I said the same thing on Kelly's talkpage, but MegamanZero removed my message and warned to block me for trolling.
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w work. If he wants the userboxes gone, let him do it. It's not like he's doing something else -- like working on articles. I think that Jimbo doesn't want to give concrete orders on this issue because he knows that his decission would make him unpopular to many. Instead, he gives a few hints on what should be done and lets other people, like Kelly Martin, to do the work. Jimbo, either you want the userboxes removed -- and make it happen -- or you do not. Until you decide, the userboxes should stay. Why should the community busy itself on debating about this week after week, and causing people to be more confused and frustated about it?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
So basically what you're saying is because Jimbo Wales is busy running things on the WMF board, then the userboxes should stay?
That's a pretty weak argument.
By your logic, if Jimbo can't write articles, why does he make us do them and then get in trouble with the press when controversial issues arise? If he can't do them himself, they should stay unwritten.
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I said the same thing on Kelly's talkpage, but MegamanZero removed my message and warned to block me for trolling.
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w work. If he wants the userboxes gone, let him do it. It's not like he's doing something else -- like working on articles. I think that Jimbo doesn't want to give concrete orders on this issue because he knows that his decission would make him unpopular to many. Instead, he gives a few hints on what should be done and lets other people, like Kelly Martin, to do the work. Jimbo, either you want the userboxes removed -- and make it happen -- or you do not. Until you decide, the userboxes should stay. Why should the community busy itself on debating about this week after week, and causing people to be more confused and frustated about it?
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
So basically what you're saying is because Jimbo Wales is busy running things on the WMF board, then the userboxes should stay?
That's a pretty weak argument.
By your logic, if Jimbo can't write articles, why does he make us do them and then get in trouble with the press when controversial issues arise? If he can't do them himself, they should stay unwritten.
I think his argument, (and if it isn't, it's possibly a stronger argument), is that it's not up to certain un-named admins to delete userboxes on Jimbo's behalf, based only on their interpretation of Jimbo's statements on the issue, because if Jimbo really wanted userboxes to go he'd say so.
--- Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
So basically what you're saying is because Jimbo
Wales is busy running
things on the WMF board, then the userboxes should
stay?
That's a pretty weak argument.
By your logic, if Jimbo can't write articles, why
does he make us
do them and then get in trouble with the press when
controversial issues
arise? If he can't do them himself, they should stay
unwritten.
I think his argument, (and if it isn't, it's possibly a stronger argument), is that it's not up to certain un-named admins to delete userboxes on Jimbo's behalf, based only on their interpretation of Jimbo's statements on the issue, because if Jimbo really wanted userboxes to go he'd say so.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's the main argument. The other argument is that Jimbo is using proxies to do his work, which would otherwise make him a target of criticism. Not that he isn't a target already, but it seems he wants to redirect the criticism onto others.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
That's the main argument. The other argument is that Jimbo is using proxies to do his work, which would otherwise make him a target of criticism. Not that he isn't a target already, but it seems he wants to redirect the criticism onto others.
You have a very very very strange view of the world, my friend.
--Jimbo
Philip Welch wrote:
I think his argument, (and if it isn't, it's possibly a stronger argument), is that it's not up to certain un-named admins to delete userboxes on Jimbo's behalf, based only on their interpretation of Jimbo's statements on the issue, because if Jimbo really wanted userboxes to go he'd say so.
I want people to ask slowly and thoughtfully with deep respect for others, even others with whom they disagree. As far as I can tell, there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace as if they are a normal and proper part of Wikipedia culture. The question is: how do we transition to a better state of affairs while respecting people's legitimate concerns about individuality and so on?
I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work. But, whatever, if people want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it.
However.
The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate.
I suspect this may be a good time to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy again.
AFIK, this proposal seems to offer sensible concessions to both "sides", and to be feasible, and, so far, has gathered considerable support. I'd urge everyone to look it over, add add your comments.
Jesse Weinstein
Interesting. That seems like a very reasonable compromise.
Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)
Jesse W wrote:
I suspect this may be a good time to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy again.
AFIK, this proposal seems to offer sensible concessions to both "sides", and to be feasible, and, so far, has gathered considerable support. I'd urge everyone to look it over, add add your comments.
Jesse Weinstein
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/20/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
I suspect this may be a good time to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy again.
AFIK, this proposal seems to offer sensible concessions to both "sides", and to be feasible, and, so far, has gathered considerable support. I'd urge everyone to look it over, add add your comments.
My name is Tony Sidaway and I agree with this message.
On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I want people to ask slowly and thoughtfully with deep respect for others, even others with whom they disagree. As far as I can tell, there is a strong consensus that having various sorts of advocacy userboxes is problematic, especially when they are promoted in the Wikipedia namespace as if they are a normal and proper part of Wikipedia culture.
No there isn't. More correctly no one seems to be sure how to define advocacy exactly so any possible consensus would be a moot point
I think it is somewhat problematic to have users pasting bits of cruft on their userpage which make them seem to be engaged in Wikipedia as activists for a particular POV. I think users should realize that having that sort of cruft on their userpage will quite rightly diminish other people's respect for you and your work. But, whatever, if people want to do it, I see no reason to get absolutely draconian about it.
It someone admits a POV it makes it much harder for them to push that POV. I fail to see a problem with this
However.
The current situation with these things being in the main Template namespace, and promoted as if healthy and normal in the Wikipedia namespace, is that they are damaging to our culture. They are attracting the wrong sort of people, and giving newcomers the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.
I haven't really seen it. Most of the problem users I've run into lately are the same type I was running into over a year ago. Most new users settle down and edit quietly away. There will always be a few who cause problems.
That's why they need to go. Not to censor people's self-expression, but to make it clear that _as a whole_ the community considers these things to be divisive and inappropriate.
The community doesn't. Bits of it do but at the last count bits of the community considered the following to be divisive and inappropriate:
Userboxes Deleting user boxes IRC You Me [[Brian Peppers]] [[Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg]] [[WP:CVU]]
I think getting rid of that lot would be a mistake -- geni
I'm saying that first of all, he should make a decission -- something he hasn't done yet. He says he wants them gone, but that's different from saying that they should all be removed. Just today I read one of his messages to Angela where he was giving doubts about how to handle the situation. He mentioned something about a bot removing all the userboxes, but only as a solution for the near future. As a leader, he should show more consistency and make a decission that stands. Either that, or listen to the voice of the community. If he does that, he would probably have to keep the userboxes. One way or another, people are getting fed up with this dispute.
--- "Ilya N." ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
So basically what you're saying is because Jimbo Wales is busy running things on the WMF board, then the userboxes should stay?
That's a pretty weak argument.
By your logic, if Jimbo can't write articles, why does he make us do them and then get in trouble with the press when controversial issues arise? If he can't do them himself, they should stay unwritten.
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I said the same thing on Kelly's talkpage, but MegamanZero removed my message and warned to block
me
for trolling.
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w
work.
If he wants the userboxes gone, let him do it.
It's
not like he's doing something else -- like working
on
articles. I think that Jimbo doesn't want to give concrete orders on this issue because he knows
that
his decission would make him unpopular to many. Instead, he gives a few hints on what should be
done
and lets other people, like Kelly Martin, to do
the
work. Jimbo, either you want the userboxes removed
--
and make it happen -- or you do not. Until you
decide,
the userboxes should stay. Why should the
community
busy itself on debating about this week after
week,
and causing people to be more confused and
frustated
about it?
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Either that, or listen to the voice of the community. If he does that, he would probably have to keep the userboxes.
I think if I listen to the voice of the community, I do exactly what I am doing. The community overwhelmingly agrees that these things are a problem, and there is not yet clear consensus on what to do about it.
--Jimbo
Dude, I don't know what he's doing behind the scenes, but I can imagine that he's being 'The Boss'. That, however, doesn't change anything in my argument. How much do you know, tho? I think that as the founder of Wiki, he should have worked A LOT more on articles. I read that he made somewhere below 200 edits on articles, and this is since 2001. That would make it what? About 40 edits in 5 years? Less than four edits per month? Sorry, but my opinion is that he should be a role-model for other editors when it comes to editing. This, however, is another debate. I hope you didn't try to weaken my argument by changing the subject and making me look naive. Even if I were naive, the argument stands.
--- charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
not like he's doing something else -- like working
on
articles.
How much do you actually know about the set-up?
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
Dude, I don't know what he's doing behind the scenes, but I can imagine that he's being 'The Boss'. That, however, doesn't change anything in my argument. How much do you know, tho? I think that as the founder of Wiki, he should have worked A LOT more on articles. I read that he made somewhere below 200 edits on articles, and this is since 2001. That would make it what? About 40 edits in 5 years? Less than four edits per month? Sorry, but my opinion is that he should be a role-model for other editors when it comes to editing.
No we need someone to run the foundation (some decent finacial modeling would be nice the last lot I saw had us haveing 10 times yahoo's traffic within 2 years). Timewise running the foundation is not compatible with dealing with the day to day issues on en.wikipedia.
-- geni
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
I think that as the founder of Wiki, he should have worked A LOT more on articles.
You have this so wrong. Even if his position were like an editor of a newspaper - and in a sense it has become more complex than that, recently - there would be no need to write it himself.
Charles
On 2/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know how to killfile a thread in gmail?
You can use gmail filters to do this, though you can only have 20 of them: https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6579&query=filter&a...
Angela.
"Angela" beesley@gmail.com wrote in message news:8b722b800602191453l64d66851s2eb57d38aaddacff@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/20/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know how to killfile a thread in gmail?
You can use gmail filters to do this, though you can only have 20 of them: https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6579&query=filter&a...
They've silently upped the limit (again :-) because I just counted mine and I have over 30.
Does anybody need a gmail account? I have 100 invites sitting waiting :-)
HTH HAND
If you have something to say to me, just do so. Don't try to provoke me with these pitty insults.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know how to killfile a thread in gmail? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm starting to skip your stuff too. You need to become familiar with Wikipedia and adopt an attitude of cooperative problem solving to participate effectively.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:56 AM, charles matthews wrote:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
If you have something to say to me, just do so. Don't try to provoke me with these pitty insults.
Fine.. You're clueless about Wikipedia and I won't be reading any more of your mails.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If you want to 'skip' someone, just do it. There's no need to hold an announcement about it, just to try to embarrass them. In fact, I find it a bit childish. I'm not clueless about Wiki. I said that Jimbo should first decide on what he wants, then put it into action. Look at the mess he created. This conflict is old and is still going.
Kelly blocked a guy for disruption; and the disruption was when the guy said he would keep his userboxes because he didn't find the term "inflammatory", used by Jimbo, explicative enough. I checked his userpage and I found nothing in disorder. Neither his message, nor his userpage, violated anything, yet he was blocked. Maybe you veterans could explain that to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2...
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I'm starting to skip your stuff too. You need to become familiar with Wikipedia and adopt an attitude of cooperative problem solving to participate effectively.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:56 AM, charles matthews wrote:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
If you have something to say to me, just do so.
Don't
try to provoke me with these pitty insults.
Fine.. You're clueless about Wikipedia and I won't
be reading any
more of your mails.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
While I don't agree with everything you're saying or the way you're saying it, you make one interesting point: if Jimbo just came right out now and said "You are only allowed to have this sort of userbox, and you are only allowed to have x amount of them", this userbox fiasco would come to an end: admins can go around deleting them and all the userbox defenders would have nothing (concrete) to say about it. Conversely, if Jimbo said "all userboxes are fine", the userbox defenders are free to keep their userboxes, the admins will know not to delete anything, and we'll all be fine.
I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know what the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to point to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this whole mess.
I think Jimbo came pretty close to expressing his wishes with the Template CSD, but there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia.
On 2/20/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
If you want to 'skip' someone, just do it. There's no need to hold an announcement about it, just to try to embarrass them. In fact, I find it a bit childish. I'm not clueless about Wiki. I said that Jimbo should first decide on what he wants, then put it into action. Look at the mess he created. This conflict is old and is still going.
Kelly blocked a guy for disruption; and the disruption was when the guy said he would keep his userboxes because he didn't find the term "inflammatory", used by Jimbo, explicative enough. I checked his userpage and I found nothing in disorder. Neither his message, nor his userpage, violated anything, yet he was blocked. Maybe you veterans could explain that to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2...
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I'm starting to skip your stuff too. You need to become familiar with Wikipedia and adopt an attitude of cooperative problem solving to participate effectively.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 1:56 AM, charles matthews wrote:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
If you have something to say to me, just do so.
Don't
try to provoke me with these pitty insults.
Fine.. You're clueless about Wikipedia and I won't
be reading any
more of your mails.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Death Phoenix" wrote
... there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia.
These discussions and evolutions are lengthy, for good reasons. We operate by consensus, not by unanimity, for one thing.
For another thing, the 'community' aspects of WP are the face we show ourselves. The face turned towards the outside world - basically the servers, software development and legal aspects - can throw up problems that are much more pressing.
The only reason I can see that the boxen are possibly a 'defining issue', in some people's minds, is that there is always likely to be a defining issue. The way this has come up seems to me to be largely 'contingent'. I'd be surprised if Jimbo thought otherwise, that this was somehow a growing pain that it was necessary for us to experience. It does feel as if after five years the learning curve of how we live together suddenly has become that much steeper. But it is nothing that the external critics have ever raised. Due caution in coming to judgement on it seems entirely understandable.
Charles
On 2/20/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Death Phoenix" wrote
... there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia.
These discussions and evolutions are lengthy, for good reasons. We operate by consensus, not by unanimity, for one thing.
For another thing, the 'community' aspects of WP are the face we show ourselves. The face turned towards the outside world - basically the servers, software development and legal aspects - can throw up problems that are much more pressing.
The only reason I can see that the boxen are possibly a 'defining issue', in some people's minds, is that there is always likely to be a defining issue. The way this has come up seems to me to be largely 'contingent'. I'd be surprised if Jimbo thought otherwise, that this was somehow a growing pain that it was necessary for us to experience. It does feel as if after five years the learning curve of how we live together suddenly has become that much steeper. But it is nothing that the external critics have ever raised. Due caution in coming to judgement on it seems entirely understandable.
Of course we operate by consensus. I'd have it no other way. However, even assuming that we reach consensus after months of discussion, it will likely take no less than a direct statement from Jimbo to stop any further feudin' and fussin'. There will always be people on the extreme ends of the userbox arguments, and those folks are very unlikely to change their minds regardless of any consensus. How they act (and how we respond) depends on how much "muscle" is behind any userbox decrees. I'd argue that there is nothing more "muscular" than a decree by Jimbo.
Uh-oh. We're going to see a photoshopped picture of Jimbo on Arnold's body in [[User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures]], aren't we?
There was a time in the history of the Roman Empire when the Republic was replaced by the Empire and rule by force rather than by consent began. It was all downhill from then on. Wikipedia would take a pitifully long time to fail.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Death Phoenix wrote:
Of course we operate by consensus. I'd have it no other way. However, even assuming that we reach consensus after months of discussion, it will likely take no less than a direct statement from Jimbo to stop any further feudin' and fussin'. There will always be people on the extreme ends of the userbox arguments, and those folks are very unlikely to change their minds regardless of any consensus. How they act (and how we respond) depends on how much "muscle" is behind any userbox decrees. I'd argue that there is nothing more "muscular" than a decree by Jimbo.
On 2/20/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't agree with everything you're saying or the way you're saying it, you make one interesting point: if Jimbo just came right out now and said "You are only allowed to have this sort of userbox, and you are only allowed to have x amount of them", this userbox fiasco would come to an end: admins can go around deleting them and all the userbox defenders would have nothing (concrete) to say about it. Conversely, if Jimbo said "all userboxes are fine", the userbox defenders are free to keep their userboxes, the admins will know not to delete anything, and we'll all be fine.
I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know what the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to point to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this whole mess.
I think Jimbo came pretty close to expressing his wishes with the Template CSD, but there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia.
I think that this is becoming the only viable solution. However, the userboxen supporters are also the loudest in shouting "Cabal, Cabal!!", and hearkening for the ruin of Jimbo. Just today did I see a userbox comparing him to something out of 1984. In short, they deny everything that Jimbo does for the good of Wikipedia.
These users greatly lose fact of basic Wikipedia principles: that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that you don't have a right to edit, and don't have an automatic right to "free speech". Truly, we have a sort of Wiki-"generation gap." I don't see an end to these issues any time soon.
-- Ben Emmel Wikipedia - User:Bratsche "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees." -- William Blake
Ben Emmel wrote:
I think that this is becoming the only viable solution. However, the userboxen supporters are also the loudest in shouting "Cabal, Cabal!!", and hearkening for the ruin of Jimbo. Just today did I see a userbox comparing him to something out of 1984. In short, they deny everything that Jimbo does for the good of Wikipedia.
These users greatly lose fact of basic Wikipedia principles: that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that you don't have a right to edit, and don't have an automatic right to "free speech". Truly, we have a sort of Wiki-"generation gap." I don't see an end to these issues any time soon.
Certainly not when we have former admins proposing the oustre of Jimbo ([[User:Karmafist/manifesto]]) and his replacement with an "elected executive" whose powers would be limited to managing the servers and basically all the crap Jimbo does now, minus any involvement with Wikipedia. The newbie disconnect is growing, and people who should know better are exacerbating it.
John
On 2/20/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Ben Emmel wrote:
I think that this is becoming the only viable solution. However, the userboxen supporters are also the loudest in shouting "Cabal, Cabal!!", and hearkening for the ruin of Jimbo. Just today did I see a userbox comparing him to something out of 1984. In short, they deny everything that Jimbo does for the good of Wikipedia.
These users greatly lose fact of basic Wikipedia principles: that we are here to build an encyclopedia, that you don't have a right to edit, and don't have an automatic right to "free speech". Truly, we have a sort of Wiki-"generation gap." I don't see an end to these issues any time soon.
Certainly not when we have former admins proposing the oustre of Jimbo ([[User:Karmafist/manifesto]]) and his replacement with an "elected executive" whose powers would be limited to managing the servers and basically all the crap Jimbo does now, minus any involvement with Wikipedia. The newbie disconnect is growing, and people who should know better are exacerbating it.
There seems to have been a rash of those in the past few days - [[User:The Ungovernable Force/manifesto]] is even more extreme - combined with a number of "Userbox Insurgency"-type userboxes. The issue seems to have become less a question of the userboxes themselves and more one of "sticking it to The Man" (in this case, Jimbo).
Kirill Lokshin
A leader cannot be replaced by someone who is not a leader, who most of us don't respect but see as a troublemaker.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 9:03 AM, John Lee wrote:
Certainly not when we have former admins proposing the oustre of Jimbo ([[User:Karmafist/manifesto]]) and his replacement with an "elected executive" whose powers would be limited to managing the servers and basically all the crap Jimbo does now, minus any involvement with Wikipedia. The newbie disconnect is growing, and people who should know better are exacerbating it.
John
On 2/20/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't agree with everything you're saying or the way you're saying it, you make one interesting point: if Jimbo just came right out now and said "You are only allowed to have this sort of userbox, and you are only allowed to have x amount of them", this userbox fiasco would come to an end: admins can go around deleting them and all the userbox defenders would have nothing (concrete) to say about it. Conversely, if Jimbo said "all userboxes are fine", the userbox defenders are free to keep their userboxes, the admins will know not to delete anything, and we'll all be fine.
I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know what the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to point to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this whole mess.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this situation will get worse without a decree from above. And it's not as if there is some obvious consensus about what to do. Any strong decision handed down is likely to have a fair number of people in disagreement.
Steve
On 2/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
While I don't agree with everything you're saying or the way you're
saying
it, you make one interesting point: if Jimbo just came right out now and said "You are only allowed to have this sort of userbox, and you are
only
allowed to have x amount of them", this userbox fiasco would come to an
end:
admins can go around deleting them and all the userbox defenders would
have
nothing (concrete) to say about it. Conversely, if Jimbo said "all
userboxes
are fine", the userbox defenders are free to keep their userboxes, the admins will know not to delete anything, and we'll all be fine.
I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know
what
the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to
point
to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this
whole
mess.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this situation will get worse without a decree from above. And it's not as if there is some obvious consensus about what to do. Any strong decision handed down is likely to have a fair number of people in disagreement.
Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree would have the authority behind it. A great many people disagreed with Jimbo's actions in the pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still carried the weight of his ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether people agreed with his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt with very quickly.
Death Phoenix wrote:
Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree would have the authority behind it. A great many people disagreed with Jimbo's actions in the pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still carried the weight of his ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether people agreed with his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt with very quickly.
Who disagreed with my actions? I know there was some quite justified quibbling on minor points, but the *temporary* and yet *swift* action to put a stop to what was a very bad situation, and to make it clear to people that we should stop and discuss this whole thing rather than having manic wheel wars about it, is as far as I know near universally supported.
Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with more. Old timers will tell you that this is normal. I act slowly and as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a peaceful way to move forward in harmony. Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.
--Jimbo
On 2/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree would have the authority behind it. A great many people disagreed with Jimbo's actions in the pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still carried the weight of
his
ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether people agreed
with
his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt with very quickly.
Who disagreed with my actions? I know there was some quite justified quibbling on minor points, but the *temporary* and yet *swift* action to put a stop to what was a very bad situation, and to make it clear to people that we should stop and discuss this whole thing rather than having manic wheel wars about it, is as far as I know near universally supported.
Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with more. Old timers will tell you that this is normal. I act slowly and as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a peaceful way to move forward in harmony. Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.
Sorry, Jimbo, I meant that the matter was dealt with quickly AFTER you performed your actions. As for the people who disagreed with your actions, I remember there being many people complaining long and loud about it. My point was, regardless of this, things were dealt with quickly. Overall, I approved of your actions (I think I probably approved a little too vigorously on a few talk pages) and I think I'm one of the folks who was hoping for QUICKER action ;-). You don't exercise your authority often, but it is there for you to use if needed. My point is that I think you'll need to exercise it again in the future w.r.t. the userbox issue.
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first, and then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better solutions to the problem. But while we discuss things, could you please tell your admins to stop removing the userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because if they remove the userboxes, then there's little point in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to the so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
Yes, but even with disagreement, such a decree
would have the authority
behind it. A great many people disagreed with
Jimbo's actions in the
pedophile userbox wheel war, but his actions still
carried the weight of his
ultimate authority of Wikipedia. Regardless of
whether people agreed with
his actions or sentiment, the matter was dealt
with very quickly.
Who disagreed with my actions? I know there was some quite justified quibbling on minor points, but the *temporary* and yet *swift* action to put a stop to what was a very bad situation, and to make it clear to people that we should stop and discuss this whole thing rather than having manic wheel wars about it, is as far as I know near universally supported.
Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with more. Old timers will tell you that this is normal. I act slowly and as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a peaceful way to move forward in harmony. Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.
--Jimbo
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first, and then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better solutions to the problem. But while we discuss things, could you please tell your admins to stop removing the userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because if they remove the userboxes, then there's little point in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to the so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this. (If you're not referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.)
John
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first,
and
then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
things,
could you please tell your admins to stop removing
the
userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because
if
they remove the userboxes, then there's little
point
in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
the
so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this. (If you're not referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.)
I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that said: "This user supports the reunification of [[Romania]] and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox by themselves. As for those who have been blocked, see this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2...
That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption. What disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no disruption.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things first,
and
then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
things,
could you please tell your admins to stop removing
the
userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping their userboxes, and for discussing things? Because
if
they remove the userboxes, then there's little
point
in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
the
so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing this. (If you're not referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.)
I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that said: "This user supports the reunification of [[Romania]] and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox by themselves.
That is a polemical userbox (at least, that's what is argued by a number of admins; I don't count myself as one of them, but I don't care whether these userboxes stay or go).
As for those who have been blocked, see this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2...
That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption. What disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no disruption.
Ask Kelly. Don't go behind her back to the mailing list. If she blocks you too, then come here.
John
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
--- John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
I agree with you, Jim. Let's discuss things
first,
and
then see where it goes. Maybe we'll find better solutions to the problem. But while we discuss
things,
could you please tell your admins to stop
removing
the
userboxes and to stop blocking people for keeping their userboxes, and for discussing things?
Because
if
they remove the userboxes, then there's little
point
in discussing the issue. And I'm not referring to
the
so-called "inflammatory" userboxes.
Without examples, this isn't going to go anywhere. It's not like Jimbo knows which of his 800+ admins have been doing
this.
(If you're not referring to polemical userboxes, even I don't know.)
I think that Kelly Martin deleted a userbox that
said:
"This user supports the reunification of
[[Romania]]
and [[Moldova]]." People had to re-add the userbox
by
themselves.
That is a polemical userbox (at least, that's what is argued by a number of admins; I don't count myself as one of them, but I don't care whether these userboxes stay or go).
As for those who have been blocked, see this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_Martin#.E2.80.9CInflammatory.E2...
That guy was blocked for 24-hours for disruption.
What
disruption is that, I ask myself? I see no
disruption.
Ask Kelly. Don't go behind her back to the mailing list. If she blocks you too, then come here.
I did ask her on her talkpage. Others have also asked her. She didn't reply there; instead, she replied here, saying the same thing: that he was being disruptive.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Some people say I act with too much power, some say I need to act with more. Old timers will tell you that this is normal. I act slowly and as little as possible, trying hard to push people on all sides to recognize that among those of us who are here to build the greatest encyclopedia in history and give it away for free, we can always find a peaceful way to move forward in harmony. Noisy harmony *g* but harmony.
Noisy harmony can often be like a brass band that has more brass than band. :-)
Ec
I think he knows that the right solution is for the community to arrive at a policy by the process of consensus. That requires effective participation in policy making at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes
and other appropriate places.
Fred
On Feb 20, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Death Phoenix wrote:
I'm sure that part of the reason he hasn't is because he doesn't know what the right solution is, but the longer he waits, the longer this whole userbox fiasco's going to play out. But signs are really beginning to point to the fact that Jimbo will need to make an official decree about this whole mess.
I think Jimbo came pretty close to expressing his wishes with the Template CSD, but there will likely come a time when we need him to make a stronger and more official statement on Wikipedia.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:09:12 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
If you want to 'skip' someone, just do it. There's no need to hold an announcement about it, just to try to embarrass them
You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because it's attention they crave. On Wikipedia you let people know they are not doing themselves any favours, because you want people to contribute and be productive members of the community. The longer I am around Wikipedia the more I find myself discarding replies unsubmitted, because escalation is not the way to go. Guy (JzG)
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.
Steve
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:
You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. *I* can hear the plonk as they land in the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-) Guy (JzG)
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:
You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile perhaps.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. *I* can hear the plonk as they land in the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-)
Ok, I mean the sense when someone says something trollish, and someone else replies "*plonk*". The entire point is to tell the world that you're now killfiling them. Or so I gather. :)
Steve
On 2/21/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:28:12 +0100, you wrote:
You've missed the point. On usenet you silently plonk trolls because
You know that "silently plonk" is a perfect oxymoron. Silently killfile
perhaps.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. *I* can hear the plonk as they land in the bitbucket, but *they* can't ;-)
Ok, I mean the sense when someone says something trollish, and someone else replies "*plonk*". The entire point is to tell the world that you're now killfiling them. Or so I gather. :)
Yeah, it's an abbreviation for "You're a troll, I am now killfiling you." :-)
The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge, and that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda. Jimbo has right in that some userboxes are unsuited for wikipedia, and thou should be deleted, but the quest to exterminate them should not dissrupt the pedia more than the boxes before did.
Also Jimbo, could you please define what your definition of polemical is, according to wikionary, the definition is "An aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another", where is the line drawn?
On 2/21/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge, and that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda.
You are aware, aren't you, that Jimbo at 18:01 UTC yesterday placed the following notice at the top of [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]]:
"It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."
On 2/21/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Carl Fûrstenberg azatoth@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is that the definition of polemical is rather vauge,
and
that a couple of admins have exploit jimbo's words for their own agenda.
You are aware, aren't you, that Jimbo at 18:01 UTC yesterday placed the following notice at the top of [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs]]:
"It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time."
[[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.
On 2/21/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
[[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.
Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}} anathema does not strike me as a good idea.
-- geni
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}} anathema does not strike me as a good idea.
That said, I'd rather read someone's beliefs and philosophy in their own, considered words.
-Matt
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
On 2/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
I remember when being a deletionist was hard.
-- geni
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
I remember when being a deletionist was hard.
Isn't a deletionist someone who prefers to delete articles?
geni wrote:
On 2/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
I remember when being a deletionist was hard.
You thought being a deletionist was hard!? We mergists had to walk uphill both ways, in the snow!
"Geoff Burling" llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0602212233340.452-100000@joan.burling.com...
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Tony Sidaway wrote:
It beats me why we let this crap fester for so long in the corners of Wikipedia. Time for a Scouring of the Shire.
You obviously don't mind breaking eggs to make an omlet.
You never ate an omelette with egg-shells in (leaving aside the obvious unlikelihood of trying to make an omelette with a **whole** egg :-)?
Yucky :-( like a sand-sandwich...
That's how some parts of Wikipedia are right now.
There is the slightest chance that these particular grains of sand might produce a pearl or two, but it's going to take an awful lot of looking through smelly molluscs to find anything worth keeping :-)
Matt Brown wrote:
On 2/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}} anathema does not strike me as a good idea.
That said, I'd rather read someone's beliefs and philosophy in their own, considered words.
As would I. Proposal:
"Userboxes, consisting of Babel template-like contructs which have one sentance of text describing a user in the third person, are considered plagiarism, copyright infringement, and anyone using them for purposes other than declaring their skills in languages, for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia, will have the 'userbox' deleted, their fingernails pulled out, and their account blocked.
Signed this merry day the 22nd of February, in the year of our Lord 2006,
His Royal Jimboliness, Jimbo Wales"
</parody>
On 2/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
As would I. Proposal:
"Userboxes, consisting of Babel template-like contructs which have one sentance of text describing a user in the third person, are considered plagiarism, copyright infringement, and anyone using them for purposes other than declaring their skills in languages, for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia, will have the 'userbox' deleted, their fingernails pulled out, and their account blocked.
Signed this merry day the 22nd of February, in the year of our Lord 2006,
His Royal Jimboliness, Jimbo Wales"
</parody>
Alternative proposal: In the interests of community harmony, if you would like to state an opinion, membership of a group, or religious affiiliation, we invite you to do so in your own words on your user page. While it is not strictly forbidden to use prefabricated templates, we strongly urge you to consider avoiding doing so.
Steve
"geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote in message news:f80608430602211428u11e0b281wfefb141ac1586adc@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/21/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
[[Snake (The Simpsons)|Alright!]] A sign of things to come, I hope.
Not really. Declaring {{user childless}} and {{User Public Transit}} anathema does not strike me as a good idea.
I don't know about the latter, but I hope they'll let me substitute the former before they nuke it, just in case it might be useful for anyone to know I'm an adoptive father...or is there another category this particular box might be better suited to?
I don't think I'm wrong. I think that as if you're an editor-in-chief for a newspaper, you should have previously worked as a journalist. Or, if you're a coach for a football team, you should have played the sport. I just don't see where Jimbo fits into that picture. Sure, he might be busy today, but in the dawn of Wiki, when there were only a handful of editors, I'm sure he could've found the time to work on a few articles. He even could've started a few articles from the scratch! But hey, there's nothing wrong with being in the spotlight. I would trade with him!
--- charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
I think that as the founder of Wiki, he should have worked A LOT more on
articles.
You have this so wrong. Even if his position were like an editor of a newspaper - and in a sense it has become more complex than that, recently - there would be no need to write it himself.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I said the same thing on Kelly's talkpage, but MegamanZero removed my message and warned to block me for trolling.
If MegamanZero did that, he was wrong. I'll check into it and have a chat with him about this--I'm his former mentor.
He removed it because I wrote that Kelly shouldn't do his [Jimbo's] dirty work. Now that I think of it, it does sound a bit rude, but I don't agree that it was trolling.
--- Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I said the same thing on Kelly's talkpage, but MegamanZero removed my message and warned to block
me
for trolling.
If MegamanZero did that, he was wrong. I'll check into it and have a chat with him about this--I'm his former mentor. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w work. If he wants the userboxes gone, let him do it. It's not like he's doing something else -- like working on
Yes, let's all just pick on Jimbo, rather than having a meaningful discussion.
Steve
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:24:20 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w work.
We are all "doing Jimbo's work". It's his project.
Guy
Is this also a part of Jimbo's work? Someone was blocked for 24-hours for keeping their userboxes on ther userpage. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=...
--- Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:24:20 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
I think that you guys should stop doing Jimbo'w
work.
We are all "doing Jimbo's work". It's his project.
Guy
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:34:04 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
Is this also a part of Jimbo's work? Someone was blocked for 24-hours for keeping their userboxes on ther userpage. Have a look:
For some reason, some users seem to think that provocative userboxen are perfectly acceptable. They often cite "free speech" which is fine, they are more than welcome to go to some other encyclopaedia which guarantees free speech, but this is not that project. Pissing other editors off is a fact of life, going out of your way to do so appears to me to fall somewhat sort of the accepted norms of the project. But what do I know? It's Jimbo's project.
Guy
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:34:04 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=...
Oh, one more thing: the fact that Kelly found it necessary to take that action shows just how poisonous the whole issue is. Right to wrong (and I make no judgment on that) the simple fact that the exchange took place is an indictment of the corrosive nature of the problem.
Guy
Yes, exactly my point. Admins simply enjoy blocking others due to whatever reason they mention. I checked that user's userpage and I found nothing in disorder. I also checked their history. It might be an ugly userpage, but nothing more severe than that. I don't see why he was blocked.
--- Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:34:04 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=...
Oh, one more thing: the fact that Kelly found it necessary to take that action shows just how poisonous the whole issue is. Right to wrong (and I make no judgment on that) the simple fact that the exchange took place is an indictment of the corrosive nature of the problem.
Guy
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:48:59 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
Admins simply enjoy blocking others due to whatever reason they mention.
You might want to rephrase that in more neutral terms. Some if us are admins.
Guy
On Sunday 19 February 2006 17:42, Guy Chapman wrote:
Oh, one more thing: the fact that Kelly found it necessary to take that action shows just how poisonous the whole issue is. Right to wrong (and I make no judgment on that) the simple fact that the exchange took place is an indictment of the corrosive nature of the problem.
Many (myself included) would argue that the problem doesn't exist because of the userboxes, but because of certain individuals with a corncob up their respective asses who have decided that they don't like userboxes, and thus the proper solution is for those individuals to change their behavior rather than do anything with userboxes themselves.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA stated for the record:
Is this also a part of Jimbo's work? Someone was blocked for 24-hours for keeping their userboxes on ther userpage. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=...
Your statement of why he was blocked is incorrect, as anyone actually reading the diff can see.
- -- Sean Barrett | Karaoke bars combine two of the nation's sean@epoptic.org | greatest evils: people who shouldn't | drink with people who shouldn't sing.
On 2/19/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wizzard_bane@yahoo.com wrote:
Is this also a part of Jimbo's work? Someone was blocked for 24-hours for keeping their userboxes on ther userpage. Have a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKelly_Martin&diff=...
--- Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Uh, dear, I blocked him because he is currently disrupting Wikipedia and he has declared his intent to continue disrupting Wikipedia. I haven't even looked at his user page; the words on my talk page were enough to establish that his intent is contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia.
Kelly
On 2/19/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Uh, dear, I blocked him because he is currently disrupting Wikipedia and he has declared his intent to continue disrupting Wikipedia. I haven't even looked at his user page; the words on my talk page were enough to establish that his intent is contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia.
Kelly
1 user page is not wikipedia. Incerdentaly you missed his use of [[Image:CA-NDP-2004-Logo.png]]. -- geni