User talk:SchizoidNightmares

Lee Kuan Yew photo
Greetings, Mr. SchizoidNightmares. You said you would support the photo which was used for a long time? May I know if you have other friends in Wikipedia? --Manwë986 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Manwë986, as stated recently on the talk page, it is correct that I do support the use of the colourized photo that "was used for a long time." I do not (knowingly) know anyone who participates on Wikipedia. Even if I did however, asking them to support a particular position in a wiki matter, or gathering them for such one-sided purpose, may violate Canvassing. The guideline recommends that if you seek consensus on Wikipedia, you should do so in a neutral manner, not in a way that tries to concentrate supporters. Now, I'm not claiming that you're necessarily doing this, but your question would imply (to me) so. However, I may have misinterpreted your intentions. If I have, please correct me. If not, I would recommend reading the guideline, keeping in mind that I am merely a peasant, not one of the authorities here, so this is just my opinion and is not a warning or anything of such nature. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

BRD
Please review: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

You boldly removed an entry. I reverted it. Your next step is to open a discussion to explain why you think this color which seems to be supported by published reliable sources, doesn't exist.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Sphilbrick. As stated previously, you are incorrect. There is no reliable source for the colour value. I recommend you re-review eigengrau. It was invented out of thin air by a random user named Chi (as mentioned in the section on the talk page), which you confirmed you read. I'll assume this is a seemingly persistent error on your part, made in good faith. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will presume it was not your intention to be rude, but a statement such as "seemingly persistent error on your part", implies I have done something wrong multiple times, and you've documented zero so far. I'm also bemused whenever I see a brand-new editor acting as if they are an expert on how Wikipedia works. I've been around for over a decade and I'm still finding new corners of this place. I certainly wouldn't have presumed I knew all the guidelines and processes, both written and unwritten after 156 edits. Case in point — I urged you to open a discussion on the talk page about an edit to List of colors: A–F. The best place for that discussion is the talk page of that article, so that editors who watch that article would see the discussion and could weigh in. There are situations in which the discussion ought to be on your user talk page, but this isn't one of them. Arguably should also be a discussion on the top page of Eigengrau, because the editors who watch that page me not be the same. There are two different although related issues. I'll summarize the issues here: Talk:List_of_colors S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Sphilbrick. An error is not the same as "doing something intently wrong." Nowhere have I stated you have ill intent. In fact, I specifically stated that I am assuming you are acting in good faith. What I have said, is that you are in error (persistently so, as stated before), because I believe this to be the truth and have provided evidence to back up my statement, which you assert is baseless. Now, procedurally, you may very well be correct, but it is my intent (in this particularly instance, not my grand intent) to rid Wikipedia of a fictitious colour value (which has remained up for years), not focus on religiously following the deep excess of Wikipedia guidelines and procedures, which I will assert are so grand and excess in size, that no normal human being could be expected to memorize and adhere to them all.
 * The fact that I am new here and have made less edits, relatively speaking, than you, is irrelevant to the merits of my arguments, as it is to yours. There is no need to even bear mention of it. What next, are we to take out rulers and make measurements of our appendages? Shall we compare the ages in which we have lived upon the Earth? Are any of these relevant to whether or not we are actually presenting information on an online encyclopedia that is backed by reliable sources? The amount of edits I have made is irrelevant. All of my statements thus far have been purely based on your demonstrated actions isolated to this conflict. Your activities, social status, and other attributes beyond this case is of no interest or concern to me. I have little interest in engaging in the excess bureaucracy that in this case, per your insistence, is creating a sort of mountain out of an anthill. Nonetheless, I will engage this issue further on the talk page you have mentioned, but I fear I will only be stating the same information all over again, in the interests of pleasing the bureaucracy. However, I will still respond to any comments made on my own talk page, such as what I have done already. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)