| Revision as of 10:23, 12 July 2015 editDoc9871 (talk | contribs)23,298 edits →Wording suggestions for a move to WP:TANTRUM: re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:21, 3 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,188,694 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (160 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{essaysort|importance=low}} | |||
| {{oldmfd|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the divas|date=18 February 2012|result='''keep'''}} | {{oldmfd|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the divas|date=18 February 2012|result='''keep'''}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Don't be high-maintenance/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Essays|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archive box|auto=yes}} | {{Archive box|auto=yes}} | ||
| == |
== More unlikely content == | ||
| From the essay (added 10/9/2012 by user Doc9871 ): ''IAR is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community'' . | |||
| This is an essay. The content for this essay comes from real-life experience with real-life divas. Paraphrasing a quote from a user to this policy without linking or mentioning who that quote came from is '''not''' "harassment". There is no censorship here. {{user|Ihardlythinkso}}, clearly a user with an extensive history of disruption when looking at the block log for this account, has been edit-warring with me on this, and it is not appreciated or needed. The edit summary accusing me of ''"representing the worse of WP's hostility & nastiness"'' is repugnant and unfounded. ] ] 07:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Since this happens "often", can you give even one example occurring in the last several years? (I've seen people invoke IAR before. | |||
| :You have no credibility, Doc. You're simply dishonest, and attempting to harass Eric Corbett thru your post. Remember this?:<blockquote>I haven't posted there since my last post, and I don't plan on it. It seems pretty clear I'd be blocked for "harassment" if I were to ever post there again. Doc talk 06:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> You added the harassing post and I reverted you, then you claimed I should do WP:BRD on it, which is arse-backwards. (Another proof of your disingenuousness.) ] (]) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| But never associated with also being labelled a "diva". So I'd be interested to see where this ever occurred.) ] (]) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Again, you are trying to bait me by naming any specific user as a diva in the form of a diff. It's not going to happen, so just stop trying. ] ] 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I'm challenging what appears to be stuff made up through fantasy (then added to the essay). As mentioned you can avoid identifying any individual by quoting text from an incident that backs up your "often" content. (And there is also WP Email.) But it seems to me the pattern is you like to be free to add anything you want to have in the essay, no matter how baseless, contrary to your claim all essay content comes from real-life WP experience. (It seems that boast is also made up.) ] (]) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not Eric Corbett's page, and I ''haven't'' posted there since I said that. I never brought his name up here - you did. Your block log, frankly, sucks. I take little stock in your credibility, as I've never been blocked for TE and the like. And ''you'' ain't going to get me to do it. ] ] 08:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{essay|WP:DIVA|WP:DFTD}} | |||
| :While I certainly take offense to your ill-informed view that it is "fantasy", your objections and misinterpretations matter very little. It's an '''essay''', not anything that should be considered fact that requires citations. Get it right. ] ] 06:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Already was aware what an essay is. But I don't think that means one user (you) can add anything you want to see in it (i.e. the content is still subject to editor consensus; and that is what this discussion page is for). (I've contributed to the essay too, and as one voice re consensus, I've challenged your adds, for the reasons already given. That is not out-of-line, even though you like to "set right". So I don't think your condescension on that point is either correct or appropriate.) ] (]) 08:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :More dishonesty from you ...<p>Your edit sum: <blockquote>No links, paraphrased. Simply the perfect summation of the diva mentality, You can't make this shit up. Brilliant!</blockquote><p>Your post:<blockquote>'''"Misplaced Pages needs me far more than I need Misplaced Pages."'''</blockquote><p>What Eric Corbett wrote:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages needs me far more than I need Misplaced Pages. User:Eric Corbett 23:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)</blockquote>(So where's the "paraphrase", liar?) ] (]) 08:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Comb through ] with the same scrutiny. No citations there. Possibly even some outright "fantasy" added by one or more editors. Of course, ''I'' wrote none of it. But others here {{diff|Don't take the bait|627693012|619443692| understand essays}}. You've gotten ] in the two above sections, so I will step back again and allow you to do so in this one as well. And then you can open another new section. ] ] 06:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::From you more off-topic & non-argument & sarcasm. BTW I never said the essay needs citations. (Rather to back up your fanciful adds when challenged after claiming all content came from real WP experiences.) ] (]) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't link or attribute any quote to any particular editor. No reader would come along and think that quote to be "harassment". Harassment of ''who''? And you'd better stop calling me a liar. Your block log is making more sense with every attack you make. Kicking me off your talk page (a classic way to both get the last word and simultaneously set up groundwork for a "baiting" claim): unimpressive. ] ] 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I ''could'' give you an example via a diff from a now '''banned''' user that was a truly great inspiration for what I added. But... I don't want to. And, I don't have to! No need for labelling, such as you have labelled me an "attacker", a "blah blah blah" and whatnot. Now then, have your final word on this section, please... ] ] 08:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * In this case I agree with the point in the original wording, and retained it in the ] I rewrote, as {{tq|Avoid abusing the often-misunderstood "]" policy as a rationale for not listening to the community}}. It is frequent enough to mention. It's not really fair in this case to demand proof, since providing it will necessarily entail a) a shipload of pointless diff-digging, and b) re-shaming people who already feel abused by this page (at least one of whom quit the project over it at least in part). I don't think it's sound reasoning to complain (as I do) that this, in its present wording, is essentially an attack page, and then re-highlight its questionable use. It would seem to be a "gravedancing" thing and a ] issue, at least in the abstract. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're such a paper tiger. (And so full of BS. Are you an "encyclopedia builder"? I think not. You should be blocked. Drmies was right, you are a "disruptor". Go soak your head.) ] (]) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:Re your editsum, {{tq|"proof not needed on this; it's common sense"}}, it was common sense too, that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, until it was tested. ] (]) 23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't really see the relevance; my point is that we needn't pick at old scabs. At any rate, Doc clearly will not provide examples. If you really want one, I can hint at where to find one. Look for someone exhibiting patterns described in this essay, participating in ] discussions about capitalization of common names of species, ca. early to mid 2012. It's someone who had been "retiring" loudly since 2005. The entire basis of said person's "resist MOS or die trying" act was an explicit IAR against a style recommendation that did not comport with what one particular organization was trying to promote as a standard in one biological field's journals. (The community rejected this approach firmly, i.e. denied it was a valid IAR, in a huge RfC in 2014, after said editor finally did quit, at least in part after this essay was cited at them, in its then-extant form which was pretty much the same borderline attack page it was just before this RM closed.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Nature of essay == | |||
| ::::More attacks. There's no question who the proven "disruptor" is here. Let's compare block logs before deciding who should be blocked. Go play chess. ] ] 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| From 2/14/2014 editsum by user Doc9871: ''It's a borderline humour essay.'' Interesting! Then one would expect its invocation to be borderline humorous also, at least sometimes!? (Funny. I've only seen it invoked as a weapon or mud-throw, to discredit or criticize or insult someone. If there are invocation that have ever been good-natured/good-humored, I'd appreciate to see the diff supporting same.) ] (]) 08:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == What DIVA is not == | |||
| :{{humor}} | |||
| :You want me to slap one of these on the top? Just say the word. ] ] 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do it. (Tell me though, have you ''ever'' seen the essay invoked with humor? ) ] (]) 09:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This is a fine essay. I want to see a section on "What DIVA is now" OR "Don't misinterpret Diva". For example | |||
| ::{{done}}. ] ] 09:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not all personal experience is DIVA argument''': Very recently I said an editor "I Have seen many times non-English redirects being nominated for deletion". I have ACTUALLY seen it. I was telling him my experience. Nothing else. | |||
| * '''DIVA is not a weapon of spammers and trolls'''': So that they will use this page to close any protester's/admin's mouth. | |||
| More importantly— | |||
| * '''Real incidents''': We are not bots. We may have emotions. And after some conflicts and/or disputes or for any other reason we may need short breaks. <u>Misplaced Pages also suggests to take such breaks</u>. After an article move in November, I was so upset, I took a short Wikibreak, though I did not announce or write about the Wikibreak anywhere. Not all retirements or wikibreaks are DIVAs. | |||
| <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, which specific part(s) of the essay are supposed to be funny? (Could you quote those text portion please, so we can all share a good laugh?) Thanks, I look forward ... <small>p.s. I do think the pic of Jânio Quadros is funny (who wouldn't?). But that's not body text.</small> ] (]) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Jânio Quadros image == | |||
| :::This "humor" thing is new for me, please be patient. (Is this an example of funny?: ''A Misplaced Pages diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief.'') Ha-ha-ha!! Funny! (Did I get it right!?) ] (]) 09:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I added a {{T|CN}} tag. ] mentions the resignation initiated "serious political crisis". I am not sure "good for who"? --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 22:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or how about this (I think you added most if not all of this text)?: ''Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community. Divas will likely engage in WikiBigotry against users that met a certain condition that make them less valuable to their eyes. However, the line between "good" and "bad" editors may be drawn anywhere, and it may even consist of an arbitrary condition invented by themselves.'' Ha-ha-ha-ha!! So funny! (Yeah? No?) ] (]) | |||
| == Dealing with divas == | |||
| :::Or this (text you added)?: ''By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation.'' Ha-ha-he-he!! Oh God I'm in stitches now! (Yeah? No?) ] (]) 09:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This essay only tells us what to do if you're a member of the diva's entourage. But if you're a follower then the appropriate thing to do is to fulfill your destiny and fawn all over the diva, "Oh please, don't go! Don't go! We need you too much! We love you!" What ''I'd'' like to know is, how to deal with a diva when you're one of the little people, the toe-steppers busy being squashed by the diva and the diva's entourage of heavies. --] (]) 22:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If they're a productive editor, just have a user talk discussion with them about why "I quit if I don't get my way" isn't a useful debate tactic here. If they're habitually disruptive and don't contribute much to the process, cite ] and move on. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or this?: ''Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters.'' So very funny!!! Who writes this stuff! I can hardly breathe! (Yes? No?) ] (]) 09:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move == | |||
| ::The humor ''is'' a bit dry. Glad you find it so funny! I am flattered by your praise! ] ] 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{requested move/dated|?}} | |||
| :::Amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the status of this essay -- your ]ed and adopted little attack page. IMO it is even more fucked up now after your addition of the banner. (For obvious demo above.) ] (]) 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|?}} – Precedent: Move of ] to ], which didn't even involve any issues relating to ] against women. The message of this essay (don't engage, or enable others to engage, in "entitled" demands to get one's way, especially through threats to quit the project) is important, but it offends (I've caught heat for even mentioning it) for the sole reason that its title and a few bits of its wording are pretty much the same thing as having this be at "WP:BITCH". There has to be a way to express this without being misogynistic, when Misplaced Pages's main point of criticism in academia and the press is a hostile editing environment for, and poor coverage of, women. I detest unwarranted "political correction" and picking at "microaggressions", so if {{em|I}} find this troubling, it's probably inappropriate in an encyclopedia project. It's a PR and ] problem. It also defeats the point of the essay, which (as with WP:JERK) is intended to reduce strife, not generate more of it. The name no longer makes sense anyway, since its referent, ] is now ]. I suggest many alternatives below (], etc.). If we kept the current name style, I'm not sure what a good replacement term would be. "Royalty" came to mind first. <small>''Relisted''. ] (]) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) {{small|] the first time for some reason. 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)]}} | |||
| *Tag is gone; thanks Doc. {{U|Alakzi}}, the tag contains a contradiction, in claiming that humorous things shouldn't be taken seriously. That's nonsense, of course. Your claim that the essay is offensive may have value, or it may not, but if it's offensive its offensiveness is not alleviated by the fact that it was tagged as humorous. ] (]) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''; I don't see that the current title needs a rename. It conveys the message far better than "royalty" would. While ''diva'' usually refers to a woman, the WP:Diva essay is clear that it's gender-neutral. Since '']'' is mentioned in this section, I point out that ''bitch'' has increasingly referred to men over the years. I wouldn't mind a WP:BITCH essay, but we already have ]. And, by the way, I disliked when ] was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. Also, if anyone thinks that I don't have a problem with these titles because I'm male, that's not it; I'm female. ] (]) 15:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** Apparently, I'm ] by reverting the removal of the tag. The bullshit I've got to put up with in this place... ] (]) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *: Yeah, I'm not wedded to "royalty"; just the first idea off the top of my head, and there are many more ideas below. The rest of that I've refuted in detail ]. None of this constitutes a source- or policy-based (or clear common-sense-based) rationale against the move. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * |
***It's terrible, I know. (I defended you elsewhere already, in another case.) But the tag says "this material is kept because it's considered funny", and that is untrue--see the AfD, ]. ] (]) 01:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ***WP:POINT as basis for revert made sense to me, but I was thinking it was being applied to the original add (not ]'s re-add). ] (]) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Seems like pandering to a politically correct issue that isn't even really there. Divas are not exclusively female. I don't know a proper equivalent to encompass male divas without stepping on imaginary toes, but "royalty" is not it. All royals are not divas, obviously. I helped write a lot of this article, and none of my RL inspirations were female. WP has notoriously few female editors, as we well know. And that has ''nothing'' to do with this little essay one way or the other. Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors. The title should remain as it is. ] ] 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** Drmies, Doc didn't remove the tag, Cambalachero did. ] (]) 05:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** I've refuted this in detail ]. You've provided no source- or policy-based (or clear common-sense-based) rationale against moving the page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ]≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| IHTS, Please stop with the sarcasm and irony and explain, in clear words, why do you think we should use the tag "humor" on this page. ] (]) 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Can't, since I never thought that. ] (]) 05:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': Redirect to ], though something non-gendered like ] has a ring to it. ] covers the rest. While the labels like troll, dick and diva have a ring to them for the frustrated, I can't think of one single time they have been used and resulted in a positive outcome. It's merely a method by which people can vent their spleen at someone else. Frankly, no one on the receiving end is going to take it to heart and just say, "oh my, I am so sorry I was being a , I most sincerely promise to take your admonition to heart and change my -ish ways." And yes, there are sexist implications, as there are for the b-word; just because slang is evolving new uses doesn't negate the power a word has when used in a more typically offensive fashion. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:], WP:DENY is discussing a different matter than this essay. And as for a Misplaced Pages editor realizing the error of their ways after being called a dick or a diva, some do. And I don't see how calling an editor a jerk or indicating that they should not be one results in "a positive outcome" more so than the "dick" and "diva" alternatives. ] (]) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree that the {{em|content}} of these essays sometimes does actually change people's approach. But this only happens when they can get past the label and the not-even-slightly-veiled insult. Which isn't often. This essay in particular would be vastly more effective if it addressed the "I'm going to quit if I lose" pattern (not the people using it), which is very frequent, and not only used by habitual "divas". It's very often used by subject-matter experts who have not adjusted yet, and are used to academic deference because of their credentials. I shudder to think how many have left and never come back after this essay was cited to or about them. I know of one for certain. Actually two, now that I think back aways (a published dermatology personage working on one of the albinism articles). WP:JERK I would not change. It's a different case. It's not addressing one narrow, specifically addressable debate tactic, but is speaking to an overall pattern of assholery. It's kind of a last resort "snap out of it" move to cite that. WP:DIVA is not. It's more like reminding people of ]. And making nazi (or other genocidal) metaphors to "win" debates is just as much a curable habit as threatening to take your ball and go home, I'd wager. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I like {{U|Montanabw}}'s idea of ]. Perhaps ] would be a tad better <small>though there's some suggestion this ''might'' come from ]</small>? Might I suggest the humorous ] as well. Also agree that gendered insults, even when applied to another gender, are still gendered insults. When calling a man a bitch, you're saying he's acting like a woman, and that's intended to be insulting to him <small>for some reason</small>. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::A lot of people restrict the term ''bitch'' in that way, when applied to a man; others don't. ] (]) 11:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' move to any title which isn't sexist or abrasive. If Doc and others don't care about the historical context of words or the perpetuation of sexism in society, they're entitled to their opinion; and we're entitled to not taking that opinion very seriously. ] (]) 11:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:As anyone can clearly see from the opening line, it is not "sexist". ''"A '''Misplaced Pages diva''' is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief."'' The "he or she" part should clue one in really quick. Abrasive? How ''should'' we describe people like this then? In flowery, politically correct terminology? Half of you miss the entire point of the essay to begin with. Not everyone here is holding hands and singing ]. That's why we have pages like this. ] ] 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Historically, "diva" refers to ''women'' who are said to be ''self-important''. A gendered pejorative is, by definition, sexist. Though derogatory words for women have come to be used against both sexes, the association is not altogether lost. It is irrelevant whether you did or did not intend for it to be sexist; the continued use of gendered pejoratives contributes to the perpetuation of a male-domineered gender-binary society. ] (]) 10:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The current title is clear, descriptive and on-point. Without even reading the essay, one immediate groks the advice just by the title. It is in no way misogynistic. Used informally, diva has : "". None of the alternatives that I have seen so far come close to being as meaningful and recognizable as the current title.- ]] 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': The cases are not comparable. As far as I understand it, "Dick" is an open insult, while "diva" is just an adjetive with a negative meaning. Both are words that someone would not like to be described with, but they are not in the same location in the sliding scale of words to describe people. And, by the way, whatever its origins are, in modern usage "diva" is not a gender-specific adjetive. Haven't you seen '']''? ] (]) 13:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ** By the way, if we translated a "tantrum" into behavior specific for wikipedia (of course, none of us are toddlers, so there are no real tantrums in this page), a WP:TANTRUM redirect should actually point to ] ] (]) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. "Sock" and "vandal" names can have some objective justification. "Diva" is subjective and open to abuse (duh, like it isn't/hasn't been used abusively?!; isn't that why it is here - to satisfy the need to be abusive - WP's hallmark character trait?). An incremental improvement in ocean of WP hypocrisy. WP s/n be sanctifying or encouraging name-calling per WP:NPA (duh). ] (]) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse top}} | |||
| *:What a bunch of crap. You fling around insults at anyone who doesn't agree with your disgruntled view of how things should be around here. Don't have to look too far back in your for a "personal attack" block. You idolize people that epitomize this essay. The massive "inspirational quote" section on your user page should be deleted per ]. ] ] 00:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not crap. But your stuff is. ] (]) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Are you attempting to deny that your disgruntled list of "inspirational quotes" violates POLEMIC? What purpose does it serve then? And just who do you think you are "motivating" by having it there? Your malcontented view of personal attacks is screwed, as is your hatred of admins. Someone such as you who has been repeatedly and forcibly blocked to prevent ''actual'' personal attacks is in no position to determine what ''construed'' personal attacks are. Your opinion on this is utterly worthless, IMHO. ] ] 06:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|"Someone such as you"}} puts your argumentation style on display. {{tq|"Are you attempting to deny"}} sounds like it belongs in a court trial cross examination or deposition. Trying to go off-topic w/ a personal squabble is noted (and disruptive to this thread, if WP guidelines mean anything). ] (]) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::It doesn't help a "no name-calling" !vote to follow it up with "your stuff is ... crap", Ihardlythinkso. Just sayin'. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Trying to instigate a personalized and off-topic catfight is the crap. Trying to smear, defame, discredit people not ideas or arguments is the crap. ] (]) 11:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Your use of "defame" is noted. I don't think you truly know what ] means, especially in the context of WP. ] ] 09:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Collapse bottom}} | |||
| *'''Support''' Trying to argue that the term ] ''isn't'' gendered requires some pretty tortured reasoning. "Well, ''I'' don't mean it that way" misses the point. ] sounds like a good alternative. ] (]) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the claimed precedent was more offensive than the name here. I get the feeling that the reason that some (but not all above) do not like the title, is because they are behaving like the diva described in the essay. This includes the long diatribes. However people mostly do not like to be called "divas", whether male or female. The name of this is not so much an issue, but the way people may be accused of being a diva. The term diva is commonly used in English to those making an undue fuss, so the current name is appropriate. ] (]) 23:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't see the point in suggesting that the accusation is the problem, and then engaging in the accusation, just to cast doubt on people that disagree with you. That said, I agree with your premise, and it's the motivator of the move request and the suggestion for some rewording. I go into this in more detail in the discussion at ], below. Short version: It's the behavior pattern we want to address not some personality "type" we want to give the finger to. So having this essay be at a pejorative label at all is counter-productive. PS: If as you say the current name matches the usage of the word, why would that make it "appropriate" when there are other problems with it? "Stupid jackass" probably accurate describes lots of editorial behavior too, but we wouldn't tolerate an essay named that, I'd bet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''If I can !vote on my own proposal''' I really like ]. I crack up every time I see it. I guess that doesn't help with "what the whole title should be". In Googling for "hissy fit etymology", I find tentative etymological connections to "hussy" and to "hysterical", though, so that has the same issue as "diva". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Debated etymology, but yeah. TANTRUM is a fine option. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' any move to a non-gendered title. "Political correctness" or no, as the nom says, this is a PR and retention issue. Misplaced Pages has a hard enough time attracting female editors as it is, we don't need to make it even harder on ourselves.--] ]/] 13:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well, what about "Don't feed the high-maintanence editors (HME's)"? Any objection to that? There is nothing gendered in that title at all. ] ] 06:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>I'd be fine with that</s>, or ], etc.--] ]/] 16:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} suggests that "high-maintenance" is also generally a term applied to women, so it's not a good replacement. ] seems to be the best bet, just change the intro slightly and we're done here.--] ]/] 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Part of why I proposed the rename is that the "don't feed ..." thing doesn't really work any more. "Don't feed the trolls" worked, because trolls legendarily sit under bridges to eat people or their goats or whatever, and the title implies we've run into one on our editing road ("Don't feed the wildlife"). The second implication, that we want metaphorically to starve it into leaving forever is okay, because Internet trolls are ] to write an encyclopedia. We do not want to retain them, and they generally cannot be "reached". None of this applies to alleged "divas", who are usually just frustrated editors over-involved in a particular topic area (often trying to right a ] or to promote a particular view on a ], or sometimes just historically used to a lot of direct personal control in an obscure topic area that is finally attracting other editors). We do want to reach and retain them, and just get them to stop engaging in entitled/childish behavior patterns when they feel cornered. The "feeding" reference doesn't work with them, now that ] has dropped that metaphor. "Divas" are not associated with feeding.<p>"Do not enable high-maintenance editors" could work (aside from potential gender-related concerns about "high-maintenance"), but it's not very pithy.<p>I think it would be better to rewrite this as ] (which several others have suggested), and focus it (with minimal rewriting) on behaviors to avoid rather than behaviors to identify and label other people with. I've produced a draft revision at ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)</p> | |||
| *'''Support''' a move per Opabinia regalis and because, and per SMcCandlish's point that "This essay was named in homage to / mimicry of ], but that's now at ], so the present title of this essay is essentially nonsensical, having no referent for the odd diva-feeding pseudo-metaphor, except in the memories of WP old-timers." ] (]) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *''' Support'''. It is time for us to retire gender-based epithets. We should be encouraging editors to comment on behavior, not on individuals. Any gender-neutral name is going to be an improvement here. Having someone link to ] while calling out the actions of another editor creates an environment hostile towards women (especially if that editor identifies as woman and has to wonder whether the gendered label is intentional). ] ] ] 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Relisting comment'''. While it could be argued there is a rough consensus in favour of a move at the moment, the question still remains to where? We cannot simply call it ]. Cuchullain has made a reasonable fist of starting this discussion below. I'm relisting this because I think, if it is to be moved, there needs to be more than just a consensus that the current title is unsuitable, we need an actual consensus of where it is exactly being moved to and how the essay will be rewritten. ] (]) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks. Far more uncertain/incomplete RMs need to be relisted like this. Just closing them with "no consensus" is really unhelpful, since it tends to just put off the discussion for 3–18 months without resolving anything in the interim. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Don't mean to beat the drum too loud, but wouldn't ] obviate these concerns? By turning it into an advice piece with a practical purpose instead of a borderline attack page, the problem seems to go away. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion=== | |||
| :Nope. Solves no problems that were not there in the first place. Jus' sayin'. ] ] 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Name ideas==== | |||
| ::Thanks for finally conceding there were problems. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * This essay was named in homage to / mimicry of ], but that's now at ], so the present title of this essay is essentially nonsensical, having no referent for the odd diva-feeding pseudo-metaphor, except in the memories of WP old-timers. ], ]. It could move to something completely different, e.g. ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., etc. Mix and match, see what makes you laugh but also gets the message across. Some would need a new sentence added to the text, e.g. to account for playground and taking your ball and going home references, or the Monty Python reference, etc. I think I'd favor one that didn't suggest people actually quit, for ] reasons. Then again, in my experience, people who threaten to quit over editing disputes usually cause more trouble than they are worth; it's a ] thing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *:None of these titles describe the ''type'' of editor that '''is''' a "diva". Sugar-coating it or sweeping it under the rug will not make this sort of individual less identifiable, nor immune to extra scrutiny. ] ] 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one {{em|is}} a "type", unless they have some form of psychosis and are literally incapable of change. These are all {{em|behavior patterns}}. The point of an essay like this is not "get the #$%* off Misplaced Pages and never come back, you nutjob!" It's "these behaviors do not work here, and you won't fare well here unless you adjust." And, of course "Everyone else, don't enable this stuff." Trying to assign the behavior pattern to a mythical "type" that may not really be evidenced in all the ways that conform to the stereotype in question is what sweeps it under the rug. We're not trying to sniff out a "sort of individual", but "sort of behavior". The less it's tied to a stereotype, the more readily it is applied to people who use it, e.g., only when they feel cornered on some issue they feel really strongly about, but who would otherwise not go there. This comes up fairly often. Much more so that truly nutter "divas" who can't even see that they're engaging in this behavior. Otherwise this page would have been ]'d a long time ago, along with all the patently hostile essays that were deleted. Fortunately this one is not written that way entirely, and to the extent it is it can be fixed easily. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have only just seen this page for the first time and I read the Talk here before the Article. After reading the Talk, I was in favour of Motanabw's (I think) suggestion of Tantrum. This indicates rather childish behaviour on the part of the editor, but what do you call a person having a tantrum....a tantrumer, tantrumee (not a serious question)? I then read the article and it actually covers a lot of behavioural issues, rather than just walking off. However, to my mind, the article covers all these in the second-last sentence where it discusses these editors as being "high maintenance". How about ]?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 10:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it simply has to be renamed because of possible sexism reasons (amazing it's just now been caught), this is the best alternative so far. All the others describe an action instead of a type of editor. Which is why this essay was created to begin with. Otherwise: nominate it for deletion again. Whitewashing and sanitizing this essay because it might "label" or "offend" people? ]. ] ] 09:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have just thought of a tweak to my suggestion above - how about ]. It's more concise, it is directed straight at the problematic editor (rather than "Don't feed the..." which is directed at other editors), it can be used as a warning as problems escalate as well as a last-ditch effort if an editor is threatening to leave, it is non-sexist, I think it has inherent international understanding, and in my opinion, it is less judgemental and more likely to make the problematic editor ''think'' about their actions rather than escalating to the point where they leave.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 11:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This essay would still have to be entirely and fundamentally rewritten to accommodate the new "non-label" style. I vote against that as well. ] ] 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Mr Google tells me that "high-maintenance" is a gendered term as well. It ''can'' be applied to men (and cars and complex technology), but it's mostly applied to women. ] (]) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::HME is the best option I've seen so far in this PC reversion wave of madness. Men, women and those that identify as transgender can ''all'' potentially and theoretically be a HME <small>(or a freaking diva, for that matter)</small>. ] ] 06:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I am not convinced by the diffs provided by ]. These show that "high-maintenance" ''can'' be applied to women but they do not seem to indicate that the term ''mostly'' applies to women.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Ultimately, it's a reference to high-maintenance sportscars, motorcycles, and other devices. In slang, it's often a reference to "kept" (i.e. maintained) partners, which statistically are more often women, though it also often refers to submissive gay men in that role. It's also often used with regard to attention-seeking, psychodramatic persons in a social circle. Its potential value here is that points up "entitled" and passive-aggressive behavior patterns of someone who is or would like to be in a position of being "serviced" by others, and who attempt to get their demands met through remonstrance, hair-pulling, scene-making, and emotional hostage-taking. The social-group meaning is also mostly applied to feminine personalities, regardless of biological sex. For example, the term "attention whore" refers to this behavior among women and effeminate men, but the masculine cognate "attention hog" does not, and more often refers to "life-of-the-party" personalities who lean toward "jackass" antics. It may be far enough removed from gender specifics to use it, though. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "Diva" redirects nominated for deletion == | |||
| ====Comments on Flyer22's oppose==== | |||
| {{Resolved|1=Consensus was to {{tlx|soft redirect}} them, and tag them {{tlx|historical}}.}} | |||
| '{{tq|I don't see that the current title needs a rename. It conveys the message far better than "royalty" would. While ''diva'' usually refers to a woman, the WP:Diva essay is clear that it's gender-neutral. Since '']'' is mentioned in this section, I point out that ''bitch'' has increasingly referred to men over the years. I wouldn't mind a WP:BITCH essay, but we already have ]. And, by the way, I disliked when ] was changed to WP:Don't be a jerk. Also, if anyone thinks that I don't have a problem with these titles because I'm male, that's not it; I'm female.}}' | |||
| I have nominated the "diva" variant redirects for deletion ]. ] (]) 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The "Rewrite" == | |||
| :{{ping|Flyer22}} The exact content of the essay (if they read it) is not going to assuage the "what is this sexist crap?!" reaction many women experience when seeing this page title or its shortcut. The #1 criticism of Misplaced Pages in the last 5 years or so has been anti-female bias, both in what our content covers and in our editing community. There's a quite large body of both scholarly papers and media coverage on that issue. In the face of this, and my original points, an I-don't-see-a-big-problem-with-it response isn't much of a rationale; it's ]). Same goes for the I-just-disagree approach (the negative form of ]); you have not actually refuted any argument I've made, just registered unclear disagreement with it. The fact that hip hop and teenager slang uses "bitch" or "beeatch" to refer to males sometimes is irrelevant (and misses the point - it's not a gender-neutral term, it's using a female slur to extra-offend a male. That's exactly the case with "diva" to refer to a male, too; it's still female slur. In both cases the vast majority of usage is aimed at women). "Bitch" isn't the title at issue here. The fact that the article is written gender-neural is only marginally relevant, when then issue is mostly reactions to the title itself and resultant impressions of Misplaced Pages, during a media storm of "Misplaced Pages is a cesspool of misogyny". It doesn't really matter that these claims are exaggerated; they're a {{em|huge}} PR problem for the project, the worst it's ever had, and the hardest to fix. Why? Because the only way to even slightly adjust the "sausage party" problem it is to attract a very large number of new female editors. Page names like this only hinder that effort, for absolutely zero gain. I have no problem with crude fucking language, in context. >;-) But I'm glad ] is now ], for a reason that gives yet another rationale for this move: It was nearly impossible to use either WP:DICK or WP:DIVA without pissing off anyone referred to it, simply because of the name, and thereby probably increasing their likelihood of being dickish or diva-ish, when the intent of both essays is to reduce this tendency. | |||
| It's clear that the total rewrite/watering down failed to consider such basics as ] being something a Misplaced Pages editor is normally engaged in here. So I have taken the liberty of removing that nonsense. Any objections? Because there is more to be culled from this rewrite. ]. ] ] 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :All of this together is way more than enough reason to move this page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :]. Seriously? Who the ''heck'' is ever going to adopt this and then link others to it? Absurd. It's not only neither a word nor an acronym: it's simply never going to catch on, Ever. ] is open... makes more sense, yes? (Sigh). ] ] 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::SMcCandlish, the ] didn't work, but there is no need to WP:Ping me to this page; it's been on my WP:Watchlist for about a year. Maybe two years. Anyway, what proof is there that, generally, women will see this essay and state or think "What is this sexist crap?!"? I also saw no such proof regarding the proposal to change WP:Dick to WP:Jerk. And it's not like anyone can't still currently state/link to WP:Dick if they wanted to. As for claims that Misplaced Pages is misogynistic and has few female editors, I know all of that. And when it comes to arguing what terms are used to offend and/or oppress women, I've certainly had ample say at ]. But I don't see how changing these essay names is a step toward getting more female editors. I see it as generalizing what women will find offensive. I, for example, do not find them offensive to my sex/gender. Well, if the term ''diva'' was used to refer to women as a whole for whatever reason, then that is a different matter for me. If a male or a female editor is being a diva, then that is what that male or female editor is being. And WP:Dick? It can be argued that it should offend males more than females, given that its usage usually refers to males. And, yes, I understand that part of the reason its title was changed is because ''dick'' usually refers to males. Misplaced Pages is often a tough place for women, and I've gotten used to that, even by playing hardball right back. These name change matters are things that I do not see doing anything significant for Misplaced Pages (except for some people being less offended by ''jerk'' as opposed to ''dick''). But if people want to close that gender gap, ] is the place specifically designed to get more female editors. ] (]) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm skeptical we need "proof" that traditionally woman-targeted slurs are offensive to a large number of women, even if slang usage has started applying them to men. I got vented at, and even accused of being a diva myself (yes, see above), for going on at length and responding point by point in these discussions, so I'll stop here (unless you ask me to respond to the rest). PS: It's not hard to find material about "diva" being considered offensive or sexist or misogynistic, with some obvious Google searches. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments on Doc9871's oppose==== | |||
| '{{tq|Seems like pandering to a politically correct issue that isn't even really there. Divas are not exclusively female. I don't know a proper equivalent to encompass male divas without stepping on imaginary toes, but "royalty" is not it. All royals are not divas, obviously. I helped write a lot of this article, and none of my RL inspirations were female. WP has notoriously few female editors, as we well know. And that has ''nothing'' to do with this little essay one way or the other. Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors. The title should remain as it is.}}' | |||
| :Taking these points in order: "Seems like pandering": Already explained why it's not. "not really there": So, none of these articles really exist? etc. "Divas are not exclusively female": Already addressed that in great detail. "I don't know a proper equivalent": OK. Someone might, and probably 50+ viable names can be constructed just from moving words around in the possibilities I brain-dumped below. "Royalty is not it": Sure, it was just one of many ideas. "All royalty are not divas": All divas in the normal sense are not divas in the slang sense, either, and not all behaviors addressed in the guideline are necessarily "diva" behaviors. There's an obvious focus problem here. The label, while funny to some (including me) isn't the important part, the disruptive behaviors are. Keeping the name is not worth the offensiveness level. | |||
| :I wasn't going to go into this, but I know directly of one long-term, pain-in-the-ass, but actually highly productive, subject-matter expert, female editor who actually did quit the project in part over this template being cited at her (offensive because of its name, not its message); she quit in larger part for various other things that had been bugging her for a long time. It wasn't the last nail in the coffin but it was very close to it, probably the next-to-last. She's exercised ], so I'll just call her KvdL. | |||
| :"I helped write a lot of this article": Great, and good job, but ] at RM. "None of my RL inspirations were female": Already addressed this: It's about reactions, and perception fallout. 'The road to Hell is paved with good intentions', as they say. "WP has notoriously few female editors": {{strong|Yes}}, that's the whole point! See the external links I just provided. WP has few female editors because of systemic, if low-level and thoughtless, misogyny (or "stuff that is being perceived as misogyny", functionally equivalent for purposes of this discussion; it's not about intentions.) "And that has ''nothing'' to do with this little essay one way or the other.": External data strongly suggests otherwise. This one page by itself isn't the source of this problem, but its title is obviously part of it. We do not have to fix every single gender-related problem on WP all at the same time (]); fixing this one is part of a long process. And size of the essay has no bearing on anything. "Changing the title will not open the welcome wagon to female editors": It wont hurt, and it will be part of the ongoing process. That's sufficient. Cf. the ]; perfection is not required for a move toward improvement to be made. "The title should remain as it is": ]. | |||
| :<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Perhaps you believe that meticulously dissecting my oppose will somehow a) nullify it, b) make others weigh your "refutation" over my opinion, or c) miraculously make me change my mind. Good luck with all that, and the rename. ] ] 07:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*These are discussions, not votes. A) Did you believe that responding with various points against my move proposal would nullify it? A counter-argument to an argument is intended to counter it, yes. B) I'm not sure who "others" are. If you mean am I trying to skew comments after yours by where I'm commenting, no; I realized the responses were long, so I collapseboxed them; then made a Discussion section and moved them here instead, but you editconflicted me while I was doing that last part. If you mean do I hope later commenters consider my comments and yours and that they find my reasoning more applicable? Of course. If you mean do I hope that the closing admin will find my arguments more compelling? Of course. Why else would I make them, just for typing practice? C) Why would it take a miracle for you to think about multiple sets of arguments, weigh them, and adjust your views accordingly? People do very frequently change their mind in RMs and XfDs. Try it sometime? :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*The "point-by-point" style you are using is a major turn-off, possibly the most annoying "counter-argument" style possible. I've been here for a long time, and I know how it affects others. Do as you will. But oftentimes: the less you say the better. It's called being "succinct". I doubt you are swaying anyone at all by this tired method of refutation. I've said my piece for now. ] ] 07:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* It's easier to respond to the arguments by quoting them and replying to them inline than paraphrasing and responding from scratch. It took longer than I wanted to respond to Flyer22, in the latter style, so I switched to the faster style in responding to you. I don't use it frequently, just when I want to get on with it<p>You seem to be expecting to be able to make arguments that no one may respond to. I generally don't ignore arguments people make unless they're incomprehensible or off-topic, or I don't actually care about anything but some specific point. I'm sure if feels like "less is more" when it equates to "only one of my points has been challenged, so the other 7 should more strongly affect the outcome". >;-) I agree that the block of text would have been shorter without the quoting. While I like it when people bother to go through discussions before !voting, it usually doesn't happen; I don't {{em|expect}} it. I feel, I think, the same way about extremely brief, only-address-1-out-of-7-arguments responses, as you do about ones that hit 7 of 7. I don't get your meaning with "tired method of refutation"? Do you mean the quoting, the "failure" to ignore most of your points, or that I disagreed with you? The first I get, the other two ].<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* {{tq|"I doubt you are swaying anyone at all by this tired method of refutation."}} What's tiring to read are attacks on the form of an argument (or counter-argument) not the substance. (How's that for being "succinct"?) ] (]) 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*IHTS: go add another anti-WP quote to your little ]. ] ] 02:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* I see. Your ad hominem invite to go off-topic w/ scrappy catfight isn't another demo of argumentation style? And your adding extensively to the essay's bullet list of qualifiers to permit max application of name-call "diva" ... isn't polemic?! (Got it.) ] (]) 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* See above. And try to refrain from personal attacks, as they apparent can get one blocked. ] ]| | |||
| ::::::SMcCandlish, I know which female editor you are talking about (the "KvdL" part gave it away); and since I did not get along with her, I won't comment any further on that in this discussion. ] (]) 22:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::NP, on KvdL. LOL: I thought IHTS's "What's tiring to read are attacks on the form of an argument (or counter-argument) not the substance." was a criticism of my point-by-point style and reliance on fallacy-citing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think you should just nominate it for deletion again. Because ] sucks, and it cannot be worked into "repairing" the essay once it is gutted of all intended meaning. ] ] 10:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't want it deleted at all, though. The behavior pattern is one that needs to be addressed fairly often. I thought to propose the rename because I needed to refer to it the day that I did propose the rename, but the person engaging in the "give me my way or I quit" ultimatums was a woman, just like it was the last several times I've needed to refer to it. The fact that it might need some rewriting is not a problem. Rewriting is the entire point of wiki. Making it more effectively address the problem editing pattern isn't "whitewashing", it's getting more bang for the buck. I have to say that this "just destroy it entirely!" sour grapes act is kind of ironic, given the nature of the essay in question. Heh. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You can't retitle the essay without either substituting "diva" with another term or rewriting it entirely according to the myriad WP:TANTRUM ideas. How would the first sentence of the essay read if were changed to TANTRUM? If you read it carefully you'll see that "diva" is the backbone of the essay, with the term being mentioned '''54 times''' in the essay. This is already a lost cause on the PC front. Whatever happens, happens. Peace out. ] ] 06:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The sub-thread ], below, addresses this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ====Point of Order==== | |||
| The nominator stated above that, ''"having this essay be at a pejorative label at all is counter-productive."'' Changing the title of the essay to something like WP:TANTRUM is not even in line with something like ]. Should ''that'' essay be renamed, since it is a label? Doubtful. How about ]? That's a label typically reserved for a clumsy oaf: very insulting! Is it the perceived sexist undertones of the label "diva" that is the real issue here? Or is it the actual using of a label in an essay title to describe an editor in a potentially negative light? There are more essays to nominate for deletion if that is the case. ] ] 08:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Not a "point of order" (nothing wrong w/ OP's motion). Rather your suggestion to broaden the issue. ] (]) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue is sexism, not insults to editors. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not really. In the 7+ years this essay has been in existence, it's been through 1 failed deletion nomination; and "sexism" was never brought up. The name "diva" never should have been linked to the WP article on ] to begin with. A Misplaced Pages diva is not a singer, and they most certainly are not exclusively female. The first sentence of the essay describes what a Misplaced Pages diva is, and there's no sexism implied there at all. This is PC nonsense, IMHO. ] ] 23:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::A rationale for renaming isn't a rationale for deletion. The fact that my car needs a paint touch-up is no reason to consign it to the junkyard, as it were. And times change: When this was up at MfD in 2012 (where the other rationale I raised here, about name-calling being an effective technique or inappropriate, was also the principal issue then), the gender divide was not as well-recognized an issue for WP; our #1 PR hit over the last couple of years has been the gender divide. You've already made the point many times now that you think the rename proposal is just PC nonsense. But the proponent is someone who hates PC nonsense, so maybe it isn't. Finally, no one said you personally intended to imply sexism. See the difference between ] and ]. This is about perception (i.e. likelihood of inference), not intent. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * As the raiser of both of the issues, I declare them obviously severable. The sexism (latent more than blatant) is one issue. Having essays be targeted at users as if they "are" certain "types" that we're labeling is also an issue, but a different kind. The fact that we have more than one essay like that is ], for both of these reasons independently. In this particular case the former reason is probably more compelling than the latter, as it speaks to bias and editor-retention issues, not just effectiveness. The latter issue is almost entirely one of effectiveness: If you call people names instead of addressing problematic behaviors you mostly just piss them off. We renamed ] to ] for a reason. And that one remains focused on good editors not enabling, because trolls are here for one reason only, to troll. People engaging in "my way or I quit" behavior are generally doing so for different reasons, and can be reached, but probably not by calling them names. As noted above, I'd make an exception, when it comes to directly-insulting essay titles, for ]. It's a special case, a last resort, and if you use it you do so on pain of being a jerk yourself simply by invoking it. It's ]'s answer to ]. This essay, though, doesn't rise to that level of exasper-/desperation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{u|SMcCandlish}}, I like your thought process. But if something was subpar about title "Don't feed the trolls" to the point where it was changed, but the original name exists as a redirect, then really is there much difference in a world where, say, all invocations of that essay use the redirect? Wouldn't the original title then still be the effective one?) Perhaps that was discussed already during that rename (didn't check). Thx, ] (]) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not all invocations of what is now ] are from ] or ]. The community is actually clearly moving on and using the current name (or ]) with increasing frequency. This is always the case after a rename of this sort (cf. the change from ] and ] to ] and ], for another example among many). Not all editors adopt the change the day it happens; some don't even notice it for a year or longer. There's nothing new or upsetting about that. All change on WP is gradual. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Wording suggestions for a move to ]=== | |||
| ] seems to be the option with the most support generally. It will require slight changes to the intro, but that certainly shouldn't be the reason this move is held up. I suggest something along the lines of,: | |||
| :Title: Misplaced Pages:Don't throw tantrums | |||
| :Nutshell: Don't throw tantrums to get your way, or reward tantrums with attention. | |||
| :Intro: Some editors believe they are more important than others, and require regular validation of that belief. Validation is obtained by storming off the project in a huff—a "retirement" or "Wikibreak"—accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever petty issue drove them away this time. Invariably, this diatribe attracts a flood of "please don't go" messages, along with plenty of support for the departing editor's side of the dispute that triggered the latest "retirement". The end result is that the editor gets exactly what he or she craves—validation and support—and returns to the project triumphant, at least until the next petty conflict. | |||
| :Elsewhere, simply replace the term "diva" with "tantrum thrower", etc. | |||
| --] ]/] 13:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Oppose'''. "Tantrum thrower?" I'd rather see the essay deleted! ] has a better ring to it, but it's been claimed. Shucks. Technically this request is related to ], and I oppose merging this essay with that one. Because they are two different things entirely. ] ] 02:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes, "too bad" that name/label/box is already in use and you'll have to find another not in use. Since you seem to not be satisfied unless you can name-call/label/put in a box/categorize editors as you see fit. ] (]) 18:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Stop trolling my comments, IHTS. Your unhelpful remarks constitute a personal attack. I don't want to interact with you further and I request that if you must comment on something I said: comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. ] ] 21:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I ''did'' comment on your position made clear in this thread. You advocate for name-calling and editor-labelling essay names (e.g. "Diva", "Brat"). God knows how you defend that position while chiding me for PA and not "commenting on content". (Go figure.) ] (]) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not wedded to any particular outcome, but have to point out that a tantrum is a term for a behavioral outburst, a thing, not a person. A "diva" is a label for a person. They're completely different types of term. While one could descend into name-calling by including the words "tantrum thrower", there's no reason for us to do so. Thus, the objection that "tantrum thrower" is name-calling is not actually an objection to the ] idea, just to Cuchullain's specific essay-wording suggestions (which, in his defense, were made they way they were to propose minimal change to the existing wording). I get the sense that fans of WP:DIVA's present name trying every angle, even contradictory ones, to prevent the name of this essay being changed. First it's a "this is just PC nonsense" complaint (which is not borne out by the number of editors in favor of a rename), then a "we might as well just delete it, because it would have to be totally rewritten" complaint (which is an unreasonable ultimatum argument remarkably similar to what this essay is about), then a complaint about minor wording changes when it's pointed out that we don't have to rewrite much. This new don't-merge-to-] "objection" is a red herring; no one has proposed such a merger. Just because two essays might make analogy to childish behavior patterns of different sorts doesn't mean they have to be moved into the same page.<p>But this isn't even a slightly challenging writing task to begin with. Whatever the title, the sort of minimal rewrite in question could be effectuated without a name-calling problem by replacing "diva"/"divas" in the text with phrases like "editor engaging in tantrum behavior", "threatening to quit", "reliance on ultimatums", etc. – simple descriptions of behavior (and also not the same term over and over, avoiding a repetitiveness issue). This would be even less of a change than ] went through on its way to ]. All that said, I think it should be rewritten a little more to focus on behaviors to avoid rather than behaviors to label people with. This, too, would be a minor change. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find it amusing that you have several times now alluded to ''me'' having "diva-esque" behavior. Ironically, one of the editors who wrote a lot of this essay is, in fact, '''himself''' a diva?! You have little clue what this essay is about if you think that I am a diva. You saw a potentially politically incorrect buzzword. There is no need to rewrite this essay; and you will not be a crusader against "name-calling" injustice if it is, sadly, rewritten. ] ] 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say you were being a diva, I simply suggest that it's ironic for any opponents of a rename-and-partial-rewrite to resort to psychodramatic ultimatum tactics, when that's the main approach of the high-maintenance editing behavior this essay is about. So is psychological projection, BTW. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from this. Did you have something substantive to respond with, about how to improve this page, or just your own assumption of personal persecution? And why does {{em|that}} tactic sound familiar, too? Why does ] (see above about assumptions of personal attacks) also ring a bell in relation to this page? The very fact that you're responding to such simple observations with a how-dare-you-call-me-a-diva response is essentially a clear proof of what's wrong with the current page name and it's labeling approach, without even approaching the gender-related issue (so much for the "it's just PC nonsense" proposition). BTW, do you really think I don't recognize any behavior covered in this essay in my own editing history? The actual value of it is precisely that does not describe some incurable "type", but a pattern of editorial behaviors and habits than can be consciously altered. The ability to recognize these unhelpful behaviors and avoid them is the principle message of the essay, even in its current wording. This is something of a "behaviors to avoid" counterpoint to ]. | |||
| :::Why would it be "sad" that a page on a wiki could be written? The entire {{em|purpose}} of wikis is to be rewritten. While some particular edit could be infelicitous, and subject to reversion or revision, the ability of editors to change a page like this is not some "great wrong", and the general assumption across all wikis is that pages continue to be edited and improved over time, which necessarily often entails substantial rewriting. I know you know this, so I'm mystified why you seem to take the attitude that this somehow doesn't apply to this particular page alone. The only clue seems to be that you are "one of the editors who wrote a lot of this essay", as you have pointed out at least three times (which sounds a lot like another behavior detailed in this essay, BTW). It's understandable to feel a little proprietary or parental toward something you've invested some time in, but that's an emotion we all have to restrain here, under the ] principle that our contributions will be "mercilessly edited". I'm not sure what you're on about with the "crusader" reference; that's essentially a variant of ], likening your debate opponents to a wave of medieval genocidal would-be conquerors instead of 20th-century ones who felt they were following in Crusader footsteps. I have no "crusade" against all name-calling (I support the retention of ], ], ], and ], all of which involve labeling problematic editors and pseudo-editors who will not be reformed). As various supporters of a rename agree, it's simply counter-productive in this case or any case like it, where we're trying to change unhelpful behavior by otherwise-useful editors, not get rid of trolls/vandals who are ] to write an encyclopedia (the essay itself even draws this distinction clearly). Rather than argue any further about whether it should be rewritten, or why, or how, I've just taken the time to produce a sample revision to work with. Seems far more productive. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A true Misplaced Pages diva is not capable of changing his/her behavior. There is therefore no advice to give a WP diva that will be heeded. This never was intended as an advice essay, but rather a way to recognize that one is possibly dealing with such an editor. ] ] 10:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===Draft revision=== | |||
| I've produced a draft revision at ]. It retains all of the points and much of the language, while recasting it in terms of behaviors to avoid (while also retaining the "what to do about it" section for other editors). It makes a few missing points (e.g. about factions as well as entourages, and the folly of pursuing credentialism in a personally-identifiable manner); removes several counter-productive ] implications that high-maintenance behavior is actually a great tactic (there were at least four of those!); works in links to a bunch of additional policies, guidelines and essays; etc. It even retains one mention of "diva" (well into the piece, after it's clear that it's not gender-loaded) so people know why that would be redirecting there, and includes also various other keywords from naming ideas above (conniption, hissy-fit, tantrum, enabling, entitlement, etc). It also works in at least one link to each of the "See also" items (and removes some from that section that aren't really very helpful to link there). And shuffles a few minor points around for better flow. It's not perfect, but it's something to work with, and it proves that the piece can quite easily be rewritten as an advice page for those exhibiting such behaviors, rather than a "get the hell off Misplaced Pages" page. It only took about an hour and half, less time that I've spent discussing such a shift on this talk page. Feel free to edit the draft, but if you want to produce a radically different draft, please use a separate sandbox, so we can weigh the merits of different approaches. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:21, 3 September 2024
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 18 February 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
More unlikely content
From the essay (added 10/9/2012 by user Doc9871 ): IAR is often touted as the justification for not listening to the community .
Since this happens "often", can you give even one example occurring in the last several years? (I've seen people invoke IAR before. But never associated with also being labelled a "diva". So I'd be interested to see where this ever occurred.) IHTS (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. Again, you are trying to bait me by naming any specific user as a diva in the form of a diff. It's not going to happen, so just stop trying. Doc talk 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm challenging what appears to be stuff made up through fantasy (then added to the essay). As mentioned you can avoid identifying any individual by quoting text from an incident that backs up your "often" content. (And there is also WP Email.) But it seems to me the pattern is you like to be free to add anything you want to have in the essay, no matter how baseless, contrary to your claim all essay content comes from real-life WP experience. (It seems that boast is also made up.) IHTS (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. | Shortcuts |
- While I certainly take offense to your ill-informed view that it is "fantasy", your objections and misinterpretations matter very little. It's an essay, not anything that should be considered fact that requires citations. Get it right. Doc talk 06:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Already was aware what an essay is. But I don't think that means one user (you) can add anything you want to see in it (i.e. the content is still subject to editor consensus; and that is what this discussion page is for). (I've contributed to the essay too, and as one voice re consensus, I've challenged your adds, for the reasons already given. That is not out-of-line, even though you like to "set right". So I don't think your condescension on that point is either correct or appropriate.) IHTS (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comb through this essay with the same scrutiny. No citations there. Possibly even some outright "fantasy" added by one or more editors. Of course, I wrote none of it. But others here understand essays. You've gotten the best of me in the two above sections, so I will step back again and allow you to do so in this one as well. And then you can open another new section. Doc talk 06:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- From you more off-topic & non-argument & sarcasm. BTW I never said the essay needs citations. (Rather to back up your fanciful adds when challenged after claiming all content came from real WP experiences.) IHTS (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I could give you an example via a diff from a now banned user that was a truly great inspiration for what I added. But... I don't want to. And, I don't have to! No need for labelling, such as you have labelled me an "attacker", a "blah blah blah" and whatnot. Now then, have your final word on this section, please... Doc talk 08:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- In this case I agree with the point in the original wording, and retained it in the draft I rewrote, as
Avoid abusing the often-misunderstood "Ignore all rules" policy as a rationale for not listening to the community
. It is frequent enough to mention. It's not really fair in this case to demand proof, since providing it will necessarily entail a) a shipload of pointless diff-digging, and b) re-shaming people who already feel abused by this page (at least one of whom quit the project over it at least in part). I don't think it's sound reasoning to complain (as I do) that this, in its present wording, is essentially an attack page, and then re-highlight its questionable use. It would seem to be a "gravedancing" thing and a WP:CIVIL issue, at least in the abstract. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 00:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)- Re your editsum,
"proof not needed on this; it's common sense"
, it was common sense too, that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object, until it was tested. IHTS (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re your editsum,
- I don't really see the relevance; my point is that we needn't pick at old scabs. At any rate, Doc clearly will not provide examples. If you really want one, I can hint at where to find one. Look for someone exhibiting patterns described in this essay, participating in WT:MOS discussions about capitalization of common names of species, ca. early to mid 2012. It's someone who had been "retiring" loudly since 2005. The entire basis of said person's "resist MOS or die trying" act was an explicit IAR against a style recommendation that did not comport with what one particular organization was trying to promote as a standard in one biological field's journals. (The community rejected this approach firmly, i.e. denied it was a valid IAR, in a huge RfC in 2014, after said editor finally did quit, at least in part after this essay was cited at them, in its then-extant form which was pretty much the same borderline attack page it was just before this RM closed.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Nature of essay
From 2/14/2014 editsum by user Doc9871: It's a borderline humour essay. Interesting! Then one would expect its invocation to be borderline humorous also, at least sometimes!? (Funny. I've only seen it invoked as a weapon or mud-throw, to discredit or criticize or insult someone. If there are invocation that have ever been good-natured/good-humored, I'd appreciate to see the diff supporting same.) IHTS (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.- You want me to slap one of these on the top? Just say the word. Doc talk 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do it. (Tell me though, have you ever seen the essay invoked with humor? ) IHTS (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Doc talk 09:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, which specific part(s) of the essay are supposed to be funny? (Could you quote those text portion please, so we can all share a good laugh?) Thanks, I look forward ... p.s. I do think the pic of Jânio Quadros is funny (who wouldn't?). But that's not body text. IHTS (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- This "humor" thing is new for me, please be patient. (Is this an example of funny?: A Misplaced Pages diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief.) Ha-ha-ha!! Funny! (Did I get it right!?) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Or how about this (I think you added most if not all of this text)?: Divas can't be bothered by the "little people" and are known to be extremely uncivil to those who are beneath them. If you can't fully conform to the diva's view, you may find yourself cast as a less valuable member of the community. Divas will likely engage in WikiBigotry against users that met a certain condition that make them less valuable to their eyes. However, the line between "good" and "bad" editors may be drawn anywhere, and it may even consist of an arbitrary condition invented by themselves. Ha-ha-ha-ha!! So funny! (Yeah? No?) IHTS (talk)
- Or this (text you added)?: By excessively reiterating their own perceived value, they are implicitly denigrating their opponent's value, which is a form of validation. Ha-ha-he-he!! Oh God I'm in stitches now! (Yeah? No?) IHTS (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Or this?: Editors who question a diva's behavior often find themselves attacked by a group of fervent supporters. So very funny!!! Who writes this stuff! I can hardly breathe! (Yes? No?) IHTS (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- The humor is a bit dry. Glad you find it so funny! I am flattered by your praise! Doc talk 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Amazing how far you're willing to go to defend the status of this essay -- your WP:OWNed and adopted little attack page. IMO it is even more fucked up now after your addition of the banner. (For obvious demo above.) IHTS (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tag is gone; thanks Doc. Alakzi, the tag contains a contradiction, in claiming that humorous things shouldn't be taken seriously. That's nonsense, of course. Your claim that the essay is offensive may have value, or it may not, but if it's offensive its offensiveness is not alleviated by the fact that it was tagged as humorous. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, I'm disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point by reverting the removal of the tag. The bullshit I've got to put up with in this place... Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's terrible, I know. (I defended you elsewhere already, in another case.) But the tag says "this material is kept because it's considered funny", and that is untrue--see the AfD, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- WP:POINT as basis for revert made sense to me, but I was thinking it was being applied to the original add (not Alaksi's re-add). IHTS (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, Doc didn't remove the tag, Cambalachero did. IHTS (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently, I'm disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point by reverting the removal of the tag. The bullshit I've got to put up with in this place... Alakzi (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
IHTS, Please stop with the sarcasm and irony and explain, in clear words, why do you think we should use the tag "humor" on this page. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Can't, since I never thought that. IHTS (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't mean to beat the drum too loud, but wouldn't Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the divas/sandbox obviate these concerns? By turning it into an advice piece with a practical purpose instead of a borderline attack page, the problem seems to go away. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 00:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Solves no problems that were not there in the first place. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 09:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finally conceding there were problems. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"Diva" redirects nominated for deletion
Resolved – Consensus was to {{soft redirect}} them, and tag them {{historical}}.
I have nominated the "diva" variant redirects for deletion here. Alakzi (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Rewrite"
It's clear that the total rewrite/watering down failed to consider such basics as psychodrama being something a Misplaced Pages editor is normally engaged in here. So I have taken the liberty of removing that nonsense. Any objections? Because there is more to be culled from this rewrite. WP:BRD. Doc talk 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:LANCB. Seriously? Who the heck is ever going to adopt this and then link others to it? Absurd. It's not only neither a word nor an acronym: it's simply never going to catch on, Ever. WP:BYE is open... makes more sense, yes? (Sigh). Doc talk 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)