What does it mean to be "too small a fish to fry"?
Hello. Regarding your recent edits on
Fish - putting the 's' outside of a simple unpiped link makes the source code much cleaner and easier for others to edit and is usually a good idea (eg. [[fish]]es
vs [[fish|fishes]]
), but it doesn't make any difference if you're already using a pipe (the original [[Shoaling and schooling|schools]]
vs your [[Shoaling and schooling|school]]s
). In fact, it actually makes things slightly less clear, because the plural outside the brackets makes it look, at first glance, as if you're pluralising an unpiped article title.
This isn't a very big deal either way, but it's not something that benefits an article, so don't feel that you have to do it. MOS:PIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are worth a read.-- McGeddon ( talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
...could just as easily work in reverse: Too small a fry to fish. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then. But how did you even spot me, anyway? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, LOLz.... Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Heheh, so the "fortune teller" was right about that one point, I guess. Thanks for being mildly entertaining for a bit, Bugs. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation for how best to keep talk page comments in shape when you add a new one - they were getting a bit confusing over at Talk:Fish. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to fix redirects to link to their actual destinations, by the way, as you did here - see WP:NOTBROKEN. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Huhh, Bugs... :) Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Who, then, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? And why hadn't you answered my question over at user talk:Epipelagic? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Muhammad Ali, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". An attempt to change the subject's name is not a minor edit. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
See your talk page. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
See Help:Minor edit for an explanation of what constitutes a minor edit. Also, please stop using edit summaries for discussion. That's what talk pages are for. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then why did you believe I "deserve to be scolded" about that but not him, even though he was doing the same thing? And how is describing the changes made "not discussion"? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well then, Stevietheman, what's the supposed "difference" between C.Fred's "Sources say he changed his name; what's your source for it being a ring name?" and his "This is established consensus in the talk page; take it to talk and get new consensus if you disagree," and anything I've said back to him also in the edit-summaries? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay then, Stevietheman, why do the rules about edit-summaries themselves say that it's actually fine for us to make what are officially known as dummy edits in order to make an additional statement about the edits that have been going on? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit of yours to User talk:Epipelagic suggests that you have been unaware of WP:OWNTALK.
Now that I have pointed you to it, I can assume that you are aware of it. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Having read what I wrote, you reverted an entirely legitimate removal for your own odd reason, and did so for the third time within very much less than 24 hours. And therefore:
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Here's some advice for you after the block is lifted: take policies and guidelines to mean what they say, rather than what you want them to say; and take an average of no less than five minutes for each of your edits. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Doc9871 and Hoary, I was not saying that I'm treated differently now than when I was just an IP address. I'm trying to make the point that what I do to someone else right now, such as warning them for edit-warring, is not treated the same way as it was when it was done to me. I just add the "when I was an IP address" part) because you can see that there's no record of it here with my user name, and without that explanation you might go, "Where? I don't see anything like that in your history." And no, of course I don't have a record of the IP addresses that I've had over the time.
So to go back over what I'm asking, and hopefully you will answer it for me since nobody else has been willing to give me the information, these, again, are what I'm asking:
1. Why is it that when an admin or even a regular user can see that I made 2-3 reversions to the same thing within the same day, and they know that I'm not breaking 3RR (but you know that even without breaking 3RR you can still be ed-warring), when I give someone else that same warning though, it gets treated by at least two users (the warned one himself and one of his cronies) as if it were "trolling" even though it follows the same criteria as that which was used on me to send me the same kind of warnings, but a. I would not now get any support from others that it is actually not trolling, and b. I would not get any support from others that that same kind of warning against me was trolling?
2. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user reports me for edit-warring, even if I did not yet break 3RR, the admin(s) who review the report will block me will acknowledge that I've violated the edit-warring rules (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), but when I report someone for warring without breaking 3RR (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), that admin goes, "Ohh, it's 'not a violation because this user didn't break 3RR'," and then I have to remind him that even though it's not a violation of 3RR it is still edit-warring (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway)?
3. This one makes you guys sound like you are very, very picky!
a. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user says I'm "edit-warring" or calls me an "edit-warrior," nobody scolds them for being uncivil against me, but then when I tell someone they're edit-warring or that they're an edit-warrior, you guys will tell me, "NO! Naughty boy! You cannot use terms like that on people, because that's 'being uncivil against them'!"
b. Or if there's some supposed "difference" between telling a person that they do a certain bad thing and calling them the doer of that certain bad thing, i. why do you guys think there's that supposed "difference," and ii. what is the supposed "difference," and iii. why should the "they are a person who does that thing" version be considered any more of a supposed "insult" than the "that person does that thing" version?
c. Why is it that even if there is a supposed "difference" between "you're edit-warring" and "you are that which edit-wars" (oh my freakin' heck, really?), if an admin or a regular just uses that term against me, it's supposedly "okay," but then when I use it against someone else, it's supposedly "not okay"?
4. a. Why is it that when I was supposedly "uncivil" with someone in the past, someone would scold me for it and threaten to report, or even actually report, me even the first time, but now when I report i. one person for calling my warning "nonsense," "trolling," and "pollution," and ii. the other person for that similar thing plus for calling me a "jerk" and saying that my writings are "shit," they don't get scolded at all?
b. And then, why is it that when I call the one guy a jerk back, I'm the one who gets scolded for it even though he never did?
Do you guys have some sort of unwritten "rule" that "people who appear to have been editing on the WP longer, or at least who have had a user name longer, should get cut more slack than people who either appear new or who have at least had their user name for a lot less time"? If that's supposedly "not the case," or if you won't admit to that, then why are 1-4 above, with all their a.-b.-c. and i.-ii.-iii. subitems, happening to me?
Explain this, please. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Duh, @ Hoary:, I'm blocked; I know that. Why should just because someone is blocked that supposedly ridiculously means "their questions should not be answered"? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
What does it mean to be "too small a fish to fry"?
Hello. Regarding your recent edits on
Fish - putting the 's' outside of a simple unpiped link makes the source code much cleaner and easier for others to edit and is usually a good idea (eg. [[fish]]es
vs [[fish|fishes]]
), but it doesn't make any difference if you're already using a pipe (the original [[Shoaling and schooling|schools]]
vs your [[Shoaling and schooling|school]]s
). In fact, it actually makes things slightly less clear, because the plural outside the brackets makes it look, at first glance, as if you're pluralising an unpiped article title.
This isn't a very big deal either way, but it's not something that benefits an article, so don't feel that you have to do it. MOS:PIPE and MOS:NOPIPE are worth a read.-- McGeddon ( talk) 12:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
...could just as easily work in reverse: Too small a fry to fish. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then. But how did you even spot me, anyway? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, LOLz.... Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Heheh, so the "fortune teller" was right about that one point, I guess. Thanks for being mildly entertaining for a bit, Bugs. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation for how best to keep talk page comments in shape when you add a new one - they were getting a bit confusing over at Talk:Fish. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to fix redirects to link to their actual destinations, by the way, as you did here - see WP:NOTBROKEN. -- McGeddon ( talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Huhh, Bugs... :) Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Who, then, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? And why hadn't you answered my question over at user talk:Epipelagic? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Muhammad Ali, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". An attempt to change the subject's name is not a minor edit. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
See your talk page. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
See Help:Minor edit for an explanation of what constitutes a minor edit. Also, please stop using edit summaries for discussion. That's what talk pages are for. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then why did you believe I "deserve to be scolded" about that but not him, even though he was doing the same thing? And how is describing the changes made "not discussion"? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Well then, Stevietheman, what's the supposed "difference" between C.Fred's "Sources say he changed his name; what's your source for it being a ring name?" and his "This is established consensus in the talk page; take it to talk and get new consensus if you disagree," and anything I've said back to him also in the edit-summaries? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay then, Stevietheman, why do the rules about edit-summaries themselves say that it's actually fine for us to make what are officially known as dummy edits in order to make an additional statement about the edits that have been going on? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit of yours to User talk:Epipelagic suggests that you have been unaware of WP:OWNTALK.
Now that I have pointed you to it, I can assume that you are aware of it. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Having read what I wrote, you reverted an entirely legitimate removal for your own odd reason, and did so for the third time within very much less than 24 hours. And therefore:
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Here's some advice for you after the block is lifted: take policies and guidelines to mean what they say, rather than what you want them to say; and take an average of no less than five minutes for each of your edits. -- Hoary ( talk) 01:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No, Doc9871 and Hoary, I was not saying that I'm treated differently now than when I was just an IP address. I'm trying to make the point that what I do to someone else right now, such as warning them for edit-warring, is not treated the same way as it was when it was done to me. I just add the "when I was an IP address" part) because you can see that there's no record of it here with my user name, and without that explanation you might go, "Where? I don't see anything like that in your history." And no, of course I don't have a record of the IP addresses that I've had over the time.
So to go back over what I'm asking, and hopefully you will answer it for me since nobody else has been willing to give me the information, these, again, are what I'm asking:
1. Why is it that when an admin or even a regular user can see that I made 2-3 reversions to the same thing within the same day, and they know that I'm not breaking 3RR (but you know that even without breaking 3RR you can still be ed-warring), when I give someone else that same warning though, it gets treated by at least two users (the warned one himself and one of his cronies) as if it were "trolling" even though it follows the same criteria as that which was used on me to send me the same kind of warnings, but a. I would not now get any support from others that it is actually not trolling, and b. I would not get any support from others that that same kind of warning against me was trolling?
2. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user reports me for edit-warring, even if I did not yet break 3RR, the admin(s) who review the report will block me will acknowledge that I've violated the edit-warring rules (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), but when I report someone for warring without breaking 3RR (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway), that admin goes, "Ohh, it's 'not a violation because this user didn't break 3RR'," and then I have to remind him that even though it's not a violation of 3RR it is still edit-warring (which again, I have to remind all of you, because you tend to forget your own rules easily, that edit-warring is possible even without breaking 3RR, which means that even editing up to 3 or 2 times can count as warring anyway)?
3. This one makes you guys sound like you are very, very picky!
a. Why is it that when an admin. or even a regular user says I'm "edit-warring" or calls me an "edit-warrior," nobody scolds them for being uncivil against me, but then when I tell someone they're edit-warring or that they're an edit-warrior, you guys will tell me, "NO! Naughty boy! You cannot use terms like that on people, because that's 'being uncivil against them'!"
b. Or if there's some supposed "difference" between telling a person that they do a certain bad thing and calling them the doer of that certain bad thing, i. why do you guys think there's that supposed "difference," and ii. what is the supposed "difference," and iii. why should the "they are a person who does that thing" version be considered any more of a supposed "insult" than the "that person does that thing" version?
c. Why is it that even if there is a supposed "difference" between "you're edit-warring" and "you are that which edit-wars" (oh my freakin' heck, really?), if an admin or a regular just uses that term against me, it's supposedly "okay," but then when I use it against someone else, it's supposedly "not okay"?
4. a. Why is it that when I was supposedly "uncivil" with someone in the past, someone would scold me for it and threaten to report, or even actually report, me even the first time, but now when I report i. one person for calling my warning "nonsense," "trolling," and "pollution," and ii. the other person for that similar thing plus for calling me a "jerk" and saying that my writings are "shit," they don't get scolded at all?
b. And then, why is it that when I call the one guy a jerk back, I'm the one who gets scolded for it even though he never did?
Do you guys have some sort of unwritten "rule" that "people who appear to have been editing on the WP longer, or at least who have had a user name longer, should get cut more slack than people who either appear new or who have at least had their user name for a lot less time"? If that's supposedly "not the case," or if you won't admit to that, then why are 1-4 above, with all their a.-b.-c. and i.-ii.-iii. subitems, happening to me?
Explain this, please. Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Duh, @ Hoary:, I'm blocked; I know that. Why should just because someone is blocked that supposedly ridiculously means "their questions should not be answered"? Too Small a Fish to Fry ( talk) 01:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.