Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Thanks in advance, -Luna
On 20/11/2007, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Absolutely. This is a WP:BITE and important public relations issue. Let's make it so. Increase the general civility level.
- d.
On 20/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/11/2007, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Absolutely. This is a WP:BITE and important public relations issue. Let's make it so. Increase the general civility level.
I've made the change and noted it on WP:ANI.
- d.
Luna wrote:
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Thanks in advance, -Luna _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Looks good to me :)
-G Donato
On 20/11/2007, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Thanks in advance, -Luna
Seems reasonable. Other parts of the page could perhaps do with a trim but thats a separate issue.
On 20/11/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/11/2007, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Usually, when I post to a talk page proposing some changes, and nobody responds, I wait a bit and implement the change to see if that gets any attention. But, on a prominent MediaWiki page, I suppose I should poke around a bit. Anybody care to comment on this thread? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
Seems reasonable. Other parts of the page could perhaps do with a trim but thats a separate issue.
The rest of the text could really do with condensing, yeah. You see a slab of text like that and just think "tl;dr".
- d.
On 11/21/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The rest of the text could really do with condensing, yeah. You see a slab of text like that and just think "tl;dr".
Here's some odd text:
"You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them."
1) Is there a difference between "edit" and "change"? 2) I find the "them" really weird. "You can eat the cake, but cannot bake it."
Suggestion:
"You can still browse Wikipedia, but cannot edit pages or create new ones."
Steve
Thanks, everybody, I appreciate the positive feedback. :)
On Nov 20, 2007 7:33 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
"You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them."
- Is there a difference between "edit" and "change"?
- I find the "them" really weird. "You can eat the cake, but cannot bake
it."
I think I grabbed the particular wording from somewhere, figuring that a full platoon of people had already argued over it, for months, at some point. ;) It's important to remember we may be dealing with people who are completely new to Wikipedia, who may not be familiar with some terms we would consider common, and who may not even have been aware they were trying to edit a page (redlinks still go to Blockedtext).
"Them" seems right, since we're looking at a plural noun... I think, but I make my share of grummur mistakes.
One other thing that may be worth discussing, in the "Oops! You are currently unable to..." -- the "Oops." Good idea, bad idea? I personally like it as an opening, it's not entirely professional, but that gives it a personal appeal, it's disarming and alerts people that something is out of the ordinary. Can see why people might object (and at least one has).
Other than that, several people have suggested the page in general is a bit long, and could do with some reduction. Anybody care to take a stab at that?
On 11/21/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
"You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them."
"Them" seems right, since we're looking at a plural noun... I think, but I make my share of grummur mistakes.
That's not what I was getting at. I just find the juxtaposition of "read" and "create" odd - because in the second case, the page doesn't exist, so how could you have read it? It's like "can you put the lights and the cat out?" - to some people it seems really strange, other people find it ok.
When I read it now, it seems less strange than it did before, so it's probably ok.
One other thing that may be worth discussing, in the "Oops! You are currently unable to..." -- the "Oops." Good idea, bad idea? I personally like it as an opening, it's not entirely professional, but that gives it a personal appeal, it's disarming and alerts people that something is out of the ordinary. Can see why people might object (and at least one has).
All that is good - though not necessarily consistent with our tone elsewhere. The downside though is that we're really using it to mask our ignorance: we actually don't know whether we meant to block this user or not. If possible, we should be very upfront about that.
Perhaps a frowny face :( would convey a similar idea. "You're blocked, and that sucks" kind of idea. Because it *does* suck, either because they were naughty, or because they weren't.
Steve
On 21/11/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
That's not what I was getting at. I just find the juxtaposition of "read" and "create" odd - because in the second case, the page doesn't exist, so how could you have read it? It's like "can you put the lights and the cat out?" - to some people it seems really strange, other people find it ok.
Ah, a chance for a gratuitous Flanders & Swann quote!
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/havesome.htm
"he said as he hastened to put out the cat, the wine, his cigar and the lamps" "She lowered her standards by raising her glass, her courage, her eyes and his hopes" "she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door"
:-)
On Nov 20, 2007 1:11 AM, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#Revamp_of_header.3F
I feel qualified to weigh in on this as I've probably had my screen flooded by the "user is blocked" text at least as many times than anyone here.[1] First of all, the "blockedtext" page is largely TL;DR, and has been for quite some time. While I probably wouldn't complain if somebody took a chainsaw to it in the meantime, I think the most widely favorable solution would be to re-examine the core purpose(s) of the page -- to inform the user...
1. You are blocked (not "your editing is disabled" or "your parrot has snuffed it" or any other sugary euphemism). 2. A brief(!) description of what it means to be blocked. 3. Who blocked you, for how long, and for what purported reason (for this, I think simply mirroring the relevant block log entry would be worth a thousand words. Do we have enough variables to do that now?) 4. Whether we owe you an apology or vice versa (this would usually be easier to extrapolate from #3, rather than by reading a vague description of every possible scenario). 5. Whether anything can be done about it (again, this question is too open-ended to answer on one general-purpose page).
Thoughts?
—C.W.
[1] If a tree falls... err, I mean... If you fire random shots into a forest and cause trees to fall, is this "collateral damage"? Note that this is another profanely euphemistic term we ought to avoid using in any correspondence with the affected party, much less on the blockedtext page.