User:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Humour

''This is an exclusive piece for experienced Wikipedia editors who have spent at least 1000 facetime hours on the site. Newcomers, newer-comers, fresh steak, just imagine you're experienced or create a sock and pretend to if you can, that's enough for you to proceed.''

''Please note, this article incorporates WP:MetaComments in fully expanded form. For those with time, read a simple explanation on WP:MetaComments, at the end, somewhere near the bottom. For those with less time, you see those red highlights below, yes, those.''

Here is the answer to the title, story format!
''Two editors in conversation on a talk page. Potentially a lot of people here, talk page watchers watching, maybe some talk page stalkers stalking who knows.''

So here we have a conversation that gives us some insights into the interplay of talk pages, user comments, meta-comments, and reference to the philosophies. Turns out that the most accurate findings from this interplay was related to cats.

WP:MetaComments explained
Recently there was a lot of discussion related to how talk pages could be improved. There were many suggestions and some have already been implemented while others are still under deliberation. An anonymous editor suggested combining metadata with self-reporting and integrating it into talk page comments. It is now a thing.

MetaComments allows for immediate and fast categorization of individual comments. This categorisation allows for clearer differentiation between a conflict and metaconflict. Accordingly the conversation can be directed towards Wikipedia's goal with less off-topic and unfocused conversation. The grouping that MetaComments allows can provide faster insight into conversation on talk pages. Further, a user can use it to retrospectively identify where they lie between conflicting philosophies.

Imagine you have spent two minutes writing a reply. It isn't well thought-out or researched, but you still want to post it. MetaComment provides a variety of existing choices. One set of choices is- quickie, medium, well thought out.

On the other hand, say you have spent 25 minutes with this. You've done some more back and forth cross-checking etc. Now imagine "quickie" was replaced with "well thought out".

MetaComment allows multiple selections across a variety of pre-existing choices that have been compiled by the Wikipedia community. References can also be tagged, say with, passing mention or more than passing mention.

The number represents a self-reporting assessment of the quality of the comment.

MetaComment has been designed to co-exist with WP:TALKPOV criteria such as staying objective. It supports the larger essence of WP:TALK guidelines. MetaComment has been designed to be as less invasive as possible, which preferences allowing for them to be initially collapsed. In that case a small dot or box will appear. On clicking or hovering, the meta comment will display.

One use is that now you can quickly see how much you talk to people you know as compared to passersby. When combined with Wikipedia philosophies, the trend of editing of thousands of editors can be seen on various scales representing the extreme ends of the conflicting philosophies. Wikipedia administrators recently decided to make it a compulsory feature for admins. Those critical of this entire effort have stated that there is extensive overlap between what MetaComments is and what edit summaries can achieve.

Working draft