mNo edit summary |
→WT:UCFD: new section |
||
Line 425: | Line 425: | ||
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence]]== |
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence]]== |
||
This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Isotope23|talk]]''</sup> 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Isotope23|talk]]''</sup> 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== WT:UCFD == |
|||
Quit it. Please read the various discussions we've already had. As I said in my edit summary, it has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and we now just want to drop it and move on. Please don't beat make an issue out of it. – [[User:Steel359|Steel]] 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:06, 24 October 2007
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 15 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Avoid trivia proposal shutting down
No one seems to think Wikipedia:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know. Reverting to the old redirect to WP:TRIVIA. / edg ☺ ★ 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. In all seriousness you might want to drop by WP:ROC -- it's somewhat along the lines of what you were trying to do.
- I've seen it. It's not very useful and doesn't solve anything. I don't think my ideas fit into the Goose's vision, so I don't see myself as being all that helpful. For what it's worth, I made a few suggestions for a previous version of that document; I think the word "scope" is retained, but nothing else worked for him. If he wants to cannibalize any of my attempt, that's great.
- Thanks for your help in this. Meant to say that before. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I continue to be totally open to criticism of ROC. Any comment along the lines of "this is wrong [because]" or "this is ineffective [because]" I can respond to, and might even agree with. Back when I reverted your near-complete rewrite of what had been at Wikipedia:Relevance, I wasn't rejecting all your ideas -- it's just that they were fairly rudimentary, having been put together in the space of a day. You swore off all involvement with the proposal after that, so it's no surprise it doesn't reflect your ideas.
- I agree with Equazcion that a "relevance" guideline (i.e., WP:ROC) could probably address many of the concerns you are raising here. It'd have to be limited to things we can all agree on -- but even those things are likely to be an improvement over the current situation. There is plenty of material even inclusionists would regard as irrelevant -- can we try to work on a common standard for that?--Father Goose 05:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how that follows. Is this supposed to be a bargaining tactic?
- So you're saying that the off-chance that we'd be willing to agree to restore NOT#TRIVIA is the only way you'd consider working on WP:ROC. So it is a bargaining tactic, just not one you're confident will work. I'd say you're correct about the latter part.
- My opposition to NOT#TRIVIA is totally unconnected to ROC; the focus of WP:NOT is "none of this material is permitted", and that's not true of trivia. But I certainly do advocate a "relevance" guideline as the right means to identify and get rid of irrelevant material in articles. Since we share at least some goals, I don't understand why we can't make progress on them.--Father Goose 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Contractions
Thank you for letting me know. I am using AWB for the most part, and don't purposely remove them from quotes or links...but I'm not perfect, and may improperly change a few. I will be more careful in the future to carefully look at all the changes! Ctjf83 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
archiving
I shall have to do it more frequently manually, but I like to keep the current stuff around. I am experimenting with subject archives. Thanks for the offer, however! DGG (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I, on the other hand, could use some help in this regard! --Orange Mike 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, you sure could :) I set your talk page to archive discussions that have been inactive for 30 days, with an exception to keep at least 15 discussions on the page at all times. I also set up the archive index. The first archive and index should get created automatically within the next 24 hours. If you want any of those settings changed, let me know.
- ¡Muy muchas gracias! But... User talk:Orangemike/Archive1 already exists and isn't in the index. Can anything be done about that? --Orange Mike 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, you sure could :) I set your talk page to archive discussions that have been inactive for 30 days, with an exception to keep at least 15 discussions on the page at all times. I also set up the archive index. The first archive and index should get created automatically within the next 24 hours. If you want any of those settings changed, let me know.
- I fixed that by moving the archive to the standard naming convention, with a space before the number. So just so you know, since an archive already exists, when the automatic archiving takes place, that archive will be added to. When that archive reaches 200k (which may even happen today because of the length of your talk page) a new one will get created automatically (Archive 2), and be added to until IT reaches 200k, and so on.
- Oh and you're welcome :)
Circumcision should remain manually archived
Hello. If you look at Talk:Circumcision and its history you will see that I have been manually archiving it for a very long time (31 archives). It is not suitable for automatic archiving due to the nature of the debates on the page. Please do not add any archive bots to it in the future. Thank you. -- Avi 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Also it was not appropriate for you to remove the controversy tag without discussion as part of that edit. The way, the truth, and the light 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the nature of the debate should have to do with autoarchiving, but if you like doing it manually that's fine. The bot settings shouldn't be removed by a simple undo though, because you're also undoing other things, like cleanup and indexer bot settings. In the future, if you don't like a bot and don't know how to remove it other than undoing the edit, please just ask the person who added it to kindly remove it. PS I didn't remove any controversy tags.
- You're right, you didn't remove any tags. Sorry, I was just confused looking at the diffs; I didn't mean to accuse you of doing it on purpose anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's alright, no problem.
Sorry about that. I was hoping I would be able to coerce these messageboxes into appearing correctly while using only <div>s instead of tables, so that we didn't have to keep using {{!}}s everywhere. But it looks like I can't. It should be aligned properly now – – Gurch 14:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It might be a good idea though to test major redesigns of widely-used templates using your sandbox first. Otherwise you could piss a lot of people off :)
Thanks!
Haha, apparently I've been approved for VP for over a week, and never noticed...thanks for letting me know! Ctjf83 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem :)
Argue!
Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue... Argue......
- (sorry about spamming your talk page. I was looking for something to do and caught sight of you signature. -Icewedge 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC) )
- That's okay, I sometimes spam it myself for fun.
Question
Hey, you seem to know a bit about Wiki, can you tell me how to fix the users boxes on my profile. They are not lined up at all at the top, and need to be straight across...(I can't do anything straight!) LOL, anyway, let me know if you can help. Thanks! Ctjf83 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- You can do that using a "wiki table". You make those like this:
{| something on line #1| next thing on line #1| yet another thing on line #1
|-
| something on line #2| next thing on line #2
|}
- It may seem a bit daunting at first. I can start you off by editing your user page directly if you want. Just let me know.
- Actually, I just looked at your user page and it looks like the boxes are aligned pretty straight right now. What exactly do you want to change?
- I've aligned your user boxes with a table. Let me know if that's what you had in mind.
- Yes, that was very good, I just made it 3 on a row, instead of 4, but thank you very much for showing me! You're awesome!! Ctjf83 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, glad I could help :)
Re: boggled
copied from User talk:East718:
Okay... I just spent the past hour hacking your user page, and the only thing I can't figure out is how you managed to get the text to orient backwards even when editing the page. If you feel like letting me in on this, I am really, really curious how you did it. Email me if you don't want to publicize it. Thanks!
- I changed my mind, don't tell me yet, I think I'm close.
- Ok, I'm pretty sure it's a control character for bidirectional text, but I don't know how you entered it. It wasn't entered as an HTML entity, because it not only confuses the wiki, but it also confuses Firefox's "view source" window (source code immediately after the character actually displays backwards in the source window!). It's completely invisible to everything. I can enter my own control character manually as an HTML entity, but it displays when editing the page again, and doesn't confuse the textarea; whereas yours doesn't display anywhere. I can copy and paste the chunk of text to reproduce the effect, but I can't figure out how to create it from scratch. PLEASE clue me in, it takes a lot to intrigue me these days. Thanks.
Haha, I'll let you in on the secret. It's the Unicode left-right override character, 0x2020D. You can represent it in HTML with ‮
. Have fun! east.718 at 17:45, October 6, 2007
- But I tried that, see User:Equazcion/Sandbox4. It works, but it doesn't quite do what happens on your page. In my sandbox page, you can edit the page and see the HTML code and see the
‮
. It doesn't affect the editing at all. When editing your page, the edit box is affected, and the character code is invisible, even when viewing the source code in Firefox -- and like I said, it even messes up the view source window, making some code display backwards! How come that doesn't happen in my sandbox page?
- PS, You got rid of the box around your signature. I'm not too happy about that. We boxed-signature people get a lot of guff and need to stick together. Bring back the box, fight the power :)
"Limited accommodation for popularity,"
Why not develop that into an essay? I seems a very good way of wording it. (Btw, you say you are in NYC. Were you at the last meetup in August? DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. An essay's not a bad idea, I might give that a try.
- I do live in NYC but I wasn't at the meetup. As much as I enjoy Wikipedia, it's more of a side-hobby-distraction, and not something for which I would attend an event. I'm also not too keen on mixing cyberspace with realspace; I think it would be a creepy letdown to meet people in real life after having only known them online for so long. I'd rather continue to know them just as I imagine them.
Improper use of rollback
You are not rolling back vandalism, you are restoring large swaths of unsourced trivia to the detriment of each and every article you touch. Please stop. Burntsauce 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- See discussions at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and on your talk page. The consensus is that your edits are disruptive and my rollbacks are supported. Participate in the discussion before you continue to remove these sections again. Thanks.
- While I don't necessarily agree with Burntsauce's mass removal of trivia sections, it has generally been agreed on Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections that it was not vandalism. Please don't refer to it as such in your edit summaries as it only enflames the situation. Thanks. Chaz Beckett 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm only referring to it as vandalism because it's hard to roll back all these edits with any other rollback function. The vandalism rollback can be accomplished with a single step. I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily consider these edits vandalism -- it would just be very difficult to roll everything back using another function.
I believe the rollback was absolutely appropriate, and the characterization of the changes being rolled back as "vandalism" was certainly plausible. I don't think it's generally agreed that "vandalism" is the wrong thing to call Burtsauce's large-scale contentious edits. Wikidemo 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Unblock request
- I believe the rollback is proper, and I endorse it. There is no good way other than a rollback to get rid of a large-scale improper edit. The block totally pollutes the issue. Which editor made it? Wikidemo 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was blocked by Alkivar, but I don't think he realized what was going on at the time. It would have been nice to be able to email an admin though; despite the instructions for blocked users, I didn't seem to be able to email Alkivar about the block. Thank you for the support by the way, Wikidemo.
- What makes you think Alikvar wasn't aware? At the time he blocked you he had already reverted a number of people's attempts to restore pop culture sections and then edit-protected a couple pages to preserve his reversions, called people "idiots" for restoring them, deleted several warnings / complaints on his talk page, and been brought up on AN/I over this. I am pretty close to lobbying for him to be de-sysopped over that. For an admin to block someone he/she is in a content dispute with, is about as straightforward a case there is of abusing admin privileges. Wikidemo 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- If what you're saying is true then I'd support your lobby to have him de-opped (I don't know how to start something like that so please proceed if you know how). It certainly was not appropriate for him to block someone that he himself is in a content dispute with -- especially indefinitely!!
- I've mentioned it on the AN/I page under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_incivility. I don't know what they do to handle admins who do this, but whatever it is, I've let them know.Wikidemo 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that and voiced my support there. Thanks.
- I must've missed this comment at the time because I just noticed it. Sorry I didn't respond then. Yes, this is rather nuts.
Using rollback and ignoring WP:V
This is not acceptable. You were just blocked for it, and got let off. Do not do it again. Neil ム 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The same goes for you. And the default version will be that which does not violate WP:V. This is not a content dispute. Neil ム 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do whatever you want, admin man. I'm done.
If "no one's disagreeing with me", why on earth did you revert the edit? Perhaps you need to start at the beginning. Read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Be bold!. There's no need to revert edits if everyone agrees. Neil ム 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say everyone agrees. I said no one is disagreeing.
- Semantics. Neil ム 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope.
- Also, rather than revert because something is being discussed, have a good reason to revert someone's changes, please, if there has been no disagreement and much agreement. Right now it kinda looks like you're being stubborn ([1]). Another useful page for you to read could be WP:OWN. Neil ム 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope.
- Semantics. Neil ム 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're being pretty stubborn yourself. I really can't believe you're an admin. If you had any interest at all in resolving this objectively rather than imposing your viewpoint you would be acting very differently. I'm trying to keep things peaceful, and you're talking down to me and continuing revert wars. Thanks man. Stellar example of a cool head in the face of conflict.
- Okay.
- Please stop reverting. This is not a change in the guideline. All information must adhere to Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. That is not up for debate. Exactly what do you disagree with? Chaz Beckett 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop adding. But asking nicely doesn't seem to accomplish much now does it. Well then go ahead, please do what you like.
- Right, that's great, please go add it again then and stop bothering me.
Dear Equazcion, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nattang 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Since you started me an archive, is there a way to set it up, so when i delete something on my talk page, it automatically goes to the archive? You want to do it for me? lol...and can you respond on my talk page, not this one. Ctjf83 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- cut and paste is more work than i want to spend on archiving....so u wanna set it up automatically...i dunno, every 3-4 days...but can i make it keep specific things on the talk page? Ctjf83 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- oh, if i feel like it, i'll just cut and paste...unless u wanna be my personal archiver, lmfao! Ctjf83 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's ok, just make it so it keeps the top one - "Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!"...well just the top box, the stuff below "SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" can be achieved and also, where it says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here." the here is red, so i dunno if u need to link that to my achieve page or what Ctjf83 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if ur still workin on it...but the LGBT thing and the bot thing overlap each other...at least on my screen Ctjf83 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm gonna be a picky pain in the butt...is it possible to make the LGBT thing farther left, so it can be on the same line as the bot thing Ctjf83 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if ur still workin on it...but the LGBT thing and the bot thing overlap each other...at least on my screen Ctjf83 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's ok, just make it so it keeps the top one - "Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!"...well just the top box, the stuff below "SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)" can be achieved and also, where it says "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here." the here is red, so i dunno if u need to link that to my achieve page or what Ctjf83 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- oh, if i feel like it, i'll just cut and paste...unless u wanna be my personal archiver, lmfao! Ctjf83 02:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes..but i decided i'm gonna move it to my user page..that way i dont have to worry about it getting accidentally archived...also, if i wanna change it to more or less than 3 days, how do i? Ctjf83 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- actually can u do that for me? i guess i don't know which is that, and which is the bot...can u put it under all the userboxes? Ctjf83 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, once again! I'm sure I'll be bugging you soon for more help in the near future! Till then..... Ctjf83 02:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Admin user pages
Regarding [2], many admins, myself included, protect their own user pages. This is a common and accepted practice and used to be specifically mentioned in WP:PROT. (It is still mentioned at Wikipedia:User_page#Use_of_page_protection_for_user_pages.) The reason for it is simple - there's no reason anyone should have to waste their time reverting vandalism to my user page and when left unprotected, admin user pages are frequent vandalism targets. --B 05:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I might accept that, but how about deleting history revisions of that vandalism, so that no one can even see the rationale for protection? Since when do we delete revisions that contain vandalism?
- If the vandalism contained personal details or libel, it's deleted or oversighted from anywhere on request. But also keep in mind that we're talking about a user page here. Under CSD U1, you have the right to have your user page deleted on demand. So there's certainly no problem with an admin deleting or purging history from their own user page. --B 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure if I agree that one follows from the other. It's one thing to completely delete a page; it's another to selectively remove things from its history and leave only the parts you like. Ordinary editors sure can't do that; should an editor be allowed that privilege for his own user page because he incidentally happens to be an admin? Plus, there is no claim in any of his edit summaries that the vandalism revealed personal information. He just claimed it was vandalism.
- If you would like the history of your user page purged, all you have to do is ask. It's not a privilege reserved only for admins. The only requirement is that, for GFDL purposes, if someone else has made contributions to your user page that are still a part of the current page that they cannot be excised from the history since the GFDL requires contributors to be noted. --B 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Purged completely, but not selectively altered. Show me where we can see a list of all revisions and let us pick and choose which versions we want deleted, and then I'll say you have a point. Otherwise, this is an abuse of privileges.
- You can't do it yourself only because you don't have access to the interface ... but if you would like for specific revisions to be purged from your userpage (other than simply for the sake of doing it), I or any other admin can do it for you. Just give the timestamps you want removed. --B 05:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure you would do that for me as a result of this discussion, but I doubt most admins would perform such a service for simple cases of vandalism. They'd want rationale involving the revealing of personal information.
- You can't do it yourself only because you don't have access to the interface ... but if you would like for specific revisions to be purged from your userpage (other than simply for the sake of doing it), I or any other admin can do it for you. Just give the timestamps you want removed. --B 05:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Purged completely, but not selectively altered. Show me where we can see a list of all revisions and let us pick and choose which versions we want deleted, and then I'll say you have a point. Otherwise, this is an abuse of privileges.
- If you would like the history of your user page purged, all you have to do is ask. It's not a privilege reserved only for admins. The only requirement is that, for GFDL purposes, if someone else has made contributions to your user page that are still a part of the current page that they cannot be excised from the history since the GFDL requires contributors to be noted. --B 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure if I agree that one follows from the other. It's one thing to completely delete a page; it's another to selectively remove things from its history and leave only the parts you like. Ordinary editors sure can't do that; should an editor be allowed that privilege for his own user page because he incidentally happens to be an admin? Plus, there is no claim in any of his edit summaries that the vandalism revealed personal information. He just claimed it was vandalism.
- If the vandalism contained personal details or libel, it's deleted or oversighted from anywhere on request. But also keep in mind that we're talking about a user page here. Under CSD U1, you have the right to have your user page deleted on demand. So there's certainly no problem with an admin deleting or purging history from their own user page. --B 05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alkivar's above referenced revert of Betacommand still counts as wheel warring, although it's a minor instance of it, IMO.--Father Goose 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- What reference are you talking about? Sorry, confused...
- This, which you brought up on the RFAR, is wheel warring.--Father Goose 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- What reference are you talking about? Sorry, confused...
Image source problem with Image:Editor - platinum star2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Editor - platinum star2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Taken care of.
You sure the image not displaying isnt just you, cause i can see it on all the pages its on.Blacksmith talk 06:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a possibility, although you could be seeing the new image I uploaded, as I replaced all the image references in the template code to point to the new one already.
- It appears to only be a problem with firefox, at least on my computer. When I try in IE the picture does display. Very odd... I wonder if anyone else is experiencing this.
Thanks
My home page has again been attacked by a sockpuppet, thanks for reverting the attack.
FWIW Bzuk 06:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
- My pleasure. Thanks for the cookie :)
Edit War on Herbert Dingle Page
Please keep an eye on the Herbert Dingle Page. There is a vandal by the name of DVdm who won't leave this page alone. He is posing as a responsible and regular wikipedia editor but he has a specific purpose of removing any kind of contributions that might in any way cast a shadow of doubt over Einstein's theories.
Herbert Dingle was an established scientist in the 1960's who challenged Einstein's theories. DVdm wants to water down this piece of history by removing references to the controversy and beefing the article up with biographical details.
Keep an eye on DVdm. I suspect that he uses sockpupets, perhaps Denveron and other IP adresses. (Brigadier Armstrong 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
DVdm is posing as the good guy and trying to make out that other editors that are trying to present a balanced article, are actually the vandals.
Table of Contents
Is this soon enough for another question? LOL...How do i add a table of contents list to the page? I think this page would do good with one. Ctjf83 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- thank you once again! Ctjf83 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Herbert Dingle
Copied from user talk:EliminatorJR:
Don't say "guess what", please. It's rather sarcastic in tone and annoying. I didn't even add the statement you removed or care that you did, in fact I would've removed it myself. But please try to be a little more civil about it. It'll help people accept your edits rather than become inclined to war with you. Thanks.
Er, that comment wasn't aimed at you, but to the anon who restored the paragraph after it was removed earlier today (diff [3]). And frankly, I don't think it's that incivil after a previous warning. "Stop inserting original research, you moron" would be incivil ;) ELIMINATORJR 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware it wasn't aimed at me. It was uncivil, and just because it was less uncivil than a comment that came before it doesn't detract from the incivility. I was tempted to revert you just because of the disgusting way that edit summary sounded, without even looking at what you did. Not that I would actually do that, but just letting you know the affect of your tone.
- Reverting a valid edit with a summary that slightly offends your sensibilities is not a good idea, IMHO. If we all did that, we'd all be blocked for 3RR within a day. ELIMINATORJR 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd strongly advise you against doing this, as it would be disruptive and unhelpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think you know that was not my point.
Service Awards Question
I started at Wikipedia on August 19th, 2006 as User:Orangemonster2k1, but due to a user who was constantly bothering me, I made the decision to "retire" User:Orangemonster2k1 on May 16th, 2007 and move to my current User:Neutralhomer, an account I created on May 3rd, 2007. A decision I didn't want to do (the user who was bothering me found me anyway).
So, my question is, would it be possible (since I have been here about a year and a half) to be in the "Experienced & Established editors" category, or something lower....lower is OK, I just want to be certain before adding my name. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure it's possible... you can add yourself to whatever categories you want, as I don't think there are any policies governing that sort of thing. Riana and DarkFalls don't officially meet the criteria for master editor, but have added themselves to that category regardless. If you're asking if I would have a problem with you combining your contribs from your previous account with your current one to say that you officially qualify for an award, then no, I wouldn't mind that. These are simply notices to the public of the extent of your experience with Wikipedia, so you should choose a category that accurately reflects that, no matter which user accounts your experience occurred under.
- Okie Dokie, that works :) Now I just have to figure out how to put the ribbon on my userpage :) Take Care and Have a Good Thursday....NeutralHomer T:C 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem :)
- Okie Dokie, that works :) Now I just have to figure out how to put the ribbon on my userpage :) Take Care and Have a Good Thursday....NeutralHomer T:C 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was that obvious, you certainly could have posted it yourself. / edg ☺ ★ 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- If what was obvious?
- Well as I stated in my comment, I don't agree that this case qualifies the way Mangojuice has suggested, so why would I? Just because it was obvious that you would say something doesn't mean I would say it for you.
- Yes, I wouldn't say something that I think is wrong, even though I know that other people who think it's right would say it. And you're welcome, anytime.
- friends, don't we have sufficient difficulties discussing the issue? As personal disagreements go, this seems somewhat--how shall I say it -- trivial? :) DGG (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more.
Transcribed for User talk:Xoloz:
I was rather shocked by this. "Edit count is insignificant in determining the "value" of any Wikipedia[n]"? Is that from any policy? Who even said these awards have anything to do with determining value? The Keep !votes outweigh the delete !votes by a landslide, and not one delete !vote cited any policy. As far as deletion discussions go, the consensus was Keep, and I suspect you may have a personal feeling on the subject that might be interfering here.
Reply
Hi,
As you may be aware, the practical difference between a keep and no consensus is minimal. Weighing the arguments and the flow of the debate lead me to my conclusion: XfDs are not votes, so the "landslide" margin to which you referred is only a bit relevant (and I saw no landslide in any event.) The no consensus closure was also motivated by the opinion, expressed by several "keep" commenters, that it would be right to consider all "service awards" together, not one in isolation. Just as XfDs are not votes, so too it is true that one must look beyond the boldfacing.
Regarding your other point, I hope you do not intend to dispute the view that all good-faith editors are equally valuable. This is indisputably a presupposition of any wiki. For reference, see WP:INTRO, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Harmonious editing, or any policy page dealing with user conduct, really. All editors, including admins, are fundamentally equal: more experienced editors are somewhat more likely to be well-equipped for certain tasks; but, it is ultimately the merit of one's edits, or arguments, that determines one's reputation here -- not any edit count. Those merits being subjective, it is impossible for anyone to declare one good-faith editor "better" than another. Vandals, of course, are different, though Wikipedia always hopes for their reform.
If you dispute this contention, you're in a pickle: I have more than twice as many edits as you do, so by the edit count makes right philosophy to which you would appear to subscribe, I am obviously more knowledgeable than you are! ;) Indeed, I agree that I am more correct on this point, not because of my edit count, which would be absurd; but, because of the fundamental justice of an argument for equality among editors. :)
As to your subtle suggestion of my bias -- I had no foreknowledge of the existence of these awards, or of the MfD. I closed the matter because its time was completed, and its result apparent. I did apply my judgment, as policy calls for, but I have no stake in the debate other than the upholding of Wikipedia's principles. Your own agitation at this result, as you choose to impugn an outcome with practically the same effect as the one you desired, suggests that you are far from impartial here, and hardly in a position to be questioning the motives of others, absent any evidence. You would seem to be too attached to these little awards, a misfortune warned of by those who favored deletion. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a military campaign. Editors are not here to garner ribbons, but to share verifiable knowledge with the world freely. As these ribbons don't burden that mission, they may exist; should they ever begin to burden it, then they would be eradicated. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't consider myself as having any particular "attachment" to these awards. You are right when you say I'm not impartial, though, for the obvious reasons that I've worked on them and have one posted. I don't claim to be impartial, and generally wouldn't make such a claim for a deletion discussion that I participated in myself. However, that should not bar anyone from making the suggestion that a closing admin didn't act impartially.
- Addressing the bulk of your response, I have not, and do not plan to, put forth the argument that one editor is necessarily more valuable than another simply due to their edit count. If these awards existed to make such a judgment, I would be on the side of delete or at least rework. But as I stated in my comment to you, the very notion that these awards aim to classify users by their value is fabricated. As WP:SERVICE states, these awards are merely representative of how much experience an editor has here -- the same (as is similarly stated) as the "years of service" bars on a uniform.
- You see, my problem with your closing statement is not so much that you're trying to impose your own opinion on the matter, ie, that you have some agenda. My problem is that you've added added your own assumption about the awards in the closing statement. You appear to have summed up what they are and what they represent according to your own opinion, which doesn't appear to agree even with the page describing the awards -- let alone with a significant portion of the !voting body of editors.
- I think you also are hesitant to conclude a Keep because in actuality the nomination was for the wrong page. You feel that any nomination should have gone to the WP:SERVICE page and not to a specific award, and you don't want to prejudice any future nomination for that page by closing as Keep for one specific award, lest it be brought up as precedent. This would be a legitimate concern and I wholeheartedly agree. However you shouldn't be (in my opinion) afraid to say something along those lines in your closing statement. You could simply say that this is just one award in a hierarchy, the nominator and the Delete !voters seem to have issue with that hierarchy as a whole, and therefore you're closing this debate with no result and no prejudice (which is what I think you really mean by "no consensus"). I just find it disheartening to see the words "no consensus" when on the contrary there seems to be a clear consensus, even if the nomination was ill-conceived to begin with.
- The final sentence of my closing did, in fact, suggest that a more general discussion of these service awards would be in order. I felt no need to make that sentiment any more plain, because I have no wish to imply that such a discussion is necessary, only that it is a logical extension of the nomination just closed, and the next appropriate step should anyone oppose the result.
- You are correct regarding one of my working assumptions, but you misapprehend why I adopted that assumption. It is true that I chose to give less weight to the view that "these awards are indications of edit count, nothing more." While I was aware that several commenters disputed that point, I feel it undeniable that the award (whatever its stated intentions) might lend itself to the mistaken belief that it conferred some sort of esteem. Remember, we are discussing a badge called "Master editor" -- irrespective of the (presumably laudable) intent of its makers, I think everyone must accept that such language carries a certain "sound of authority." It is open question whether that was intended, or is the general impression conveyed. It is obvious that such a misinterpretation is possible, and is more likely among new users. In that sense, when closing, I judged those making your argument (ie., "read the page -- it says the badge is merely an indicator of a fact, a certain level of experience") less credible than your adversaries. This is not a bias on my part; but rather, a weighing of the arguments given. I don't really think anyone can reasonably dispute that, even seen in a favorable light, the service awards are possible to misinterpret as signs of authority, even if (as you say) they were never intended as such. My working assumption stemmed from my analysis of the arguments given, and was not a priori in any form. You may disagree with my judgment; but, I believe it to be within the parameters of administrative discretion to weigh the strength of the arguments. As I said initially in the second sentence of my first reply to you, "Weighing the arguments... lead me to my conclusion" that a "no consensus" result (rather than a "keep") had been reached. Sometimes, the "numbers" do not lead directly to the result, and such was the case here. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then in light of this, I have a request. You say that you feel the wording of these awards make them too open to the misinterpretation of conveying the value of the editor. I feel that this should be clarified in your closing statement, because right now it says, "Edit count is insignificant in determining the 'value' of any Wikipedia[n]," which sounds to me like you've made that misjudgment yourself, even though I realize now that you haven't. If instead you just feel that it's a likely misconception, could you edit the statement to reflect that? Although I do agree that especially among new users the significant potential for such a misconception exists, my concern is that the current statement only serves to perpetuate that misconception.
- I'll think about that. For clarity, I should mention another working assumption that I employ in writing all my closures. I write them to explain to people who might oppose the result why my judgment is correct. I do not assume that someone in your position (who does not object to the result, only the semantics) is my primary audience in writing closures. I suppose this additional assumption (regarding the audience for which the closure is written) arises from my understanding of the spirit of consensus -- my objective is to bring as many folks as possible "on-board" with the result. While I appreciate your desire for an explication of my reasoning at the MfD, my assumption has its merits also: I don't want to lose that "appeal to the opposition" conciliatory tone.
- The two things I can add that might make you feel better are: 1) while my closure elaborates my thoughts, the words aren't binding. (In fact, in any "no consensus" result, nothing is binding -- notwithstanding the incredibly weak strength of precedent in Wikipedia generally anyway); 2) I will gladly annotate my closing with a link to our discussion here, as a further elaboration of my thought process in making the close. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The addition of a link to this discussion would be very helpful. I was thinking though that it could be summed up fairly well -- for instance, where you say "Edit count is insignificant in determining the 'value' of any Wikipedia[n]..." you could change that to, "It is reasonable to assume that many editors may perceive this award as a determination of value, regardless of whether or not this is the intent, and that alone may be reason to discuss all such awards further." But either the link, the change, or both would be appreciated. Thanks.
- You are quite right that your phrasing is excellent: I won't claim it for my closure, though it be accurate. Those who would care enough to click the link for elaboration will see that you have expressed myself better than I did. :) (Also, I added your original query above to this thread, to keep the conversation whole for those who might read it.) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine. Thanks for addressing my concerns, you've been most reasonable.
- No! No! Keep fighting! Nooooooo!--Beta XII-A entity 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- That, sir, is extraordinarily impressive reference that I am ashamed to admit I did not immediately recognize. As punishment, I will re-view the entire third season DVD this week, watching the dreadful Spock's Brain for the 68th time. Live long and prosper, Xoloz 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
CfD on the same issue
Hi,
Although I can understand your frustration at having to defend the same general concept in different fora, categories do serve a purpose distinct from the awards themselves, and are subject to different standards (as I see you and Black Falcon have already discussed at the CfD.) Even if one assumes that the awards themselves are useful, it is not immediately clear why categories would be so. (For what purpose would an editor wish to find others of the same rank? To collaborate exclusively with such editors?? That's a bad thing, obviously.) Many userboxes otherwise permitted have had associated categories disallowed, because finding those who display it could serve no useful purpose (and might serve a counterproductive one: clique-ish behavior.) Best wishes, Xoloz 12:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Image
Can you put "Image:Rainbowghost.jpg" with "Happy Halloween" as the caption on my user page below the quote but above the userboxes. I tried, but the pic was overlapping the user boxes...since you're so good at this kinda stuff! Ctjf83 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, as always...what would I do without you?? Nice touch with the orange letters on the blk background! Ctjf83 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Trivia
Hi. I just read your thoughts on trivia and I was wondering if you would be interested in this.
Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]
Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm the one who started WikiTrivia. I saw your comment there about using this local project as a pointer to the meta project -- If that's possible then I'd be all for it, but I have doubts that a WikiProject would be allowed to exist merely to make people aware of a project outside of Wikipedia, and not actually affecting Wikipedia articles in any direct way. If you have any further thoughts on that though, please let me know. Oh and if you haven't officially joined the WikiTrivia proposal yet, don't forget to sign here.
- I've gone hog-wild and created the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. I wonder if this'll work.--Father Goose 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- FG the anarchist. This should be very interesting.
- Did you tell DGG?
Re: Watchlist
Haha, sorry about that. east.718 at 12:11, 10/18/2007
- That's okay, I just found it quite humorous :)
Image deletion
I've removed your speedy-delete tag from Image:Woman masturbating.jpg. Since the image is hosted on Commons, not on the English Wikipedia, nobody here can delete it. If you want it deleted, you'll have to go to Commons and use their deletion processes. --Carnildo 05:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay I didn't know that. Thanks.
An issue of relevance
National Maritime Museum has a controversy regarding the relevance of discussing the propriety of exhibits taken from Germany after WWII. Since you are interested in relevance, I thought this might find this interesting. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
New York City Meetup
New York City Meetup
|
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Equazcion! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In response to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance...
We never said that we where a wiki project group..the site says that we are trying to become on,,, and as for a club house...excuse me? --Greenwood1010 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- From the middle of the page: "This is a WikiProject, a collaboration area and open group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of a particular topic, or to organizing some internal Wikipedia process." Regardless, the page seems unnecessary and yes it does seem like a kind of clubhouse. Please participate in the deletion discussion, as that way your comments will have a chance at affecting the decision. Commenting on my talk page won't do you much good. Let me know if you have any questions about how the process works though, as there seems to be some confusion there.
- What didn't you understand? --Gp75motorsports 03:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't understand your question. Feel free to ask it again here though.
Sorry
Look I said that I believed that some of the opposers where vandels, but I also was sure to state that I ==had no proof of this== i am sorry if you where upset...it's just that i am getting...upset. it saddens me to know that the wua will most likely be deleted and will not get to become an officla group...again sorry:(--Greenwood1010 13:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Saying you have no proof doesn't take away from the bad faith of your comment. I wasn't insulted myself; I was informing you of what a bad idea a comment like that is, especially when you're trying to defend your page in a deletion discussion. I understand that you're upset, and I'm sorry the page is getting deleted, but hopefully in the future you'll understand why that had to happen.
I was wondering if you knew about the other groups...ones like our's that failed...do you have the links?--Greenwood1010 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well if they failed then there probably wouldn't be links. I don't know of any offhand... you might want to try Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, but that's generally for proposed rules that got rejected, not failed wikiprojects. I saw you posted the same request at the deletion discussion, so someone there might be of more help.
Wikipedia Users' Alliance October 17, 2007-October 22, 2007
Dear Friend, the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance has been deleted. I am sure that perhaps you already knew this. I myself just found out. Anyhow during the debate many mean and rude things where said. I am not innocent myself; I too contributed to the unpleasantness. But now Wikipedia Users’ Alliance is dead, gone forever. But we all must move on, for me and my friends, we have to deal with this loss. However it is important that all of us work together to fight vandalism and not argue with one another. There are many things that I want to say, but I know that they would only add to the mean sprit that fills the “air”. As a Buddhist (Risshō Kōsei Kai) I was reading the Holy Dhammapada yesterday. I came across this line, “Holding onto anger is like holding on to a hot coal with the intent to throw it at someone, in the end you are the one who gets burned,” how true! Lets us progress forward. WUA Founder User: King of Nepal has expressed similar views such as these to me via e-mail. His majesty said, “We have to move on, move forward. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia and us all.” I agree and hope that you do to. Thanks. --Greenwood1010 12:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Co-founder of the WUA. If you feel that you recived this message in error please let me know.
This is just a notice that I mentioned you in my Evidence post in case you wish to rebut or dispute what I've written.--Isotope23 talk 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
WT:UCFD
Quit it. Please read the various discussions we've already had. As I said in my edit summary, it has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and we now just want to drop it and move on. Please don't beat make an issue out of it. – Steel 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)