Okay. I'm not a Christian. In the discussions where I've noted Cyde's or Gmaxwell's name, I've mostly agreed with them. I generally support the idea of CSD T1. But still...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_Christian&action...
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Oh well, I've substed the template now, so they're free to play with it as much as they like -- it won't show up on anyone's user page any more.
But still, can anyone honestly say that, if those edits were made by a new user, they wouldn't be considered blatant vandalism of the blockable-after-one-warning type?
This really is behavior an admin should engage in. Between this and the rest of the complaints about Cyde on his RfC, it seems to me he's in a hurry to get desysopped. Being funny is not an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia; Cyde should have created this userbox at Uncyclopedia. That Cyde blatantly ignored guidelines and policies on disruption to the point that it is essentially vandalism, altering dozens of userpages with a text box that is not, was not, and never has been on his page, and is completely unapologetic for it, is not funny to me at all. When Cyde became an admin, it was because he said he was done with userboxes. With this and other complaints, I'm increasingly unsure this guy should have a mop.
Ben
On 5/11/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what
is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Oh well, I've substed the template now, so they're free to play with it as much as they like -- it won't show up on anyone's user page any more.
But still, can anyone honestly say that, if those edits were made by a new user, they wouldn't be considered blatant vandalism of the blockable-after-one-warning type?
-- Ilmari Karonen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ben Lowe wrote:
This really is behavior an admin should engage in. Between this and the rest of the complaints about Cyde on his RfC, it seems to me he's in a hurry to get desysopped.
The current RfC was created by a recurrent religious censorship vandal who was upset that I was the one to step forward and block him when other admins wouldn't. If that means I'm in a hurry to get desysopped, then so be it.
That Cyde blatantly ignored guidelines and policies on disruption to the point that it is essentially vandalism, altering dozens of userpages with a text box
I didn't alter anyone's userpage. I only altered one single template. If you don't want your userpage to change in appearance then keep it in your userspace and don't grab all of your content from templates.
that is not, was not, and never has been on his page, and is completely unapologetic for it, is not funny to me at all.
It's a wiki, that means that anyone can edit. There's no requirement that you have to be using a template to be able to edit it. That borders on a violation of WP:OWN. By the same token should I not be able to edit any country articles besides [[United States]] because I don't live in them?
When Cyde became an admin, it was because he said he was done with userboxes. With this and other complaints, I'm increasingly unsure this guy should have a mop.
This past day I have used the "mop" to block over a dozen vandals and clean up vandalism. Guess what I haven't used the "mop" for ... anything that could possibly be considered an abuse.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Ben McIlwain wrote:
I didn't alter anyone's userpage. I only altered one single template. If you don't want your userpage to change in appearance then keep it in your userspace and don't grab all of your content from templates.
You do realize that the same could just as well be said of articles.
Yes, templates are attractive vandalism targets in that they can provide lots of disruption for very little effort. That is *not* an excuse for deliberately disrupting them just to show that you can.
On 5/11/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
I didn't alter anyone's userpage. I only altered one single template. If you don't want your userpage to change in appearance then keep it in your userspace and don't grab all of your content from templates.
You do realize that the same could just as well be said of articles.
Yes, templates are attractive vandalism targets in that they can provide lots of disruption for very little effort. That is *not* an excuse for deliberately disrupting them just to show that you can.
Any edit to a userbox template would create changes to everyone's pages where it's a transinclude. Since userboxes are just for fun anyway, they aren't in any way a serious part of the project, there's nothing wrong with what Cyde did. There are no standards for userboxes. There are no rules for userboxes. There are no requirements for userboxes. The only possible exceptions would be the Babel boxes
G'day Ilmari,
Ben McIlwain wrote:
I didn't alter anyone's userpage. I only altered one single template. If you don't want your userpage to change in appearance then keep it in your userspace and don't grab all of your content from templates.
You do realize that the same could just as well be said of articles.
Yes, templates are attractive vandalism targets in that they can provide lots of disruption for very little effort. That is *not* an excuse for deliberately disrupting them just to show that you can.
I agree entirely. Ben and Greg displayed a remarkable lack of maturity in this issue. I can see how they got a bit carried away after some idiot changed "is Christian" to "claims to be Christian", but deliberate could-be-perceived-as-vandalism[0], complete with rotating crucifix[1], was quite disgusting behaviour for an admin.
I'll give Greg a comparative pass on this one, since a) he's not an admin, b) he's not as controversial as User:Cyde. However, he *is* a well-respected and otherwise excellent Wikipedian, and it's just sad to see him stoop to something like this.
[0] I'll leave the wikilawyering and the "technically, this violates section x, paragraph a, subparagraph ii" to someone else, but I've got to sneak the word "vandalism" in *somehwere*.
[1] I know what Cyde was aiming for: "seeing from all angles", etc. But the end result was simply offensive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I agree entirely. Ben and Greg displayed a remarkable lack of maturity in this issue. I can see how they got a bit carried away after some idiot changed "is Christian" to "claims to be Christian", but deliberate could-be-perceived-as-vandalism[0], complete with rotating crucifix[1], was quite disgusting behaviour for an admin.
...
[1] I know what Cyde was aiming for: "seeing from all angles", etc. But the end result was simply offensive.
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
For what it's worth, I guess you could consider this Wikipedian space-training, because in space, there is no up, and you are liable to routinely see things from all angles.
That's me, always thinking ahead. Yup.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
G'day Ben,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I agree entirely. Ben and Greg displayed a remarkable lack of maturity in this issue. I can see how they got a bit carried away after some idiot changed "is Christian" to "claims to be Christian", but deliberate could-be-perceived-as-vandalism[0], complete with rotating crucifix[1], was quite disgusting behaviour for an admin.
...
[1] I know what Cyde was aiming for: "seeing from all angles", etc. But the end result was simply offensive.
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
For what it's worth, I guess you could consider this Wikipedian space-training, because in space, there is no up, and you are liable to routinely see things from all angles.
That's me, always thinking ahead. Yup.
Watch my sides split.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Ben,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
I agree entirely. Ben and Greg displayed a remarkable lack of maturity in this issue. I can see how they got a bit carried away after some idiot changed "is Christian" to "claims to be Christian", but deliberate could-be-perceived-as-vandalism[0], complete with rotating crucifix[1], was quite disgusting behaviour for an admin.
...
[1] I know what Cyde was aiming for: "seeing from all angles", etc. But the end result was simply offensive.
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
You have to know, that Cyde shows disrespect towards all religions, beside his own. His creed is "freedom of speech", he holds publishing profanity sacred and blocks editors for "censorship", who try to incorporate decency, when in fact he considers their actions blasphemous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goatse.cx&diff=prev&oldid=...
On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:15:34 +0200, you wrote:
You have to know, that Cyde shows disrespect towards all religions, beside his own. His creed is "freedom of speech", he holds publishing profanity sacred and blocks editors for "censorship", who try to incorporate decency, when in fact he considers their actions blasphemous.
Alternate hypothesis: Cyde is unwilling to allow POV pushers (of any type) to prevail against consensus.
Guy (JzG)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
And I didn't "mock" it, I just rotated the canvas ninety degrees thrice.
That's the problem with this religious stuff. It's entirely subjective and inappropriate for use as, say, a deletion criteria. Which is exactly what some people are trying to use it for.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
-Swatjester
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
And I didn't "mock" it, I just rotated the canvas ninety degrees thrice.
That's the problem with this religious stuff. It's entirely subjective and inappropriate for use as, say, a deletion criteria. Which is exactly what some people are trying to use it for.
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEZKIkvCEYTv+mBWcRAqnvAJ9SSmDglXouLs83sSROz7BBSGyK/gCgkPgO MDnJEYQlGA/Z/lqnpDIEMbA= =o2wY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
What's your take on the "OMG it's a big ass *animated GIF*! With extra blink! In a userbox!" argument?
My personal opinion on that image is that it's useful for no purpose other than vandalism, and ought to be speedied as such -- regardless of its subject matter.
On 12/05/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
What's your take on the "OMG it's a big ass *animated GIF*! With extra blink! In a userbox!" argument?
"Big-ass GIF images" have no place on the web, let alone a website that tries to convince people it's a serious attempt at collating information and making it available to others.
Rob Church
On 5/12/06, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
It's extremely well known that any depiction of Mohammed is offensive. I've never heard of anyone specifically referring to cross spinning as offensive.
There are other differences: I don't believe the cartoons were originally meant to offend Muslims as the primary goal, and certainly their republication in places like Wikipedia wasn't. However I imagine that the whole incident with the Christian userbox was intended to annoy/offend/irritate its users, ie. Christians.
Steve
G'day Dan,
[top-posting isn't offensive, but it *is* annoying ...]
Cyde brings up a very very good point. What your religion may perceive as "mocking" and "offensive", my religion, or Cyde's, may not. I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is different than the Muhammed Cartoons: the argument there is "omg it's blasphemous and disrespectful to show muhammed" and here it's "omg it's blashphemous and disrespectful to make a cross spin around".
Context is king. We have an article about the cartoons incident because it's notable, and in the article it's only sensible that we'd have an image (or at least a link to an image) of the cartoons. We would not, however, be at all impressed if someone created a userbox with a drawing of Mohammed, particularly if the userbox's creator went on to make offensive statements about Muslims.
Likewise, an article about Satanism or the Cross of St Peter would probably include an upside-down cross. Indeed, if Cyde founded a religion tomorrow which featured as its major symbol a rotating crucifix, and it one day became notable ... including that image would be acceptable as a matter of course.
When writing articles, editorial concerns trump personal feelings (NPOV, yes?). When vandalising userboxen, use some fucking common sense.
I'd say there are two different issues here. One is the Muhummad cartoons - yes, those are offensive, and they are meant to be offensive. Whether they belong in Wikipedia or not is another issue.
Ben's rotating cross may or may not be meant to be offensive - I'll take his word on it that he didn't mean it to be offensive. All angles is actually kind of clever. And as to an upside down cross being an offense to Christianity - maybe you should have told that to Peter. Surely he's a great offense to Christians everywhere. After all, we should never trust the person Jesus selected, the rock upon which he built his church.
For that matter - the cross is meant to be offensive. It's an instruments of torture and execution. Symbol of the rejection and execution of Jesus. It's supposed to shock you.
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guettarda wrote:
Ben's rotating cross may or may not be meant to be offensive - I'll take his word on it that he didn't mean it to be offensive. All angles is actually kind of clever. And as to an upside down cross being an offense to Christianity - maybe you should have told that to Peter. Surely he's a great offense to Christians everywhere. After all, we should never trust the person Jesus selected, the rock upon which he built his church.
For that matter - the cross is meant to be offensive. It's an instruments of torture and execution. Symbol of the rejection and execution of Jesus. It's supposed to shock you.
I will agree here. Personally I find the whole symbol ridiculous. Especially the really explicit ones with Jesus still on it and the painted on leaking blood from the Longinus wound and hands and feet. Why you would want something like that in your house or around your neck is beyond me. But I never say anything about it and I don't try to force other people to get rid of it. My animated cross is a lot less explicit than some of the other ones out there.
- -- Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
G'day Ben,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
Oh, bravo. No, you're not out to offend *anyone*. You don't see how any of this could *possibly* be offensive. For Pete's sake!
I have some respect for your intelligence (more, it seems, than you have for mine, or that of anyone else who has complained at you), so I can only assume you're engaging in yet more immature trolling. Consider this my own special brand of AGF.
And I didn't "mock" it, I just rotated the canvas ninety degrees thrice.
And a drawing of Mohammed with the caption "You Muslims think you're so great, well how do you like this?" isn't mocking, either ... it's just a few lines on a page. It's funny how, if you break something down in *just* the right way, you can say whatever you want and give it the ring of truth.
That's the problem with this religious stuff. It's entirely subjective and inappropriate for use as, say, a deletion criteria. Which is exactly what some people are trying to use it for.
I don't see what that has to do with you and Greg vandalising a page on Wikipedia. If it had been anyone else, they'd have been (at the very least) given a short block and a ding around the ear. But you spread your hands and say "what's all the shouting about? It's not like I did anything *wrong*."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ben McIlwain stated for the record:
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
This statement is clearly intended to insult and offend. I recommend that you conceal your malice a little more effectively, Ben.
- -- Sean Barrett | There is more stupidity than hydrogen sean@epoptic.org | in the universe, and it has a | longer shelf life. --Frank Zappa
On May 12, 2006, at 9:16 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
This statement is clearly intended to insult and offend. I recommend that you conceal your malice a little more effectively, Ben.
You know, one thing I like more than anything is waking up in the morning to an exchange of snarky, one-to-two line remarks on the listserv.
Not to point you two out, since everyone on this list (myself included) seems guilty of this crap. But it's pretty damn pointless, and we should all show more self-control and restraint in the future.
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just not seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or annoying, but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
<snip>
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
I don't worship icons either. I'm completely atheist, but I would never DREAM of mocking it. It's simple human decency not to mock something that many people love, and worship. It is, at the very least, a massive breach of WP:CIVIL.
And even if I'm not religious and don't get personally offended by mockery of religious symbols, there are many things that if mocked I would get enourmously offended by. For instance, I'm swedish, and if anyone says a cross word about Anna Lindh (our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who were murdered a couple of years ago), I'm gonna punch him out. I'm sure americans say the same thing about, for instance, the people who died on 9/11. I'm sure you have a number of things to that you wouldn't want mocked, but that other people may not care about.
Also, as Mark Gallagher said, there is a HUGE difference between this and the Mohammad Cartoons. Those were for an article on a very notable event that demanded that the images were displayed for context. You were mocking the worlds largest religion, just for fun.
We're talking simple human decency and civility here. You need to apologise.
--Oskar
On 5/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just
not
seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or
annoying,
but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
<snip> > Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
I don't worship icons either. I'm completely atheist, but I would never DREAM of mocking it. It's simple human decency not to mock something that many people love, and worship. It is, at the very least, a massive breach of WP:CIVIL.
And even if I'm not religious and don't get personally offended by mockery of religious symbols, there are many things that if mocked I would get enourmously offended by. For instance, I'm swedish, and if anyone says a cross word about Anna Lindh (our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who were murdered a couple of years ago), I'm gonna punch him out. I'm sure americans say the same thing about, for instance, the people who died on 9/11. I'm sure you have a number of things to that you wouldn't want mocked, but that other people may not care about.
Also, as Mark Gallagher said, there is a HUGE difference between this and the Mohammad Cartoons. Those were for an article on a very notable event that demanded that the images were displayed for context. You were mocking the worlds largest religion, just for fun.
We're talking simple human decency and civility here. You need to apologise.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm sorry Oskar but I don't see a difference. The muhammed cartoons were offensive because they depicted Muhammed. That's what I've always heard the controversy to be about: any graphic depiction is blasphemous. The cross is as well a religious symbol. in this case, a slightly modified picture is being considered "blasphemous". I think there is a difference between "mocking" and "satire", but it's very slight. Perhaps I'm viewing this all wrong, I don't know. Oh and if anyone is going to reply to this, odds are I won't be able to respond until tuesday, sorry.
-Swatjester
The point is, we have the Mohammad Cartoons are for an article. It is crucial for the context of the article, and it's a better article for it. We have plenty of other very offensive images illustrating articles that are equally crucial, for instance the images depicted in [[Hogtie bondage]] are very disturbing to me, and I imagine to a large number of other people. They do however illustrate the concepts very clearly and the articles are much better for them. The same with the Muhammad Cartoons-image, the article simply wouldn't be as good without it.
However this wasn't for an article. This was for a userbox. This was mocking for mockings sake, the only purpose it served was to make fun of a belief shared by a huge number of wikipedians, and indeed to the largest religion in the world. It is simply not ok to act like that on wikipedia.
All of us wants the best encyclopedia possible. We are all working towards the same goal. We need to show respect for our peers, no matter if we disagree with them. This kind of school-yard bully behaviour is not worthy of a Wikipedian.
--Oskar
PS. Don't worry about not responding right away, that's no problem. We all have real lifes too, and it's perfectly reasonable that not everyone can spend all their time on the mailinglist :P
On 5/14/06, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Ben wrote:
I've heard a lot of people claiming that it's offensive but I'm just
not
seeing it. How is it offensive? All of the Christians I personally know who I've pointed it out to thought it was either funny or
annoying,
but not offensive.
Mocking the cross? You can't see what's wrong with that?
I don't worship icons, so no, I really don't see what's wrong with it.
<snip> > Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
I don't worship icons either. I'm completely atheist, but I would never DREAM of mocking it. It's simple human decency not to mock something that many people love, and worship. It is, at the very least, a massive breach of WP:CIVIL.
And even if I'm not religious and don't get personally offended by mockery of religious symbols, there are many things that if mocked I would get enourmously offended by. For instance, I'm swedish, and if anyone says a cross word about Anna Lindh (our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who were murdered a couple of years ago), I'm gonna punch him out. I'm sure americans say the same thing about, for instance, the people who died on 9/11. I'm sure you have a number of things to that you wouldn't want mocked, but that other people may not care about.
Also, as Mark Gallagher said, there is a HUGE difference between this and the Mohammad Cartoons. Those were for an article on a very notable event that demanded that the images were displayed for context. You were mocking the worlds largest religion, just for fun.
We're talking simple human decency and civility here. You need to apologise.
--Oskar _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm sorry Oskar but I don't see a difference. The muhammed cartoons were offensive because they depicted Muhammed. That's what I've always heard the controversy to be about: any graphic depiction is blasphemous. The cross is as well a religious symbol. in this case, a slightly modified picture is being considered "blasphemous". I think there is a difference between "mocking" and "satire", but it's very slight. Perhaps I'm viewing this all wrong, I don't know. Oh and if anyone is going to reply to this, odds are I won't be able to respond until tuesday, sorry.
-Swatjester _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Independently of the stunt being discussed here, a group of us have chanced our collective arm that there is now enough consensus, on the talk page and elsewhere, to alter the wording of T1. T1 is now elaborated and clarified in a way that expressly allows for speedy deletion of such userboxes. I hope that the wording will stick but that admins will show some sensitivity, e.g. transcluding (or whatever the hell that word is) boxes before zapping them.
Under the new wording - if it does stick - the deletion of the User: Christian template is supportable, but I'm really quite dismayed by the antics involving it overnight my time. Some people on this list might want to see the comments being expressed in the deletion review, and to make comments of their own about what has been done, both by the group involved with this template and by those of us who thought T1 needed to be changed.
Russell
On 5/12/06, Russell Blackford russellblackford@bigpond.com wrote:
Independently of the stunt being discussed here, a group of us have chanced our collective arm that there is now enough consensus, on the talk page and elsewhere, to alter the wording of T1. T1 is now elaborated and clarified in a way that expressly allows for speedy deletion of such userboxes. I hope that the wording will stick but that admins will show some sensitivity, e.g. transcluding (or whatever the hell that word is) boxes before zapping them.
Under the new wording - if it does stick - the deletion of the User: Christian template is supportable, but I'm really quite dismayed by the antics involving it overnight my time. Some people on this list might want to see the comments being expressed in the deletion review, and to make comments of their own about what has been done, both by the group involved with this template and by those of us who thought T1 needed to be changed.
Russell
There are ways to do things without changing the wording on a Speedy. If the debate based consensus on a topic is not clear how do you justify making up an objective criteria that will be accepted by editors who see the large amount of power in a criterium that only has to be agreed upon by a single admin in the end, no questions asked. (unless someone puts it to DRVU, which they did in this case)
Peter
On 5/12/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
This past day I have used the "mop" to block over a dozen vandals and clean up vandalism. Guess what I haven't used the "mop" for ... anything that could possibly be considered an abuse.
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
Stop. Just stop. Enough is enough.
First of, I'm not a christian, I'm an atheist. I also hate userboxes, I think they're ugly and clmusy, and in the case of CSD T1 userboxes, they are downright harmful (which is why CSD T1 is really great).
However I don't mind people who are religious, nor do I mind people who think userboxes are nice. In a democratic society, and in wikipedia too, the philosopher Jagger got it right: You can't always get what you want.
Userboxes are here to stay. Face facts and STOP BEING DISRUPTIVE! There is a backlog of more than 15000 articles at WP:CU. Go be useful.
Also, as userboxes go, this is one of the most sensible ones. It clearly makes its point and it clearly is NPOV. To say otherwise is wikilawyering at best and WP:POINT at worst.
--Oskar
PS. I realise upon rereading my mail that it might be construed as if I were equating belief in christianity with people who like userboxes. It was not my intention, I have the utmost respect for people of all faiths (exepts Scientologists, they're just wierd)
<snip> Userboxes are here to stay. Face facts and STOP BEING DISRUPTIVE! There is a backlog of more than 15000 articles at WP:CU. Go be useful. --Oskar
The very recent changes put in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#Templates CSD of, "User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory." will require a lot of cleanup if it sticks, hundreds (thousands?) of templates meet these new critera.
-- xaosflux
XaosFluX wrote:
The very recent changes put in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#Templates CSD of, "User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory." will require a lot of cleanup if it sticks, hundreds (thousands?) of templates meet these new critera.
Well, I still have my script ([[User:Ilmari Karonen/userboxes.js]]) and Pathoschild's page still has his AWB ruleset. There's no real reason we can't subst them all. All we need is a couple of users to help run the script. Damn good way to inflate your edit count, too. ;-)
Ilmari Karonen schrieb:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Oh well, I've substed the template now, so they're free to play with it as much as they like -- it won't show up on anyone's user page any more.
But still, can anyone honestly say that, if those edits were made by a new user, they wouldn't be considered blatant vandalism of the blockable-after-one-warning type?
No, they'd still qualify for a good laugh. Just as this dialogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.141.161.182
I'm not an english native speaker, but I see a _fine_ difference between "I am a christian" and "This user is a christian".
elian PS: This user is a hypocrite.
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Ilmari Karonen schrieb:
But still, can anyone honestly say that, if those edits were made by a new user, they wouldn't be considered blatant vandalism of the blockable-after-one-warning type?
No, they'd still qualify for a good laugh. Just as this dialogue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.141.161.182
Point taken, but you'll note the edit you cited was reverted and the user was warned about it. Presumably, had they continued making such edits, they would've been blocked like any other silly vandal.
They also added a {{spoiler}} tag; not a bloody huge animated GIF.
On 5/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Guy (JzG)
Did you take this attitude when he was pulling all those stupid stunts on april 1st? This is hardly the first time that Cyde has demonstrated he is less than total responcible.
On 12/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:24:54 +0300, you wrote:
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
I, on the other hand, laughed out loud at that. Quality satire :-)
Guy (JzG)
Did you take this attitude when he was pulling all those stupid stunts on april 1st? This is hardly the first time that Cyde has demonstrated he is less than total responcible.
I don't think it's wise to pull April 1st into this. We know that Wikipedia is full of idiots who decided to take the opportunity of the day's tradition to undo a lot of other people's hard work, even for a few minutes, in the name of humour. Out-of-control behaviour like that doesn't help our public relations; it would have been more effective if one main prank had been sanctioned by the community as a whole.
Rob Church
On 5/11/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Okay. I'm not a Christian. In the discussions where I've noted Cyde's or Gmaxwell's name, I've mostly agreed with them. I generally support the idea of CSD T1. But still...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_Christian&action...
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
Absolutely. This was not acceptable behavior, as it seems to have been a bit of personal indulgence that impacted on the appearance of hundreds of user pages.
On 5/11/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Okay. I'm not a Christian. In the discussions where I've noted Cyde's or Gmaxwell's name, I've mostly agreed with them. I generally support the idea of CSD T1. But still...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_Christian&action...
If this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, I don't know what is.
Oh damn. We've forgotten what proper decorum is, apparently.
If you're going to axe a random userbox, go ahead and axe it; but at least spare us the embarrasement of having to watch two admins edit-warring with an editor who has about a hundred edits to his name.