And sometimes admins have a very odd idea of what a certain policy actually
states.
One flaw in the promotion system seems to be there is no real test of
whether an admin understands something as simple as the difference between
"source-based research" vs. "original research". I had to teach one that recently.
Another recent example is the difference between off-site links on talk
pages, and off-site links in article space. We don't treat those situations
identically.
Another is why you should *not* use your admin bit, when you are engaged in
content disputes.
There are admins who behave badly. Although I agree that people complain
when admins "do their job", they also complain when admins act abusively. Many
admins understand, and some do not. Some admins will apologize when faced
with actions which are suspect, and some will not.
The ones whom the community has become annoyed with from time to time, and
who also refuse to apologize or act contritely are the ones that don't bode
well for the project and need a vigilant eye.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
I have a third alternative :)
That some people become admins for the same reason that some people become
cops.
They like the feeling of being in control.
When they discover that sometimes their control interferes with other
peoples' freedom, they can't handle the dissonance.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/1/2008 12:07:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
But, hmm. What's a good way to approach an admin biting n00bs at a
fantastic rate and edging to burnout?>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Humour might work.
Ridicule doesn't seem to be a good way. Sarcasm is a bit too
close-to-the-mark.
Perhaps something like what the Onion Magazine does.
"Wikipedia admins declare war on overuse of the word 'the' "
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/1/2008 11:53:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
A barnturd would reflect the variant, "Don't shit on the newbies." >>
---------------------
Then can we create an award for those awarding barnturds?
I'm thinking, "Don't poke your hemorrhoid with a knife?"
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 01/03/2008, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2008, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:04 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone who rates an obituary in a national newspaper is probably
> > > sufficiently notable to deserve an article. I just started [[Archie
> > > Hind]] from the Guardian obit, and was surprised there was no article
> > > as yet. So if you're bored, go through the obituary archives and see
> > > what Wikipedia's missing.
> > Do we have a list of "possibly-notable people who might die soon"?
> That would be a good thing for wikinews to have (perhaps on the
> private wiki that's been discussed).
> Incidentally, why is this thread on wikimediauk-l?
I blame gmail address autocompletion, myself.
- d.
I accidentally sent with the wrong email address, see quoted text.
The original message was canceled by myself.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00 <thinboy00(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)?
> Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or
> tables) won't load? On second thought, whether they should load in
> that case is debatable.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote:
> > Jimmy Wales schrieb:
> > > Andrew Gray wrote:
> > >> The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't
> > >> include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get
> > >> interestingly creative...
> > >
> > > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
> > > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect
> > > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
> > > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
> > >
> >
> > I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
> > It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
> > as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
> > All images stay per default visible.
> >
> > The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
> > to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
> >
> > Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
> > those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
> > can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
> > with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
> >
> > Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
> > javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
> >
> > If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
> > need to copy my
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
> >
> > After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
> > you should be able to see my compromise at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
> >
> > To implement this compromise, we should think
> > about a more general approach, something like a
> > Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
> >
> > br
> > --
> > Raphael
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Thinboy00> > >> interestingly creative...
> > >
> > > I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary
> > > debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect
> > > actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up
> > > with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
> > >
> >
> > I've tried a new compromise in a sandbox page.
> > It has almost no impact for the pro-image proponents
> > as it only adds an ambox template on top of the page.
> > All images stay per default visible.
> >
> > The ambox at the top of the page is offering our readers
> > to hide all depictions of Muhammad with one click.
> >
> > Since we agreed to have a calligraphy as a lead image,
> > those who don't want to see any depiction of Muhammad
> > can just click the link in the ambox and read our article
> > with all depictions of Muhammad hidden in collapsed tables.
> >
> > Unfortunately this solution needs some additional
> > javascript (collapseAllTables() and expandAllTables()).
> >
> > If you want to see my compromise in action, you'll
> > need to copy my
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/monobook.js
> >
> > After refreshing your browser cache (Shift-Reload),
> > you should be able to see my compromise at
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael1/Muhammad
> >
> > To implement this compromise, we should think
> > about a more general approach, something like a
> > Template:CTbox (CollapseTablesBox).
> >
> > br
> > --
> > Raphael
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Thinboy00
>
--
Sincerely,
T
>
--
Sincerely,
[[User:Thinboy00]]