Talk:Confederation of Mahuset

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Red links banner

I'm not looking to start an edit war. This page has a high number of red links. I'm adding the relevant banner. If you have an issue with that, lower the number of red links or take it up with an admin. Reverting the edit is not the appropriate response.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It already had an appropriate banner stating that the article is going through a major copyedit on a wiki other than MicroWiki. If you have an issue with that, learn what a wiki is or take it up with an admin. Adding banners when there already are banners for said purpose is not the appropriate response.--MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The banners on the article have no bearing on the contents within. The fact that you are requesting the formatting be preserved for outside use does nothing to change the fact that there are red links contained within. I did not edit the links, in line with the banner you referenced. The addition of a red link banner is appropriate here, as you are not likely planning on converting the other banner to the other project, either. What I am doing is pretty standard gnome work across any of the multiple wikis I work with.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Asked admin User:Z. Luna Skye to weigh in on situation.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would assume that, similarly to the WIP template, the template does not make an article immune to deletion or other quality control processes (template:poor, template:red links, template:old, etc.), especially if it has not been edited for a few days - so if an article can have a WIP template and a red links template at the same time, for example, the same goes for this article with template:Copyediting nomw. There are some exceptions to this, but I see no reason for that here, unless @MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject: can give me a reason otherwise. Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  9:25 pm (21:25), 17 March 2020
They are making new pages, if you delete all red links how can new pages be kept track of. --F1 green flag.png OIMGov (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)-F1 green flag.png OIMGov (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
They could make a spreadsheet of articles to be created, or embed a list into this talk page. Acting as if leaving links red in the interim is the only option is an incredibly narrow view of the matter. I am putting this banner on articles for one of two reasons. 1. They haven't been updated in 3 or more months and are likely abandoned or at least safe to remove the red links, but the number of red/dead links is too large for a quick edit. 2. The interested parties have been active in the last few months, and tagging it reminds them of the links while creating a single list. This list helps gnomes (like myself) to check back in the future to see if they're still making headway, resolved the issue, or seemingly abandoned the project. I'm not unreasonable. I understand that not everyone puts up a WIP banner while they work on an expansion or translation project.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It is true that template:Copyediting nomw does not render an article immune to deletion or quality control processes. The purpose of said template however, is to state that the page using the template is going through major edits on a different wiki and that any edits – whether good faith or vandalism – will cause discrepancies betweeen this article and the one actually going through major edits. Banners of the sort added by User:DukeBearPeninsula most certainly can have effects on the content within the article, as it encourages users to edit the article anyhow. --MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, who are you to say that we don't keep track of the articles that still need to be created? The total list of pages, templates and modules left to be made numbers over 2000. With such a lmassive amount, it's obvious it takes some time. Instead of taking the time to check whether or not the pages were actually going through major edits on a separate wiki, mr. Gnome (we assume this is a politically correct term for a Redditor) decided that he is the sole authority on what is and isn't a proper banner and has shown an incredible willingness to keep reintroducing edits that are likely to be harmful to the page as a whole. The article is making incredible headway, just not here, which happens to be the thing that the banner said in the first place. --MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
[WikiGnome] is a fairly common term used across many Wikis (especially Wikipedia) for those who make edits to articles, irrespective of their interest in the articles contents. I think we should take a beat here, because you're taking dispassionate editing personally, and devolving into pettiness and snarky writing. I never claimed to be the sole authority. I cited that the edits I made were standard in the kind of work a gnome does, as well as giving an explanation of every move I've made. I was also the only one willing to bring in an Admin (who verified that what I said was correct). The number of changes left to be made doesn't alter the fact that leaving up a red/dead link for 8 months is a lazy editing process. While certain allowances for other wiki projects is understandable, MicroWiki stands as its own wiki. While certain interested parties are more involved, articles are not the sole property of the micronation they cover. They belong to the community, and edits made in the interest of this Wiki supersede those for other projects. A banner citing red/dead links that have been up for the better part of a year is absolutely a defensible action (as backed up by the admin in question). --DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, you also serve as the supreme authority on our emotions! Such greatness, you sure posess! Ignoring your actions for just a bit, you're making a massive mistake in comparing MicroWiki to any other wiki. MicroWiki has little to no actual policies, with most "policies" actually boiling down to User:Austenasia's views on the matter. Just take a look at the page for the Kingdom of Catan for example and say it's in any way, shape or form representative of what a proper encyclopedia should be like. Similar to what we've asked in my previous question, which you quite gleefully ignored, who are you to say that the edits still being made aren't in the interest of this community? It's no surprise that you, like your fellow Redditors, hide your wrongful actions behind very shallowly hidden personal attacks and false accusations. --MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
First, you previously said "take it up with an admin." I did, and you seem to be ignoring the take that an admin, appointed directly by the owner of the Wiki, gave? Now you're moving the line, appealing to a higher authority. Unless he does overrule User:Z. Luna Skye, an admin (a higher authority than either of us) stated that a red link banner is allowable on this article.
Second, you specifically stated to "learn what a wiki is," but then changed tune to saying that MicroWiki isn't like any other wiki, after I cited my familiarity with wikis. Again, I feel like you're moving the goalpost and are presenting conflicting arguments.
Third, I'm confused why you keep calling me a redditor. Did you not read my response, or the article I linked? I pretty clearly explained how a gnome has nothing to do with reddit.
Fourth, I stated my reasoning as to why the banner is in MicroWiki's best interest (more than once, and in different ways), as the article had dead/red links up for over 8 months. You have yet to offer actual reasoning why not putting the banner up is in MicroWiki's interest, as the admin suggested you provide earlier as a justification of why you should be exempt to his take that the red link banner is allowable.
Finally, resorting to hyperbole that I'm making "shallowly hidden personal attacks and false accusations" is behavior we should be above. I'm approaching this dispassionately, and sticking to facts (or at the very least grounded and informed opinions). I ask that you do the same. Just because we're in a disagreement doesn't mean it needs to turn into bickering. I'm of the opinion that User:Z. Luna Skye's statement should resolve the matter, as he is an admin. If you want to insist on a ruling from User:Austenasia, I am content to wait for one.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC).

It's been over a week since User:Z. Luna Skye (who is an admin) weighed in and said a red links banner was allowable, and a week since you invoked the name of User:Austenasia. In that time neither of them, nor any other MicroWiki:Staff (all of whom are appointed by Emperor Jonathan I for situations like these) has stated that this article should be exempt from a red links banner. If you look at my edit history, I think I have established a pattern of making edits to a wide range of articles with the purpose of cleaning up MicroWiki. I'm not out to get you, and I've done what I could to make sure my behavior here has been above board. I'm going to re-add the banner, based on the last guidance by an authority figure. If you disagree with this, I would ask that you take it up with an authority figure, instead of just changing it back and going against the guidance we have been given. I kind of expect you to just ignore admin authority and do what you want, but maybe you'll surprise me.--DukeBearPeninsula (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)