Write Down Page
Hi there, The video added to an external links section on the write down page is on topic. Please add it back. Thank you.
Please explain how an on-topic external source is spam.
Hello?
Is anyone there?
Hold your horses. The WT community is scattered around the world. I'm not sure, but I think CodeCat is located in Europe, where it's now late at night. So sit back, chill, and wait for the world to turn.
I shall not hold my horses! My good name has been slandered by someone who calls himself "codecat". My external content is in NO WAY "spam"!
Nobody has "slandered" your name, and the link you added does not seem useful at all. If it is useful, explain how.
If you are going to slander my contribution as slander, it is your job to explain how it is "spam".
EXPLAIN.
How is it spam? How is it not useful?
Your lack of explanation is the mental equivalent of farting. WHY ARE YOU FARTING?
It's not useful because we don't feel that it would be useful. Like, right now I am sitting in my easy chair trying to explain someone why a childish overly detailed video is off the point. Then comes my wife and brings a notepad, asking me to write down what I intend to say. I don't feel it necessary. Now, it's not my responsibility to explain why I don't want a notepad, although she insists on me having it. It's her business to convince me of the usefulness of a notepad, if she wants me to use it. Got the point?
"It's not useful because we don't feel that it would be useful."
To be legitimate as an authority you must have a legitimate reason. Otherwise, you should be removed from your position.
"Like,"
Like, oh my God!
"right now I am sitting in my easy chair trying to explain someone why a childish"
You must explain why my video is "spam". Without a logical explanation you are no better than Saddam Hussein.
"overly detailed video is off the point."
No you are not trying explain why you think it is off the point. You are asserting that it is off the point and FAILING. In order to prove that too much detail in a dictionary is off topic, you must provide and argument. You have not provided this argument.
"Then comes my wife and brings a notepad, asking me to write down what I intend to say. I don't feel it necessary."
Who cares what you feel? This is a dictionary not a session with the psychologist. What you feel means NOTHING.
"Now, it's not my responsibility to explain why I don't want a notepad,"
Yes, actually it is, provide your wife is the same as a Wikitionary user.
"although she insists on me having it."
I am not your wife, which means this is a false analogy.
"It's her business to convince me of the usefulness of a notepad, if she wants me to use it. Got the point?"
Yes, this point proves that you should stay away from Wikipedia due to the fact that you do not understand legitimacy and hence legitimate power.
"It's not useful because we don't feel that it would be useful."
To be legitimate as an authority you must have a legitimate reason. Otherwise, you should be removed from your position.
"Like,"
Like, oh my God!
"right now I am sitting in my easy chair trying to explain someone why a childish"
You must explain why my video is "spam". Without a logical explanation you are no better than Saddam Hussein.
"overly detailed video is off the point."
No, you are not trying explain why you think it is off the point. You are asserting that it is off the point and FAILING. In order to prove that too much detail in a dictionary is off topic, you must provide an argument. You have not provided this argument.
"Then comes my wife and brings a notepad, asking me to write down what I intend to say. I don't feel it necessary."
Who cares what you feel? This is a dictionary not a session with the psychologist. What you feel means NOTHING.
"Now, it's not my responsibility to explain why I don't want a notepad,"
Yes, actually it is, provided your wife is the same as a Wikitionary user.
"although she insists on me having it."
I am not your wife, which means this is a false analogy.
"It's her business to convince me of the usefulness of a notepad, if she wants me to use it. Got the point?"
Yes, this point proves that you should stay away from Wikipedia due to the fact that you do not understand legitimacy and hence legitimate power.
If you think that reverting your edit is slander, you're just not cut out for participating in a wiki. A wiki is a community effort, and you're just one person in the community: you may think your video link is the best thing since sliced bread, but everyone else (so far) disagrees. We don't usually include links to YouTube, anyway, even when they're relevant- this is a dictionary, not a collection of links to other sites.
"If you think that reverting your edit is slander, you're just not cut out for participating in a wiki."
Straw man.
I do not think reverting an edit is slander. I think designating it as "spam" without reason and banning a user as a result is slander.
A wiki is a community effort,
Yes, I agree with this point. Wikipedia is a community effort where participants are required to give reasons for their actions. For example, those who ban other users without explanation are not acting with the spirit of the community in mind.
"and you're just one person in the community:"
And so are you.
you may think your video link is the best thing since sliced bread, but everyone else (so far) disagrees.
No one in this exchange has given a legitimate reason other than the odd "overly detailed". I would have thought that a dictionary should be brimming with detail!
So, what is your reasoning against adding this link?
We don't usually include links to YouTube, anyway, even when they're relevant-
Actually, this is false. Wikis definitely do have "external links" secions. Would you like me to provide some examples?
this is a dictionary, not a collection of links to other sites.
It would only be a collection of links to other sites if there was no information on the main page of each article. Since this is not the case, your use of the exaggeration "not a collection of links to other sites" is illogical. Wiki articles provide more than enough information on the main page of each entry, external links are just additional.
Anon, any anonymous user who repeatedly reverts admin edits that undid that anon's edits is generally viewed negatively by the community. If that anon then engages in invective, the community opinion of that anon generally doesn't improve.
I understand that you're frustrated and piqued. However, engaging in hostilities with the very people who might be able to help you does nothing to advance your position.
Either calm down, start listening to what people are trying to tell you, and stop trying to refute everything you're told, or you will almost certainly be blocked as a vandal or troll. I don't say this as a threat, and instead as a simple unemotional explanation of how things tend to work around here.
Ignore everything said previously, try another tact.
"Anon, any anonymous user who"
I am not an anon. My channel is very public.
"repeatedly reverts admin edits that undid that anon's edits is generally viewed negatively by the community."
By which community? The community of admins or the community the admins are supposed to be communicating with? If you mean the latter, I will restate:
Hi there, The video added to an external links section on the write down page is on topic. Please add it back. Thank you. Please explain how an on-topic external source is spam.
If that anon then engages in invective, the community opinion of that anon generally doesn't improve.
I did not slander my link as "spam", CodeCat did.
"I understand that you're frustrated and piqued."
No, you don't, or you would be addressing my complaint. As it is, you have decided to take the argument from authority route.
"However, engaging in hostilities with the very people who might be able to help you does nothing to advance your position."
Exactly, using reason is better than slandering a link as "spam". The correct course of action is to communicate with the community to tell the community why the link is not suitable.
"Either calm down,"
No. You start acting like this is a community.
start listening to what people are trying to tell you,
1. Spam 2. Overly detailed 3. No YouTube links
I responded to all of these ridiculous rejoinders and hence expect a response. Dicitonaries are not suppossed to be "overly detailed"?
and stop trying to refute everything you're told
A community is a collection of individuals who work together. An army is a collection of individuals unthinkingly directed by a chain of command. Is Wiki an army or a community?
or you will almost certainly be blocked as a vandal or troll.
Block away you mindless boob. Dictionaries should have detail, my link is on topic, and external links are a common practice on Wiki.,
I don't say this as a threat, and instead as a simple unemotional explanation of how things tend to work around here.
That is fine. As far as I am concerned, you go against the spirit of Wiki by exhibited such anti-community behaivor.
Well, blocking would be inline with your authoritarian approach to adminstrating.
Please answer my question.