Sunday, 7 October 2007, David Gerard wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Alex Nordstrom lx@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.