This is an archive of past discussions with User:JDDJS. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To be clear this is not me attempting to bait you into any more discussion about The Mousetrap, it is your right to end the interaction on that whenever you wish. However, I want to let you know that the words you used in your very last reply to me were not appropriate. Telling me that I am "beyond help" as if I am not capable of improving, changing, listening etc. is quite offensive. The fact is that you left me not understanding why I couldn't get my point across and not knowing why it triggers such a reaction in you. Then to add on the top that you think I wouldn't even be capable of understanding an explanation, which by the way you didn't know how to do, really really hurts. I believe in communicating to a person that they have hurt you and that is what this was. Panda815 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Competence is required. The fact that you still don't understand why we don't care about non-encyclopaedic arguments shows an extreme lack of understanding for the point of Wikipedia. If you want to report me for incivility, you can go ahead. I stand by everything that I said though, and won't apologize for it. Like I said before, in the hundreds of other disagreements I've had with other editors, I've never once dealt with someone outside of vandals who couldn't understand why non-encyclopaedic arguments are completely irrelevant here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)15:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The checklist for competence that you’ve linked to simply says have good English, be able to assess reliability, communicate and know your own ability. Nothing about knowing why non encyclopaedic reasons aren’t welcome. As for “still” not knowing, nothing has changed since I originally didn’t know. Notice how the checklist says that competence “does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence.
It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful.” Also that “It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to people about required competence.” So yes I have started the incovilty process with 3o. Also how is it relevant that you’ve never once dealt with someone outside of vandals who couldn't understand why non-encyclopaedic arguments are completely irrelevant here? Just because you haven’t doesn’t mean that I am a vandal it means you haven’t come across me yet. And just because you’ve never dealt with it doesn’t mean you can’t now. Panda815 (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Including the ending serves an encyclopedic purpose. Excluding it not only does not serve an encyclopedic purpose, it actively prevents such service. If we were to exclude the ending we would by definition not be providing the best possible encyclopedia. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
My perspective is that the best possible encyclopaedia is one that takes into account all sorts of reasons for all sorts of actions as it will be characterised by the world it is written about. Which is what I’ve been saying. Therefore given the right circumstances, which I believe these are, doing things that are counterintuitive and unconventional does in fact work towards a better encyclopaedia even if normally and logically it would be doing the opposite. The point is that things are fluid and that there isn’t always a black and white “this serves an encyclopaedic purpose and this doesn’t”. That’s what I’ve been trying to say throughout on the original talk page discussion, not some new argument I’m making now. Panda815 (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
No, the best possible encyclopedia is one that informs its readers, not one that hides things from them. What you seem to want here is not an encyclopedia article on the play but a primer for people who plan on watching it. That isn't what we are building here, and if you can't accept that then this isn"t the project for you. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You’re using black and white statements again which something I just said I don’t think is the case. If you disagree then address that instead of ignoring it and doing it again. Like I say, generally you’d be right that a good encyclopaedia informs not hides but like I said there are circumstances where the complete counterintuitive option becomes the right one. You seem to have missed this from my last reply as well. I’m happy to be corrected by you but you need to do so by addressing what I’ve said rather than ignoring it otherwise I’ll just be inclined to repeat myself Panda815 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
No, I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that it was nonsense. This is a black and white situation. We are making an encyclopedia, you want to render that encyclopedia non-encyclopedic. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That’s simply not true, you never said “that is nonsense” or “this isn’t a black and white situation” until right now. It’s clear that those aren’t written above or in this page’s edit history. What makes this a black and white situation then? I’ve said I think it depends on circumstances and explained that that is because it better reflects the world that way. So why do you think that the same rule goes no matter what? As I’ve said under my perspective I think doing what is traditionally non encyclopaedic in some cases actually is encyclopaedic in others. That’s the counterintuitive thing I mentioned. So again why don’t you believe that is the case? It comes down to the black and white thing again. Panda815 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Its a black and white situation because when you are writing an encyclopedia, everything has to serve an encyclopedic purpose. If it does not or worse still interferes with an encyclopeduc purpose, then you aren't writing an encyclopedia. This is down to the basiicfact of what an encyclopedia is. I asumed you had competence to understand. I was obviously wrong.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
But I’m not saying we should do something that doesn’t serve an encyclopaedic purpose. I’m saying that given certain circumstances the opposite of what normally serves an encyclopaedic purpose can serve the encyclopaedic purpose. As in normally as much info as possible serves encyclopaedic purpose but given the right reason withholding info can best serve encyclopaedic purpose. This is the black and white thing I’m talking about. And the unconventional thing too. So apparently you’re still ignoring it. I’ve never said I want to do something that doesn’t serve encyclopaedic purpose I’ve been disagreeing about what serves that purpose. Panda815 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You want to withhold information. That is contrary to the encyclopedic purpose. I don't care how you justify it with "tradition", you are actively arguing to make the encyclopedia worse. This is black and white. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
And I’ve just said that withholding info can support the encyclopaedic purpose rather than contradict it. Given the right circumstances. I’ve also just said that I think this can be justified with the right reason no matter what that reason might be. So why don’t you believe that this is the case? I keep saying these things to you and you just keep saying they’re not the case without saying why not. Panda815 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Because the statements are nonsensical. You are saying you want to write an encyclopedia without writing an encyclopedia. That is gibberish. The basic purpose of an encyclopedia to provide information. And you want to withhold it. You cannot provide information by hiding it. Your position is complete nonsense. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Again yes you’re right that its basic purpose is to provide information. But another thing I have repeatedly been saying is that sometimes there’s a good reason for it to do the opposite of its basic purpose and that because of that good reason it means that you’re not in fact doing something bad. It’s the justification bit. I’m essentially asking again why can’t doing the nonsensical thing be justified. That’s the other half of my point that whilst you’d be right to think hiding information is against purpose and nonsensical, the right reason can absolve that. Like for example the basic purpose of a lock is to stop people getting in but occasionally given the right justification it is used to stop people getting out (like if a school is on lockdown). I’ve been repeating this bit about justification for opposite basic purpose as well (just without the analogy). So thank you for addressing this half I do genuinely appreciate it but the point also requires you address that half of what I said earlier about justification of going against purpose. Panda815 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It is absolutely unacceptable for you to direct this message at only me. If you look back through I think you’ll find that @Khajidha is the one that restarted this unrelated discussion on your talk page not me. All I did was reply to you and then they started this. You should be holding them at least jointly responsible if not more responsible due to them instigating it. You not doing this shows that you clearly have a personal issue with just me rather than a legitimate issue with this thread. So you can consider my behaviour however you like and take whatever action you like. You are completely in the wrong with this latest reply here. That said, as requested, There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Panda815 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That's not even how you would even report for incivility. You need to actually understand the procedure before you start it. You can report me to WP:ANI, but you have to make sure that you actually under the procedure first. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)16:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That’s step 5 on the incivility dispute list and I’ll get there but not before I’ve done the prior steps first. 3o was step three, directly after take it to the talk page which obviously I did. Panda815 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Panda815 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)