Hello again,
I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on the associated Talk page, of course.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other people's User pages, as some are doing.
As for my presence on the Wikipedia, my User contributions go back to 8th November 2002. (I made some anonymous edits earlier than that - back to 4th November 2002, the day on which I discovered the Wikipedia.) If you're only seeing a partial list, you're probably only looking at the last fifty, or those in the last few days, or something.
And I repeat, if anyone has any problems with my behaviour, please tell me on my Talk page, or in a private e-mail.
Thanks,
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:22:36AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on the associated Talk page, of course.
Lir is a special case, in that he used his User page to antagonize and piss off a lot of Wikipedians. None of the recent edits in any way attacked Lir personally; they just massaged the material to show how one does things when one DOESN'T think the Wikipedia is just an information dump, when one actually cares about what one is writing, and not just the raw amount of information one dumps.
I have a feeling Lir was trying to get on that list of the top 250 most prolific Wikipedians... Too bad for him it isn't dynamically generated.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other people's User pages, as some are doing.
To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word, especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full history of Lir's actions here.
And I repeat, if anyone has any problems with my behaviour, please tell me on my Talk page, or in a private e-mail.
The only problem so far is your poorly informed defense of Lir. Apart from that, it's good to have you on the Wikipedia.
Cheers!
Jonathan
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 21:35, Jonathan Walther wrote:
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other people's User pages, as some are doing.
To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word, especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full history of Lir's actions here.
You, too are a newbie. And "vandalism" is far too strong a word in 95% of its usage at Wikipedia. Oliver's use is consistent with the Wikipedia norm.
In other words, you sounded a bit high-handed in your response to Oliver. I hope that wasn't your intention.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:37:39AM -0500, The Cunctator wrote:
You, too are a newbie. And "vandalism" is far too strong a word in 95% of its usage at Wikipedia. Oliver's use is consistent with the Wikipedia norm.
In other words, you sounded a bit high-handed in your response to Oliver. I hope that wasn't your intention.
My intention was to get my point across. Yes, you are right that the word "vandalism" has been used far too much; I have been a victim of such accusations frequently when editing articles on religious topics.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:22:36AM +0000, Oliver Pereira wrote:
I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on the associated Talk page, of course.
Lir is a special case, in that he used his User page to antagonize and piss off a lot of Wikipedians. None of the recent edits in any way attacked Lir personally; they just massaged the material to show how one does things when one DOESN'T think the Wikipedia is just an information dump, when one actually cares about what one is writing, and not just the raw amount of information one dumps.
Why not just put your reactions to Lir on his User Talk page rather than his User page.
I have a feeling Lir was trying to get on that list of the top 250 most prolific Wikipedians... Too bad for him it isn't dynamically generated.
This is yet more unsupported speculation.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other people's User pages, as some are doing.
To call those edits "vandalism" is to use far too strong a word, especially from an admitted newbie who isn't familiar with the full history of Lir's actions here.
I don't think that a newbie should be prevented from expressing things as he sees them. I know of no single page that clearly outlines the case against Lir, and allows a newbie or any fair-minded Wikipedian to separate fact from speculation.
Hmmm! It sounds like I'm suggesting policy relating to disciplinary procedures. It could begin with an indictment page on which the complainant states what individual A did wrong, and what should be done about it. I'm afraid that further ideas on this will have to come elsewhere.
And I repeat, if anyone has any problems with my behaviour, please tell me on my Talk page, or in a private e-mail.
The only problem so far is your poorly informed defense of Lir. Apart from that, it's good to have you on the Wikipedia.
Some of Lir's accusers were just as poorly informed as his defenders.
Eclecticology
Oliver Pereira wrote:
I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on the associated Talk page, of course.
I think it best if we don't do this. Having even our own user pages editable in principle by anyone is good for us as a community. One of the important "feelings" to avoid is "ownership of pages"... even user pages.
--Jimbo
Oliver Pereira wrote:
Hello again,
I gather that it the general agreement is that the User pages are for the users' own use, and that it is bad manners for other Wikipedians to edit them. Would it be sensible to formalise this as a definitive rule - in fact, to make the page protected from edits by anyone but the user and the sysops? Anyone who wishes to address the user would still be able to on the associated Talk page, of course.
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement technically, but I think it would be a good move to prevent people from vandalising other people's User pages, as some are doing.
I essentially agree with this view. A user page is about the persona that an individual wants to present to the rest of the Wikipedia world. If that persona includes detailed evidence to establish that the user is an idiot, we have no right to contradict those facts. I would usually never even venture so far as to change spelling or typographical errors on someone's page unless there was expressed permission on the page. This mostly comes from people who are not natve English speakers, and who appreciate corrections.
There is only one instance that comes to mind where I would make minor changes to somebody's user page, and that is to fix broken links or multiple redirects incidental to a change somwhere else on Wikipedia. Even there a piping to the correct title while retaining the appearance of the user page is often to be preferred.
Eclecticology
What about the case where Lir attributed a quote to me on her User page that I never made? Zoe Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:There is only one instance that comes to mind where I would make minor changes to somebody's user page, and that is to fix broken links or multiple redirects incidental to a change somwhere else on Wikipedia. Even there a piping to the correct title while retaining the appearance of the user page is often to be preferred.
Eclecticology
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Zoe wrote:
What about the case where Lir attributed a quote to me on her User page that I never made?
Zoe
You should certainly have a right to defend yourself when attacked personally. A simple "I did not say this" should do or "See the talk page" where a longer response is needed. Ec.
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is only one instance that comes to mind where I would make minor changes to somebody's user page, and that is to fix broken links or multiple redirects incidental to a change somwhere else on Wikipedia. Even there a piping to the correct title while retaining the appearance of the user page is often to be preferred. Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org