→UBX images: Response to Wikipedian64 |
No edit summary |
||
Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
So, which images am I allowed to use? Some of them were not deleted. [[User:Wikipedian64|Wikipedian64]] 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
So, which images am I allowed to use? Some of them were not deleted. [[User:Wikipedian64|Wikipedian64]] 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*Any that are not copyrighted, and available under a free license. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
*Any that are not copyrighted, and available under a free license. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
== [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bagel7&diff=125157394&oldid=125121431 Re] == |
|||
So. I was going to go to this talk page to probably leave you a nasty message about deleting the image on my userpage, but then I saw your secret diary. I read through part of it, and realized you have done this MANY times, and people have responded back angry MANY times. However, I also noticed you have a picture on your userpage, and you crossed out "Working on removing fair use violations. Copyright violations could threaten the very existence of Wikipedia." So I waswondering, are you still doing that, or not? Oh, and I'll probably put that picture back up. Just letting you know. :) - [[User:Bagel7|Bagel7]] 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:12, 25 April 2007
- See User talk:Durin/archive for all prior discussion from this page.
RfA
Thanx for closing my RfA...--Cometstyles 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
User talk:B8amack
On User talk:B8amack, you said to the user usurpation takes 30 days. It only takes 7. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Moralis
Very interesting indeed. The sight of the RfA-bots breaking brought a tear to my eye. We'll have to see if you get bureaucrat buy-in, but I think it's a good step. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's an interesting experiment, if nothing else. I expect the nom to fail, because editcountitis types are ruining it. The only hope is if the bureaucrats have the courage to recognize foolish arguments for what they are. --Durin 18:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to show some mercy by changing to Neutral, but I still think it was terribly ill-advised to conduct this experiment. It shows poor judgement both by Moralis and by those that wanted this experiment. But as he is a relatively new editor, I can forgive him for that and I hope his judgement will grow in time. Errabee 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- At least don't hold him hostage for it. Others suggested the change, I approached Moralis for agreement to modify it, and I implemented it. Moralis was barely involved. As I noted elsewhere, the value of an experiment is not affected by whether it fails or succeeds. --Durin 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I won't, but the value of this particular experiment is not large as I could have told you the outcome beforehand. BTW, despite your request no more proposals be made, I've made a radical new proposal on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, and I was wondering how you felt about that. Errabee 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- As noted elsewhere, you're presuming the only possible outcomes are acceptance of the format or no. There's plenty to be learned otherwise, as WT:RFA is demonstrating right now. I'll look at your proposal. --Durin 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I won't, but the value of this particular experiment is not large as I could have told you the outcome beforehand. BTW, despite your request no more proposals be made, I've made a radical new proposal on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, and I was wondering how you felt about that. Errabee 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Moralis RfA
I was quite surprised that you misread my comment. I specifically said that I was not holding the format against the candidate. Is any other reason necessary to oppose than a lack of experience? You seemed to question the rationality of my grounds for opposition, as if they were incidental or something, and I do take some exception to that. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know you specifically stated that. That said, I don't see a reason to mention it on the RfA itself. Evaluate the candidate. Comments on the format can be directed to the appropriate sections of WT:RFA. As to experience, he's been here 2.5 years. I don't personally feel his "lack" of experience is a factor. In a consensus building structure, discussion and questioning of others positions should be a natural process, not one questioned. I'm sorry you feel offended. It's not my intention. --Durin 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment from WT:RFA:
"*Just inserting my strenuous objections here. I have no love for numbers, but the current format is so much more difficult to comprehend substantively. Trying to follow all the arguments at once is head-ache inducing. This change converts RfA into AfD -- what a disaster! When I come to a big AfD to close it, I expect to have my head spinning. If RfA follows that road, expect people to pay less attention to what others say, and worry more about making their own voices heard through endless sub-commenting. I pity the poor b'crats who will have to solve this mess! And this RfA is for a "non-controversial" candidate. Sheesh. If Danny's had been run this way, we seriously might have reached a MB of text."
I'll add a few more points. I noticed several supporters giving the candidate credit for the RfA change. I assume you will respond to them just as vigorously, telling them to separate feelings over the candidate from the format.
Perhaps you shouldn't have run this thing on a pre-existing RfA. I know that if I had commented early, and then been refactored, I would have been very confused. Try it on a fresh one.
The reason that "questioning" at RfA is very unnatural and counterproductive is: 1) way too many people go there. If everyone questions everyone, the discussion will become a massive AfD, as I say above; 2) much of the disagreement is just a difference in personal standards. No amount of arguing is going to convince me that a candidate with less than 100 WP edits is ready -- if they been here for 2.5 years, I'm even more concerned, because they're edits don't show dedication to the project. Maybe they're a fantastic writer, but they don't have the minimal "nuts-and-bolts" experience necessary for adminship yet. That's why the old format was better. Everyone said their piece, there was a small level of interplay if anyone said anything truly incorrect or absurd, and then the b'crats closed. Screw numbers -- it's not the numbers I appreciate, but the economy of the discussion, because anything more quickly spirals to an absurd proportion. We are an encyclopedia -- I don't mind wading through an AfD for an article's sake, but I cannot imagine wading through one just for a functionaries sake. That seems to me to be the very definition of process gone mad(ly inefficient.) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, AFD is currently superior to RFA. (or was... at least they're now both equally bad ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) There's a big difference between the appearance of efficiency and actual efficiency. ;-)
- Sometimes... but I find it hard to value the "efficiency" of any system that makes following discussion on even the simplest points next to impossible. I don't see how anyone can follow that RfA, least of the poor candidate whose never been through one before. Are we aiming to make the process as opaque as possible? Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, Kim, sometimes interjecting a quip is a substitute for confronting the real difficulties of an objection! ;) Xoloz 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way...
Here's my thought on RfA reform: if the need for admins is acute enough that it is time to throw caution to the wind it bit (I acknowledge, from a meta-analytic level, that's probably true), then just lower the standard of promotion, by community consent, to 65% or something. That way, "conservatives" like me can still voice our concerns, but the ability of our personal high standards to forestall the growth in the number of admins will be lessened. More "bad seeds" will get through, but that seems an easier alternative than turning RfA into AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, it's not a vote. Second, if you lower the standards in time people will adjust their standards to make them stricter. It's a temporary bandage. A temporary solution to a permanent problem. Votes must die. --Durin 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe I ever used the word "vote", my friend. However, "counting" is a way to digest large amounts of information into simple, easy-to-understand form. You know those graphs you make so well? Same principle. As for me, because my objections to any candidate are something I actually take seriously, I won't be adjusting my standards for some numbers game. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wonder if you've somehow started to respond to these suggestions reflexively. First, you ignored the disclaimer in my comment at the RfA itself, making an irrelevant objection; then, you assumed I was talking about "voting", when I neither meant nor said any such thing. Xoloz 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments on RfA reform
I appreciate your contributions highly toward RfA reform. However, I am going to politely ask if you could please lower the tone a bit. In particular with use of the CAPS LOCK, I know you have strong feelings toward the topic, but I am trying to get involved with this reform too, and I am still a new comer, hence why I ask if you do not bite my head off to early on. Please note that I am actually a supporter of this experiment of yours. ;) Camaron1 | Chris 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- If it helps, there's no intention to bite you. I might be nibbling on a toe nail though :) Yes, I occasionally use all caps to emphasize points. I could *do* it in a number of ways but, caps is just one way. --Durin 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the understanding reply, be careful with my toenails. ;) Camaron1 | Chris 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm the heck down man
Your comments on the Moralis RfA were uncalled for & borderline uncivil. My opinion is my opinion & if it was a normal RfA, you wouldn't have the cheek to question it - most oppsoe votes are left as is, maybe with a bit of commenting, but never as much opposition as you showed. So you're saying that Moralis, with under 800 edits, should become an admin? Now the reason I like the tally is for SNOW reasons, where a crat can quickly see if there's like a milion oppose votes to a couple of supports. Without the tally, they cannot make this quick & obvious judgement & thus, an RfA like this can go through. The only reason Moralis has that many votes is because of the format - if it was a normal format we'd all say, goodbye, try again later. I resent the fact you accused me of saying that I wish crats only to count votes & not consensus - I never said such a thing & my reasons for wishing the tally was there are stated above. I don't wish to discuss this any more with you as you're obviously in a combative mood. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any intention of "calming down". Your comments against Moralis were *WAY* out of line. Accusing him of a stunt? Good grief. You owe him an apology.
- As to the rest; responding to people's comments is viewed as bad in the current climate of RfA. This is bad for RfA. Discussion should be a GOOD thing in an RfA, not a bad thing. Keep in mind that votes have *nothing* to do with consensus. Nothing. I strongly recommend you divorce yourself of the notion that edit counts are some indicator of a person's trustworthiness. They are not. PLENTY of admins, in fact some of the most famous people on this project starting with Angela, were promoted with far less than 1,000 edits. I fully intend on continuing my attempts at reforming RfA. If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project. You should be ashamed, but aren't. Yes, I do think Moralis should be an admin else I would not have supported his RfA. --Durin 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me to be ashamed once more & I will report you on AN/I. Spawn Man 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please. You accuse Moralis of playing a stunt, when it was me who reformatted the RfA. Then you jump on my case for supposedly making personal attacks? Fine. You should be ashamed. Moralis did nothing more than try to help Wikipedia and you blatantly insulted him for it. Worse, you hold him accountable for my actions. Go report me. --Durin 04:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature. Best thing here is for both of us to walk away from each other. Good day. --Durin 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me to be ashamed once more & I will report you on AN/I. Spawn Man 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Like I warned, I have placed a complaint on the AN/I. I had no intention of doing so, but saying I should be ashamed again was not needed. You'll see my views & how I feel about your comments towards me there. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see you didn't take my advice and walk away. Saying you should be ashamed isn't a personal attack. If that is a personal attack, then accusing Moralis of performing a stunt is 10 times a personal attack. I stand by my opinion. --Durin 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- As per AN/I - I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease...
- I suggested to not talk any further first, so you didn't take my advice. You are being pig headed & you are the one who should be ashamed Durin - You were an admin & you're acting like a 3 year old. If Moralis hadn't wanted this stunt, he could have easily said no - but he didn't so he's every bit as responsible as you. I see being called ashamed a personal attack - specifically after I told you it hurt my feelings. Yet you continued to be mean & say it. I'll stop saying it was a stunt when you stop saying I should be ashamed, just as I'll say I'm sorry to Moralis if you say sorry to me. If you're as high up on your high horse as I think you are, you shouldn't have any trouble mustering up a un-heartfelt apology right? Or are you too proud? Just go ahead with a personal attack & I'll lodge it again on the AN/I - it was your idea the first time remember? Thanks, Spawn Man 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have a pleasant day. --Durin 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Moralis RfA
Please have a nice cup of tea. You have now implied twice that I can't read. I did learn to read some 25 years ago, still can and still do. I believe you're taking Moralis' RfA waaaay too personally. You've made your point (without caring too much for civility) and I think it's time for you to step back. Pascal.Tesson 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that you accused me of responding, systematically I might add, to every oppose vote proves that you have not read the RfA. This accusation of yours is flatly false. In fact, a casual reading (much less a complete one) of the RfA's first ten opposes shows that I did not respond to a single one of the first ten opposes. --Durin 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong
My name is David Gilmour , i'm not Dave of pink floyd, but i am freaking david gilmour becouse that's my name. I can show you my drivers licence if you want.
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt
I suppose we won't know if it works unless we actually use the format of the RfA properly. But like I said in the talk page, I'm pretty skeptical. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
RFA
Kudos on the work on RFA (even if it fails, it's a positive move to try and change the system). Let me know if I can help. Ral315 » 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Toss your opinions in the frying pan if you like. :) Thanks for the kudos. Getting a LOT of heat about it. *shrug* I gave up on the social currency system a few months back so I don't care. --Durin 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's encouraging to see someone actually try a different approach, as opposed to simply adding to the hot air on WT:RFA. – Steel 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Bloody marvelous. This is definitely what I had in mind. Mackensen (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying something new with RfA! (I might even have volunteered for an experimental RfA formatting, but unfortunately I passed RfA a bit before you tried these experiments). What's going to be next, a WP:DFA trial? --ais523 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my appreciation for the effort you've been making with this. Common sense will prevail in the end, and you've gone a good way towards helping it happen. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 00:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings
You've probably noticed that I've been frowning upon your RfA format perhaps too persistently. I'd like you to know that although I might sound a little bit pesky sometimes, I still salute you for being bold and creating a completely different concept. I may be staunchly against this particular one, but please don't take it too personally. I hope that you don't regard me as an annoying person, or at least not too annoying. Regards, Húsönd 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- One, that's ok. I don't hold anything against you. Two, even if I did I've totally given up on the social currency system here so it wouldn't matter here. Which leads to Three, I don't care if you hate me :) I have zero ambitions of achieving any badge of office here at Wikipedia so it matters not to me whether people like me or not. I'm more at liberty to speak now, and so I haven't been mincing words too much. That's offended some. If you're one of the ones I've offended, my apologies. I have tried hard to remain focused on concepts, opinions, or thoughts rather than focusing on any one individual, even if I radically disagree with them. Some of my comments may have been construed as stepping over that line though. Purely unintentional if they have. --Durin 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a simple experiment. Stick to current RFA rules, but disallow contested opinions that go unanswerd. :-) I'm curious what would happen? --Kim Bruning 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit Count Analysis
If it's not too much to ask, could I also get an edit count analysis chart done for me? I saw Image:Majorly-edits.png and I'm intrigued to see what mine will look like. Thanks, Nishkid64 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Might be a couple of days but I'd be glad to. --Durin 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you do not intend to toss one of these on every RfA from now on. This is editcountitis gone too far, and the content of the graph is at best meaningless, and at worst, will make RfA even more idiotic than it is now. Please don't – Gurch 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Gurch, I understand your concerns, but I think there are some elements of his presentation that pull this away from the 'editcountitis' camp. He's showing where their edits are, timewise. The community has shown, for instance, that it has concerns about big empty spots in contribution history. If someone has just come back from a six month hiatus, as shown on the graph, it could spark a reasonable conversation about how familiar the person is with the current policies/atmosphere/etc. I don't like editcountitis any more than anyone else, but I think Durin's chart is more than a device for allowing RfA candidates to show how far they can pee, it's valuable information that others may use as the basis for good lines of inquiry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh the irony. Gurch, I started putting those charts on RfAs back in 2005 for nominees with between 500 and 2000 edits. You know, the ones that are impossible to pass today? I did it precisely in opposition to edit counting, to get people to STOP opposing people for ridiculous edit counting. You know what? For the several dozen RfAs I did this, they had a 10% better chance of passing than for RfAs in the same category that didn't. Yet again, I am accused of editcountitis when I have been working insanely hard against editcountitis. Big, big sigh. --Durin 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in having one of these as well, but only if it isn't a lot of work. You have better things to be doing around RfA. ;-) Dekimasuよ! 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus at RFA
[1] - hey! Mine was a consensus decision, wasn't it? :P -- nae'blis 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- :) --Durin 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Kitty Carlisle Hart
I thought that I would let an administrator know that Kitty Carlisle Hart article might need to be protected because she died today and it is making the national news, the article may be prone to vandalism.--Joebengo 19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Durin and "Asterixes"
I'm sorry, but for a while I completely lost the ability to seriously follow a serious discussion. When I saw that Durin was accused of "the usage of asterixes & Bolding", I was overwhelmed by the image of an army of emboldened dwarves supplemented by an army of equally bold (and equally short) Gaulish warriors, the two distinguishable from each other only by the presence of beards vs. merely enormous mustaches. What other short-but-deadly forces have you kept in reserve, O king? Rock-throwing Hobbits? Leprechauns? Smurfs? -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hysterical :) Yeah, I found the complaint of using emphasis in writing to be rather silly myself. One of the limitations of text based communication is the inability to add inflexion. One of the ways that can be countered is the use of emphasis. But, people here apparently feel that my using caps to EMPHASIZE something is disruptive to the community. --Durin 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I honestly do not see the problem with people using this, this and *this* to give emphasis. Though, I always advice to avoid caps because it is generally looked at as SHOUTING and RANTING, I personally use italic. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Moralis RfA
Hi - thanks for your note. With regard to the order in which I closed the nominations, I left Moralis' until last primarily because I hadn't been following it closely, and thought that another bureaucrat might have done so and be waiting to close it. As no-one did, I took the time to familiarise myself with all the discussion which had taken place - which took quite some time!
In general, I found that the new format wasn't particularly helpful in determining consensus. On the plus side, it did encourage users to explain their reasons for support or objection, but on the negative side, it led to a large number of comments mixed throughout the discussion repeating issues which had appeared earlier. This made it far more time-consuming than an ordinary RfA to determine which issues had been raised and how many users felt that these were serious concerns.
This was an interesting experiment and well worth conducting, but if it is to be repeated, I would be keen to see some sort of grouping of related issues. I am particularly interested in the format of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt, which seems to address this, but may carry some new difficulties.
I hope this addresses your question; if you have any more queries or would like to post this anywhere else on Wikipedia, please feel free. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! --Durin 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Classic" section on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt
I understand the purpose and method of your experiment, so I have no objections to you removing this section. My intent was simply to attempt to offer general support for the candidate without getting involved in the RFC. To me, the most important "outside view" would be one that explicitly states "Nominee is fit for adminship", as this is the simple basis behind the RFA process. Other concerns brought up certainly deal with some aspects of what it takes to be a good admin, but I don't see their endorsement as a clear example of consensus-building. Which endorsed views, for instance, would be given the most weight by the closing beaurocrat? Is the whole XFD participation debate germane to selecting an admin who seeks to focus on speedy deletions?
I think that mattb would make a fine admin, but by combining this experiment with his RFA, you may have compromised his chance to succeed. If it is all right with you, I would like to move the "Classic" section to the talk page. Again, I understand that you may have a reason to oppose this move and I will respect your decision not to. Thanks for your time, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you did not move it to the talk page. Matt Britt is aware of the consequences of the format of this RfA, and does not care if this causes him to have less chance to pass or fail. Not saying you are, but there is no need to "protect" Matt from the format of this RfA. He's well capable of doing so himself, and remains committed to the experiment.
- I recognize there are limitations to this format. Nevertheless, an experiment should remain as untainted as possible until it concludes so that it can be fairly evaluated. By providing a voting section, whether on the main page or on the talk page, we undermine the experiment. As I've noted to others, there is more to be gained from this experiment than simply whether or not it fails or succeeds, or whether it not Matt Britt fails or passes the RfA. Thank you, --Durin 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Polling guidelines
Hilariously, Polling is not a substitute for discussion is much more lax than Straw polls. Either way, the way folks are trying to do polls on RFA ignores both guidelines, so I've closed each of them. --Kim Bruning 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
WT:RFA
Durin, I've posted a response in your thread on WT:RFA regarding POINT issues. Although we clearly disagree with this RfA method, the main motivation behind my moves were retaining the discussion. Please see WTRFA for my entire response. If you tink that I've still edited in bad faith, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: (User talk:ais523) Front matter change
Thanks! I coded that just the day before yesterday. It's so new that I haven't added the option to anything but TOCright yet. I suppose I'd better go and to TOCleft now, and maybe a non-floated version... --ais523 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia administrators
I noticed that though you are no longer an admin, at the bottom of your userpage, among the categories you are in includes Wikipedia administrators. It is probably a good idea to remove this in order to avoid confusion. Captain panda 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA reform
My response, in the same order as your points:
- I am not terribly concerned about a new admin becoming rogue, but rather a lack of uniformity in RfA standards. These formats may allow passes to become easier, and having a sub class of RfAs like this could cause problems.
- I agree, the Bureaucrats should not be using the pure tally method the current system promotes. They should be doing their job of determining consensus, by using their experience and intuition, as well as their own analysis of the user. If crats could be replaced with a bot we are in trouble.
- How about if proposals are suggested first, and barring any major opposition given a test run? This could weed out obviously opposed systems, and let the more accepted ones be run live. This will decrease conflict, and not require the burden of consensus.
- I disagree here: an RfA has a specific objective - to determine if a user can be trusted with admin tools. RfC is a more general process with a less objective goal, and its system discourages discussion of the single 'trust' question an RfA poses, instead splitting out into quasi-related sub sections.
- Obviously a purely nuetral person is not going to work, no change would happen. I am suggesting that someone who isn't making the proposed system decide to test them. Hopefully this will seperate out any "this is my idea, lets try it" RfAs, and leave the serious options. This is related to the next section:
- I apologize, I worded this rather badly. I meant to say that this 'nuetral' user would look to the talk page on what systems to test. I didn't mean that you were ignoring discussion. On the contrary I find your activity on the talk page and dedication to this reform quite admirable, especially considering the tenancy for this particular problem to be ignored by a large portion of editors.
- Good points, however, the community controls RfA. If they won't support changes to it before testing, why will they after the testing? While I believe RfA needs to change (for reasons explained below), many people believe it should not, or that it should but can't agree how. Running test requests may help find a good system, but will it be supported?
I think that handles the major points. While I still hold some faith in the ability of the editors to reach consensus, I most certainly think change to RfA is needed. The system worked well when editors knew who they were !voting on by their edits, and through discussion with them. However, RfA is now run by 'regulars' who have little idea how an editor functions with others except for raw statistics. Since this system lets 'bad' admins through, there is a perceived need to raise the standards, which is why they go up and up and up. I hope WP:DFA shows some promise with the community. Thanks for talking to me, and I am sorry about any misunderstandings we may have had. Happy reforming! Prodego talk 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Gary Flag
I am simply writing because I am looking for clarification. I have seen multiple flags used on userboxes. I understood that the image from FOTW was fairuse and not valid for a user box so I uploaded my original image that I created a while back with paint, gimp, and a photograph. I only changed the main image to the one from FOTW because I finally found one there and it was a much better quallity image. I am confused because, from my understanding a self made image is valid. Take for instance the image used on (Template:User Indianapolis) it uses an image of the flag that was made. The second image of the Gary flag that I uploaded was not the same image as the one from FOTW. It was quite obviously not (it was terrible quallity and only looked good at a smaller size). I am just confused is all and maybe I am missing something. I just wanted some form of clarification. --MJHankel 05:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works on the principle that an image is copyrighted unless otherwise proven to be available under a free license. Thus, for any given image if we do not have positive confirmation that the image has been released under such a license, we presume we must use it under fair use. With the Gary flag, we have no evidence on hand that it is a free license image. As such, it is fair use. Now enter the concept of derivative work; if you create a work that is substantially similar to another work, even if you created it entirely yourself, you do not gain full rights to it. You may have some rights, but not all rights. In the image that you created as a replacement, the end result was obviously intended to be like the Gary flag, and indeed in many respects was a copy. This is called a "derivative work". With derivative works, we need rights from all parties to the creation. The most restrictive right is the right that is commonly adhered to. Thus, in the case of your creation of the Gary flag, they retain rights and so do you. You can release your rights, but you can not release theirs. Since theirs are not released, the image must be used under fair use doctrine.
- In the case of the Indianapolis flag, the rights are incorrect. It is highly unlikely that the uploader was the creator of the image, without it being a derivative. As such, even though it is on commons, the image is incorrect and should be challenged as such. Images frequently are challenged on commons.
- Some cities retain rights to their seals and/or flags. Others do not. It's a case by case evaluation. States can not retain rights to their flags. There's debate about seals for states, and it's usually treated on a case by case basis.
- Hope this helps! --Durin 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks!! I do have one question than. If the city released all rights would it than be usable in all instances? I am just trying to figure out how this all works. --MJHankel 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
On blithering idiots
Hey. Until we meet to drink that couple of pints, we're bound to be two blithering idiots writing away on WT:RFA. Still, despite all our disagreements, I really do think we have something like a slightly productive discussion there and in pretty good humor. In any case, I want you to know if you don't already that I respect your position. and also that I'm right and you're wrong Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Jerk :)
- The problem that I see is there is little in the way of common ground between our positions. We can agree, in abstract, on some points...but anything else is highly disputed.
- I've been trying to sprinkle in humor to keep things light. A lot of people are getting the wrong impression; that I'm on some war path, or that this discussion should be construed as heated. I am not, and it isn't.
- I respect all good faith editors, even if I disagree with them. ha! my position is more idealistic than yours! you suck! --Durin 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't get this wrong but I have the distinct impression that you're in a much better mood now than you were a week ago. (or maybe I'm just getting used to your sense of humor) Anyways, perhaps our opinions on RfA are impossible to reconcile but, call me crazy, that doesn't mean we can't still agree on some positive changes. Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're getting used to my sense of humor :) My comment regarding beating the crap out of each other in a pub and walking out lifetime friends is really apropos. Text based communications suffer from a considerable number of limitations. Try as I might, I try to avoid these limitations as much as possible. Nevertheless, I suffer under them just as much as the next person. People read too much into stuff. I did get irritated when it appeared I was being silenced and instantly reverted during the brief ill-advised polls situation a couple of days back. Outside of that, no...no particular stress or bad mood. --Durin 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I think there is maybe a little something we could agree on (maybe just maybe). RfA would run much smoother (under any system) if more participants were reasonable about it. I"m afraid we might both be swinging wildly trying to figure out a better system when all it would take is a few pieces of fish here and there to keep people honest. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is what we might considerable unreasonable, others would insist is absolutely fair. It's too subjective. I think voting against someone based on edit counts is absurd. Others think it's the cat's meow. You can't get agreement on stuff like this. --Durin 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- But wait, I thought you were in favor of 3000+ edits? In any case, I'm more concerned about inconsistent opposes: we can't ask everybody to have the same criteria but we sure can ask everyone to be consistent in their evaluation. We should also make sure we avoid all of the "this user has shown poor judgement by disagreeing with me on this XfD, RfC" and whatnot. And at least once, I'd like someone at RfA to denounce IRC campaigning when it occurs. he he... how's that for a little rant? Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are words that I've written which can be used against my current position :) I have evolved over time. However, that's not one of them. Those are my guidelines for nominating someone, not for voting for/against someone. That has to do with low hanging fruit, and not wanting to go after it. It doesn't have anything to do with preventing or not preventing someone from being an admin. --Durin 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anything you have written on Wikipedia can and will be used against you. :-) (that also pretty much sums up the current state of RfA)Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't get this wrong but I have the distinct impression that you're in a much better mood now than you were a week ago. (or maybe I'm just getting used to your sense of humor) Anyways, perhaps our opinions on RfA are impossible to reconcile but, call me crazy, that doesn't mean we can't still agree on some positive changes. Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you threatening to put me in handcuffs? --Durin 20:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, Kinky! --Kim Bruning 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope! --Durin 20:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oooh, Kinky! --Kim Bruning 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You're both idiots! Fancy a drink in Taipei? --Kim Bruning 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're an idiot too! Only if you're buying...the plane tickets that is. --Durin 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not quite that rich... am I? <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- US$1500 isn't something I'm willing to spend on Wikimania. I've got other toys to buy :) (like leather padded handcuffs) --Durin 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- whipcrack! you'll spend 1500$ on what your master tells you to. Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say I was *THAT* kinky! :) Maybe I should go to Taipei...for the uh...uh...'entertainment' :) --Durin 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- whipcrack! you'll spend 1500$ on what your master tells you to. Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- US$1500 isn't something I'm willing to spend on Wikimania. I've got other toys to buy :) (like leather padded handcuffs) --Durin 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not quite that rich... am I? <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Codelyoko193
Um, you removed half the pictures from ym user page. If they are allowed on articles, then why aren't they allowed on my page? Yes, this is probabaly a stupid question. Tell me on my discussion page please. Codelyoko193 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Game-uh Cube
Um, I have the same thing to say. You removed half the pictures from my user page. If they are allowed on articles, then why aren't they allowed on my page? Yes, this is probabaly a stupid question. Tell me on my discussion page please. Wikipedian64 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA experimentation
I appreciate the experimentation in trying to come up with a new/better/more exciting format for RfA, but think that the latest test run with Matt Britt may be a bit of a misfire-- unless it was intended to demonstrate that confusing formats lead to lack of clear consensus. And while I do agree that the current RfA system isn't perfect, I'm not sure the problem can be solved by completely changing structure; by that, I mean that the discussion-format of RfC may not be more conducive to coming to a decision whether a particular editor is or isn't Admin material. Personally, I'd advocate the KISS principle, and look towards less radical reform. I, for one, would like to see RfA's be easier to edit and read than they are already, but not made more so by having multiple proposal sub-sections, each with endorse/oppose sections. Having said all that, I'd be willing to stand as a test case, if one is to be run, as I'm not particularly thin-skinned about criticism -- and I do like that you're taking a bold approach to possibly improving the inner-workings of WP. Regards,--LeflymanTalk 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for volunteering! I'll contact you soon. --Durin 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure
In rereading my comment And the recent joiner of the discussion can tell you about how that process works from the other side. it occurs to me I was a bit vague. I just wanted to make sure you knew the reference was not to you (it was to Kim). Sorry for the ambiguous wording to do you want me to clarify on the page in any way or just move on? jbolden1517Talk 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, move on :) --Durin 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
Based on recent comments on RFA, as well as your positive cooperation with someone who seems to hold the exact opposite opinion, I wish to give you this half barnstar. You can guess where the other half is :) >Radiant< 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Durin, I know we've had our differences but for you to just steal half of my barnstar, well that's just low. Pascal.Tesson 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- sob! I want that other half! Now I'm *really* going to beat the heck out of you Pascal! :) Thanks Radiant! (I'll send you the doctor's bill) --Durin 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the grass is always greener... well, since you both insist, there you go. >Radiant< 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- BWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! TOO FUNNY! --Durin 12:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! Now I've got the right half. Radiant is showing great judgment. Pascal.Tesson 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- sob! I want that other half! Now I'm *really* going to beat the heck out of you Pascal! :) Thanks Radiant! (I'll send you the doctor's bill) --Durin 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
This jerk I know, User: drgnpcarl, is trying to vandalize my user page. He does this for fun I am sick of this please, if you can, block him from editing my user page or anyone elses!!!
PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.251.34 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin. You might want to take your complaint to WP:AN/I. All the best, --Durin 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, Durin is not an admin because he would get only 74.9% support (due to one silly oppose who had more weight than others). Pascal.Tesson 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose anything I said can and will be held against me
All right, you win this round. Although I'd like to think that this is still not a sufficient reason to scrap the current system. I'm sure you understand that I never denied that ludicrous opposition isn't routine on RfA but it is just my belief that it does not play that big a role in rejected RfAs. The problem that we do have to address is the way that opposition is received. For instance, we both agree that opposition like Kelly's on the basis of a defcon userbox (good grief...) or (I guess I'll pick on Kelly again) on the basis of no WikiProject endorsement (when that endorsement would be a clear breach of canvassing rules), that kind of opposition is unwelcome. That opposition should be discarded by bureaucrats but more than that it should be eliminated from RfA culture itself and this isn't something the b'crats have shown a willingness to do actively. I think the only way that we will eliminate that from RfA culture is by systematically denouncing it (like I've been doing on a couple of current RfAs). Of course, I can see you smiling already and asking "I thought you said we should respect opposers no matter what they oppose for". Right, but everybody has to participate in good faith, not to mount a campaign for WikiProject endorsements, not to mount a campaign for a new userbox reform, not to mount a campaign for more Canadian admins, not to settle old grievances. When people get into that sort of stuff, they should be told in no uncertain terms that they're using the wrong forum. Pascal.Tesson 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem comes in the greys. No, not the aliens! :) You thought Kelly's oppose was absurd. She's now posted to your talk page indicating that her vote is serious, and it was out of line for you to call it absurd. I don't know what Kelly's purpose is. However, her stance is not unusual. Most people who's opposition is noted as being absurd will react poorly. Perhaps that's human nature. But, that's reality. You can't force people off that chair, no matter how hard you try. People have tried. And tried and tried and tried :) It doesn't work.
- I happen to think that edit counting in many cases is absolutely ridiculously absurd. I've long fought against it, since the earliest days of my being here. Hasn't mattered. I've received a ton of criticism for opposing it, and I've also been heavily labelled as an edit counter myself. You just can't make progress against this sort of thing.
- Who gets to decide what is absurd? --Durin 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't mind me chiming in. Any changes, especially the nomination from a wikiproject (or endorsement depending on who is talking) may well look unworkable in the current environment. Many users have been adimantly against the wikiproject idea as there is no mechanism for wikprojects to participate in the RfA process. True, if we want to stand in time, but what about two years from now? To make change we need to look ahead not back. Also, embryonic ideas for change will be inherently flawed but that is not a problem if there is enough flexability for such ideas to evolve, but how can things evolve if others dwell on the negatives rather than suggest improvement? I think finding out how wikiprojects can be more involved is a step in the right direction. To see it die because people have a bad feeling about the idea, or worse, because it is Kelly Martin's is not in the interests of wikipeda. Turf wars don't foster progress we need to stick with the ideas and improving what is on the table.
- While I am here. I have a huge problem with potential admins being denied access to the tools since they do not appear to need the tools. I have seen this complaint come up a few times with accompanying remarks of needs to fight more vandalism or needs more experience in AfD. For me this is a prime reason to get wikiprojects to put weight behind candidates. We need to focus on what editors contribute to the project not how often they will use the tools. I can guarantee you that any editor who is writing articles will need the tools now and then. Possibly a page deletion is required to move an article. Possibly a controversial page needs to be semi protected for a short period, or even out right protected due to massive disruption. Clearly these editors could ask an admin to do this. But why should they? If they are trusted users they should be able to do it themselves, this is much better for wikipedia. Are users that focus on editing articles, rather than specialising in policy, vandalism or deletions, deficient in the later areas? In my experience this is rarely true, since those who edit articles are incorporating all the policies and guidelines on a day to day basis into their editing, as well as collaborating and mediating with other users to gain consensus. From my perspective, when an RFA candidate gets opposed for concentrating too much on main space it shows that there need for a reality check with respect to the standards and probably the system needs an overhaul, or at least a kick in the butt. Excuse the semi rant :) David D. (Talk) 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just replied to Kelly Martin here but sure, I guess it's like pissing in the rain (hopefully that idiom is a correct translation of my own french idiom). But here's the thing though. Look into your heart: you know there's something different about people using low editcount as a sign of inexperience (which is not such a great idea but not an entirely ludicrous one, I'm sure you'll admit as much) rather than using a perfectly acceptable practice like a DefCon userbox that can be found on countless admin userpages (and based on a template that has easily survived countless MfD with snowballish strong keeps). If the only perception of RfA was "oh man, if I apply for RfA I'll get people picking on me because I have 31 Wikispace edits" we wouldn't be in such trouble. The problem is that we have people trembling because they know they'll get ripped apart for things that they were never told represented even an ounce of problem. Things like you have too many userboxes, things like the 6 middle letters of your username spelled backwards is an insult in Bulgarian, things like I would never trust someone who friggin disagrees with me when obviously I'm right and you're wrong. No amount of RfA reform will cure that: the same shit would happen in the Moralis format, in the Matt Britt format or in any experimental format. What we really need to cure is this misconception that because people are more than welcome to have different standards for candidate admins, they are not by any means allowed to attack candidates any way they please. You know, I feel like Jon Stewart on Crossfire (if you have any idea what I'm talking about): "It's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America [...] Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America." Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that low edit count is an indication of experience. People who are assessing a candidate should look long and hard at such a candidates contributions. The major flaw with edit count is at the other end, that somehow over 3000 edits makes one a slam dunk candidate. The only reason more edits are helpful is that there are more contributions to assess whether a candidate is suitable. The number alone is meaningless and should not be considered when evaluating the candidate. Patterns of edit count might be useful, but that is much more qualitative than quantitative and therefore does not really come into the more is better mentality. With regard to pissing in the wind, i think any discussion moving, even slowly, forward is worth the time. David D. (Talk) 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- People use editcountitis to oppose people more often than anyone has defcon templates. It's ingrained. If the presence of something is proof it's ok, editcountitis is a smashingly good idea. Editcountitis is, by the amount it is done, a perfectly acceptable practice.
- Re, "The same shit". This is why bureaucrat discretion is important. This is why enabling bureaucrats to use their brain is necessary. But, RfA insists on trying to deprecate that role from bureaucrats in their discretion mode.
- Across the pond, the idiom is "pissing in the wind". :) --Durin 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- David: I have nothing against a proposal of endorsements (well, ok I do think it's a completely stupid idea, but it sure is ok to propose it). What I do strongly object to is participating in the slow destruction of RfA by perpetuating for candidates the idea that your RfA will turn out to be a debate that isn't centered on your contributions and/or capacity as an admin. By using RfAs to campaign for her proposal, Kelly is doing just that. Pascal.Tesson 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- i think this is the inevitable response to the fact that proposals discussed on the RFA talk page never make it out of committee. I agree it is probably not the right forum, but to be fair, a neutral point is not that disruptive, especially if she would have otherwise not commented on that RfA. The disruption appears to be from those that love to be baited by Kelly. In the past I have been quite critical of what Kelly has done in wikipedia. Nevertheless, I find i can support her agenda here because it coincides with many of my own opinions developed over the years of watching RfA. She has sparked the idea and that is good. As long as she does not start trying to enforce this idea on others then i have no problem with her approach. It is our job to take what is good from her comments and weave it into a new and better RfA. Sometimes this works, and others times, not so much. But let's not kill these things in committee. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are multiple, multiple people who feel that RfA has already suffered destruction. --Durin 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another note; everything at RfA dies in committee. It's one of the reasons RfA is broken. --Durin 19:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Then "pissing in the wind" it is. Note however that I'm not across the pond. Just a few hundred kilometers north. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. One of them. Aaaaiiieee!!!! --Durin 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just replied to Kelly Martin here but sure, I guess it's like pissing in the rain (hopefully that idiom is a correct translation of my own french idiom). But here's the thing though. Look into your heart: you know there's something different about people using low editcount as a sign of inexperience (which is not such a great idea but not an entirely ludicrous one, I'm sure you'll admit as much) rather than using a perfectly acceptable practice like a DefCon userbox that can be found on countless admin userpages (and based on a template that has easily survived countless MfD with snowballish strong keeps). If the only perception of RfA was "oh man, if I apply for RfA I'll get people picking on me because I have 31 Wikispace edits" we wouldn't be in such trouble. The problem is that we have people trembling because they know they'll get ripped apart for things that they were never told represented even an ounce of problem. Things like you have too many userboxes, things like the 6 middle letters of your username spelled backwards is an insult in Bulgarian, things like I would never trust someone who friggin disagrees with me when obviously I'm right and you're wrong. No amount of RfA reform will cure that: the same shit would happen in the Moralis format, in the Matt Britt format or in any experimental format. What we really need to cure is this misconception that because people are more than welcome to have different standards for candidate admins, they are not by any means allowed to attack candidates any way they please. You know, I feel like Jon Stewart on Crossfire (if you have any idea what I'm talking about): "It's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America [...] Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America." Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll let go the "one of them" comment, because hey, I've got a big heart (nevermind if you don't get that joke) but I've been giving some more thought to this more substantial comment of yours: "This is why bureaucrat discretion is important. This is why enabling bureaucrats to use their brain is necessary. But, RfA insists on trying to deprecate that role from bureaucrats in their discretion mode." This is the one thing we most fundamentally disagree about. I'm reading this as "Bureaucrats will protect us from the mass of imbeciles roaming RfA" and I've got a few issues with that. For one thing, there's the irony that at some point we have to decide who our bureaucrats are and, well certainly we need to consult these imbeciles then so in all likelihood we get b'crats who aren't any good so there should be no reason to trust their good judgment in these matters. Or maybe we have b'crats appointed by Jimbo or whatnot and then we're stuck in Jimbocracy. The second problem is that I'm not sure there's such a heavy mass of imbeciles roaming RfA. Moreover, when the occasional destructive oppose comes along, we should stand up and make things right, rather than trust the b'crats will. For one thing, b'crats don't react until the RfA is over and rarely point the finger at anyone. Moreover, I firmly believe that if there's a problem with the culture of RfA then the solution won't involve a simple revamping of the RfA facade decided by 12 people on the talk page and the first thing to do is to help candidates who are being hammered by ludicrous opposition (see earlier comment for definition of "ludicrous"). Pascal.Tesson 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably a separatist too, aren't you? :) --Durin 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd rather not get into my own profound thoughts on the matter! I was going to create a userbox stating my position but then Kelly Martin would oppose my RfA if I ever decide to go again. Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's ok. I was just hoping to get another punch in the nose, so you'd have to buy me another drink :) --Durin 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Hell of a way to get drunk...
- Hmmm. Think I'll buy a full round then. Pascal.Tesson 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Question
Um I just wanted to say I'm not mad that you deleted my userbox pictures. But could you tell me how I can add a picture? I don't know how to. Runewiki777 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I meant how I could just copy a picture from the internet and use it in a userbox.Runewiki777 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry for being a bother.
- Generally speaking, you don't. Most images you find out there are not available under a free license. You know, I recognize the attraction of userboxes, but we're not here to craft userboxes. This is a free encyclopedia. Why not contribute to articles instead of worrying about userboxes? --Durin 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
uh ok and gee you respond very quickly
Thank You
Hello. You recently removed some copyrighted images from my userboxes. I would like to thank you for this and apologize for my mistake. I created them some time ago, when I didn't know about the fair use policies. I'm very sorry, and I thank you for alerting me of my mistake. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Explain an edit?
There's discussion relevant to this revert of yours on Template talk:RfA; would you care to comment there? --ais523 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
CFP
Want to submit a paper, based on your number crunching? --Kim Bruning 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there's any paper to be written, it's on you know what :) (and the numbers will only be part of it) --Durin 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fascinating, Mr. Holmes. --Kim Bruning 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sawing on my violin in the parlor... --Durin 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fascinating, Mr. Holmes. --Kim Bruning 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
B'crat
Any b'crat who would ignore the well-considered opinion of any established user would be making an insane choice. He/she would be needlessly promoting discord: all s/he need say is "I considered X opinion, but it was counterbalanced by Y reason." To ignore opinions outright would lead to needlessly hurt feelings, terrible conflict, and great anger. Thank heaven that none of our b'crats are insane or stupid. I stand firmly resolved in my opinion that to ignore me would be absolutely nuts, and will not waiver from that view. That isn't empty rhetoric -- it is condemning a (potential, hypothetical) asinine choice in the full harsh language it deserves. For more on my views of RfA, you may find my response to Matt Britt at his talk page of interest. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I attempted to reason with you that your comments are incendiary with regards to Dan's position on votes such as yours. My attempt failed. As noted, I leave you to your opinions and me to mine. Have a nice day. --Durin 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's probably wise. :) In general, suggesting to someone that his view is liable to be ignored is unlikely to generate harmony (or his ready agreement, I'd suspect.) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was pointing out to you and others the position that Dan stated he would take in regards to such votes. I didn't expect such a position to be called insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just call 'em like I see 'em! :) (Being very careful, of course, to separate the merits of the idea -- in case, it's a very stinky idea -- from the individuals advocating or seeming to advocate it.) I was actually quite careful to call the position crazy. If Dan wasn't just thinking off-the-cuff in that remark, he needs to know that his view will meet with fierce protest. Ignoring good-faith comments is really bad. I'm sorry for you that you did not foresee the intensity of my objection to the possibility of my considered opinion being ignored. Now you know. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- And just so we're clear, if you really did take such a position in regards to Dan ignoring your vote, I would consider it insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then, we might one day be in for a debate in which each side thinks the other is advocating lunacy; as Kim said in RfA talk page... those are so much fun! :) In the unlikely event that issue comes to the forefront (it doesn't seem likely to be tested at Matt Britt 2), it will serve us both well to know of the equally great intensity of our respective commitments. :) My first reply to this talk page gives an outline of why I think ignoring a comment outright is so horrible an action. This gives you, perhaps, a slight advantage should we ever need confront the question. I still hope you'd see the wisdom of my view eventually, but I'm sure you would feel likewise. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the view is lacking in understanding that there are plenty of people who have absolutely no clue about what admins do who make drive-by votes with outlandish requirements on people. Eventually, in a day not to far in the future, we will see people opposing noms for lack of 10,000 edits. Eventually the madness must stop. You apparently would rather have idiotic opposition be counted. David Gerard has said on occasion that RfA is a "One moron-one vote" system. It seems you think this is a good idea. --Durin 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then, we might one day be in for a debate in which each side thinks the other is advocating lunacy; as Kim said in RfA talk page... those are so much fun! :) In the unlikely event that issue comes to the forefront (it doesn't seem likely to be tested at Matt Britt 2), it will serve us both well to know of the equally great intensity of our respective commitments. :) My first reply to this talk page gives an outline of why I think ignoring a comment outright is so horrible an action. This gives you, perhaps, a slight advantage should we ever need confront the question. I still hope you'd see the wisdom of my view eventually, but I'm sure you would feel likewise. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- And just so we're clear, if you really did take such a position in regards to Dan ignoring your vote, I would consider it insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just call 'em like I see 'em! :) (Being very careful, of course, to separate the merits of the idea -- in case, it's a very stinky idea -- from the individuals advocating or seeming to advocate it.) I was actually quite careful to call the position crazy. If Dan wasn't just thinking off-the-cuff in that remark, he needs to know that his view will meet with fierce protest. Ignoring good-faith comments is really bad. I'm sorry for you that you did not foresee the intensity of my objection to the possibility of my considered opinion being ignored. Now you know. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was pointing out to you and others the position that Dan stated he would take in regards to such votes. I didn't expect such a position to be called insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's probably wise. :) In general, suggesting to someone that his view is liable to be ignored is unlikely to generate harmony (or his ready agreement, I'd suspect.) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- (breaking the indent) As you know, I'm a frequent RfA contributor; I have noticed a very few such opposes; but, they are hardly a problem considering the number of "support" comments that come from newcomers, or others who appear to put little thought into their remarks. In general, I think that "morons" (using your term) are -- at the least -- likely to cancel each other out, if not add to support unduly. It is so much easier to support, after all, as a practical matter: one is rarely questioned, and gets to leave with a smile on one's face, basking in mutual admiration.
- Things might always evolve, of course, but I find it very hard to conceive of a situation where moronic opposers would weigh down the system. Were that problem to develop, reform would be necessary; but, it would remain the worst alternative to "ignore" any commenters. Assigning "worthiness" to people's subjective opinions is dicey business, the quickest way I know to incite mass discord anywhere. "...Some are more equal than others,", etc. Best wishes, Xoloz
- Have a nice day Xoloz. --Durin 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shoot -- I'd thought we'd hash that issue out now, as it is much more interesting than the day job! Best wishes, Xoloz 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- We might be able to if we spoke a common tongue. Two people separated by a common language. --Durin 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? "I think I speak English rather well, but I guess others may disagree", to paraphase my user profile. What language do you speak? You reside in the midwest, if I recall correctly. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you just made my point for me. :) You didn't get the reference. *shrug* --Durin 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've certainly seen the remark before, usually a reference to UK/US/AUS divisions around here. If I had to guess, I'd say the line probably comes from some Monty Python I've never seen. Where does it originate? I'll be very impressed if it comes from Derrida or something and I failed to notice it. It can, obviously, be universalized to refer to the evitable semantic distance that plagues every effort to communicate. That's seems hardly a reason to stop trying, though. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, please read my comments at Matt Britt's talk page. Based on your own criteria, I think you should step down from being an administrator since you are ill-qualified. --Durin 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I'm know I'm inexperienced with images. I fully expected someone to oppose me for that reason, and I wouldn't have begruded them; nobody did. I wouldn't have opposed myself, mainly because I don't give a crap about images. ;) I oppose people for low project-space participation, which includes all "XfDs", plus many other things -- a candidate need only have a thorough knowledge of one area therein to meet my expectations. I'm not Boothy, and I don't take the RfA candidate's song to absurd extremes.
- I am, however, always available for recall. Per the terms of my RfA, my recall requires only that one established contributor state that I have abused admin functions. If you are serious, I will resign immediately, without regret, as promised at my RfA. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you insist on maintaining your objection to admin candidates (regardless of Matt Britt) based on the criteria you espoused at User_talk:Matt_Britt#RfA, then yes I am serious that you should step down based on your own criteria (but not in any respect mine). It's up to you. They are your standards. Quoting you, "...adminship is not divisible. Once you have one capacity, you have them all." You state a willingness to prevent someone being an admin because they lack experience in XfD. Yet, the candidate in question has more experience in XfD than you have with images. Images are a very active role for many administrators. By your own criteria, you are therefore not suitable for adminship. --Durin 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am, however, always available for recall. Per the terms of my RfA, my recall requires only that one established contributor state that I have abused admin functions. If you are serious, I will resign immediately, without regret, as promised at my RfA. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I'm know I'm inexperienced with images. I fully expected someone to oppose me for that reason, and I wouldn't have begruded them; nobody did. I wouldn't have opposed myself, mainly because I don't give a crap about images. ;) I oppose people for low project-space participation, which includes all "XfDs", plus many other things -- a candidate need only have a thorough knowledge of one area therein to meet my expectations. I'm not Boothy, and I don't take the RfA candidate's song to absurd extremes.
- I think you just made my point for me. :) You didn't get the reference. *shrug* --Durin 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? "I think I speak English rather well, but I guess others may disagree", to paraphase my user profile. What language do you speak? You reside in the midwest, if I recall correctly. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- We might be able to if we spoke a common tongue. Two people separated by a common language. --Durin 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Shoot -- I'd thought we'd hash that issue out now, as it is much more interesting than the day job! Best wishes, Xoloz 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- (breaking indent)Let me very clear about a few things: 1) I do not consider images vital to WP at all -- I do consider deletion essential, because we've got to prune around here. I, thus, think your analogy is very, very poor. I do not think there is a hint of hypocrisy to my stand, although you are welcome to.
- 2) If I wished, I could rebuff you here in good conscience, Durin. You haven't technically met the requirement for my recall, as you have not asserted that I have abused admin functions.
- 3) You didn't answer my question -- I'm genuinely curious as to the origination of the comedic/ironic line
- 4)Notwithstanding that I could reject your request on a technicality, I will gladly resign, if, having read the foregoing, you still wish me to do so. I have a clear conscience, and know full well that I have been consistent and justified in my RfA comments and personal conduct. I will resign if you wish it, but it will be only for the reason of your wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm left wondering how, when there's orders of magnitude more deletions of images, than there are deletions of articles from XfDs, that you could think image work is somehow separable from your admin duties when according to your statement adminship is not divisible. It's quite clear; if you believe an admin candidate can not be trusted with the delete button because they lack XfD experience, then you can't be trusted with it either; you might wrongfully delete images. If you believe you can fairly prevent someone from being an admin because of a lack of XfD experience, then you should step down from being an administrator because your criteria forbids you from being an administrator. This is your quandary; not mine.
- I speak to no abuses you've made and do not find this relevant. This has to do with your insistence that, since the adminship bit is not divisible, one must be experienced in all admin appropriate areas. You've made this quandary. It isn't for me to figure out for you how to get out of it. But, if you insist, the ways out are that you drop your insistence that candidates be qualified in XfD or resign. There isn't any middle position. --Durin 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, there is a middle position. I oppose based on low project-space participation, with an eye especially towards XfDs, because deletion is a very broad heading for admins, and every admin ought to have some experience with it. As our "fair-use police" love to point out, images are eye-candy. I respect that admins do deal with them (I usually don't), but they are in no way essential to the encyclopedia. There is simply is no quandry for me here. You're welcome to insist that there must be, but my heart is light, and it will be. I thought about my lack of image experience before I ran at RfA, and concluded it didn't matter. I'm insulated from your accusations of hypocrisy, in my heart, because I really did impose my own standards on myself before I ran. That's why I waited so long to run, why I didn't especially want to run, either. If I'm wrong about images being superfluous to us, the community was free to oppose me at my RfA for inexperience there. I wouldn't begrudge that, although it would be a higher standard than mine -- I merely expect project-space experience.
- All I need from you is an answer to the question of "Do you want me to resign"? I will if you wish, because you wish it; but not because of any ethical misstep or dilemma. I know I have been consistent, and you will not convince me otherwise (unless you have new, better evidence.) Adminship is not fun -- I'll be glad to quit, if you like. I will not, however, acknowledge an inconsistency in myself that doesn't exist. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cleverly played, Xoloz! Not only have you deftly avoided the dilemma, but you've successfully shifted the argument to Durin, forcing him to decide between dropping the discussion and demanding your resignation for no apparent reason. Masterful, truly masterful! Kelly Martin (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not "playing" anything. I just really think lots about the philosophical positions I take. I'm goofy that way. :) Really introspective people, at least my subgroup, work hard to eliminate inconsistencies in themselves in advance. I'm sure I still have some, but this isn't one. I really believe in my standards, and that keeps my conscience clear. The consequence of my hyper-active introspection is that I don't get everybody's jokes...and I'm fat... and I smell, etc.! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I tend to agree with Kelly. I do feel played. You offered to resign if I was serious. I stated I was. At the time, you did state something about abusing admin functions, but you didn't tie it to resigning. Then you did tie it to resigning. I'm not interested in playing this game of follow the bouncing ball. It's an insult to me, and it's an insult to you. I have no wish to engage in this discussion further. I'm sure you'll find need of responding. I'm sure I'll have no need to respond. Thank you, and good night. --Durin 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not "playing" anything. I just really think lots about the philosophical positions I take. I'm goofy that way. :) Really introspective people, at least my subgroup, work hard to eliminate inconsistencies in themselves in advance. I'm sure I still have some, but this isn't one. I really believe in my standards, and that keeps my conscience clear. The consequence of my hyper-active introspection is that I don't get everybody's jokes...and I'm fat... and I smell, etc.! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
UBX images
So, which images am I allowed to use? Some of them were not deleted. Wikipedian64 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any that are not copyrighted, and available under a free license. --Durin 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
So. I was going to go to this talk page to probably leave you a nasty message about deleting the image on my userpage, but then I saw your secret diary. I read through part of it, and realized you have done this MANY times, and people have responded back angry MANY times. However, I also noticed you have a picture on your userpage, and you crossed out "Working on removing fair use violations. Copyright violations could threaten the very existence of Wikipedia." So I waswondering, are you still doing that, or not? Oh, and I'll probably put that picture back up. Just letting you know. :) - Bagel7 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)