User talk:Diblidabliduu

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — raeky t 21:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. You know, I tend to miss not only the last 6-7 years I've spent on this site but apparently the spelling/grammatical corrections in my edits as well that were never there to begin with.

Take a closer look at it and you'll notice it too. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the relevant policies linked above, looks a lot like your changing very old conversations, which is a no no. — raeky t 22:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding signatures and titles for easier reading? How's this insulting to anyone? Better yet, how's this negative towards the whole talk page in any way?

E: Actually, from your "policies":

Attributing unsigned comments: You are allowed to append attribution (which can be retrieved from the page history) to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. [...]
Fixing layout errors: This could include [...] adding a header to a comment not having one [...]

--Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably technically on the side of not crossing the line of violating the policy after reviewing the edit, but it's still straying into the gray area. It's generally bad form to correct other people's talk page messages, reorganize discussions, or modify people's signatures (taking out dashes or whatever you did). Changing the title of a section heading is fine, but other then that it's USUALLY best to leave other people's comments as-is. Changing indention level for users who are not using proper indention and it makes it hard to follow is generally ok in an active discussion. Changing comments that are years ago dead, probably isn't helpful though. Just giving you my view of your edit. — raeky t 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorant "view"'s still focusing on the copy-paste highlighting instead of what I actually did. How does "generally" have anything to do with it? It's generally bad form to run over people but when the streets are empty why are you still complaining? I didn't touch anybody's actual messages. I added a couple of hyphens to signatures that didn't have 'em, made a quote out of the messy "source" and changed the "How" heading to "Amount of cases". All per to your "rules". Anything else I did I've already explained. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altering other's comments

Please don't edit other's comments, like you did here. Not only did you introduce a typo into my comment ("t:hat"), but my edit didn't need altering anyways. Please see WP:INDENTATION, namely point #2, and WP:EDITCONFLICT. How I wrote that is how it was intended, and how its supposed to be. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eehh, yeah, sorry about that, but I don't understand the point in keeping the "edit conflict" message there, since that's what I originally wanted to get rid off (see: Template_talk:Edit_conflict#Why.3F). All you did was just revert those edits without fixing it. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the last post in the exact same thing you linked to: its to show that you're responding to an earlier version that did not have the EC'ed info on it. While you certainly may opt out of including it yourself, you certainly don't get to make that decision for other people. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to automatically notify about the indentation, if you're not planning on coming back to take care of it yourself.

But if the indentation's correct (and it wasn't something you _manually_ included in your post), I don't get why is it so important for you to leave that unnecessary notification there or to go as far as to prevent _other_ people from touching it. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, you have no obligation or right, to alter other people's comments. I see you've been warned about this before, so it seems strange that you need to be told this again. Unless its some sort of extreme insult or threat or something, you simply don't need to be concerning yourself with it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because your "warning" there was about edits that were all according to the Wikipedia guidelines, yet the admin kept refusing to accept my point no matter how many times I explained it to him.

Happily, in the end we cleared it up. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleared it up"? It looks like the other users last comments to you included "It's generally bad form to correct other people's talk page messages, reorganize discussions, or modify people's signatures", which is absolutely correct. Other than that, it appears he just lost interest in lecturing you, which is pretty much where I'm at, with your refusal to get the point. Anyways, I'd advise you to change your ways: Both your altering of other's comments, and general bad attitude, is rubbing multiple users the wrong way. Please tone it down a bit. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TPO. That is the link that is supporting what I am saying. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the exact same thing I mentioned, which supports everything I did in my _particular-not-general_ edit back then. He didn't "give up". He just realized there was nothing wrong with it.

And yes, my frustration (and therefore my tone) stems from the exact same thing you mentioned (moderators'/admins' refusal to get the point).

Thank you too. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:TPO support the fact that you changed the indenting and "edit conflict" part of my comment, when TPO literally says "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission...Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning," You changed my edit twice (you didn't have permission, I told you once not to), and you changed its meaning (you removed the "edit conflict" part, something I intended to express in my comment.) What you did clearly goes against TPO, and I'm warning you not do it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about the one I was going over with raeky t. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. We both seemed to agree that they were similar scenarios, so I thought we were talking about both. Anyways, regardless, you seem to get the point now, so I'm done here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing makes me laugh. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Diblidabliduu. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Diblidabliduu. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Diblidabliduu. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]