User talk:SajZeal/Archive 1

Only warning
Intentionally being disruptive, like you did on Stewards Noticeboard, will not be tolerated. Continuing this behaviour will result in a block. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm sorry tho. I thought it as funny to do that. SajZeal (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was* SajZeal (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn’t. Reply not required. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I still apologize for the disruption though. SajZeal (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful replies of false information on stewards' noticeboard
Hi SajZeal,

Please note that I have removed your unhelpful and duplicate replies in a thread on stewards' noticeboard. While I assume good faith that you were trying to be helpful, please refrain from unhelpful speculation in others' stewards' noticeboard threads as such misinformation only leads to more confusion, at best, and panic, at worst.

Noting your related warning above, I would suggest a break from stewards' noticeboard and, perhaps, from Meta itself. Find a wiki on which to focus your editing constructively, and help out there.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay,
 * But what do you mean I was spreading false information and speculation? Could you point out the misinformation I made? SajZeal (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You suggested, in error, that the wiki in question was closed because of Content Policy, which simply isn't correct. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you said that the wiki had some serious content policy and issues. SajZeal (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As well as code of conduct issues. SajZeal (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Are you sure you replied to the correct thread? You replied to a thread about a wiki closed per Dormancy Policy, which was possibly in error; therefore, there were no Content Policy issues with that wiki. Dmehus (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So why did the Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms wiki fell? SajZeal (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "No, sorry. The key problem with that wiki was mainly system Code of Conduct-related issues of that wiki's users and administrators, in their edit summaries, block summaries, and comments. Secondarily, it also had some serious Content Policy issues, which went unremediated and unaddressed. Dmehus (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)" - Are you sure about that? SajZeal (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I got the warning above because I made a joke and it was deleted, not that I was editing poorly. SajZeal (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Meta Patroller here, and SajZeal, are you sure that with talking about the same discussion ? Because the comment that you left on Stewards' noticeboard is on this discussion not on this discussion.
 * Maybe you can read you diff again and see the whole discussion for understand why he has remove your comment :c HeartsDo (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 06:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as and I have explained, you posted to two discussions on stewards' noticeboard.  warned you about problems with your posting in the one discussion, and now this warning from me is regarding the problems of your posting to the second discussion thread. Hope that clarifies. Dmehus (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But still, you were the one that said it. Do I have to copy and paste what you said again? SajZeal (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say that in this discussion, though. Dmehus (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But You said it in the First discussion I made."No, sorry. The key problem with that wiki was mainly system Code of Conduct-related issues of that wiki's users and administrators, in their edit summaries, block summaries, and comments. Secondarily, it also had some serious Content Policy issues, which went unremediated and unaddressed. Dmehus (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)" SajZeal (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I said that in the thread you started. What I am referring to is this comment you added to the other thread another user started. Does that make sense? Dmehus (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It basically proves what you said was right unless if what you said was a mistake. SajZeal (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I am also talking about the other comment you made. You made that comment before I made those comments you were referring to. SajZeal (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. Where did I say that in this discussion? Dmehus (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't in that discussion, it was in the other discussion called "When will you reopen Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms wiki" you responded with:"No, sorry. The key problem with that wiki was mainly system Code of Conduct-related issues of that wiki's users and administrators, in their edit summaries, block summaries, and comments. Secondarily, it also had some serious Content Policy issues, which went unremediated and unaddressed. Dmehus (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)" Then I told someone in the discussion you were referring to, I told him that the wiki fell because of Code of Conduct related issues and serious Content Policy issues.
 * Basically the event in which I told someone the wiki fell because of too many issues is also linked to what you said in the discussion called "when will you reopen Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms wiki". SajZeal (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're not understanding, in you cited Content Policy and/or Code of Conduct issues as the reason in this discussion. That's the issue. The fact I've referred to the Content Policy and/or Code of Conduct in a separate discussion is irrelevant, as it was totally inappropriate for you to cite those policies as the reason for closure in a thread about inactive wikis. Dmehus (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not really irrelevant, because you were the one that told me in that discussion which led to me citing those policies as the reason for the closure. SajZeal (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It was, though. You can't cite as precedent my explaining a reason for one wiki's closure in another case where the wiki was ostensibly closed per Dormancy Policy. The two matters are mutually exclusive. Dmehus (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can because those events were LINKED to each other if you knew how the scandal went.
 * First, I added the discussion "When will you reopen toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms".
 * Secondly, you responded on that discussion reffering to Content policy issues.
 * Thirdly, I cited those policies to someone telling that the wiki fell beacuse of policy issues.
 * Lastly, you messaged me saying that I was misinforming someone.
 * If the wiki didn't fall because of Content policy issues, then what did? If so? Why didn't you tell me at the discussion called "When will toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms reopen" in the first place? SajZeal (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're getting it. I replied to you in both threads. In the first thread, the one you started, I cited the Content Policy and Code of Conduct issues as the reason for the closure. You then, either intentionally or in error, replied to another user who was querying why their wiki was closed due to inactivity. You cited Content Policy and Code of Conduct, which was patently untrue and incorrect. That is the issue. Dmehus (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, I thought it was Toxic Fandoms and Hatedoms wiki, not his Fandom. SajZeal (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. So this is ✅ now. Dmehus (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing notices and warnings from your user talk page and edit warring
Hi SajZeal,

Please do not continue to remove notices and warnings, broadly construed, from Meta administrators, wiki creators, Meta patrollers, and similar, as you did here, here, and here. Please note on Miraheze Meta Wiki, while you can archive your talk page, you cannot remove such notices from your user talk page, especially when the notices and warnings are either (a) recent or (b) active. Note, too, that and I have reverted these inappropriate removals here, here, and here, and that your continuously removing these notices constitutes edit warring. If you continue on this path, you will be blocked from editing on Meta for a yet to be determined period of time.

Kindly govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So what if those notices are old or from a really long time ago? Does that mean I can remove old notices? SajZeal (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could probably remove them after six months, but the preferred method is to archive a talk page. You can also see also this page, which includes the diff permalink method of archiving. An example of this is on my user talk page. Dmehus (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So why not after the talk page doesn't have any replies for 1 week or so? Isn't that long enough to make an discussion an old thread? SajZeal (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, mainly because Miraheze does not have a robust search functionality that allows us to easily search the full text of prior, non-current page revisions. These recent notices and warnings would be very relevant for the community to examine and review, in any possible Meta or global permissions request in the short to medium term. Additionally, if the same problematic behaviour reoccurs soon after, Meta administrators need to readily be able to review the prior warnings and notices. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should We archive these notices or delete them? SajZeal (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)