User talk:Reception123

Post your messages BELOW the others

Am I being listed as an object of disgust by miraheze?
My request to miraheze for help was either rejected or ignored? 黑底屍 (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I must be frank. You have an issue with patience. You've been informed who is able to help; this is a matter for Steward remediation, in this case dmehus was involved first and I am an advisory. SRE/technical folks are not able to act here, not even members of just CVT below Stewards. You also know what the proper outlets are - to discuss directly, not bringing the issue everywhere including various different emails and the wiki creation queue. You can, if you wish, make the case on the Stewards' noticeboard, but it is in the midst of being handled and I am awaiting response from a colleague regarding a split of wikis to resolve your dispute. Unfortunately all parties are busy and take time to respond. I apologize for the wait, but indigence will not make things go faster. When there is a development, you will be informed directly by either Doug or myself; I'm happy to take any further discussion to your talk page here or the SN as the central hub if you like. --Raidarr (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My latest project for help is https://unmusic.miraheze.org/ The logo setup was unsuccessful.
 * At present, there is no option to reset the logo on the special page, and the system of miraheze is very troublesome. Not only does it not support various magic syntaxes, but unlike other wiki farms, you only need to upload an image with the file name File:Wiki.png directly. The system can automatically replace the Logo.


 * I'm not vexatious, I really can't solve it by myself before asking for help. Don't think I should think it's simple if you think it's simple.
 * While assisting with this issue, is it time to view miraheze's system to be modified to be more convenient to use.--黑底屍 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can be best served on the logo question through the Community noticeboard, specifying what was done and what went wrong. --Raidarr (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You sent multiple emails (hours apart from each other) to both  and   on a Saturday/Sunday, the two days of rest in the week more so during this extended 3-day weekend due to a bank holiday tomorrow, and expect us to get back to your instantaneously? You must remember that we are all volunteers, we are not paid to sit around all day long and look at an email queue and answer questions. I must agree with Raidarr above that you have an issue with patience. Do remember that patience is a virtue. In any case, your issue is because you forgot to put   in front of   in Special:ManageWiki/settings -> Styling -> Logo. Put that in there and the issue should be fixed.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 擷取.JPG
 * Look, the logo still doesn't appear, I have absolutely no idea what's going on?
 * I'm not trying to be vexatious, is there any sysadmin who can come over and help?
 * Because this is no longer a bug that I can handle myself.
 * Thank you.--黑底屍 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained in my response, "your issue is because you forgot to put  in front of   in Special:ManageWiki/settings -> Styling -> Logo. Put that in there and the issue should be fixed." A systems administrator would usually not get involved to assist as this is an issue with how you're setting the setting, not so much a technical issue.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's my own negligence, the Logo has successfully appeared.
 * The last harassment, how to adjust the display size of the Logo.
 * The current logo is too big.
 * Thank you.--黑底屍 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The logo size problem has been adjusted and solved by itself. Sorry for the harassment. Thanks again for the guidance.--黑底屍 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

User warning
Hello. You previously left a message on my talk page which claimed I was edit warring. I replied explaining why I believe my actions did not constitute edit warring, and removed the thread several times, with you restoring it each time.

Now, according to Wikipedia's policies, Reception123 would be in the wrong here, both given w:WP:UP, w:WP:OWNTALK, and w:WP:3RRX wp:WP:DRRC all say that users may remove any message from their talk page and they should not be restored. In addition, earlier today I was reading w:Wikipedia:Harassment for unrelated reasons and, interestingly it said that restoration of removed warnings constitutes harassment, especially when the warnings are questionable like here. Now, while I am the victim of a targetted harassment campaign that has been going on on another site, I do not believe Reception123 was trying to harass me. However, given Miraheze's unwritten custom started by Dmehus of citing Wikipedia's policies, and no override of these so far, and the extremely serious concerns with restoring these; combined with the fact of the questionability of the warning itself and the fact that I've already read it, I'll simply ask if you would mind if I removed it from my talk page? I do not want it there anymore. If so, this would require a change to either Miraheze's harassment policy or the way in which Miraheze cites Wikipedia policies, which is a seperate matter, but the problems here are very serious ones. Naleksuh (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would clearly like to say that there was absolutely no intention of harassment and I don't think anyone can objectively see it as that. I stand by my warning and I would have (and have in the past) done the same for any other user which would have attempted to remove a warning from their talkpage without archival (especially so quickly).
 * As I have explained, one reason for why I believe warnings shouldn't be completely removed is because if the behavior is repeated in the future other Administrators should be able to easily see that the user has already been warned in order to determine what the next steps should be. You mentioning the "questionability of the warning" proves to me that you still see the warning as not being legitimate and I think that makes it more problematic that you wish to remove it. I'm also unsure why it's problematic for you to simply archive it.
 * I would personally think it should not be removed until the outcome of the pending RfC is determined. Multiple administrators believe that the current convention is that warnings should not be removed completely. If the community thinks that that convention is wrong, there is now an opportunity to reverse it but not endorsing the rule in the RfC. After this much time has passed, I don't see any urgency in removing the warning and would think that waiting for the community to express its view on the matter would be preferable.
 * Regarding citing Wikipedia policies, I do agree with you and believe that it's important to have a wider conversation about those and preferably develop more Meta policies/essays because I think it's clear that we can't simply follow all Wikipedia policies blindly, since the project is very different to Meta. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't "following all Wikipedia policies blindly". For the record, I did not start that convention. But MrJaroslavik explained it pretty well: There are more options - either accept all, none, or create local policies.. It's not okay to selectively choose which Wikipedia policies you will and will not follow depending on whether they do or don't support your beliefs. The point is that although you believe my actions constituted edit warring, the policies they were not edit warring, and while you can make a proposal to change the policy, and if successful I would follow that new policy, that would not make my past actions a violation of new policy; I do not have a time machine. The problem is, yourself, with the claim of edit warring. And you already incorrectly described the action, I didn't reinstate the section after your post. Also, ironically, you were reverting reinstating of a section, since users have a right to remove them, but when it's yours now users don't have a right to remove them. Is that correct? Why not simply remove the section, then? Naleksuh (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, please stop. This is starting to get ridiculous, and there is no need to go forward with this whole angry business. Also, I thought we were over this topic, and I find this quite disruptive in my opinion (I'm not sure if anyone else will agree with me on this one, seeing as this chain has reached its peak a while ago). The problem is that you're not dropping the stick on the ignorance of you still choosing to bring this matter back up. Wouldn't it have been better off to keep the water under the bridge and call it a day? :/ DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * DROPTHESTICK is not a way to get out of accountability. Also, the topic is still on my talk page, which is what this is about, so no, there is no "keeping the water under the bridge" because it was never under the bridge in the first place. Water under the bridge would be removing it. Naleksuh (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Also, the topic is still on my talk page, which is what this is about, so no" The way you worded it here sounds so awkward that I couldn't exactly keep a straight face. This has been a cycle for a few months now, and yet all I heard were laughable statements from you. Not to sound snobbish or anything, but as long as you say what you want to say about this silly foolishness over a policy that has yet to be developed, you're only making yourself look even worse than before. And here I thought your aggression from back in January was bad enough. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Wikipedia policies, I have said in my own reply that I agree that it should be a work in progress to clarify their status. What am I trying to explain is that the Wikipedia policy you cite has never really been followed and administrators have for as far as I know prevented users from removing warnings from their talkpage. Therefore, even if not a written policy it is a Meta convention and applied at the time (as it has equally applied to all users before). The purpose of an RfC would be to confirm whether the community endorses the convention or whether it thinks it shouldn't exist. I know you don't seem to like conventions, but they do exist and have been acknowledged and it just isn't reasonable to have "either it's written or doesn't exist approach" as Meta is still a developing project and doesn't have policies on every aspect possible.
 * And no, regarding reinstating the difference is not that it's mine, the difference is that administrators are elected by the community to enforce Meta rules (whether written or not) and my thread was a warning regarding Meta rules, which I have explained multiple times why I believe they shouldn't be removed. Either way, there is no point arguing this further in my opinion as we clearly disagree, so I would just wait for the RfC to express your view. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)