User talk:Anythingyouwant

⚖️

Trump

I think you've articulated the argument clearly enough; beware of BLUDGEON unless you have something new and really significant to add. Editors will be convinced or not by what you've already said, and cynical ole me thinks that will depend almost entirely on how they feel about Trump. Nothing we can do about that, in this or any discussion. Don't make the mistake of believing these things are debates that can be "won" by making stronger points. Unless you have something new and really significant to add, I'd just sit back, meditate on the Serenity Prayer, sip a beverage of your choice, and let it play out. My 2¢. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mandruss. When someone asks a question, I don’t want to be rude by not answering. But you’re right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought when I saw DN asking you questions. I'd file that under "something new and really significant to add". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss, I just noticed this. It's sage advice that I also need to internalize. It's not easy, so thanks for trying to help us. It's appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Alleged CT Violation at Donald Trump

Your edit here reinstates the misleading link that you previously inserted. This violated the 24BRD Restriction. Kindly self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary said there was a WP:EGG problem, so I rephrased to eliminate the WP:EGG issue. I made a good faith effort to revise my edit to address your objection. Do you think there’s still a WP:EGG issue? Now, here at my talk page, you object for the first time that a link is misleading. I do not believe that I have erred here. I do believe that you have a serious WP:OWN problem with this particular BLP. Since you’re making a serious accusation here, and are trying to get me in trouble for the umpteenth time, I am asking for an admin like User:Bishonen to please advise. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Your disagreement with my brief edit summary does not cure a CT violation. The link you inserted was misleading, as I and others would have explained had you gone to talk as required. Please don't make a big issue of this and follow the required course. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re not being accurate. I didn’t disagree with your brief edit summary about WP:EGG. Instead I cured the problem identified by your brief edit summary. And you apparently refuse to answer my question above: “Do you think there’s still a WP:EGG issue?” Incidentally, what does “CT” stand for? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The talk page is clear....

"You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message"

As I have previously said, without consensus, I am against your change. During the ongoing discussion, there have been mixed responses. I can understand accidents happen and occasional forgetfulness, but you repeatedly made reverts back to your edits to suite your own preferred versions without explicit consensus, and not just once or twice...[1], [2], (claiming consensus without actual explicit consensus) [3], [4]....As a longtime editor, you are undoubtedly aware of the rules and guidelines specifically prohibiting this type of behavior, and this blatant disregard seems like serious cause for concern. DN (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The diffs [1] and [2] that you show above are not edits by me. If you want to discuss edits by me, please provide diffs of my edits. I haven’t looked at [3] and [4], but the same goes for them if they are not diffs of my edits. I try to edit in good faith, but you guys kind of have me outnumbered. Despite that advantage, I am not surprised about the resort to wikilawyering. If you can really show I did something wrong, I will try to make amends, but I just don’t see it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised about the resort to wikilawyering."

Is that your excuse for ignoring the rules, or is it purely because you don't care about consensus? DN (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

[5] Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your REFUSAL to assume good faith in other editors, is no excuse for whatever that link is supposed to mean. DN (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You have plucked out a single sentence I wrote, and pretended that I’m using that single sentence to justify alleged rule breaking. Thereby, you’ve pretty much verified what that single sentence said. In any event, if you’d like to discuss this further, please provide diffs of my edits, not someone else’s edits. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe anyone can look at the sequence of your actions and likely make a similar determination. At this point I believe an admin needs to weigh in since you do not seem to care what the rest of the community has to say. DN (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you would please read this thread you’re posting in, you’ll see that I pinged an admin. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you requested diffs of your edits specifically...

1:04 Aug 30th

2:41 Aug 30th

2:45 Aug 30th

12:56 Sept 1 (see edit summary - where is the alleged consensus on the TP?)

13:06 Sept 1

13:13 Sept 1

20:29 Sept 1

20:41 Sept 1

Edits by SPECIFICO and Space4Time3Continuum2x, as well as comments on the talk page, should provide better context to why this sequence of changes are concerning IMO. DN (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Here’s a fuller summary but without diffs, I don’t have time to gather them right now….

• 30 Aug 01:04, I edit the lead to say, “An investigation found that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.”

• 30 Aug 02:28, SPECIFICO reverts saying “Undid revision that converted link to an Easter egg”

• 30 Aug 02:45, I fix the Easter Egg issue as SPECIFICO requested, seems like SPECIFICO should have done it himself per WP:PRESERVE: “The Mueller investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump.” My edit summary said, “Consider, no Easter Egg issue”

• 30 Aug 13:00. Spacetime reverts, “WTH? There's an ongoing discussion”. Spacetime did not oppose this content in edit summary, and no one had objected at talk page.

• 31 Aug 00:21, I comment at talk page “as far as I know, no one has objected at this talk page to ‘The Mueller investigation found that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.’”

• 31 Aug 1:31, Valjean says at talk page: "’The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.’ Would that work?”

• 31 Aug 1:31, I say “Yes”

• 31 Aug 4:47, Mr. Nipples DN says, “If there is consensus for ‘The Mueller investigationfound that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump.’ I suppose it could be an acceptable resolution, although I still don't agree there's an issue with the term ‘special counsel’ in this context, as far as BLP rules are concerned.”

• 1 Sep 4:15, I say at talk page (in a very clear “Resolved” message at the top of the thread), “what has garnered consensus is changing it to, ‘The Mueller investigation established that Russia interfered in the election to favor Trump’”.

• 1 Sep 12:56, I implement.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me as Mr. Nipples. DN (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you prefer Darknipples or DN? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

DN or they/them, and if you wouldn't mind striking or rewording it, I would appreciate it, thank you. DN (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)