stop this behaviour as it will just end badly for you and it's making you look like a troll. Please don't confirm my suspicions. Cassianto^Talk 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I did it so you would stop insulting people, obviously. I did a mistake on your page though, I didn't read through it and see all the previous people who also asked you to stop the personal attacks. Now I realize that your personal attacks aren't mistakes. It seems from what Ddstretch said above I generally should not warn people at all. This is the opposite of what I have been told previously, so that's fairly confusing. I'm hoping Ddstretch will clarify. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I also now see that you not only have continued your personal attacks, you then hatnote the whole discussion, including your personal attacks. That sort of behavior is obviously not done in good faith. I'm hoping that this will be the end of it, and that people can cool down and stop insulting others now. I really have a lot better things to do than dealing with this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You did it to provoke a reaction, pure and simple. If you think a patronising template is going to calm the waters then you are very much mistaken. DD Stretch is 100% right; you of all people should not warn others of such behaviour when it is you exhibiting most of it. That kind of behaviour fans the flames, exactly as it has done here. FWIW, Eric and SP are tremendous writers and they have done a fantastic job on the article. A lot of time, planning, and no doubt money for books etc has been spent. To then have the likes of you and Curly Turkey turn up to kick it into the gutter is disgusting and has provoked this kind of reaction. I will not be saying anything further on the talk page now and you and your tag-teamer can carry on reverting me if that's what turns you on. I'm supposed to be on holiday and enjoying myself. It is now up to you whether you want to stay there with Curly Turkey and troll the page, or whether you want to assume your own desires of "[doing] better things...than dealing with this". Cassianto^Talk 11:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not. Stop assuming bad faith, stop the personal attacks, and stop removing peoples comments from the talk page. Calm down, stop fanning the flames. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sweet that you should try now to play the victim. However, you are not fooling anyone. You have behaved appallingly and you know it. Cassianto^Talk 12:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly do not know it. In what way have I behaved appallingly? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding comments to hatted discussions; failure to accept others opinions; calling Eric a vandal, need I go on? Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• A collapsed discussion isn't archived. First I've heard you can't add comments to them. And since that was your intention I should have in that case uncollapsed it. You can't insult somebody in a discussion and then add collapse headers and expect to get the last word that way. That's again more evidence of bad faith from you.
• That's simply false. You are just trying to make me angry. It won't work.
• Eric reverted against an RfC 6 times in 15 minutes, including removing tags. If that doesn't count as vandalism, what does? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Then what's the point of hatting an irrelevant discussions? The whole point is so it helps diffuse the situation. Have you learnt nothing in your time here?
• Eric was right to revert you. I suggest you look up the term "vandal"; in fact, don't bother, here it is. The "damage" was not caused by Eric and you, nor anyone, lays claim to any article. This term was therefore I correct. Cassianto^Talk 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The point of collapsing is to get the irrelevant discussion out of the way, so people don't have to read it. The point is most DEFINITELY not to get the last word in, like you tried to do. You can't insult people and then tell them they aren't allowed to respond, I'm sure you realize that.

It wasn't me he reverted in the reverts I mentioned above, although he most certainly was not right to revert that either. So here are two editors, both telling him that his change violates the RfC, and he edit wars, for a total of 8 reverts in 24H. He knew he was editing against RfC, he was told that repeatedly. He was asked to take it to the talk page, which he didn't do. He knows about the 3RR rule, and intentionally breaks it. He even removed tags, which he very well know he isn't allowed to without discussion. That is not good-faith editing. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Which tags? also, I note that you had the last word there anyway, so your point is moot. Cassianto^Talk 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

npov, iirc. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with such vague abbreviations so please readdress that question in a literate way. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, if I recall correctly. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say you templated a featured article? Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. For a moment there I thought I really would have to be uncivil. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me, Cassianto? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't talk behind people's backs. Cassianto^Talk 12:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, they'd never take the bait if you did, would they? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't baiting you; I was letting you know that I was talking about you. There's a fucking difference. Cassianto^Talk 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The ping was "just letting me know" of the comment in which you bait me. Not a difference that makes a difference. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Read into it as you will. In future, I'll just slag you off behind your back, if that's what you want? Cassianto^Talk 22:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Same shit, different pile—you aren't getting any more honest. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, fuck me—you've done it. Your bait worked—you've dragged me into your manure dramah vortex. I'm done here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, fuck off then. Cassianto^Talk 23:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Calm down, both of you. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Response

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

Please come by

Could you look at this please?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MugiMafin

I'm not sure if ping works from there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, OpenFuture. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, OpenFuture. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, OpenFuture. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)