Sunday, 7 October 2007, David Gerard wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Alex Nordstrom <lx(a)se.linux.org>
wrote:
Well... you'd be surprised. Some people get
quite upset if you
don't bend over backwards to inform them that they forgot to add
the legal information they were told to add when uploading. I've
seen some pretty hostile reactions to Commons user talk pages being
used to discuss Commons matters, even after the user was informed
about Enotif.
Hence you considering starting here with hostility was just the way
to fix this? I must confess, it's not clear how that's actually
supposed to be effective.
I do find the wording of the template and the idea that it represents to
be unreasonable and ineffective, and I won't sugarcoat that opinion,
but I haven't intended to come across as hostile.
I began by making what I intended to be a constructive suggestion for
how to eliminate this template, since the need for anything like it
already has been. Perhaps the wording of it was unnecessarily harsh,
and I do regret following the debate in the direction of whether it's
more rude to have such expectations or to ignore them, rather than
focusing on my original proposition.
Efficiency is less subjective than etiquette, so let's focus on that.
Can we agree on the following points?
* Users shouldn't have to monitor Commons actively.
* Users should not attempt to hinder or discourage discussions on their
Commons user talk pages. They may request notification of such
discussions by some other means, but there should be no obligation to
comply, and any missed messages is the responsibility of the recipient.
* E-mail notifications are technically superior, because they're sent
every time, whereas other notices may be intentionally or
unintentionally overlooked.
--
Alex Nordstrom
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LX
Please do not CC me in followups; I am subscribed to commons-l.