Sort keys |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
I felt it was ugly, but I've decided to take the issue to [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization]] and see what the consensus is. [[User:Morven|—Morven]] 19:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
I felt it was ugly, but I've decided to take the issue to [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization]] and see what the consensus is. [[User:Morven|—Morven]] 19:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
||
==Bot?== |
|||
Where do bots come into it? The Infobox template has not been edited by a bot that I can see. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 19:35, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:It looks to me like he used a tabbed browser like Firefox or Safari, and going down the tabs making changes. I've done it before, and usually have edit speeds similar to the ones he displayed. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 19:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
I'd start by asking him if he's running a bot. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 19:58, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:JamesF doesn't have the technical ability to write a bot, nor do I. Our "bot" is Firefox, tabbed browsing is the quickest way to make multiple edits of the same type, once the pages are prepared, using some keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+TAB, ALT+S) all the pages can be saved one after the other. It can be quite easily proven from the log files that we've never used bots - so I would seriuosly consider you position before digging yourself any deeper into this hole. [[User:Ed g2s|<font face="verdana">ed g2s</font>]] • [[User talk:ed_g2s|<font face="verdana">talk</font>]] 20:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:12, 10 September 2004
Previous items moved to:
Diana picture
Please tell us whether your information box pic on Diana, Princess of Wales is public domain, fair use, copyright or whatever. Just click on the pic, then on Edit this Page and enter the details. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 08:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(8/26/2004)
Hi, you might be interested in the Administrator Accountability Policy proposal. Also, could you please respond to this email on wikien-l about where you got Image:Mahatma Gandhi.jpg from. Thanks. Angela. 17:20, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will look into that, and also get back on the image. AFAIK, it is expired copyright of KEYSTONE pictures. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fictional subjects policy
Hi Netoholic. Your input and criticism on which fictional subjects deserve articles of their own would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles about fiction. ··gracefool |☺ 23:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done a major rewrite of the policy - I was approaching it in the wrong way. It is no longer a poll, but an attempt to reach a consensus. It is also more general, basically an amendment to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is now called Wikipedia:Importance, and discussion (including your proposed policy) is moved to the talk page. ··gracefool |☺ 06:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Warning re: refactoring
If you don't stop removing comments from talk pages (and in some cases actually replacing them with your own (cf. this example, you will be blocked from editing this site. While you continue to cite Wikipedia:Refactoring, the bottom line is that many, many respected editors have asked you to stop, to follow the guidelines more carefully, and to stop selectively applying guidelines as "policy," and you have refused.
The most important thing is that you need to follow the general consensus that has been established at Wikipedia through years of collaborative work. It is not up to you to interpret, decide, and implement decisions. Also, it is invariably inappropriate to remove comments about yourself. You can ask someone else to do that, but it is not something that you ought to be doing.
See:
This is your final warning.
Sincerely, BCorr|Брайен 17:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I refuse to allow personal attacks on any editor clutter an active VfD discussion page. You should be setting a better example by chastising the instigators of those attacks (off-topic comments, if you will) and provide warnings to them. The concept of "general consensus" is a difficult one to gauge, as you know. All I am left with is specifically pointing out policy/guidelines pages which have been developed, all of which support removing of comments of this sort. I have welcomed these people to move the discussion here to my talk page, but they would rather attack me rather than put forward effort and logical debate about an article's validity.
- I have asked this of others, to no avail, but please quote a policy page which says it is "invariably inappropriate" to remove personal attacks against oneself. Wikipedia:No personal attacks specifically reads "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked."
- Specific to your reversion of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Duopenis, I moved that content discussion (which is about diphallia) to the talk page as suggested by Angela. I am surprised that someone like you would not see that it was done to keep the VfD discussion on-track. -- Netoholic @ 17:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- First, I will say in response that comments beginning with "I refuse to allow..." are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Second, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You may remove personal attacks. You may not edit other people's comments on talk pages because they are critical of you. Criticisms are not personal attacks. Finally, see Wikipedia:Talk_page#Standards_and_conventions_of_writing_and_layout regarding what not to do on talk pages. And note that "refactoring" is summarizing, not removing text selectively.
- Specific examples of personal attack include:
- Negative personal comments
- Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
- Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi
- Profanity directed against another contributor.
- Threats of legal action
- Death threats.
- Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.
- Specific examples of personal attack include:
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks says that "Specific examples of personal attack include: Negative personal comments". I have left many "criticisms" on the VfD pages, removing only those that cross the line to becoming negative comments. Even if they are not "personal attacks" in your mind, they are certainly off-topic for the page in question. Your reference to Wikipedia:Talk page discusses using summarization and archiving - certainly I am not expected to archive and summarize personal attacks, am I?
- You should not modify other people's comments. You may remove them altogether if they are on your user talk page, but do not modify them. I concur with Brian Corr that you need to check your behavior in that regard. Christopher Mahan 18:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I may intercede with a more moderate view... I think a lot of the comments you've been removing have been overly hostile. I think that speculation as to someone's intents can constitute a personal attack. That said, I think Netholic's actions on VfD are odd to say the least, and that, while accusations that he wishes to destroy VfD are rather over the top, he should expect sharp criticism if he's going to apply non-standard criteria to VfD. He should also probably be aware of the arbitration case surrounding User:Anthony, which can be found linked to down the page a bit on WP:RFAR. So, on the one hand, I think he should stop removing these comments, as they do not seem to me to constitute personal attacks.
That said, since Netholic is not a new user, I am unsure what aspect of the blocking policy is being invoked here. So I would also say that, at this point, a block threat is not warranted. What troubles me more, honestly, are Netholic's responses to the criticism he is recieving for removing these comments. Snowspinner 18:26, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
- I respect your rational comment. I do feel attacked by someone bring up what they think my "motivation" is or my other actions. I am not a fragile thing, but those kinds of comments are disrupting and the submitter is only trying to induce a flame war. I would like to know what specific responses of mine trouble you? -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I understand Snowspinner's point, but just to clarify, "disruption" is specifically defined at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption and includes the following text:
- Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked.
- "changing other user's signed comments" - That is an extremely liberal interpretation - certainly this refers to vandalism, not refactoring attacks or moving off-topic comments.
- "objectively defined by specific policies" - point to a specific policy which supports your stance, not some vague example.
- As a matter of fact, I see my edits encouraging the "normal function of Wikipedia" by keeping the discussion about the article, not this editor. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- First, "changing other user's signed comments" absolutely does not refer to vandalism, but exactly what you are doing.
- Second, it is the community's place -- not yours -- to decide what is the normal function of Wikipedia."
- Third, here's the specific policy, copied verbatim from policy page Wikipedia:Blocking policy:
- Disruption
- Declared policy (no longer a proposal) as of Aug 1 2004
- Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month.
- Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sock puppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently. However, blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruptive behaviour from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
- Reincarnations of blocked disruptive users will be reblocked if they continue being disruptive, or if they edit in a way which suggests they are likely to continue being disruptive - eg "YOU CAN'T BLOCK ME!!11!!", etc, etc.
- "Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses..." -- IP addresses, not long-term logged-in users. Completely does not apply. That page (you quoted it yourself, did you read it?) says However, blocks should not be used against ... user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
- This is my last attempt at dealing with this long line of argument, but I'll just ask this question: do you believe that it is either acceptable or not against policy for logged-in users to "changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits"? Also, do you believe that no one who makes "good edits" can be blocked for being disruptive? -- BCorr|Брайен 21:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- All that I'll say is that you have no written policy support for giving me this warning, nor for any future block you may perform on the basis of me removing personal attacks or off-topic comments from a VfD voting page. As written, the policy means that no logged-in editor, who makes both useful and "disruptive" edits should be blocked. That is what the dispute resolution process is for. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Try reading that excerpt again.. ALL of it, not just the first sentence. Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. OK, we know, you're a logged-in user, not an IP address. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked. You were warned, repeatedly.
- The line However, blocks should not be used against ... user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits is in the paragraph concerning blocking for any length of time or permanently. Certainly it would be out of order to permanently block your account. But by ignoring warnings concerning your disruptive edits, you're fair game for a 24 hour block to cool down and think things over. —Stormie 01:59, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Synthesizing the above discussion
Although not explicitly blockable under Wikipedia's blocking policy, your refactoring of pages is proving problematic. This is not to say that refactoring is not allowed - as you are quick to cite, there are many points in Wikipedia policy that advocate refactorings. That said, a major and fundamental tenent of Wikipedia policy is civility and harmoniously living in the Wikipedia community. Clearly, based on the amount of criticism you are recieving for it, your habit and method of refactoring is upsetting people. This itself is justification to ask you to stop it, and you are thusly asked.
Failure to stop it is likely to lead to negative consequences. These consequences could involve temporary blocks by sysops, referral to the arbitration committee, or some other sanction. All of these would be unfortunate. Please do not make them necessary. Snowspinner 14:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
vfd time limit
Net, I'm a little baffled by your frequent protest on vfd that an article was listed within x hours of being created. I would think that this would be a fairly common, and the most efficient use case. I think that an admin, as part of their maintenance tasks, will watch recent changes, and then:
- If the article is on a real topic, it will stay, and possibly be wiki-fied or anything that neads tidying up
- If the article is a candidate for cleanup, or a stub, it will be marked as such
- If the article is a WP:CSD, they will delete the page
- If the article might be a deletion candidate but it is debateable, it is listed on vfd
I don't think that listing an article on vfd within hours is a bad thing at all, especially because vfd gives the original author one week to fix the problems. One of the most frequently quoted statistics about Wikipedia given by Jimbo Wales is that "Almost all cases of vandalism are cleaned up within 10 minutes". I think that if we were less vigilant in our monitoring of recent changes then that number would go up significantly. Like it or not, vfd is an integral part of keeping the content in Wikipedia manageable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:00, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, of course I disagree. I think watching Special:Newpages and listing badly written articles on VfD is the wrong approach. I can see reason behind listing vanity or advertising, but not articles that are simply "bad". Take a look at the first version of your favorite articles, I'll bet they were bad too. VfD is not for cleaning up articles, it is for clearing them out. Posting a VfD without that intent is simply wrong. I have no dispute (as I do it myself) of watching Newpages for WP:CSD's and also marking bad articles as stubs or for cleanup. Listing on VfD after only a short time (less than 3-4 independent editors) is biting the newcomers. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I think we're on the same page then. I thought you were opposed to listing ANYTHING on vfd within the first few hours. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:27, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you have this idea that people are "watching Special:Newpages and listing badly written articles on VfD". People are watching Special:Newpages and listing non-encyclopedic topics on VfD. Ideally, the current state of the article should not enter into anyone's vote. The metric is simple—if the subject of the article is encyclopedic, keep it (and if the article is bad, improve it); if the subject of the article is not encyclopedic, delete it, no matter how well written the article is. —Stormie 01:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
General Mayhem
Check out User talk:Qapf, i gave him a few ideas on how to get started again. —siroχo 07:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Links to Categories
Why not link to categories? How else will folks know they exist? Did I miss a memo? --SFoskett 14:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, links to red categories seems like a bad idea. But shouldn't you let the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles decide what's a valid category? I also dispute the idea of adding related pages to categories. Should Pablo Picasso be a member of Category:Pablo Picasso paintings? Or would a link be better?--SFoskett 15:06, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- We'll take up the issue there. Ford Motor Company belongs in Category:Ford (I put it there). However, I also think it's appropriate for there to be a link to Category:Ford vehicles in the FoMoCo article, while it would be inappropriate for it to be a member of that latter category. My point is this: There is no need to remove (populated) article-body links to categories. I know of no standard in the 'pedia contradicting this practice.--SFoskett 15:41, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Infobox Biography
You didn't give any reason for your "browser compatibility" revert. You didn't anwer my question: "(What doesn't support <caption>? - and if you don't have CSS nothing else is going to be formatted....)". You also seem to be out voted on other things about this page - such as the inclusion of the quote box and the use of {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg - which is a very bad idea - for example the best image of Galileo Galilei in a PNG, do you suggest I convert this balck and white image to a JPEG just so I can use the infobox template?. ed g2s • talk 16:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you don't use stylesheets you shouldn't expect any layout or formatting whatsoever - which is pretty much what you get when you disable stylesheets on wikipedia. Ideally all formatting data should be stored in a stylesheet, not in the HTML. My version is not incompatible without stylesheets - it just has not style, which is the point of disabling stylesheets. With regards to {{{PAGENAME}}}.jpg , what happens when a person's page is moved for disambiguation? Moving images is not a simple process. Adding image=File:... saves a lot of bother. ed g2s • talk 16:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Those reverts are totally unecessary. If you don't think we should use image=, discuss it in the discussion for the infobox. As it is the image= variable is not affecting the current system and should be left in so that we can switch to this more sensible system. ed g2s • talk 17:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Like I just said - I haven't implemented anything yet - just put in place the variables. ed g2s • talk 17:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You have one opinion, but the community may have another. No one person is right.
- With regards to this - the community seems to be against you on all the issues you have brought up with regards to this box. 3 people have challenged you now on the pagename issue - no one has supported you. Likewise for the quote issue, yet you accuse me of over-ruling the opinion of the community? ed g2s • talk 18:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Infobox Template
James has been editing the template so that it actually works. This is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, and accusing him of vandalism for it is blatantly a personal attack. Stop this and all other forms of personal attacks. Now. Snowspinner 18:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Sort keys
I felt it was ugly, but I've decided to take the issue to Wikipedia talk:Categorization and see what the consensus is. —Morven 19:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Bot?
Where do bots come into it? The Infobox template has not been edited by a bot that I can see. Snowspinner 19:35, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- It looks to me like he used a tabbed browser like Firefox or Safari, and going down the tabs making changes. I've done it before, and usually have edit speeds similar to the ones he displayed. Snowspinner 19:48, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'd start by asking him if he's running a bot. Snowspinner 19:58, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- JamesF doesn't have the technical ability to write a bot, nor do I. Our "bot" is Firefox, tabbed browsing is the quickest way to make multiple edits of the same type, once the pages are prepared, using some keyboard shortcuts (CTRL+TAB, ALT+S) all the pages can be saved one after the other. It can be quite easily proven from the log files that we've never used bots - so I would seriuosly consider you position before digging yourself any deeper into this hole. ed g2s • talk 20:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)