I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr (which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed dissection.
Ignoring procedural matters (the AC has yet to make policy that it isn't damn sure is already consensus), here's a proposal:
"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy: * Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden. * Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are unlimited. * A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
Cutting the Gordian knot. * de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess; (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars. * The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors. * Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.
Note also that my own userpage would presently fall afoul of this one.
Please discuss.
- d.
I would like to see all userboxes done through substitution instead of making TfD weep openly, which this would do.
-Phil
On Feb 17, 2006, at 10:48 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr (which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed dissection.
Ignoring procedural matters (the AC has yet to make policy that it isn't damn sure is already consensus), here's a proposal:
"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
- Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
- Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
unlimited.
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
Cutting the Gordian knot.
- de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user
civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess; (b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars.
- The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors.
- Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.
Note also that my own userpage would presently fall afoul of this one.
Please discuss.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see all userboxes done through substitution instead of making TfD weep openly, which this would do.
-Phil
Fair use is difficult enough to sort out as it is. If they are useing un subst templates I can kill the fair use vio in seconds. Otherwise I have to go through every person with the image on their user page and ask them to remove it.
-- geni
On Feb 17, 2006, at 11:08 AM, geni wrote:
Fair use is difficult enough to sort out as it is. If they are useing un subst templates I can kill the fair use vio in seconds. Otherwise I have to go through every person with the image on their user page and ask them to remove it.
This could be the proper occasion for a more technical solution to the fair use problem. Something like a checkbox-based flag on image pages to the effect of "this is a free image" and something that forcibly prevents those images from being added or displayed in the userspace.
-Phil
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
This could be the proper occasion for a more technical solution to the fair use problem. Something like a checkbox-based flag on image pages to the effect of "this is a free image" and something that forcibly prevents those images from being added or displayed in the userspace.
-Phil
Maybe but until such code is in place my objection stands.
-- geni
On 2/17/06, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
You're going to want a very watertight definition of a userbox. Which of these are userboxes:
I am Russian.
<big spammy box>I am Russian</big spammy box>
<big spammy box>I am Russian, live with my mother and hate Catholics</big spammy box>
I have many beliefs, including: <small discreet black outline>I don't like pedophiles</small discreet black outline>
etc etc
Steve
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You're going to want a very watertight definition of a userbox.
Indeed. It would be a simple matter to produce a png file containing an image of text and upload it to an image file. It would be a userbox, but not one used by transclusion.
The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing about Irish children in it.
/habj
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Habj wrote:
The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing about Irish children in it.
"A modest proposal" has been overused as the title of an essay. Much as "X considered harmful".
Modest proposals considered harmful? :)
On 2/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Habj wrote:
The title of this email made me stunned. Fortunately, there was nothing about Irish children in it.
"A modest proposal" has been overused as the title of an essay. Much as "X considered harmful".
Modest proposals considered harmful? :)
Well, since the very first "A Modest proposal" proposed that people should start eating babies, I'd say yes :P
On 2/17/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I've suggested this on the workshop page of the Tony Sidaway RFAr (which is basically the AC case that had *better* deal conclusively with the userbox issue) and I present it here for your esteemed dissection.
I't won't it doesn't have enough coverage for that.
"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
- Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
- Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
unlimited.
Are timezones geographic locations?
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD,
Define userbox. Three is excessive and I'm claiming interlectal property rights on the idea of multi issue userboxes (so no one can use it)
: except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
T1 is an abuse of CSD.
Cutting the Gordian knot.
- de: has Babel and location only and has yet to collapse in user
civil war. I deliberately didn't include "and others per community consensus" as (a) purported "community consensus" going against the actual aims of the project was how we got into this mess;
I seem to recall it had something to do with a load of mass deletion reducing the posibilty of rational negotation.
(b) any attempted "community consensus" on the subject of userboxes has become a festering mess of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, getting the vote out, wheel warring, process-addict querulousness versus hipshooting IAR and several multi-volume fantasy epics' worth of flamewars.
Yes it has made AFD seem quite peacful by comparision. Quite an atchivement considering we appear to be being trolled by YTMND at the moment.
- The "or other means" takes care of the userbox warriors.
No it won't. Trust me on this. It will make their rule lawyering more entertaining though.
- Where you take bad userboxes to kill them is spelt out.
Userboxes are not killed. They are baked in an autocave then burried under a mountian along with outher high level waste.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/17/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy:
- Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst
ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden.
- Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are
unlimited.
Are timezones geographic locations?
Yes.
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD,
Define userbox. Three is excessive and I'm claiming interlectal property rights on the idea of multi issue userboxes (so no one can use it)
Can't, you released all rights to them under the GFDL as soon as you put them on Wikipedia.
: except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
T1 is an abuse of CSD.
Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to edit... :)
On 2/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Can't, you released all rights to them under the GFDL as soon as you put them on Wikipedia.
Close but no. GFDL doesn't apply to patents however my previous post counts as prior publication.
Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to edit... :)
So the link to WP:TOOLS is in the sidebar where exactly?
WP:CSD exists to provide highly objective criteria unser which admins can delete in order to take pressure of the various XFD processes. TFD is not overloaded and T1 is insanely objective and badly phrased. For exaple [[Template:Nazism]] is clearly inflammatory.
-- geni
On 2/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 2/17/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> >>"The Arbcom recommends to Jimbo a declaration as policy: >>* Rather than permitting all userboxes and disallowing only the worst >>ones, policy shall follow the model on de: and move to certain >>userboxes being permitted and all others limited or forbidden. >>* Userboxes for human languages spoken and for geographic location are >>unlimited. > > > Are timezones geographic locations? >
Yes.
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD,
Define userbox. Three is excessive and I'm claiming interlectal property rights on the idea of multi issue userboxes (so no one can use it)
Can't, you released all rights to them under the GFDL as soon as you put them on Wikipedia.
: except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
T1 is an abuse of CSD.
Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to edit... :)
Neither is King William II of England, for that matter :D
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk
On 18/02/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to edit... :)
Neither is King William II of England, for that matter :D
Hey, he's safe - 900-year-dead individuals don't vandalise much...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 2/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
Get real. Jimbo hath spoken on thy matter, and polemic or inflamatory templates are fair game, ie. can be shot during hunting season, which on Wikipedia is always. A reminder that Dick Cheney is *not* invited to edit... :)
Neither is King William II of England, for that matter :D
Hey, he's safe - 900-year-dead individuals don't vandalise much...
Shhhh! [[WP:BEANS]]!
-Noda User:CComMack
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
I would think that vocational boxes might be useful. The fact that I was a submariner and am now civilian consultant working with the Navy /is/ relevant to my Wikipedia work, and is only offensive to people who are offended by anything related to the US military.
Not that I have any userboxes related to those professions....
- -- Sean Barrett | Honk if you've never seen a gun sean@epoptic.org | fired from a moving vehicle.
On 2/17/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I would think that vocational boxes might be useful. The fact that I was a submariner and am now civilian consultant working with the Navy /is/ relevant to my Wikipedia work, and is only offensive to people who are offended by anything related to the US military.
Not that I have any userboxes related to those professions....
Then you can use one of your three userboxes to give this information.
-- geni
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140602170748p759daf52s@mail.gmail.com...
- A user may display three other userboxes, whether by template, page
transclusion, code substitution, image or other means. Other userboxes may be subject to deletion discussion on WP:TFD, except those susceptible to speedy deletion under T1."
So am I only allowed to join three WikiProjects, or are we going to be able to signal our membership of such by some "other means"?
What about the fact that I am an Admin? Does that fall within the three? I can see perfectly reasonable usage falling foul of this rather tight limit very speedily indeed :-(
On 2/17/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
So am I only allowed to join three WikiProjects, or are we going to be able to signal our membership of such by some "other means"?
Yes, write your name on the project page, and write the project name on your userpage if you want. It had never occurred to me that I should be required to use a userbox to tell the world which projects I'm a member of.