User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives [megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

June 2025

Please do not ever move any of my comments in any discussion ever again. You are completely wrong, and making unfounded assumptions that my original placement of that comment was to convey the meaning it was more important than the others. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Isaidnoway,

I found the RfC through WP:AN, where you had asked for administrative assistance because Sangdeboeuf had incorrectly marked the initial RfC comment as "unsigned". The reason why a signature is optional for the initial RfC question is probably that it should be as neutral as possible, and this neutrality is improved by not directly saying who asked the question. Often, it is the first person to reply to the RfC, so I think that effect is limited in practice, but it's a good gesture and Xaosflux helped to enforce your good preference ([1]).

For the same reason why a signature is optional there – neutrality – it is counterproductive to add personal opinions / interpretations / subjective statements to the initial question especially in response to answers to the original question. Neutral clarifications perhaps, but not "multiple reliable sources" or similar judgements. When the AN section was already closed and the issue resolved, you insisted that this additional comment is neither part of the neutral question nor of the discussion, for which an extra section already existed below the survey, as is usual. This is absurd to me: If the position of your comment actually matters (and I agree it does) then the position you chose for it was inappropriate, as that place was reserved for the neutral question. Adding something non-neutral to it just breaks the neutrality and literally puts your comment above all others.

Sangdeboeuf then took that concept ad absurdum by replying to the comment above the survey ([2]), inflating the effect of their single dissenting opinion by placing it above the others.

And none of that made sense to me, so I moved the comments to the discussion section. It's good to hear that the "more important than the others" effect was unintentional; I hope it doesn't seem too absurd when I say that it was unintentionally present until removed. It wasn't limited to your comment; the problem became clearer when Sangdeboeuf replied there, and my edit summary addressed you both.

I'd probably do so again if I saw a similar situation again, and despite it remaining unchanged even after 24 hours, I hope I can interpret Special:Diff/1297635268 and Special:Diff/1297636903 as a rather unprofessional venting of frustration rather than something I'd actually have to write down somewhere. I've had a quick look at your user page and wondered if we can have... peace.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can have peace, but I stand by my comment with Sangdeboeuf as that unfounded accusation of gaming the system was unwarranted. I just wish you and Sangdeboeuf had approached me on my talk page, before or even after, and explained yourselves. My comment at the RfC, even if in the wrong place, was made in good-faith, and just wish it had been interpreted that way, it's not like it was a false or misleading statement designed to hoodwink anybody. I've seen dozens of RfCs formatted with comments similar to the way I started that RfC. C'est la vie. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done so, sorry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to ToBeFree for accumulating at least 5 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Hey man im josh! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]