User talk:Lexein/Archive 19

Consensus
uw-ew

Seriously, try discussion instead of strings of accusations. Try actually reaching a consensus, instead of ignoring a standing consensus and simply stating that you know it has somehow changed. Your opinion is not consensus. Consensus involves discussion with other editors, not your pronouncement. In the meantime, your repeated change in violation of consensus must be reverted until and unless any change in consensus is agreed upon by the community.108.41.173.242 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been following BRD since I reverted your unjustified edit. You have not. Exaggeration and ignoring policy does no good, and will work against you. --Lexein (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You have not been close to observing BRD. You make pronouncements without evidence, ignore consensus, make accusations about your opponent instead of arguing your case, and now resort to unjustified threats. You posted an ew warning on my talk page after I made two reverts, even though you reverted the text three times. And calling my edit unjustified is hilarious since you have made the exact same edit in the past on multiple occasions. Further, you do not own your talk page. WP does. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken on all counts. You were (at least IP 112 was) bold, I reverted, and discussion started. But you persisted in reverting during discussion, and while there was no current consensus for your initial revert. Reaching out to the distant past is not a valid reason to go against current apparent consensus. I can remove whatever content I want. Would you like the link to the policy about that? I'm guessing not. --Lexein (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) (amended --14:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC))


 * I did not make the initial revert you are talking about. I have no idea who did. I am tiring of your false accusations. You owe WP and the Admin noticeboard an apology for wasting our time.108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you shifted IP addresses. No problem, IP editors do it all the time.
 * Or, so you leapt to the defence of another IP editor. No problem, but you certainly defended the edit as if it was your own. The problem started there. If I erred, administrators will certainly inform me, in no uncertain terms. --Lexein (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I try to avoid the word, but this is an outright lie. I did not edit using two IPs. I simply responded on the Talk page to your Talk page edit stating your decision to ignore consensus. I hadn't even seen the edit, much less made it with an alternate IP. You have now made false accusations against me in an attempt to have me banned on the ew noticeboard. Of course that failed. But, your bad faith continues.108.41.173.242 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not try to have you banned; that's ridiculous. I don't want editors banned. I want bad behavior which goes against community guidelines and best practice stopped. No, I did not lie. About anything. I made the entirely reasonable connection between the 112 edit and your quite inflamed defense of it, based on all the available evidence. I think you doth protest too much, really. If you don't want to be called a troll, or sockpuppet, it's easy: stop acting like one. Try starting with this: don't misrepresent any part of my comments. I decided to support the new, but undiscussed, behavioral consensus. You wanted to hang on to ancient discussion, when the same involved editors did nothing to maintain the result of that discussion in the actual article itself over time. That's consensus with no action taken: in other words, toothless and forgotten. In other words, old outdated consensus, superceded in practice by other editors for at least a year. I supported the 2013 consensus-by-action in my revert. And, you have not convincingly refuted my position. See that triangle up at top? Read it, and the article linked there. And WP:TIGERS, and WP:ETIQUETTE. --Lexein (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made false accusations against me on a noticeboard based on nothing. There was nothing even slightly inflamed about my response. I did nothing approaching sockpuppetry or trolling. Your claim that there is an "undiscussed" consensus is laughable. Your entire "discussion" consisted of bad-faith assumptions, name-calling, refusal to abide by WP guidelines, culminating in a trumped-up complaint including false accusations. The only reason you had to make all these accusations is that I committed the crime of not agreeing with you. Read the etiquette section yourself. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said was fundamentally untrue. I sincerely think that if you had run across the edit I saw, and you saw someone defending it as zealously as you did, you would think "this guy's editing from two different IPs", quite reasonably. But do reread the tone of every one of your responses to me, seriously. They're all angry, bitter, outraged, sarcastic, rhetorically loaded, and generally unpleasant for no real reason. Yet I persisted in, repeatedly, trying to explain things to you, even now, rather than just kick you off my talk page. Why? --Lexein (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Under absolutely no circumstances would I have made the baseless accusation that you made. You appear so wrapped up in your own opinions, that you seem to believe that two people disagreeing with you must mean something sinister is going on. And taking this to the ew board was outrageous. You made the first and last edit and accused me of edit-warring, as well as socking. Your claim that nothing you said was untrue is weird. You stated outright that I was both editors. You continued to say this after I said it was untrue. You not only stated that I was edit-warring, but actually filed a complaint against me – even though you made three reverts to my two. And you actually believe your actions were completely true? Also, your view of your edits vs. mine shows a complete lack of objectivity. You assumed bad faith in nearly every edit, in violation of WP guidelines. You made almost no attempt at debating what I said, but made constant personal attacks instead. Seriously, you don’t seem to be able to understand discussion. In fact, you stated that discussion isn’t even needed to reach consensus. A very odd idea indeed. Even after you discovered that your accusations against me were completely false, instead of apologizing, you continued your name-calling. In the end, your bullying, lack of observance of WP guidelines, and false complaint ended up with a reversion against consensus. Congratulations. You bullied your way into making an incorrect change completely ignoring the concept of consensus. I strongly suggest that you reread your own edits. You have several WP:CIV violations, and have a particular problem with assuming good faith. And even to this moment, you fail to understand that there is anything wrong with filing a complaint against another editor containing false accusations. You don’t even think untrue statements are untrue! 108.41.173.242 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A suggestion. Reread the thread. You made an edit against a previous consensus, in violation of WP guidelines. When I politely responded, you responded with an absurd accusation that I was censoring, and a link to Consensus can change. Of course consensus can change – by reaching a new consensus by discussion. Please reread Consensus can change. This was your second edit in the thread. It clearly states that you can PROPOSE a change to consensus on a talk page. Nowhere does it state that you can unilaterally declare a change. It also provides warnings about the disruption that this can cause. You ignored the warnings. You ignored the fact that it says you can PROPOSE a change, not violate consensus by making the change. We at Wikipedia work for consensus. You completely ignored the concept of consensus, misunderstood the very rule to which you linked, and violated this basic concept. When I pointed this out, you became belligerent, accusatory, seemingly paranoid (declaring that I was two people) and eventually retaliatory, with a noticeboard complaint. Look, I am truly trying to be helpful. You really need to understand that we at Wikipedia work at consensus. WP rules are fantastic. I have enormous respect for these rules, and have never violated any of them. In thousands of WP edits (realize that your IP changes when you change services) this is the only time anyone has filed a complaint against me. I have been heavily involved with the Internet from the ArpaNet days and have spent much of my life working to reduce the natural, human negative reactions involved in semi-anonymous interactions. You appear to be too quick to make assumptions about strangers to you. Even assumptions involving baseless, accusations of malevolent activity. The basic rule of assuming good faith will result in far fewer problems. Good luck in future efforts.108.41.173.242 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. I've done nothing but observe BRD precisely. But you've dug in your heels and rationalized your corner, and summarized easily verified history wrongly, instead of really discussing core issues and policy/guidelines. You persist in interpreting everything exactly backwards. Sorry, we're never going to agree, especially when you persist in snark, sarcasm, and abusive language where none is needed.
 * More importantly than you or I, see Hacker News: https in the infobox. I'll just keep finding all the websites which prove the ongoing tendency towards HTTPS in the infobox. That HTTPS where appropriate is preferred in the infobox, is the view which will prevail in the long term.
 * Since you have so far refused to learn, refused to perceive plain English correctly, and refused to get your anger issues under control, stay off my Talk page. --Lexein (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

 * Hi and thanks. Have we met? (I don't ever pingpong conversations, and discourage it strongly, as I prefer coherent discussion, as I mention at top of page) --Lexein (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is
Hello, I noticed that, the owner of Archive.is was blocked and I am quite worried about that, just like you did. Archive.is is such a good archiving site! It archives automatically all the links posted in articles and also the links posted in the talk pages of the articles.

All those edits Rotlink did and was blocked for were useful, but he should have waited an approval in order do make all that changes. I think Rotlink wanted to make all those edits in order to make his site much more visible - that was his personal gain from it. However, I know and I am using a solution that is even better than adding such links. On Romanian Wikipedia, we have a gadget that, once activated, it will show two additional links near every external link: one is the Archive.org and the other is Archive.is archive of the link. And it can be extended to show archives from other archivers, like WebCite for example. It's simply awesome. And it doesn't require such a gigantic task like adding millions of links to Archive.is and deleting those links in case Archive.is will be gone. It's just a simple click to activate the gadget. It's a bit strange to me that no one showed interest in such a gadget, here on English Wikipedia - I proposed the use of it at Gadget/proposals and I got no response.

I noticed you were worried about Rotlink's blocking and I was thinking, maybe we can find a way to talk with him, to convince him to come back to Wikipedia, and to use such a gadget instead of adding so many links into the articles. It will bring him the visibility he desires, as more and more people will activate the gadget, in order to access the more and more links that go dead every day. Wikipedia benefits so much from this, so I feel quite comfortable if he is happy too.

With each passing day, the problem of archiving links is getting bigger and bigger. We should try to find solutions together with such people like Rotlink, instead of reacting like a bureaucracy. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rotlink has other problems to deal with - see the email conversation linked to from the RFC. As for fixing anything, it's too late. Dull single-minded grinding thoughtless obstructionism won. Oh, there were bad and stupid acts all around (Rotlink and Wikipedia editors), and none of it seems to be remediable. To me, it's one of the funniest, and stupidest, Wikipedia fuckups of all time. Deliberately screwing Wikipedia out of a stable, high-quality deadlink archive source: priceless. If anyone writes a book about Stupid Wikipedia Controversies, I'm going to lobby hard to make sure this story gets in. --Lexein (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lexein, There is a new message for you at RFC talk page. I can't understand your stand, I have not read all posts carefully. But, I am surprised to see this decision. Archive.is was a very good option. Tito ☸ Dutta 12:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So we are already three who support the using of Archive.is. I think it's not the best moment to open the RFC issue right now. I think we should find more supporters for the Archive.is solution. I noticed there were others supporting Archive.is in September 2013 at ANI, so we should invite them to join us, then we make a group for promoting this idea (lobby group, if you like). Then we try go gather more traction at the Village pump. And then we go to ask for an amnesty/pact/understanding with Rotlink. All is not lost - by the contrary - there is still a good chance to find a solution. Archive.is keeps archiving all the external links we are using on Wikipedia. See for example this link, archived two days ago, after me adding it in a Wikipedia article. Let's not waste the opportunity we still have! —  Ark25  (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'll get any enthusiasm or support or cooperation from Rotlink. See the email conversation WP:Archive.is RFC/Rotlink email attempt. --Lexein (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also User_talk:Hobit and User_talk:Darkwarriorblake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.210.111 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr K Ravvi Kumarr concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr K Ravvi Kumarr, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International
Hi Lexein. I was wondering if you were available to check out my draft regarding an article where I have a conflict of interest. I have shared my draft on the article Talk page, on COIN and a few user Talk pages, but it was archived off COIN without response, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 09:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)