Isn't it time we decided just what is and isn't acceptable on userpages? Hardly a day goes by without some userpage MfD. While common sense would be able to sort this out no problem, that's something people don't seem to posess:
Firstly, there's the issue of inflamatory userboxes. It appears that userboxes supporting American troops in Iraq are acceptable, but userboxes supporting the Iraqi insurgensy aren't. Userboxes supporting the killing of Iraqi insurgents are acceptable, but ones that support the killing of American troops aren't. Surely both the "support" ones should be acceptable, whilst the ones that support killing should be delete. Then there's the ones that advocate peodophilia. Users who have these often argue that we accept homosexual userboxes, which is just a stupid argument, but they don't seem to be able accept that.
Then there's the issue of mimicing mediawiki interface. Surely telling someone they have new messages when they don't is blatant lying? There was a recent ANI post and MfD over this, and now there's an RfC.
---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MFD/User:MQDuck.2Fuserboxes.2FRight_T... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MQDuck/u... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#New_messages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Certifie... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Userbox...
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 12:56 +0000, Phoenix wiki wrote:
Isn't it time we decided just what is and isn't acceptable on userpages? Hardly a day goes by without some userpage MfD. While common sense would be able to sort this out no problem, that's something people don't seem to posess:
[...]
to be able accept that.
Then there's the issue of mimicing mediawiki interface. Surely telling someone they have new messages when they don't is blatant lying? There was a recent ANI post and MfD over this, and now there's an RfC.
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
---- Ian A Holton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poeloq
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 09:19 -0500, Steve Summit wrote:
Ian Holton wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Well, yeah, but if memory serves, that was roughly 45,278 times ago. It really isn't funny any more.
I must have somehow memorised which users have it and I normally check the link before clicking anyway. Seriously, it isn't that hard :P
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
---- Ian A Holton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poeloq
On 19/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Only if you insist on using the monobook skin.
I normally check the link before clicking anyway. Seriously, it isn't that hard :P
But bloody annoying.
Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 19/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Only if you insist on using the monobook skin.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Deceitful, trickery, nasty joke, this message bar. Imagine that it could turn off some newbies.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of AGK Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
I normally check the link before clicking anyway. Seriously, it isn't that hard :P
But bloody annoying.
Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 19/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Only if you insist on using the monobook skin.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of "you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
On Jan 19, 2008 8:31 AM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Deceitful, trickery, nasty joke, this message bar. Imagine that it could turn off some newbies.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of AGK Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
I normally check the link before clicking anyway. Seriously, it isn't that hard :P
But bloody annoying.
Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 19/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first
time
round :)
Only if you insist on using the monobook skin.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/20/08, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of "you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
That would be a solution to "omg poeple keep doing this nasty thing that we've banned but we just can't enforce it!!" It sounds like there isn't even consensus that this behaviour is prohibited. If there is a policy against it, and the policy is failing, then we can look at technical solutions.
Steve
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 14:16 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/20/08, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of "you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
That would be a solution to "omg poeple keep doing this nasty thing that we've banned but we just can't enforce it!!" It sounds like there isn't even consensus that this behaviour is prohibited. If there is a policy against it, and the policy is failing, then we can look at technical solutions.
I really don't get it that this is even an issue. It's a joke, not a very good one but as long as it is kept to people's userpages... Now ppl started doing it in other spaces, that would be a different issue.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Saturday 19 January 2008 21:16, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 1/20/08, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of "you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
That would be a solution to "omg poeple keep doing this nasty thing that we've banned but we just can't enforce it!!" It sounds like there isn't even consensus that this behaviour is prohibited. If there is a policy against it, and the policy is failing, then we can look at technical solutions.
Since policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, if it's "failing" then nothing needs to be done about it at all.
Wikipedia would be a better place if people "got" what policy is all about.
An awful lot of this could be fixed by a policy banning the "sovereign right to take offense." Well, maybe we already have one: "Wikipedia has no taste", er, no, it's this one: "Wikipedia is not censored."
I actually find a lot of the more "controversial" userboxes helpful, if only to suggest potential neutrality issues.
Josh Gordon wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of "you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
Considering how often responses to questions are made on the responder's own page rather than the questioner's that could be useful.
Ec
I don't think that means that it would be possible to see new messages on someone else's page. That seems rather unlikely.
- GlassCobra
On Jan 20, 2008 2:45 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Josh Gordon wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead
of
"you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
Considering how often responses to questions are made on the responder's own page rather than the questioner's that could be useful.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alex Sawczynec wrote:
I don't think that means that it would be possible to see new messages on someone else's page. That seems rather unlikely.
- GlassCobra
Not exactly. Under the present circumstances the preferred way of handling a two way discussion would mean that if I ask a question on your talk page you would respond on mine. The downside of that approach is that the exchange is fragmented in two places, and it gets considerably more complicated if more than two people are involved. What I am suggesting is that you could answer my question on your own talk page, and I would receive some kind of notice that you had answered. This could be either automatic, or it could be based on checking some box to notify the questioner.
Ec
On Jan 20, 2008 2:45 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote
Josh Gordon wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message: instead of
"you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
Considering how often responses to questions are made on the responder's own page rather than the questioner's that could be useful.
Oh, I didn't mean it would show when stuff is posted for you on someone else's talk page; I just mean to make the links in the existing message more visible.
On Jan 21, 2008 11:23 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alex Sawczynec wrote:
I don't think that means that it would be possible to see new messages
on
someone else's page. That seems rather unlikely.
- GlassCobra
Not exactly. Under the present circumstances the preferred way of handling a two way discussion would mean that if I ask a question on your talk page you would respond on mine. The downside of that approach is that the exchange is fragmented in two places, and it gets considerably more complicated if more than two people are involved. What I am suggesting is that you could answer my question on your own talk page, and I would receive some kind of notice that you had answered. This could be either automatic, or it could be based on checking some box to notify the questioner.
Ec
On Jan 20, 2008 2:45 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote
Josh Gordon wrote:
Yeah. An easy solution would just be to personalize the message:
instead of
"you have new messages", it could say "You have new messages at [[User talk:Jpgordon]]".
Considering how often responses to questions are made on the
responder's
own page rather than the questioner's that could be useful.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/22/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Not exactly. Under the present circumstances the preferred way of handling a two way discussion would mean that if I ask a question on your talk page you would respond on mine. The downside of that approach is that the exchange is fragmented in two places, and it gets considerably more complicated if more than two people are involved. What I am suggesting is that you could answer my question on your own talk page, and I would receive some kind of notice that you had answered. This could be either automatic, or it could be based on checking some box to notify the questioner.
Don't you just wish we could yoink the Facebook "wall" and drop it in? It works perfectly. Wall-to-wall lets you view conversations between two participants dynamically.
Actually there's a thought: is there any way to dynamically construct a sensible view of a conversation between two people? For this type of conversation it ought to work ok:
[A's wall] ==Blah== Why the hell did you delete blah? - B :That's a stupid reason -B ::Ok then. - B
[B's wall] ==Blah== Because - A :Just kidding. CSD A7. -A
A dynamic query could just pull out all the diffs to each wall made by the relevant party and assemble them as some series. I guess when people sometimes write on their own wall it wouldn't work as well...but then you wouldn't use that view?
Seriously, how hard would this be?
Steve
On 22/01/2008, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Don't you just wish we could yoink the Facebook "wall" and drop it in? It works perfectly. Wall-to-wall lets you view conversations between two participants dynamically. Actually there's a thought: is there any way to dynamically construct a sensible view of a conversation between two people? For this type of conversation it ought to work ok: [A's wall] ==Blah== Why the hell did you delete blah? - B :That's a stupid reason -B ::Ok then. - B [B's wall] ==Blah== Because - A :Just kidding. CSD A7. -A A dynamic query could just pull out all the diffs to each wall made by the relevant party and assemble them as some series. I guess when people sometimes write on their own wall it wouldn't work as well...but then you wouldn't use that view? Seriously, how hard would this be?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads http://www.wikieducator.org/Talk:LiquidThreads
- d.
I have requested a fix. There should really be no UI spoofing.
Merc
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12693
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of AGK Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:49 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
I normally check the link before clicking anyway. Seriously, it isn't that hard :P
But bloody annoying.
Anthony
User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 19/01/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2008, Ian A Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to keep out of the politics here, but come on: the imitating the "You have new messages" is a practical joke and funny the first time round :)
Only if you insist on using the monobook skin.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Saturday 19 January 2008 12:47, NavouWiki wrote:
I have requested a fix. There should really be no UI spoofing.
Merc
Oh, grow up and get over yourself already.
This is why you were a horrible admin.
Unnecessary uptightness like yours is what's killing Wikipedia.
On 19/01/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2008 12:47, NavouWiki wrote:
I have requested a fix. There should really be no UI spoofing.
Merc
Oh, grow up and get over yourself already.
This is why you were a horrible admin.
Unnecessary uptightness like yours is what's killing Wikipedia.
Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While I disagree with some points Kurt raises, I agree that the users should get over themselves. They're worrying themselves silly over nothing.
Oh Kurt.... Stop pissing all over the place. Address the concern, not the person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Maxwell Weber Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:38 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
On Saturday 19 January 2008 12:47, NavouWiki wrote:
I have requested a fix. There should really be no UI spoofing.
Merc
Oh, grow up and get over yourself already.
This is why you were a horrible admin.
Unnecessary uptightness like yours is what's killing Wikipedia.
On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:20, NavouWiki wrote:
Oh Kurt.... Stop pissing all over the place. Address the concern, not the person.
Except in this case, the concern *is* the person.
On 19/01/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:20, NavouWiki wrote:
Oh Kurt.... Stop pissing all over the place. Address the concern, not the person.
Except in this case, the concern *is* the person.
Ad hominem is bad for the list. Bitching about one's disfavoured admin isn't what the list is for, as a working list for the project. Please desist.
- d.
Is there a moderator about?
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Maxwell Weber Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:31 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:20, NavouWiki wrote:
Oh Kurt.... Stop pissing all over the place. Address the concern, not the person.
Except in this case, the concern *is* the person.
David is a mod and I have a feeing Kurt knows this.
--John Reaves
On Jan 19, 2008 12:40 PM, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a moderator about?
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Maxwell Weber Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:31 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Userboxes
On Saturday 19 January 2008 14:20, NavouWiki wrote:
Oh Kurt.... Stop pissing all over the place. Address the concern, not
the
person.
Except in this case, the concern *is* the person.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Firstly, there's the issue of inflamatory userboxes. It appears that userboxes supporting American troops in Iraq are acceptable, but userboxes supporting the Iraqi insurgensy aren't. Userboxes supporting the killing of Iraqi insurgents are acceptable, but ones that support the killing of American troops aren't. Surely both the "support" ones should be acceptable, whilst the ones that support killing should be delete. Then there's the ones that advocate peodophilia. Users who have these often argue that we accept homosexual userboxes, which is just a stupid argument, but they don't seem to be able accept that.
The answer is, of course, to ban all such userboxes and be done with it. Trying to decide what it is and isn't acceptable to express support for is just asking for trouble.
On Jan 19, 2008 9:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, there's the issue of inflamatory userboxes. It appears that userboxes supporting American troops in Iraq are acceptable, but
userboxes
supporting the Iraqi insurgensy aren't. Userboxes supporting the killing
of
Iraqi insurgents are acceptable, but ones that support the killing of American troops aren't. Surely both the "support" ones should be
acceptable,
whilst the ones that support killing should be delete. Then there's the
ones
that advocate peodophilia. Users who have these often argue that we
accept
homosexual userboxes, which is just a stupid argument, but they don't
seem
to be able accept that.
The answer is, of course, to ban all such userboxes and be done with it. Trying to decide what it is and isn't acceptable to express support for is just asking for trouble.
Yes, he simplest solution would be to ban all boxes not related to Wikipedia or your activity on wiki (such as babel boxes). Though it's pretty easy to tell what's divisive and what isn't (which, I think, is a reason to speedy delete).
--John Reaves
Yes, he simplest solution would be to ban all boxes not related to Wikipedia or your activity on wiki (such as babel boxes). Though it's pretty easy to tell what's divisive and what isn't (which, I think, is a reason to speedy delete).
Pretty much anything can be divisive. Some things are obviously divisive, but there are plenty of less obvious things that some people will be offended by (often legitimately). To use the example already given, supporting the US/UK/etc. troops in Iraq could very easily offend those Iraqi's that are angered by the presence of foreign troops in their country. It's all too easy to dismiss something as not being divisive just because you don't personally know anyone that have strong feelings against it. Because of that, it's best not to even try and just ban all such userboxes.
On Jan 19, 2008 9:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, he simplest solution would be to ban all boxes not related to
Wikipedia
or your activity on wiki (such as babel boxes). Though it's pretty easy
to
tell what's divisive and what isn't (which, I think, is a reason to
speedy
delete).
Pretty much anything can be divisive. Some things are obviously divisive, but there are plenty of less obvious things that some people will be offended by (often legitimately). To use the example already given, supporting the US/UK/etc. troops in Iraq could very easily offend those Iraqi's that are angered by the presence of foreign troops in their country. It's all too easy to dismiss something as not being divisive just because you don't personally know anyone that have strong feelings against it. Because of that, it's best not to even try and just ban all such userboxes.
That's a very good point actually Phoenix-wiki
Well, I'd argue that they should either all be banned or all be allowed - with only specific guidelines, if any, on their actual content (like profanity, images, whatever). Userboxes can serve a useful descriptive purpose and contribute to the task of building the 'pedia by giving you useful information on the editors with whom you work. If you say 'Delete all the ones not related to Wikipedia' then you just shift the arguments into a new pattern without really changing the dynamic. We should accept that we will never all agree on what content is appropriate or inappropriate in userboxes, accept that userboxes have some utility to the task at hand, and agree to squash future drama associated with people objecting to others userboxes.
They are usually not on the talkpage; they don't interfere with communication; having a userbox is descriptive and doesn't change who the editor is or what they believe; you can just ignore them and ultimately knowing someone is a pedophile is better than not knowing.
Nathan