The Signpost

Humour

Letters from the editors

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Thebiguglyalien
I hope this letter finds you in good health.
I hope this letter finds you in good health.

Dear fellow Wikipedian:
I have heard your concerns, and I understand that this is a contentious discussion that requires careful deliberation. Upon consideration, I have determined that more deliberation will mean better results. It must also be recognized that I am right, hence all deliberation must be for the purpose of stating my argument. Therefore, I will continue to reply to every comment that disagrees with me in this 7,000-word-long discussion, even if I am not being addressed in any way. I do not recognize that this may crowd the discussion, make it difficult for other editors to speak, or fail to accomplish anything that I could not have done with a single comment. I have added the page to my watchlist, and I have enabled notifications for this discussion. I look forward to engaging with you further. Extensively.
Kind regards,
Your persistent friend


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
Thank you for filing your report. You have accurately identified 750 instances of incivility, point of view editing, ignoring of consensus, ownership of content, and insertion of original research by this user in the last 7 days, and you are correct that they have chased away three productive editors. We have determined that this is a content dispute. None of these individual infractions rises to the level of sanctions, and you are chastised for wasting our time. Furthermore, you used a slightly brusque tone in one of your interactions with this user. You are cautioned to improve your conduct in the future. Please hesitate to file additional reports here if you encounter further disruption.
Sincerely,
The Administrator's Noticeboard


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
It has come to my attention that you have nominated my article for deletion. What you fail to understand is that you are a buffoon, because this thing was mentioned in seven different newspapers, only twelve years ago. Therefore any encyclopedia would be incomplete without a thorough repetition of every complete thought that was reported in regard to this subject. I reject any idea that more than a brief acknowledgement of its existence is necessary for this to be a notable subject. You don't need to read any notability guidelines to know that three reliable sources means automatic victory.
Thanks,
AfD arguer


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
I resent your comments about my participation in the Palestine/Israel topic area. I assure you, I take the utmost care in following policies and guidelines while editing and engaging in discussion. I carefully deliberate on every issue before developing an opinion. Yes, you are correct that my actions in this area have been beneficial to the same side and detrimental to the other every single time I have ever engaged with the topic in my ten years on Wikipedia. This is not because I am incapable of a neutral point of view. It is because my side has been correct in 100% of the disputes that have emerged. If you accuse me of editing with a POV again, I will disparage you on every noticeboard I can find. You have only proven that you and your people cannot edit on Wikipedia neutrally.
Best wishes,
An account that edits almost exclusively in the Palestine/Israel area (swap the topic as needed)


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
I fail to understand your concerns about the quality of my sources. I happen to be an avid reader of Alternative Facts Today, The Extremist Times, and The Government is Lying to You Weekly. I can attest to their accuracy in reporting. I expect that you would prefer coverage from the lying mainstream media, like Reuters or The New York Times. My friend, has it occurred to you that it is actually the reliable sources that are the biased ones, while my sources are entirely neutral and correct? Pull the wool from your eyes, and wake up to the lies that keep them in power.
Until the revolution proves me right,
A neutral Wikipedian


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
It appears you have taken an interest in our favorite subject. What you don't realize is that this subject is governed by our WikiProject. The five of us who engage at the WikiProject have total ownership over all 12,000 articles under our domain, and any edits to these articles must follow the rules we have imposed. Please see our WikiProject style guide essay for what you are and are not allowed to do when editing on this subject. You are welcome to join, but we will all vote against your ideas because they are not part of our established paradigm. If you attempt to make an edit that complies with Wikipedia best practices, we will continue to inform you that we don't do that here and that our articles operate on different rules from all of the others... because we said so.
Cordially,
Your local WikiProject


Dear fellow Wikipedian:
I have noticed that you attempted to make a change on Wikipedia. Have you asked permission first? Wikipedia is not some place where anyone can edit, you must first seek approval before doing anything beyond fixing a typo. I object to your change because you have not been given permission, and I will continue to object on account of the fact that it has been objected to (by me). I have no suggestions for an alternative or a compromise, so we'd better just leave everything exactly as it was without fixing whatever you were trying to improve.
Sending my love,
The neighborhood watch

All characters and letters on this page are fictitious. The concepts expressed herein are representative of broad trends that exist throughout Wikipedia. Any resemblance to specific editors is purely coincidental.


S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Aaaaaahhhhh. Very well written. Too accurate. Therefore disconcerting. jengod (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You got us nailed! I don't know when I laughed so hard, but this really hits home.— Maile (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh these are an absolute joy! Too real, perhaps we all should format our talkpage comments as letters. In this spirit, let me add a personal one:

Dear fellow Wikipedians,
After careful deliberation, I found that this discussion presented "no consensus" and I will thus close the section. Nearly 24 hours have passed since this important issue was brought forward, and most of the five interested parties disagree with the proposed solution. Many alternative strategies were proposed, but we will not discuss those any further. May this conversation be archived shortly and be forgotten forever.
Kind regards,
A closing administrator

~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore any encyclopedia would be incomplete without a thorough repetition of every complete thought that was reported in regard to this subject.
— AfD Arguer

Seems a bit unrealistic, I think most of them would argue for inclusion of the incomplete thoughts as well. FeRDNYC (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent piece! Not mean, just accurate. Toadspike (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will copy these and re-use them everywhere - while providing attribution of course so I am never accused of plagiarizing which of course I am in fact doing. They are too priceless and too accurate to just let them disappear into the ethernet! I will carry the torch forward setting fires everywhere as I go about laughing like a maniac! YES! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]




       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0