UnAsk A Question


3,998 Edits since joining this wiki
May 17, 2009

Archives: (1), (2)

Latest activity

12,528 questions asked so far

<a id="community-widget-action-button" href="/wiki/Special:MyHome" class="wikia-button forward" rel="nofollow">Activity feed</a>

Mendelbook 2Edit

Mendelbook 2.1.0 is out. (Beta testers, if < 2.1.0, reload.) If you want to try out my skin mod, have a look at User:M.mendel/mendelbook2. Feedback goes here. --◄mendel► 21:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Tales of mere existence Edit

"How You May Fall For A Girl On Facebook" Tales Of Mere Existence03:54

"How You May Fall For A Girl On Facebook" Tales Of Mere Existence

425 --◄mendel► 10:16, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Moar plz.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:28, July 9, 2010 (UTC) --◄mendel► 10:39, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
This guy's stuff is not as amusing as the links above and... it's plagiarized from anonymous sources, but it's geekily amusing to those who took at least one-too-many math classes in college.
They integrated from the very point of origin. Her curves were continuous, and even though he was odd, he was a real number. The day their lines first intersected, they became an ordered pair. From then on it was a continuous function. They were both in their prime, so in next to no time they were horizontal and parallel. She was awed by the magnitude of his perpendicular line, and he was amazed by her conical projections. "Bisect my angle!" she postulated each time she reached her local maximum. He taught her the chain rule as she implicitly defined the amplitude of his simple harmonic motion. They underwent multiple rotations of their axes, until at last they reached the vertex, the critical point, their finite limit. After that they slept like logs. Later she found him taking a right-handed limit, that was a problem, because it was an improper form. He meanwhile had realized that she was irrational, not to mention square. She approached her ex, so they diverged. The version I first heard/read included a line about his integrating across her asymptote, but I was unable to find that version.
I'm sure the above can be properly Mendelized, if inspirational enough.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:19, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
I would, but I don't have gnuplot installed on this machine rimshot.
More maths jokes. --◄mendel► 10:06, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to stop... Edit

Now that you've started signing article pages, are you going to stop signing talk pages? Don't the articles belong to the world? (Yeah, we sort of like our own answers, but really, it's a wiki, so anyone can — and perhaps, should — edit them.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:01, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

"Now"? It's been exactly a year ago (thank you for noticing?), though I really started in earnest on July 25 and never stopped since.
This has been covered by a discussion on the community portal and, when the attribution feature was added to the wiki, there was a poll. Subsequently, the option to sign answers has been documented in Help:Signature and UnAnswers:UnAnswers in a nutshell (which I'd forgotten about, so thank you again).
I guess I just like to take credit for my answers, and the points that I made on the original CP talk still stand: signing my answer doesn't prevent anyone from editing it. --◄mendel► 06:44, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice that you always did it until recently (i.e. I'm reasonably sure that there are answers which don't bear your name). With the new skins and new attributions... well, mebbe it's time to review. I've never signed b/c (a) I never thought it was an option, (b) I'm not sure that it's appropriate on a wiki, and (c) I'm not sure that it's appropriate on a wiki. (Maybe it's also time for me to review that prejudice.)
Signing an answer doesn't prevent editing, but it sure does discourage it. (As we've already discussed elsewhere, we are all already reluctant to even offer implied critiques.) It also seems awkward if only some people sign. I'm gonna think about it some more. Tennessee Ernie Ford 16:22, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the old discussions that I linked? We don't edit each other's answers that often anyway. I don't like that I have to go to the history for multiple answers; if somebody corrects the spelling of another's answer, both are listed in the credits, but only one of them had the creative idea.
If you feel there should be consistency, maybe we should check for community consensus again. The problem is that there is no clear case for either option (signing or not), and there is no clear case for consistency, either (so far,anyway). --M.mendel 16:55, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the old discussions. (see: I'm gonna think about it some more.) The way I see a wiki is that there are no personal creative ideas, it all belongs to the community. With humor, that's a little more interesting. Peeps aren't that heavily invested into who did/did not write the great passage in the article on Roses, but we do like to get credit for inventing something (humorous or otherwise).
So, I think the two desires, attribution & wikiness, are inherently incompatible. The case is clear to me (but since it's a wiki, that's a community discussion...which is exactly what I mean ;-)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
It is demonstrably possible to compile facts and advice by committee, but is it possible to write humor by committee? Darthipedia seems to think so. Yet on many other wikis, people keep a list of the articles they created on their userpages. Is it telling that Yallow and Randomtime constructed their latest work on irc before commmitting it to wiki? Does the reader want to know who wrote what? (I do!) --M.mendel 04:35, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Another point: yours and mine. And if you say, well, I do like to know which UnAnswers refer to me, I give you yours and mine. --M.mendel 06:14, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

TEF sees black Edit

comment moved from the above section, M.mendel 07:10, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, it seems that Wikia and quality control are similarly inherently incompatible. The latest server recovery has botched all my preferences, included my hard-to-code signature pref (hard for me, probably easier for mendel et al) It also looks like I'm going to have to re-enable mendelbook and I don't know what all else was lost. Ggggrrr.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

If you can still see the floating topbar, mendelbook is still on (your answers.css is still there!). I didn't lose anything, happily. I saw black during a brief time of server failure, then everything returned to normal. --M.mendel 04:35, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
When I have my background back to unblack, I will find it easier to respond (how did ppls live with black in the days before MendelBooks?) Meantime, I have what looks like the floating topbar, but many things are borked (including the background). Any thoughts? (I'm not ignoring the unfinished discussion...I'm really corked about the borking.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
If this link gives you a light background, then go to your preferences, skin tab, uncheck the "admin override", mark a theme, and you'll be fine. If it doesn't, you're USCWAP = borked.
If you want to help me, make some screenshots of the broken things before you do -- I do want mendelbook to work with the custom skin, and when I tested it, it looked reasonably ok. --M.mendel 07:10, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Here's some troubleshooting info:
  • I get the mendelbook topbar as long as I have the @import going on.
  • I get the black background as long as I have let admins override my choices checked.
  • so, the only way I get things to look they were before the Wikia server crash is if I @import and uncheck admin override. Unfortunately, I want the admin override, b/c it persists across the wikis. Oddly, this didn't change during the server issues nor even later that day. Wikia has done something since that forces part of the default answers.css on me, but not the other part (unless there was some other change to MendelBook...).
 —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:08, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
That's the way it's supposed to work, unfortunately. I could try crafting some sort of de-blackifyer for you, but it'd be a kludge.
In my experience, the skin choices for the answer wikis are independent of those for other wikis (i.e. I have monobook on regular wikis and spring on answers); so you should be able to check the admin override on Guildwiki, and then choose a theme here without losing the custom skin there. What other answers wiki do you frequent? You could always @import their custom mods privately. --M.mendel 07:16, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
But here's the thing: I didn't change anything and yet my skin was changed. I had Mendelbook w/o black background. (Yah, I should probably get over it and figure out a work-around.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:29, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the line on preferences that says that admin override will follow me across wikia seems to have done the trick! Things appear to look as they did before. (I don't normally hate dark backgrounded skins, but something about this one gave me a headache...and I couldn't easily tell bold from normal from italics.) Much better now. Thanks!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:34, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Great! That line was written before there were answers wikis with selectable themes; it was true before April/May 2010. --M.mendel 07:40, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
If your preferences got "lost" and reset to the defaults, then that would have changed your skin choice from a theme back to "admin override". --M.mendel 07:40, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Global mendelbook? Edit

Would you have any reservations about me applying the Mendelbook modifications to the global CSS? Uncyclopedia's editors and facebook fans have commented that UnAnswers looks "ugly". Mendelbook looks much better, and I'd have no hesitation about enabling it globally, unless you think it's not ready. If this is the case, what would you recommend be the default answers skin (keep it at custom, or change to a light theme?). -- RandomTime 13:07, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Mendelbook is not really "done" yet; I'm a bit busy with the drama on gwiki right now; the most important thing would be to get the naviagtion set up. If my theory is right, the ugliness stems mainly from the skin being too black; would setting the wiki skin to one of the lighter themes change things for the uncyc people?
As you know, mendelbook is relatively bug-free, but hasn't been tested yet across different browsers; we'd definitely need to set up an announcement with feedback requests via sitenotice if we were to change to it now. --◄mendel► 13:20, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Would it be best to change the default to sky, and then set up a sitenotice saying we are considering using your skin hacks at User:M.mendel/mendelbook2 but need user feedback first? -- RandomTime 13:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, erm, my idea is to switch to sky in order to figure out if the UA folks like that better, and to find out how our own community reacts to sunlight a lighter theme. Maybe I could do an installable AFKskin mod for those who can't do without black. (It should be enough to @import the present monaco.css? Definitely move that one to some other name before installing mendelbook!) If this does satisfactorily as an interim solution, I'd rather finish mendelbook first instead of putting out incremental updates on a live skin.
The sitenotice announcement asking for bug reports would need to go out when mendelbook goes live, so that we can catch and fix problems speedily – not before, as you suggest. I think discussing the plans up front, maybe on the community portal, is definitely a good idea, though. --◄mendel► 13:37, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Is this Mendelbook? (white with red buttons) To be honest, I preferred the dark and gloomy UA skin by far.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 14:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Nope, this is Sky. I'll post a Community Portal about the issue -- RandomTime 14:26, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Jeffbot Edit

"Knowing that this strip will be some people’s first exposure to JEFbot, completely out of context, makes me snicker quietly to myself." (Jeff) [1] --◄mendel► 14:19, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm addicted to Jefbot now, thanks a lot mendel. Felix Omni Signature 13:22, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
The archive is not that long yet. --◄mendel► 17:31, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strange extra sidebar on mendelbook Edit

RT&#039;s skin failure

Navigation showing

I'm seeing an extra monaco-style blue toolbox above the mendelbook toolbox. Am I doing something wrong? -- RandomTime 10:48, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's the navigation widget, and I'm not seeing that (yet?). Does reloading your styles fix this? The css that wikia uses to supress it might have failed to load properly for you. --◄mendel► 10:57, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that was the first thing I tried -- RandomTime 11:55, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else seeing this? On any skin? --◄mendel► 17:54, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Better Edit

This was the correct response. I bow to your superior understanding of the unquestion unasked.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:53, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did ponder adding some template code to compute the current negative difference, before I realized that this was a straight answer and got inspired. --◄mendel► 09:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
oh? what's the advantage of using Template:fullurl (aside from the obviously shorter link) ?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:47, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Having a diff that reads better is one reason; the other is that if the wiki ever moves to another URL, the links will still be local. Also, "fullurl" is not a template, but a builtin parser function. --◄mendel► 18:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC) & 18:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Omg. Edit

Just... wow.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 14:31, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

The Wise Guys are a German comedy a-capella group who have already recorded several albums and have a huge following. I found a title without text for y'all so you could share in the awesome. ;) --◄mendel► 18:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

RE:Welcome tip Edit

Oh, I see. New to this wiki. :P Sounds like fun! --Cpl. Dunn(Talk) 22:44, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dear blank Edit --◄mendel► 07:41, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me say it with one of the sections in the menu-bar: Umm... WTF? --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 10:33, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
I love most of these. Especially the Twilight hate ones. :D ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 18:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merry Xmas Edit

And the same to you :) Khono 14:35, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

You have been nominated! Edit

Nominated for adminship that is. Congratulations! Go here to accept or decline. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

welcome back Edit

To the admin team :) --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:13, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --◄mendel► 18:54, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Imma bypassin' AFK When Needed Edit

AFK says on his talk he wants to discuss my behaviour (and announced on irc he'd be posting a WoT on El Nazgir's talkpage), so before he does that, I thought I'd get a foot in and show what my behaviour actually was. AFK's concerned about my edits to the UnAnswers Garry's Mod, Shall we steal their spoon, Category:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail and his userpage.

The description of the category stated (in full): "This is a category used to aid someone in their attempt to ask a question which otherwise would bring you to our fail page." What AFK is referring to is that you need to put something on a page when you create it normally, and the only known way to do that and still have it tagged as an open question is by putting a category tag on it.

For the two pages AFK created and tagged with this "aid" category, I added content-related tags and deleted the category tags since they seemed to be no longer needed.

AFK had the category hidden; I unhid it because I didn't see the necessity.

Then I tagged AFK's userpage with it since it seemed to fit - he was/is "bypassing Wikia fail", after all. Fits me, too, by the way. Got a chuckle out of it.

The rest of my "behaviour" is mostly on Category talk:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail. My main ideas were:

  • discuss what to do with the category, what it's for, etc.
  • since this is not a normal "content" tag, counsel AFK to seek community input on this
  • react to personal comments by AFK about me; suggest he put these on my talkpage

I also contacted AFK on his talkpage here to try and correct a misunderstanding, but it doesn't seem to have helped.

None of this was in any way administrative; and I'm not going to administrate A F K When Needed because we have a history of personal issues. If I did, it would be to remind him to "Comment on content, not on the contributor", as UnAnswers:No Personal Attacks asks us to do. I would also stress that personal concerns should be addressed on the personal talkpage of the user involved (either mine or AFK's talkpage would be fine).

My take on AFK is that he mixes the discussion on the topic of his category with comments on what he doesn't like about me, and it's dramatizing what ought to be a reasonable and rational discussion on one hand, and on the other it is curtailing my ability to respond reasonably to his criticism of me since it's really in the wrong place. --◄mendel► 07:18, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Ishmael.
Dr. Ishmael.
Dr. Ishmael.
Dr. Ishmael.
Dr. Ishmael.
Now you know what's going on in my head. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 08:01, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
He's married; and I don't find him that attractive anyway.
Your edit summary reads, "Far too late. When reverting most of the work on another and making, at least, sweeping changes to it. EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS. You did not; merely reverted. FFS." I am happy to explain anything I actually get asked about. I'm sorry that I didn't anticipate your needs for explanation; I didn't feel my changes were all that sweeping.
I understand from your words "too late" that my post above would have been an acceptable explanation. It restates what I know and did, but when it comes down to it, the actual explanations are "they seemed to be no longer needed" and "I didn't see the necessity". What does it tell you?
I suppose what you really wanted me to explain was, to quote you, why I "seem quite convinced having a record of which questions Wikia randomly objected to has absolutely no merit at all" [2]. I could/would not have explained that because even the idea of using the category as a record (as opposed to an aid) was never mentioned anywhere, and hence I did not have this conviction when I made my edits. You could have found that out if you had asked. In that instance, I read your statement as simply "I want to use this category as a record" and started arguing from there, ignoring the parts of your statement that I perceived as personal criticism. If I had been more alert, I might have noticed that this was what you really were upset about with me. --◄mendel► 08:59, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

GuildWiki Edit

I'd have thought you'd have learned something about dealing with others, but it doesn't appear to have happened.

You reverted my efforts to use a category by emptying it. Even putting "served it's purpose?" in the edit summaries would have done a world of good. It would have shown you were attempting to contribute. It would have shown you were there to help.

You did not show either of these things; while asking questions and commenting that I should get the input of others, you failed to heed your own advice. While asking me to explain my actions, you did not explain your own. While modifying my work before it was complete, you didn't give us ( / me) a single glimpse into your thought process. You just reverted the majority of what I did, edited my userpage, and didn't appear to consider to stop and reflect on how that would look.

Casually reverting the efforts of someone you've a history with. No explanations offered. How could that possibly look bad?

As amusing as your edit to my userpage no doubt was, why not your own user page as well? In addition to mine. Instead. Either. That shows humour. That shows solidarity. I quote, "fits me, too". If it fits you, why not apply it to yourself?

This information would have helped, at the time. This would have led to us working together. Instead it's not there to help me understand your intentions so that we could work together. It's not there because you saw me say on IRC that after this, I wouldn't look for community input next time - I simply wouldn't bother trying, and felt like trying to make up the damage that had been caused. It's there because A F K's going to El_Nazgir's talk and I want to get there first.

It's not there for the community. It's not there for the two of us. It's not there for me. It's there to make you look good.

Fucking congratulations, job done. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 08:14, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

  • "You failed to heed your own advice. While asking me to explain my actions, you did not explain your own." -- my advice is to ask questions if you want explanations, simple as that. You didn't ask; I did.
  • "While modifying my work before it was complete" -- you described your category as an aid to create new pages; there was no indication that this description was incomplete, and since the category is still there, it could still serve this purpose. The thing that was destroyed was your idea of using this as some sort of record-keeping device; but then you never mentioned that (should've explained, lol), and you didn't even have one of the older pages in it, so there was no reasonable way to infer that.
  • "Why not your own user page as well?" -- (finally a question! ;) I repurposed your category by using it this way. I wasn't sure whether you'd agree to that; whether you'd want to keep it like this after having seen the double meaning of the category name and had a laugh about it. If you'd have said, "good idea", and kept the tag, I'd have added myself - or you could have added me in return. But your reaction was negative, so I didn't.
  • "It's there to make you look good" -- have I exaggerated anywhere? misrepresented anything? put someone down to make me look better? If yes, please point it out. I want to state my own case truthfully, not "look good".
  • "Instead it's not there to help me understand your intentions so that we could work together." -- I put something on your userpage to clarify my intentions, and it's not helped one whit. And neither has the above, so far as I can see.
You were not reaffirmed for your admin and bureaucrat duties here because of some traits that we felt were detrimental to the wiki and overshadowed the benefits that you bring to us. In your rant here or your current quitting message on your userpage, you don't reflect on how these traits have a role in your failure to rejoin this community; I'd have liked to see you comment on how you think you've changed, and what you believe still stands in your way. Blaming me for this failure is cheap, and easy on you; you're losing an opportunity for personal growth if you miss reflecting on yourself in this. (But then you don't have to do that publicly.)
Cheers, --◄mendel► 09:57, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
"Blaming me for this failure is cheap"
I'd like to remind you of what was said (by neither of us) on IRC yesterday. You seem to have forgotten and decided this was my fault, and that I'm ignoring it's my fault. I don't accept that it is; so I don't accept that view.
I'm aware of my own mistakes; doing a Mendel and appearing on your talk page with a few choice questions would have helped (and been smarter than failing to do so, which I did), but when effectively 100% of your work is reverted, that sends out a strong message. It would've helped if you foresaw a problem with being so quick to revert the work of someone you've a history with, you didn't. That's what I attribute a lot of this to. You did things your way, thought about how you'd react to your own actions, correctly deduced how you would react, then went on your merry way. I don't think my frustration and anger were in any way hard to foresee. I credit you as having tried (I don't believe you've stated this; but my opinion of you leads me to believe you would have - a trait I admire), I just think your attempt was flawed. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:02, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sweeping changes Edit

First paragraph moved from AFK's talkpage, ◄mendel► 21:00, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

You've stated you don't see how you implemented sweeping changes. I struggle to comprehend this. I sought to include a category; you emptied it (minus a joke). That's as sweeping a change as possible (with the nature of categories in mind, I consider it equal to - not less significant than - going ahead and deleting the category. An empty category is nothing. A single joke entry, is also nothing).A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 15:53, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

The sweeping change is untagging two questions; it is probably the first sweeping change in history that took less than a minute, and it wouldn't take much longer to undo. I understand you got very angry about it, though, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference to you.
Maintenance and administrative categories are often empty, a prime example would be "candidates for deletion". From your description that you posted on the category page, I had inferred that you intended the category to be used if a tag was needed for a question that needed to be created "the hard way" when no other tag was readily available, or, as I put it, as a "Category:I can't think of a tag for my question". From that, this tag would no longer be needed on questions that already had other tags. I added those tags to the two questions and consequently deleted yours because it was no longer needed (or so it seemed). I felt that this was how you intended the category to work, based on what you had written about it. Whenever you created your next question past the filter, it would be there for you to use. I felt I had not broken anything, helped you with your questions by tagging them, and was very surprised when you opened the "merit" section with its exaggerated choice of words ("absolutely", "wholesale") and false imputation ("You seem quite convinced ..."). Where was my reasoning flawed? --◄mendel► 21:00, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
I can see your perspective; if you honestly can't see mine then I'm at a loss for where to go next.
My anger was a result of a multitude of things. I'm on my way out the door; so I'll likely regret setting a rushed edit in stone, but oh well.
  • I was attempting to implement something and suddenly questions I placed in a category had been removed. It seemed, in conjunction with why not discuss this on the Community Portal Talk? like a "don't do that!". The word "administrative" did not help. Administrative tasks and Administrators go hand-in-hand. When you reverted my work, suggested I talk about edits instead of making them, it came across as a "this isn't for you to do" or a "it's not your place to do the work of Administrators".
  • Reverts without explanation are always ill-advised, imo.
  • I understand in your eyes you were not reverting, but updating. I didn't know that at the time; clarification would've helped. It didn't come in time.
  • The fact that you allowed this to happen with someone you've a history with / has a history with you, frankly, seemed careless. And that was what really got to me. That I and my work were seemingly disregarded, and discarded. On a whim, without thought.
  • See Also: The time factor. My work was undone quickly. It added to the feeling of hostility; as if it was being stamped out as soon as it was noticed.
  • The combination. Someone, recently made an Administrator, with whom I've a history came along as I began a project of mine, brandished the word "administrative" around like a badge, reverted my edits, then suggested next time I run my edits past others in advance.* I didn't deal with the list one at a time. I got the sum of them. It was a discouraging experience.
* Not intended as a factual list of events as they truly occurred, but the perspective of myself, with the limited knowledge available to me at the time. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 22:14, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
"I was attempting to implement something and suddenly questions I placed in a category had been removed." -- I can see you didn't understand that - why didn't you ask for an explanation?
"The time factor. My work was undone quickly." -- You edited from 12:09 to 12:12 (UTC), being the first editor of the day; I edited from 12:41 to 12:49, ending with a friendly question on the talkpage. I didn't interfere with your editing. Why I should have waited? What would it have changed?
# (diff | hist) . . N Category talk:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail‎; 12:49 . . (+326) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (Avoid?)
# (diff | hist) . . Category:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail‎; 12:47 . . (-25) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (unhide)
# (diff | hist) . . User:A F K When Needed‎; 12:46 . . (+42) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (Category:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail‎)
# (diff | hist) . . m Garry's Mod‎; 12:45 . . (-16) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (retagged)
# (diff | hist) . . m Shall we steal their spoon‎; 12:43 . . (-20) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (tagged) [rollback]
# (diff | hist) . . What do you mean I fail‎; 12:42 . . (+1) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill)
# (diff | hist) . . What do you mean I fail‎; 12:41 . . (-59) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill)
# (diff | hist) . . m Template:Ask‎; 12:41 . . (-2) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs | Kill) (single line) [rollback]
# (diff | hist) . . Nm Category:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail‎; 12:12 . . (+176) . . A F K When Needed (Talk | contribs | Kill) (Created page with "This is a (hidden) category used to aid someone in their attempt to ask a question which otherwise would bring you to our fail page. __HIDDENCAT__")
# (diff | hist) . . Nm Garry's Mod‎; 12:09 . . (+59) . . A F K When Needed (Talk | contribs | Kill) (Created page with "Category:UnAsked Category:Imma bypassin' Wikia fail")
# (diff | hist) . . N Where'd everyone go‎; 12:09 . . (+20) . . A F K When Needed (Talk | contribs | Kill) (new question)
# (diff | hist) . . N Nobody knows the trouble I've seen... does anyone know my sorrow‎; 12:09 . . (+20) . . A F K When Needed (Talk | contribs | Kill) (new question)
"I didn't deal with the list one at a time." -- Yes, you did. The word "administrative" and the idea to seek community input on this category came a good ten hours after my initial edits, and eight hours after you posted that I "seem quite convinced" that your category had "absolutely no merit at all". You arrived at this misunderstanding from my edits alone, not from the combination you cite.
Full reverts should be explained, yes. Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. (Wikipedia) This didn't happen here. I changed the categories on two pages. This doesn't even fit the broader definition of reversion, given as reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part (idem). Wikipedia advises to "try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert" - I retagged, not untagged. Your questions are still there, and so is your category. They were not "stamped out".
"clarification would've helped. It didn't come in time." -- Why didn't you ask for it?
"The fact that you allowed this to happen with someone you've a history with / has a history with you, frankly, seemed careless." -- I thought you had changed, and that's why you were back; giving you the benefit of the doubt. You do have a history of misunderstanding me (no matter whose fault that is), so if you get angry, as you have before, why can you not entertain the notion that it is based on a misunderstanding, as it has numerous times before? Frankly, that seems careless. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana)
I've never understood why you do that - misunderstand people, then fly into a rage over the misunderstanding. (But then that trait seems part of the human condition.) Also, I have never figured out how to prevent you from going off into hostility over a misunderstanding - if you have any tips on how I could manage to not "allow this to happen" I'd be grateful.
I can't get closer to your perspective than this; if that's not enough, then I'm sorry. --◄mendel► 08:38, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
I'll respond here if you like, but there are some things I'd rather not discuss on the wiki if possible. I'm uncertain if I'd work them into a response here or omit them.
Might I continue this discussion with you by e-mail, or would you rather we keep it in one place? A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 14:32, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
I suggest putting thinks fit for the public on the wiki, and other things in email. Nobody needs my permission to email me. --◄mendel► 16:38, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody Edit

Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth
Mama, ooh, I don't want to die

Just thought I'd clarify in case your recent Adminship (congrats) causes confusion in relation to this edit.

"face wikia staff, Mendel, ooh, I don't want to be banned" is a reference to the above. I have to face Wikia Staff and don't want to be banned. Your name was thrown in as it began with 'M'; and it replaced the figure of "Mama" - who in the original piece is not threatening death (just as I didn't mean to infer I was fearful of you banning me).

When I returned to the section to see RT's contribution, it dawned on me there was a risk of potential misunderstanding; so I elected to proactively combat it. :) A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 17:13, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

So you do want to be banned? --◄mendel► 22:06, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear.
No, the point was that it was Wikia Staff likely to do it and not you.
(It was just for the sake of a parody) A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 22:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but I am likely to do it. You see, I edited for 10 minutes, and it took 10 hours (maybe a little less) to deal with the aftermath. Not again! I'm planning to just ban you for personal attack and AGF for up to a month the next time I see a hostile misreading (if I see it first, and no matter whom it concerns), and let the admin who unbans you sort it out. I thought of that this morning! :) after I spent over two hours replying to you. I might catch some flak for it, but then admin discretion is a wonderful thing. (If blocked, you could get off by providing an explanation cum apology, though.) --◄mendel► 22:19, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

that sounds ironic Edit

m 23:00 Wanna screw‎ (diff | hist) . . (-33) . . M.mendel (Talk | contribs) (unfucked)

A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 22:04, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Help with unfacts Edit

Hey, I hope this wasn't inappropriate to ask on your talk page, if it was please let me know. The thing is, I came up with this new layout where each Unfact contributer would have their own personal Unfacts page that they could edit every time they came up with a new Unfact (this page would simply be a question page with the title being Insert name heres Unfacts. What I wanted you to do, since you're an admin, is to simply clean out the Unfacts page by deleting my facts 1-5, and changing my current unfact (#6) to "CANADA's Unfacts". This way, there would be less clutter. Again, if your talk page was the wrong place to ask this, sorry. CANADA 22:27, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found out yet what would be inapprpriate for my talkpage, so if you think you found something that is, let me know. I mean, I could set up some arbitrary rules, such as "posts containing the word elephant will not be tolerated", but that seems sort of silly, doesn't it? And having a public midget horse porn snuff orgy on here wouldn't just be inappropriate on my talkpage, it would probably inappropriate anywhere on the wiki, don't you think?
I am averse to deleting existing unfacts, and I don't see why that would be necessary. Why is this necessary? "This way, there would be less clutter"? I case you haven't noticed by now, UnAnswers is a huge collection of over 9000 pieces of clutter (and counting); deleting some of that would definitely set us back, and deleting entertaining clutter is pretty much unheard of.
If you want personal unfacts, they probably should be at User:YOU/unfacts. However, I don't see why personal unfact pages are necessary. Why are they necessary?
We definitely disagree on how new content should be added to UnAnswers. You're fine with replacing old content for new, but I'm not (having dug up your old stuff from your userpage kinda made that obvious,huh?), so the UnFacts solution I have developed provides for old content to not be deleted. Your new proposal uses the same feature to allow different people to contribute, but adds the deletion request back in by using fixed pagenames. I get the distinct suspicion that having your contributions be temporary is a matter of principle with you - there are quite a few modern artists who believe that having non-permanent art is the way to go, and if you belong to the kind of people who hold that sort of belief, you should just tell me, and then I can respect that, and not undermine further your attempts to expire some of your best contributions to this wiki.
From a technical standpoint, personal Unfact Unpages are not required. The instructions could just go
  1. UnAsk an Unquestion (the title won't be shown)
  2. Save your UnFact as the answer.
  3. Click "Add category", add "Unfacts", save.
  4. To add another unfact, repeat steps 1, 2, and 3.
Ian somehow must have misread the instructions - or misclicked the link on the main page. --◄mendel► 03:52, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
I now agree it's cool just to leave things as they are. It will work fine. I actually kind of like the "preservation" mindset you have. Although i'm not sure how many users actually look at the old pages.CANADA 20:34, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
People who use "Random Page" od "Random UnAnswer" have a chance to hit them - and we don't really have another way to systematically browse the wiki except for taking your chance with the category system (and there's a link to the unfacts category on the mainpage), so it's really as good a chance as any. --◄mendel► 21:29, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Irritated by my edits disappearing only to reappear somewhere else Edit

I'm sure I've expressed my dislike of you taking it upon yourself to move my comments where ever you see fit, however I havn't been to bed in two days and so I can't be bothered trying to determine when and where I said so, if I did. So here I am; if it happens again I'll know I did mention it.

This edit pro-actively argued against the discussion being moved. You appear to have ignored it or not seen it at all as there is no obvious response to the edit yet you went and moved the conversation anyway. Having suggested the conversation be moved, you could have left it at that. We could have left it where it was, or moved it, as we saw fit. Instead of waiting, when nobody involved in the discussion saw fit to move it, you did so yourself.

I do wish you'd stop moving my edits (consider this a formal request of same) to meet your own personal standards. Am I saying it would have been inappropriate for El_Nazgir to put his message on the RfA talk? Not quite. However, I don't consider discussing an edit of mine on my talk page to be inappropriate (you disagree?), so there was no need to move the section. Not a single person suggested they thought you should move the discussion when you asked, so I think that's every reason not to do so. The only person who had made their position on the matter clear was myself, and that was against your suggestion; not in agreement with it.

My stance on the matter is that El_Nazgir started the discussion, so he actively chose a page for it to occur on. Until he states otherwise, the obvious conclusion is that he believes the page he chose is the appropriate one. That's one (assumed) person against the move. I went out of my way to hint I didn't want you to move the discussion. That's one logically assumed person, and one confirmed person, against your suggestion. Zero for it, apart from yourself. So, since it's our comments being moved, could you respect our wishes and not move them move them back?

There's an outside chance that El_Nazgir and / or CANADA was talking to you on IRC, but as I happen to know how strongly you advocate transparency, I'm forced to assume you would have mentioned that somewhere. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 06:26, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

1) I haven't been on IRC for too long, so no I wasn't talking to him.
2) AFK's right on this one. You suggested a move, he didn't want it, and nobody else had a chance to do their say yet. I don't want this edit to spark drama, so let's just keep it at: If someone asks you not to do something, don't do it. Not if that something has absolutely no effect on the workings of the wiki.
3) AFK, <screeching stereotype mother voice>''go to bed!''</screeching stereotype mother voice>--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:08, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
When I suggested that, it was just El Nazgir and AFK. Now it is you two, and CANADA, and myself, discussing the RfA where nobody looking at the RfA will find it. With a discussion that broad, I didn't have any doubts that it should be moved to the RfA talk. I trusted you would be able to find your edits again, especially since I left a message. --◄mendel► 11:17, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
You know, John, I don't really get why you're irritated, yet do nothing about it. If you want your edits on your talkpage back, just revert my edit there. If you want them gone from the RfA, just revert my edits there. This isn't a personal issue, and I refuse to make one of it.
You yourself added the "UnAnswers:Be_Bold" policy to this wiki, and it speaks out against the sense of ownership you are displaying here - as if you owned your comments and threatened me to stay away from them. You placed them in the Creative Commons when you put them on this wiki. Stand by that. --◄mendel► 14:32, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
"just revert my edit there" -- See, that's the thing. It's been a long time since I ever dreamt of reverting one of your edits without all hell breaking loose. I don't have the confidence to do that.
"speaks out against the sense of ownership" -- It's not ownership, it's common decency and respect. As per El_Nazgir, I made it clear I'd prefer you didn't do something - and then with the support of nobody - you went and did it. Indeed, I'd go so far as to label it rude. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 17:07, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a personal issue, and I refuse to make one of it. --◄mendel► 17:43, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine, of course... although nobody requested you do so. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 18:51, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite Wikibreak Edit

I'm sick of defending myself against dramamongering. This is not a trick to get attention, there's nothing I want from anyone of you. I'm just not editing here any more.

Cheers, --◄mendel► 06:37, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see the problem. The way you're behaving right now isn't (only) because of what happened here on this wiki. You've been struggling with wikidrama on GW@w for some time now, and frustrated as you are apparently, you released those frustrations here (too?). I am not going to go around and talk about that. That is a different wiki, with different users and different circumstances, but you don't seem to be able to keep them apart. Everyone here, and Felix and RT on gw@w have been very neutral in their observations, but you lashed out against everyone. I just want you to calm down. Take a few days off from wikis in general, but come back, and try to look to everyone's actions objectively. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 17:16, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

WB? Edit

While I question your taste with that video, may I ask if a Welcome Back is in order? :-) --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:17, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki