User talk:199.83.88.158

I would like to post my Write it Down video as an External Link to the Write Down page. It has been removed as "spam"

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/January#I would like to post my Write it Down video as an External Link to the Write Down page. It has been removed as "spam".

I would like to post my Write it Down video as an External Link to the Write Down page. It has been removed as "spam".

My video is on topic. My video is a legitimate external link, becuase it is on topic. My video is not "overly detailed". — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

There was a previous discussion (if it can be called that) at Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Write Down Page. —CodeCat 02:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lack of proper discourse concerning user-initiated complaints is shocking. — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

In my personal opinion, that video is brain-numbing and entirely useless. --WikiTiki89 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "totally useless"? (I admit it might be brain-numbing but for another reason) — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

Because I don't think anyone would ever learn anything useful from it. And it's certainly not brain-numbingly insightful. But that's just my opinion. If you want to get down to facts, we never link to YouTube videos in our entries. YouTube is not a reliable source of information. --WikiTiki89 02:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is just your opinion, because you have not directly addressed the content nor how this content is useless for students. In other words, you have not provided any real information for discussion. — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

Actually I did. I said "If you want to get down to facts" and then I stated my factual non-opinionated view. --WikiTiki89 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no you did not. I was addressing your first point.

So, is there anyone out there who would like to refute the content of the video as "unreliable"? — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

It's not about the content of the video. The fact that it's on YouTube is what makes it unreliable. Anyone can post anything on YouTube. --WikiTiki89 03:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make your content available to Wiktionary, why not upload it to Wikimedia Commons? —CodeCat 03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a pretty dumb argument. There are hundreds of thousands of external weblinks on Wiki that have been approved on an individual basis. What makes them different than a YouTube link?

Hi, CodeCat, why don't the hundreds of thousands of external links upload their content to Wiki?

Does YouTube have a special essence that makes content unreliable?

You see, it has always been about the content and always will be, which is why I keep demanding that you address the content. — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

Where are these hundreds of thousands of unreliable external links you are referring to. We usually link to other dictionaries or language corpora. --WikiTiki89 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, my point is that the reliable ones are accepted and the unreliables rejected. So, please address the content of the video. Please use logical argumentation. Your opinion is not valid.

You seem to think that we owe it to you to allow the external link, if we are not able to convince you why it's bad. But that's not how it works. Decisions are made by consensus, not by principle. We don't owe you an explanation, all we need is agreement among a majority of editors. It's up to you to create a consensus to include it. So far you're not doing very well, and your attempts are only alienating more and more people. I assume that you realise that, too. So I suggest that you quit now while you are still ahead. If you know already that you're not going to succeed in getting what you want, any further attempts are just wasting people's time and amount to nothing more than trolling. —CodeCat 03:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WIkitiki89 has a history and a reputation on this site, and has administrative power thanks to the recognition of his peers.

You are some guy who made a Youtube video and demands that we provide you a forum for clickbait.

You have the right to hold the opinion that Wikitiki89's "opinion is not valid", but your opinion would be wrong. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 03:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"You seem to think that we owe it to you to allow the external link,"

No, I think as an administer you are required to use reason to make your decisions. You have not used reason thus far.

"if we are not able to convince you why it's bad."

Convincing requires argumentation. You have not made an argument.

"But that's not how it works. Decisions are made by consensus, not by principle."

So you are saying Wikipedia decisions are made by without reason?

"We don't owe you an explanation,"

I do not like how you use "we", CodeCat. Wiki is not a authoritarian state of "we" against "them", and you in particular are doing a really, really poor job of being inclusive, which means you are anti-community and pro-clique.

"all we need is agreement among a majority of editors."

Reason means nothing at Wiki? SHOCKING!!

"It's up to you to create a consensus to include it."

The only way to create consensus is through reason. If you refuse to outline your position regarding my content, then consensus can not be acheived.

"So far you're not doing very well",

You started this exchange by calling my work "spam". It is you who is doing a poor job at creating a great resource.

"and your attempts are only alienating more and more people."

I am not interested in conversing with those who do not make arguments.

"If you know already that you're not going to succeed in getting what you want, any further attempts are just wasting people's time and amount to nothing more than trolling."

In your opinion.

I will continue to press this point until I find someone who actually capable of making a logical argument.

"WIkitiki89 has a history and a reputation on this site, and has administrative power thanks to the recognition of his peers."

And as a result he should be able to make a logical argument.

"You are some guy who made a Youtube video and demands that we provide you a forum for clickbait."

Ad hominem.

: You have the right to hold the opinion that Wikitiki89's "opinion is not valid", but your opinion would be wrong.

I am not holing that opinion. I have come to the conclusion that Wikiti89 has no argument to contribute. — This unsigned comment was added by 199.83.88.158 (talk).

---

I don't have to answer any of your questions until you make a logical argument for why your video should be linked to. --WikiTiki89 03:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/January#I_would_like_to_post_my_Write_it_Down_video_as_an_External_Link_to_the_Write_Down_page._It_has_been_removed_as_.22spam.22 --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)