Talk:Skates (surname)

MOS

Noting for the record due to the edit-warring against the MOS that anthroponymy SIAs follow a standard set by WP:APOENTRIES, which is directed from MOS:DABNAME that differs from the standard used at the start of biography articles where dates are concerned and should be followed here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:7960:90D8:3ECD:625D (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a rigid view held by an IP, who is obviously not an administrator. As the article's creator I wanted to emphasise that Rat Skates is an assumed name, not the person's family name, but this was removed in a disruptive bad-faith edit by the IP. It is the IP who is guilty of edit-warring, not the creator.
I do wonder why this user is unregistered. Were they banned? If so, that wouldn't surprise me. Donnanz (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz WP:ADMINISTRATORS have no special power over content, it is simply a usergroup with additional permissions, just like any other, full list here. Article creator's do not WP:OWN content either so that is irrelevant. Accusing your fellow editors of bad-faith is a prohibited personal attack WP:NPA, and user conduct concerns are off-topic for article talk pages, see WP:TPNO. Those should instead be reserved for user talk pages or the appropriate projectspace noticeboard. In this context it is actually rather extreme non-sequitur whose only implication can be that you presume anyone who disagrees with you must be evading a ban, an attitude which if persisted in will ironically result in you being sanctioned.

WP:PAGs should adhered to barring a good reason not to. If you wish to emphasize that it could have been done in the string after the date, but instead you chose to edit-war against the WP:MOS, poor choice. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:RULES, and be very specific and thorough in any talk page discussion when you wish to deviate from them. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:64D4:1CAD:2D37:C84B (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL! I am not going to argue the toss with an unregistered user with their own POV. I would rather plant flowers in my garden and water them.  Done. I have plenty of colourful flowers to admire. I think it is fair to say, given the sensitivities of the IP, that this is the worst experience I have ever had with any user on Wikipedia. What about my sensitivities? My edits and articles are very rarely challenged. I will be back on WP when I have something useful to contribute. Donnanz (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz I linked WP:TPG in my previous reply and yet it is clear you still have not read it; please do so and compose your future talk page edits accordingly. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:998B:A6F7:E004:EA82 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion was terminated at 19:00 GMT, 15 May 2024. Donnanz (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz I again encourage you to read WP:TPG and WP:OWN, it is clear that you still do not understand how talk pages work. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:60AD:E490:2122:CA50 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The user shouldn't assume that I haven't read the WP pages mentioned. I have no problem with those; the problem, as I see it, is the nameless user's own interpretation of various WP articles they have tried to spoon-feed me with. That is an observation, not abuse. I will leave it there. Donnanz (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz There is a certain trilemma when inexperienced users fail to comply with policies and guidelines, either they haven't read the policies which is understandable and excusable as long as they take steps to remedy the knowledge gap, they have read them but can't understand them which is less excusable even if still understandable, or they are willfully choosing not to comply with them, which is potentially sanctionable and in fact if persisted in will lead to blocks. In accordance with WP:AGF and WP:BITE the default assumption required of me is that the first of those applies, though that proposition is rebuttable.

In the future please ensure that your talk page posts comply with WP:TPG, thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:1921:1754:3422:A72 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This user shouldn't shouldn't make the mistake of assuming I am inexperienced. My account was created on 1 October 2013, over 10½ years ago. Although my edits on WP are limited, I have clocked up 252,176 edits on Wiktionary, and created 76,049 pages there. On the other hand, it is impossible to tell whether a user without an account is experienced or not. The last thing I need is lectures. Donnanz (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz both tenure and edit count are poor proxies for experience. A user could fix one million typos and have no idea how to do anything else, a user may have registered there account here 20 years ago and yet only drop by once a year. All of the information you cite about yourself is available from Special:CentralAuth either directly or with just a handful of clicks. Note that our internal policies and procedures are substantially different from Wiktionary, both no and en, and indeed even from other Wikipedias.

Experience can only be inferred from knowledge, and someone who implies that administrators have special power over content, discusses their personal gardening habits on talk pages, believes that talk page discussions can be terminated at will by involved parties, or thinks that creating an article accords one any special privileges regarding it is clearly lacking in knowledge. The way to remedy this is to provide links to information that if read and adhered to will improve editor skill; if you are not interested in learning or improvement then you may make that explicit, but the default assumption is that inexperienced editors want to improve. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9594:CE6C:8844:25EF (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And I have never been blocked, not even for 24 hours. Donnanz (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is non-sequitur and irrelevant in most contexts. All logs regarding your account are in any case publicly available. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9594:CE6C:8844:25EF (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is no point in continuing a discussion which is going absolutely nowhere, a user can withdraw from it. Donnanz (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Donnanz yes a user may stop replying in any discussion at anytime for any reason; WP:NOTMANDATORY is policy, though in certain projectspace circumstances when conduct is under scrutiny this is done at one's own peril. This is quite different from a formal termination, which while unusual on talk pages are still employed in certain cases, for example WP:RMs. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2C4B:B172:D025:C559 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)