Topic on User talk:Blubabluba9990

Issue resolved. TigerBlazer has explained his reasons, and I will take this advice as I always intended to before this spiraled into an argument. There isn't much need to continue this discussion, so I am closing this.

Raidarr's closure and note: Re-closing as a bureaucrat primarily on author request with previous closure (thread is not a staff warning, which would override user close agency) as well as the fact that it is indeed beginning to loop and there is little more to reasonably say and discuss that the involved parties haven't had more than enough opportunity to recognize.

I do suggest Bluba take some of the advisement to heart. Time, as well as the next project stated as planned, will tell if that's the case.

So anyway, I see that your RfC has been closed, and I would like to give you some advice.

1. I notice that you have again written in ALL CAPS in the RfC to represent your anger. I would strongly recommend not doing this. When you feel like someone is missing the point and they think you are just repeating yourself, either ignore them or try to explain it more clearly (if possible and worth a shot).
2. Try to limit the amount of RfCs you make, and think carefully before you make them. You should at least limit it to once every 2 weeks if not a month (note that this is only if you need to, if you are able to go 2 weeks or a month without needing to create a RfC then don't create one).

I only spoke in all caps that one time. I also made a blog post addressing what I had said in the RfC, as I now feel like it is a simple sentiment change rather than a policy change. And I usually create RfCs when the ideas first pop into my head.

You also spoke in all caps on the Requests for Comment page for permanently banning unconfirmed users from making pages, although that was 5 months ago.

That is only twice though.

Just once passing through your better sense (proofreading) is not a good look and an advisement to keep in mind. It pertains to a larger issue, temper, and the fact that it will change absolutely nothing except make the other parties in the conversation think less of you while not convincing them otherwise. Persuasion is the only way to proceed. The all caps only 'capped off' a larger problem.

I think Fatburn's suggestions are on the right path. An RfC should be thought out, considered. If what you've posted has always been the first thing in your head and it reliably tends to go poorly, that's a trend you should notice and change. Ie, think farther before posting, and perhaps get advisement before doing it so the idea has a better chance.

You need to decide if you just want to continue the unsuccessful streams of thought, or if you want to make a change, and you'll only achieve the latter by ceasing or greatly limiting the former.

I can't predict how users are going to react to my RfCs. In addition, it gets frustrating to have to keep repeating the same points over and over again and having nobody seem to listen. It's hard to stay calm when all of my ideas get shot down and almost nobody seems to take my side.

If you do something a certain way and it obviously results in a negative reaction, I don't believe a great deal of insight is demanded to know that way is problematic. If you're repeating the same points the same way and people aren't taking your side, then consider that either you, outright, are wrong, or that your expression of the points is badly inadequate. You can't dismiss responsibility for bettering your approach and then wonder why people aren't supporting you in it.

Also, another thing, about "predicting how users are going to react", it might be true that you can't do that, but try and think about it anyway. It isn't that you need to "predict" how they react, you just need to think about it.

Two things:

1. This is why you need to think your ideas through and ideally seek out feedback before putting them into action. Only then can you refine your suggestions into something palatable for the community.
2. Repeating the same points when they've already been rebuked (especially if it was refuted with reasoning pertaining to your statement) isn't going to help at all.

Ok. Though asking if the RfC would be appropriate would defeat the purpose of making the RfC.

No. Making an RfC is a grand attempt to get the wider community on board. In practice - and this is on Meta, perhaps even Wikipedia as well - only ideas that have been thought through, ideally with multiple experienced volunteers involved tend to stand a good chance.

Again, look how far your RfCs have proceeded and tell me again that getting a second opinion to make them more usable would defeat the purpose.

I do support making consensus a requirement for deletion, however, trying to force or repeat weak arguments such as stop moving seemingly unfinished pages to sandbox, or stating invalid pointers such as how talk pages can't be archived (which isn't true) isn't going to help.

You could start with a blog post, and see what other people's opinion or suggestion is.

I would say it makes more sense to have a separate page to carry out discussions rather than just doing it on the talk page.

i hope you can see the problem now with the way you handle discussions. many people will present counterarguments to you, but you evade them by repeating your already debunked arguments (bonus if a "still," or similar phonetic is added) or by raising a new issue (bonus if you "suddendly remembered it" and/or if it's off-topic). you complain you feel like you're not being heard but looking at your responses in retrospective, it's YOU the one who's not hearing and going in circles. additionally, this is not the first time someone has advised you to get second opinions before making an RfC; earliest instance was 2 months ago, in the talk page thread that's literally below this one.

not to sound rude or anything, but i hope you can analyze this specific interaction you just had. it's the most perfect and concise example.

Not to be rude, but as I mentioned, repeating arguments for additions isn't going to go anywhere. In the comments in the RFC, someone mentioned that there's no need for a separate page if it can be done on the talk page, which I kind of agree. I still don't really buy the benefit aside from you saying talk pages can't be archived, which isn't even true.

Also going back to the RFC about deleting pages about deaths, adding in some nitpicky things (such as that pages about people are banned) because of lack of support of the RFC is not really going to help.

What did that have to do with the posts above?

please don't rage and be rude all the time.

I don't rage or be rude a lot. I just get extremely frustrated.

Maybe try calming down before you write? That might give you time to clear your mind so that you can construct a better argument than just repeating things (and without yelling).

It just seems like these things are worth repeating because they are getting ignored.

christ for the 999999999999999999999999999999999th time, they aren't getting ignored.

I'm gonna close this since this seems to be getting repetitive.

We aren't done yet. It seems that you are throwing away the advice we are trying to give you.

I am not "throwing it away". Do you have a reason why it is more practical to hold a discussion on the page's talk page rather than on a separate page. Because nothing new is currently being added to this conversation and I am getting tired of arguing about this. At Long Last Leave is an episode that is hated by many fans of The Simpsons and yet it was deleted for being "biased".

I just gave you multiple reasons on the RFC, it's a lot quicker to say why on the talk page (which is never deleted when the page is) since it takes up less space on the wiki, is easier to discuss on since you can easily reply like you can with comments, and has easier access since the talk tab is right there next to the page on.

And nothing new is being added simply because you're once again repeating your same points over and over when we tell you that we are listening, it's just that most of the time your RFCs are frankly not a good idea in the first place. Yet you fail to see that we are telling you this and just keep going on.

And the page was deleted for its IMDb score, 7/10, which disqualifies it from the wiki.

Ok good. Also it has a 6.9/10, not a 7/10. I will make another RfC about this in the near future, and I will take your advice.

There is no need to keep this discussion open. It spiraled into an unnecessary argument and until now, nothing new was being added to the conversation.

> until now, nothing new was being added to the conversation

tigerblazer LITERALLY repeated you what ALMOST EVERYONE here was telling you, starting with raidarr who gave you the most clear version of it. you just discredited all of our attempts at trying to reasonate with you, and shrugged it off as an "unnecessary argument". just pointing that out. maybe this could start an actual "unnecessary argument" so if anyone is gonna answer to this then maybe limit it to a single answer so it doesn't escalate.