On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
<various multi-level quotes removed>
You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two totally different issues.
Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"? 2) What evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit because of their background? Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing so.
The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and blockable offense no less).
Thank you, that explains it. Promote was indeed the wrong word, but one that is an easy mistake to make when considering matters related to userboxes, as they have a great tendency to provoke such mistakes, blurring as they do the distinctions between userpages and public parts of the wiki, and between public expressions of personal attributes and promotion and advocacy of those attributes. This is yet another reason why userboxes are a troubling thing to both the community and the wiki.
<part of original message removed>
The word promote may not have been the right word, however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has not been rebutted.
I realize this. I have no comment either way on that subject at this time.
I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way.
Understood. But if Wikipedia is not preventing people from editing based on their background, but instead, not providing them with pre-made templates to express one aspect of that background - I don't really see the connection here. You imply that not providing a pre-made template to express every aspect of every contributor would be a violation of our principle of encouraging edits by any serious, good-faith contributor. I don't see where you justify this.
Thanks for the response! Jesse Weinstein