A page for thoughts to go and die:

Should is not Must. There seems to be far to many arguments that stem from editors taking "Should" in a policy or guideline to mean "Must". If you want a policy to be without exception you need to change the language it uses. Of course that's not to say the opposite isn't also true.
All editors are editors, the false separation of certain editors from others is nothing more than the biases of those advancing the separation.

MOS:LABEL. Just because a duck is a bird that swims around on water and is similar in form to a goose, doesn't mean you can call it a waterfowl. Must remember to say that a duck is a member of the Anatidae family, as to avoid the label.

One day a professor from <blanked> is going to realise they can publish a paper about referencing and behaviour in the <blanked> area, and that there are many disgruntled banned socks who will help them. And this website will burn because <blanked> swallowed the poison pill.

We really need to stop calling crap like ChatGPT artificial intelligence, it's just an expert system for words. It has less consciousness or understanding than a bacterial.

|url-status= isn't for URL status, and |postscript= isn't for postscript.

Never let anyone tell you that page views are a problem, they've been solid at about 10bn views per month for nearly a decade. Neither are total edits an issue, in fact not only are total edits nearly as good as they have ever been but the total content edits are at an all time high, and other collaborative projects would be extremely jealous of Wikipedia's active user figures. The real problem is the slow down in new registered users, which has nothing to do with driving established editors away as shown by all the other metrics but rather an environment created by many long-term user that is openly hostile to new users and changing ideas.

"Thanks for saying the thing I didn't want to say, because I wanted to go back to doing something useful".

The problem with COMMONSENSE or BLUESKY is that the line between that and NPOV is less than paper thin. Rather than letting reliable sources decide what is DUE or NOTABLE you're instead using whatever values your socio-culture background has decide.

Using autotranslation and pressing publish is no better than «redacted».

Sometimes while later thinking about a thread or discussion I realise that one of the editors involved is a sock, but generally the effort to investigate and make a case against them is just to high. And it generally doesn't matter as they will likely end up blocked for the same behaviour as their original account.

How embarrassing. You people with your tiny mindsets – open a book, look out the window and then f*ck off.

A new editor who will argue their point well past any reasonable limit, against multiple editor, without listening to any advice or calls for understanding, who ultimately ends up blocked, and then never makes another edit, not one, not even to reiterate their case on their talk page, was, in all likelihood, a sock.x2

Why when I see a naive post from a new editor about a minor detail that relates to MOS do I start hearing Duel of the Fates in my head?

Well did you hear, there's a natural order.

Those most deserving will end up with the most.
That the cream cannot help but always rise up to the top.

Well I say, "Shit floats".

'Time to Picard' - The amount of time left until an editor finds a hill to quote Star Trek: First Contact on and end up CBAN'd.

If someone says they have "rebutted your argument" what they mean is that they have bludgeoned the same flawed arguement repeatedly without engaging with the points you raised in anyway. Simple state they haven't because their argument is flawed, and move on.

Service guarantees citizenship, but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion.

Don't edit war over details in a Wikipedia article, use the new way with new improvements like being outside the purview of Wikipedia's policies on disruptive editing and NPOV!

I really wanted to encapsulate this[1] with a warning that it contained an EEng 'joke', but I thought I might get shouted at.

"Better is good,... Do not let people tell you the fight’s not worth it because you won’t get everything that you want... Better’s always worth fighting for.

Should there be quorum rules in regard to centralised discussions?
Should there be quorum rules in regard to RFCs that have site wide effects?

"Always go with incompetency theory instead of the conspiracy theory. Incompetency is commonplace. Conspiracy requires a rare intelligence."

Every fucking idiot with a fucking stupid idea thinks they're Galileo.

What an absolute cluster fuck.

WP:NOTDUMB / WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY

Media bias and fact checkers are not unbiased or unneeding of fact checking.

Wikipedia's definitely into silly season, I expect a massive RFC about some piece of policy no-one agrees upon (but is ultimately only marginally important) is just round the corner. Everyone can strut and show their plumage, then new year will come and everyone will find something useful to do instead.
We're up to four and it's not even November.

The most useless answer you can give in a discussion is YES or NO, well second most after INSERT BARELY CONNECT RANT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH THE ENTIRE TOPIC.

Cemetry Gates contains good advice about copyvio, but I won't reproduce it here.

Wikipedia in general is supportive of bourgeois liberal democracy and capitalism, but please do tell me how it's left wing.

BLP applies to all living people on all pages, and in a completely unrelated note WP:NOTDUMB is an interesting essay.

AIDR - AI, Didn't Read. Don't insult other editors by wasting their time having to reply to AIs. It's fine to correct your grammer or spellings, but if it's writing comments or parts of comments for you then that's not OK. 'AIDR' should be followed by an unchecked AI generated response.

• I understand your point, and I agree that using AI to generate responses or comments in a collaborative setting, especially when it involves editorial work, can be problematic. AI can certainly be a helpful tool for grammar or spelling corrections, but it should not replace human input in the process of providing meaningful feedback or contributing to a discussion. The primary value in collaboration comes from unique perspectives and critical thinking, which AI cannot replicate.
  However, I believe it’s important to recognize the potential of AI in assisting with repetitive or technical tasks, such as suggesting minor language improvements or offering basic assistance. The key is using it as a support tool rather than a replacement for genuine interaction, so that contributors can maintain a meaningful and productive dialogue.
  The term "AIDR" can be useful as a signal to indicate AI-generated content, but it’s crucial that everyone involved understands its role and limitations in the context of collaboration. Clear guidelines can help ensure AI is used appropriately without diminishing the quality of human contributions. ChatGPT 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• AIDR — Using AI to generate comments seems like a shortcut that removes the authentic human touch. Genuine conversations come from real people with unique perspectives, not algorithms that lack understanding of context or emotion. It's important to keep interactions genuine and meaningful, rather than relying on AI to simulate engagement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  

A use of AI I hadn't thought of until recently was to hide the quirks and foibles of a person's writing style, what better way to evade behaviour evidence of socking than to get AI to rewrite your comments. Of course the behaviour that caused the original block will resurface and result in a new block, but it's such a waste of time until that happens.

I can't think of something more likely not devolve into a train wreck than asking editors to decide on one form of white spacing.

Inclusion isn't a matter of reliability, but a neutral point of view. A source can be reliable for a fact, but that fact could be so minor as to not warrant inclusion or inclusion could give a lopsided view of the subject.

"one of the founders of Wikipedia". You don't have to be coy, we know who you mean, and it's doesn't help your argument.

I once sat in a room with other labelled people, while well meaning people tried to persuade us that all labels should been done away with. That way, they said, people could no longer use them in a negative fashion. I doubt they ever took on board our point that people would use new terms to be derogatory, while we would lose agency of naming our labels. In fact I know they didn't because the same types still try to change the world by changing words, no matter how ineffectual it always is and no matter the agency lost by those they so wish to help.

Conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to be true, but that doesn't make conspiracy theorists any less deluded. If you throw a million darts at a dart board you will inevitably hit the bullseye, that doesn't mean you're any good at darts. It just means you a lunatic throws darts at everything.

You ignored the "stop it's not helpful" rule, sometimes no amount of input is useful.

The deterioration of press freedom in the US[2] calls into question the quality of its news media[3][4].

The issue with treating Pernicious Anaemia with injections of hydroxocobalamin is that symptoms worsen as the time for the next injection nears.

If you failed to convince the community of something, look to the strength and failings of your own arguments. Saying that the issue is other people just shows your own personal short comings.

Apropos of nothing

The sky is not blue, if it was you wouldn't be able to see the stars at night. The sky is transparent, the sun's glare is blue.

Whatever's going on here, I highly recommend that anyone that care about this go touch some grass and go do something more productive, like I don't know, watching a glass of water evaporate.

There are many, regardless of the conflict, who think that because the opposition are bad that those fighting them must be good. Reason and history show it to be a naive and foolish idea.

There are very few people that are indigenous in Afroeurasia, and none in highly traversed areas. Even in the Americas where indigenous has more meaning, groups prior to European colonisation moved around and displaced each other. Depressingly arguments over such tend towards quiet support of biological race categorised by genetic markers.

I've heard many stupid ideas but groups for canvassing your preferred policy changes is definitely in the all time top 10.

"a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich', if that's what you wanted."