User talk:Flarl

Hello, Flarl, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Next time somebody reverts you...
You should not go back to the article you were reverted and restore your edits no matter how right you think you are. It's something we call WP:BRD on Wikipedia: if you make a bold edit and are reverted, you should then discuss your changes on the talk page to get consensus. Especially for a presumably new user like yourself, being adamant through edit summaries about your changes being correct and restoring them after being reverted is not a great start.  Ss  112   02:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, if you can't properly update the lists you edit (as in, replicate the reference style used and the formatting required), please leave it to somebody else. Otherwise you're wasting other editors' time by essentially making them fix up your mistakes.  Ss  112   03:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the information, I'll use this when making future edits. Not a fan of the subtly condescending tone of your response, however. I'm trying to get to know the Wikipedia community and have a dialogue, not argue with you, so I don't really appreciate that. I'm sorry if I came off as too assertive, that wasn't my intention. And about my looking at BB200 lists daily... is it really that hard to understand that following the charts is a hobby of mine and I check articles about them a lot, because they interest me? I check them daily because I want to. Flarl (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When an editor posts a message on your talk page, please reply here to keep the conversation in one place. Not many editors would follow the Billboard 200 number-ones page, so I don't know if other editors think your reasoning is "decent" or not. And yes, if somebody disagrees, that is what you should ordinarily do. If you feel so strongly about The Wizrd maintaining its "full title", then perhaps you should start a move request for the article itself to be at Future Hndrxx Presents: The Wizrd. Many editors feel the "artist presents..." text is introductory and not the actual title of a work but more a formality; Google "The Wizrd" and see how many news sources refer to it by its full title—how news sources refer to something is a good guide for how we should too. So I'm sorry, but your word is not definitive. I'm also confused as to why you (would need to) look at number-one lists on Wikipedia daily...what?  Ss  112   03:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to argue, don't claim someone else has a condescending tone when you've been much the same in your edit summary and message to me. Your message on my talk page was quite condescending, especially when you asserted yourself with "period"—as if because you say "period" that's the way it is, whereas I'm saying to you that based on precedent, that's actually not always the way it is on Wikipedia. If you think me telling you the way things are done on Wikipedia is condescending—sorry, that's not my problem. And yeah, um, if you'd actually looked at the history of the only article you've edited, you'd see I created that page and update it regularly and will continue to do so regardless of whether you're around it or not. I update far more charts here than I think you probably look at daily. I also didn't say I find it hard to understand, I expressed confusion as to why one would need to keep looking at lists they've already seen every day. You can offer one if you'd like but I really don't care for another explanation because this is getting off-topic. Summary: We don't always "full titles" on Wikipedia for various reasons (WP:COMMONNAME being one of them), and please format your edits in future or leave it to those who know how to do it so they don't have to fix your edits. If you'd found a less kind or stressed editor they would have just reverted your update earlier today outright. Thank you.  Ss  112   04:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed you didn't edit and see a lot more articles than I did. Thank you for that. I'm just saying I visit these articles every day because they interest me. For example, if I forgot who had a #1 album two weeks ago, I'd check an article. If I wanted to know how many weeks another album was #1 for, I'll check the article again. Etc etc etc. It's not that hard to understand if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. My edit today wasn't formatted correctly and I apologize for that. I shouldn't have submitted the edit if I wasn't sure the formatting was perfect, and it won't happen again. And as I said, I wasn't meaning to be condescending, and I'm sorry if I came off that way. But I am now. For future conversations I suggest not being as arrogant and rude as you were in this one. It's very off-putting that such a prolific contributor is this disrespectful. I'm new here and learning the ropes, so I appreciate the tips, but everything else, not so much. Thanks for your time, I'm done with this conversation. Flarl (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of me being "rude and arrogant" is not fact. I think you just took offense. "It's very off-putting that such a prolific contributor is this disrespectful." How prolific somebody is not relevant, and if it were, you're not off to a very good start yourself, saying things like "It's not that hard to understand if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it." Considering I just told you it was not hard for me to understand, I said "I'm confused", as in "I don't do that myself and I think it's strange that anyone would." I suggest for future conversations you don't give somebody else tips on how to behave or act, or put up some moral front in lecturing others about condescension but then attempt to give yourself a pass to actually be condescending and try to dole out tips on proper conduct—as if essentially saying "it's okay for me to do it now" actually makes it okay. That undermines any lecturing you just did and the exact next thing you said. It's pretty ridiculous and precocious of you, and your lack of self-awareness at your own conduct is truly astounding here. I guess if you're done with this conversation there won't be a reply? Thank God.  Ss  112   04:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there will be a reply. I want this conversation to be over but I won't give you the satisfaction of ending it here. I'll waste more of your time you could be using to edit more articles. If you want it to be over, don't reply back on my page, because if you keep replying, I'll keep responding. I'm purposely being rude to you now because you deserve it, given your awful conduct throughout this conversation. I'm giving you a lesson on how to conduct yourself in a conversation because you obviously don't know how to. If you're someone who wants to help out new users with tips, and correcting their mistakes, don't be rude to them if you want them to actually listen to you. Explain thoroughly and that's the end of it. If you had done that we wouldn't even be arguing right now. I'll be taking your advice on editing but ignoring the rest of your immature, primitive rant. Flarl (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I see you removed your latest rant. I restored it for you. Flarl (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "giving [you] a lesson", "immature, primitive rant". I'm laughing. Please stop buddy, you're embarrassing yourself but thinking you have something meaningful to say. I don't care if you take what you thought were my "tips" or "help". You know I don't need to reply to you, right? If I wanted to edit articles right now I would be. You're not stopping me from doing that. You're not wasting anybody's time but your own, because while you might get the last word on your talk page, that's the only place you'll get it.  Ss  112   05:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you don't need to reply to me then don't. Your time on Wikipedia is much more precious than mine, considering your prolificacy here. Get back to work. Flarl (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do so when I want to...? Are you trying to parent me now? I love this condescension from an editor who only two messages ago tried to claim some moral high ground because he thinks he knows how to conduct himself versus a prolific editor (which was all erased when you showed your real attitude). Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia isn't "work". If you see it that way for yourself or even others, you're here for the wrong reasons.  Ss  112   05:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is something people do in their free time and I understand that. "Get back to work" was a joke that I'm not surprised went over your head. I've already explained to you multiple times that I know I'm being rude to you now. But starting a conversation with arrogance and smugness is less than flattering and says a lot about how seriously you take this hobby of yours, which is why I'm not attempting to treat you with respect anymore Flarl (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)