User talk:Ghost writer's cat

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I noticed that you replied to a vintage discussion on my Talk page. Whatever your viewpoint on the topic, you should reply only to current, ongoing discussions—certainly not almost year-old debates hidden away on an editor's Talk page. (Also, the particular editor you responded to had issues with, and warnings from, Wikipedia, closed his/her account long ago, and has changed his/her pseudonym at least once.) If you feel strongly about the topic of an old discussion, reintroduce it to the Talk page of a related article. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason.Jones Please cite the WP policy where it explains that I "should reply only to current, ongoing discussions—certainly not almost year-old debates". I am not aware of this policy. (BTW, the debate isn't hidden—it's right at the top of the page.)

Thanks for the heads up on the editors change of name; I edited my comment accordingly. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd call it practical policy. It's totally your decision to reply to old Talk threads regarding minor topics discussed a year ago. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason.Jones Since you've acknowledged it's my decision, why are you here telling me what I "should" do? You've already spent more time making this post than I spent in my original comment. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No further posts. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has showed for a long time that you can't just revive a discussion out of nowhere if it was archived for a loooooooong time. It should be common sense. Just make a new discussion. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby It wasn't archived and I didn't look at the date. The topic is still relevant. If he didn't want further comment, there are a number of actions he could have taken. Coming over here to reprimand me wasn't the best choice. Not sure why you bothered either. AGF. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it wasn't archived, but it was absolutely not relevant. That conversation was over months ago. They moved on. I'm not sure how I'm not AGFing by the way. I'm not reprimanding you. I'm just pointing out how you wasted your time. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarlby "I'm just pointing out how you wasted your time." That seems rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? You made your way over here specifically to tell me I'm wasting my time??

There's no time limit on discussions. I just came across a conversation from two years ago that someone recently commented on. No one complained to him that he was resurrecting an old discussion. But somehow you think a discussion from last June is ancient history. The comment was about gaining consensus, with is always relevant.

What's your agenda here?? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is my choice to waste my time, but I guess the same applies to you, so we can end this conversation peacefully here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your persistent bludgeoning of Talk:United States in this section, you have been page-blocked from United States and Talk:United States, including Talk:United States/FAQ, for one year. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]