User talk:DarkMatterMan4500

Post your messages below the other messages

Mini-NIWA
On smash.miraheze.org I told you that I got an idea to make a mini-NIWA on Miraheze (e.g. mario.miraheze.org, which me & HannaMontanaFan requested a url change to), nintendo.miraheze.org (I filed an adoption request for this wiki). there could also be places like a kirby.miraheze.org and pokemon.miraheze.org. In such the event this occurs, would it be ok if they were linked to from the Qualitipedia wikis (e.g. Awesome Games Wiki)? And ofc I'd try being more original and attribute where required -- you can kind of see that direction with the templates I've been making on supermariowiki.miraheze.org. RMV2003 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Eh, that wouldn't be a bad idea, wouldn't you say? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A few things
Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I apologize for overreacting about Raidarr's comment.
 * 2) I would like to be unblocked again. There isn't anything in Qualitipedia global rules that says that overreacting warrants an infinite cross-wiki ban. Besides, I only overreacted on one wiki, and it was very minor, and you deleted the blog shortly after, so there was really no harm done. A cross-wiki ban is unnecessary, so maybe at least a temporary ban from the Qualitipedia Meta wiki, and I can be unblocked on the wikis I did nothing wrong on.
 * You still have some learning to do. The other admins wouldn't really approve of you being unblocked there at this time, I'm afraid. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe at least change the blocks to a month, I think that is plenty of time. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just want to make a comment here. All of Bluba's blocks (with the exception of their 1-month block on Qualitipedia Meta, a 1-month blog editing block from DarkMatterMan on TSAEW, a one-week block and a two-week block on RWW) have been indefinite. Also not to mention out of all of the non-indefinite blocks, they were generally only for 1 or 2 weeks or a month. Also, Bluba is repeatedly getting cross-wiki blocked when most of the time, their blocks are just because of an incident on one wiki, and unless the incident is really bad, they should only be blocked on that category of wikis. FatBurn0000 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this, and have been trying, somewhat ad nauseam, to have the Qualitipedia wikis not engage in crosswiki blocks where the user is not causing problems or has never edited. Limit the block to wiki(s) where the problem exists. So +1 from me here. Dmehus (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be understandable, given what you're saying here. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Dmehus has said before that blocks are not meant as a punishment but to prevent disruption. Nothing I have done has caused any major disruption, and my good contributions outweigh the bad. I would say the only necessary block is on Qualitipedia Meta, since that is where the problem occured. And given that this was relatively minor, the block can be shortened to at most 1 month. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the other admins would say about this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I would recommend discussing this with them though, as Dmehus and other users have been against Qualitipedia's policy of cross-wiki blocks and using blocks as punishment. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, it seems clear to me that most of the users who have supported your various blocks likely agreed precisely on the premise you mention - the word used may be 'punishment' (not that I recall seeing it presented that way), but there's no doubt the primary reasoning is because of disruption and so the consequence is avoiding it on the home turf. Thus blocking you is seen as a method to avoid disruption, and if your good outweighs the bad is not your discretion. For my part I believe you deserve a shot, but very much need to tone it down - the result ultimately has been you disrupting or otherwise disturbing users, though I reiterate that I'm personally not offended and wouldn't mind seeing you get a shot. Cross wiki blocks are done on the 'wiki network' rationale where they are all assumed to be connected administratively, though regardless mass blocking should only be done for extreme cases, and yours is not so extreme. --Raidarr (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent point made by . Not going to lie there, for sure. On the contrary, even if you weren't being extremely bad, I didn't personally think the cross-wiki blocks (another point I brought up awhile back, perhaps back in May or June, I think) were really necessary. Only the wikis you were acting disruptively on. Cross-wiki blocks should've only applied to block evaders, sockpuppet accounts, and/or cross-wiki trolls and long-term abusers, not someone who was only acting disruptive on just one wiki. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case I should be unblocked from all of the wikis except for Qualitipedia Meta, and my block on Qualitipedia Meta should be shortened to a month at most. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * After the block expires, I can make a Request for Comment to improve the blocking policy. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me?
Hi DarkMM! I'm recently learning English and I intend to improve. However, it's not good as far as I can underground things. According to your userpage, you are a native English speaker. You are able to help me by listening to this audio: . What she said? It was posted in a group on a media, but I didn't understand this "joke" (only the ending). YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 02:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the audio sounds awkward, making it harder for me to pick up what they were saying, other than the hungry part. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, English has always been my primary language, but, thanks I guess? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I only understand the ending too, when they say "Really hungry ok", and I don't speak English. And you are a native English speaker. English is a bizarre language, I have no doubts about that. But it shows I'm fine, I think. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 02:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can help a bit, it says "I was really hungry ok?" Anpang   Talk  09:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Request #21180
Hi DarkMatterMan4500,

Could you describe for me your thought process in how you rationalized approving wiki request #21180, not just as okay-ish/a conditional edge case, but a bit vague, but otherwise pretty good against, principally, Content Policy? This is the fundamental policy against which wiki creators must consider when approving a requested wiki.

Notably, the requestor themselves even acknowledged the request was highly unlikely to be approved, saying there was about a 1 in 5 chance it would be approved.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see 's question on Discord, as a long discussion of it can be seen there, as I was just asked this the other day, and I regret approving that wiki request. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 09:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 Thank you for your reply, and for the link, which I've re-read; however, not all Miraheze community members are members of the Miraheze Discord channel. For their benefit, I'll summarize Agent Isai's, Raidarr's, and Ugochimobi's responses. Agent Isai asked you whether or not the proposed wiki sounded like a content of Public Test Wiki, to which you replied that because the name was not similar to TestWiki, it was not a content fork. Raidarr, Ugochimobi, and others, affirmed Agent Isai's views, with which I'd agree. It was your response, and subsequent responses to others' questions, in which you said you were "skimming" the request in order to approve it. Equally so, you should never feel compelled to "skim" wiki requests in order to manage a requested wiki queue backlog or otherwise. Review of wiki requests requires thoughtful consideration of what the wiki's purpose is (i.e., what it is in a broad, general sense), what does it propose to write about (i.e., what it is about), and whether we have any substantially similar wikis, to which it might be better to guide the requesting user to consider contributing there, and requesting any permissions locally as they may require. As I've guided you on a number of either hastily approved or questionably/incorrectly approved wikis a number of times, notably back in May/June of this year, I was hoping to get more of a sense of your thought process behind this approval, beyond the link to the Discord server thread you shared. Do you have anything else to add to that, or does this suitably summarize that thought process? Dmehus (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as of now, I'm just being cautious about whether or not wiki requests are to be approved. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I'm dealing with the same LTA who's been rampant this year. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)