|
|
| The big yellow "you have new messages" banner was created for a reason. If you want my attention, edit this page. If I want your attention, I will edit your page. If I just want to reply out of politeness, I'll do it here and save interrupting whatever you're doing... if you're interested in what I said, watch this page and find out. If I'm keen to see your response, I will be watching your talk page, or wherever I suspect you might post it. But if you have something to say you think I need to read, the big yellow banner is kind of hard to miss... |
|
|
Boldness
While I applaud boldness, in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we're now in the third phase – discussion. I've reverted your change to Common.css. As TheDJ pointed out on the talk page, adding even more code to an already-huge page for 1 out of 13 million pages is debatable. (And in my view and the view of others, simply silly to do.) I have no problem with people wanting to implement change around here, but when things like the Main Page are suddenly broken due to a hastily implemented change to the links (/cough/ /cough/), it becomes a bit of a bigger deal. Change is good, but only after a reasonable level of discussion has taken place for big changes where people can point out issues or object outright. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be irritated and snide first: you are fully aware that the two actions you mention (me breaking the main page and this edit to CSS) are entirely unconnected, so it does you no service to draw one into the other. Polite abuse is entirely expected when someone screws up like that, and I naturally got my fair share for an entirely stupid accident. But the whole point of the trout is to recognise honest mistakes and rely on embarassment to make people not make them again. You know that the CSS change is a completely different kettle of fish, so keep the two apart - you can't use one to make the other "a bigger deal" just because they are both tangentially connected to the Main Page, and you can't even say that they demonstrate a chain of stupid mistakes because only one actually broke anything.
- Having got that off my chest, and please don't take more than a few minutes offence (yes, I am bitching at you, but my general respect for you as an editor is undiminished); to business. While there has been general comment several times at Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal about skinning the Main Page (or a future version thereof) I agree that there are concerns to be addressed, and it is not a clear-cut cost/benefit analysis. The only question is where to have said discussion: there are a number of people on that talk page who would be very interested in participating; shall I attract their attention to MediaWiki talk:Common.css or should the discussion there move to the redesign page? I'd personally advocate the former for a more balanced discussion. Cheers, Happy‑melon 21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. It's always interesting to find replies days later. It brings an entirely different perspective to the situation, I've found. The topic I was bringing up (which I aptly made the header for the discussion) was boldness, more than anything else. While the Main Page edits were mistakes, they could've been avoided. As could have the edits to Common.css. Which I believe was discussed on the respective talk pages. I think one point that wasn't made on the Common.css talk page already is that if for some reason the CSS page fails to load, in-line style citations act as a safety net. Though without Common.css, I suppose the entire site would look like shit anyway...
As I said previously, I applaud the boldness. I left a note here not to admonish you as much as I simply wanted to tell you that I had reverted you (as a courtesy) and explain my rationale. This avoids you seeing the change in your watchlist and going, "what the hell?" The idea of skinning the Main Page seems to be a pretty good one, but undoubtedly others may want to weigh in. And, until we know exactly what will be on the Main Page going forward, we may want to hold off on adding anything to the CSS page. On a side note, personally, I want to murder that trout meme with my bare hands, but, oh well. ; - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I hadn't thought about the 'safety net' idea at all. It sounds from the talk on MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Skinning the main page that we can leave the inline styles and allow it to be overridden with personal CSS anyway - as someone there pointed out, there really isn't much point in adding all the code to common just for the main page if it's easy to avoid it. It would be a fascinating experiment to try and write a personal CSS to 'cancel' the site CSS - as you say, I expect most of our pages would look pretty awful... As for the trout, well.... :D Happy‑melon 08:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hi; as a random admin can I ask your advice on a dispute I'm in? Arcayne (talk · contribs · logs · block log) decided that the word story, when used to describe the overall plotline of a two-part serial, actually implied "a printed medium". Interestingly, Arcayne claims to have two Oxford University degrees and have published multiple books, including at least one work of fiction, but that's by-the-by - does seem strange that he has such strange definitions of words. He also thought that penultimate meant "the climax of the story", rather than what it actually means, which is obviously, "second-to-last". He then became quite offensive and then even more offensive in his edit-summary.
Anyway, when I posted on his page to disabuse him of the idea, he rapidly removed it, but what I take offence to is this: "Please stay the hell away from me; you have nothing to say I find of any value." How was my comment not of any value?
This happens to me right across my editing. Arcayne has a lot of very, very, very wacky ideas (like that cast-lists shouldn't list the characters, only the actors' names - making it hard for readers to work out who played who) which he defends against consensus, but pointedly ignores my comments - it's not a workable situation. So, what do you suggst? :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 06:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that's wacky ol' me. I seem to take offense when I ask someone to stay away from my user talk page - someone who has in pint of fact banned me from theirs. offered not on but two ANI's about how I am just the worst person in the whole wide world and apparently play parcheesi with the debbil and whatnot.
- The advice TT was given at each of the (failed) ANI's was to avoid my edits. Period. And still, he chooses to post to my edits in the snarkiest way possible. I choose to ignore them instead of getting bated into his disruptive, never-ending arguments. Apparently, not paying attention to him really kicks his goat. Frankly, I don't really care one way or the other about whatever drama TT wants; I just dont want to play.
- The discussion regarding story versus episode was one I was having with the user U-MOS in his usertalk page. TT butted in, thinking he had something I wanted to hear. AGF doesn't mean ignoring bad behavior. The snide little asides about my education were lifted almost verbatim from an IP troll who was subsequently blocked for making the exact same allegations.
- Advise how you will, Happy-Melon. This particular user's drama isn't worth my time, as they have clearly shown that my contributions aren't worth his. He refuses DR, which I have approached him with on two prior occasions. He has nothing to say that I remotely want to hear. I won't clutter up your user space with further comments. - Arcayne (cast a spell)08:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, where do I begin? Probably by noting that there are two very distinct issues here, which need not be confused. I'm not going to make any comment on the content issues, both because they appear to be largely resolved and because it is not an appropriate use of administrator status for me to do so. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to commend everyone who's worked on Journey's End (Doctor Who) and The Stolen Earth for doing a thoroughly good job - they both made very enlightening reading for someone who does not follow the series. There is, however, clearly also a significant problem with interaction between the pair of you. I haven't read all the background at ANI, your talkpages, etc (I spend three hours last night reading the entirety ofWikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee so I'm in no mood to do any serious reading today :D), but from what I have seen, you seem incapable of working constructively together. This is not uncommon: there are two editors, regrettably only one of which is still editing, with whom I have a tacit agreement that we just Don't Like Each Other. This has not, as far as I'm aware, prejudiced our ability to build the encyclopedia, even when we've been working on the same bits (although we rarely do overlap).
- There are two ways of handling an serious division between two editors. The first is to avoid one another. This is not nearly as difficult on a website with 14 million pages as it might at first appear. It is complicated slightly by your interest in editing the same series of articles, but this is not necessarily a problem. If you intend to avoid each other, simply avoid commenting on the other's actions in any way, no matter what you might think of them. If the other starts a talkpage discussion about an issue, ignore it and go work somewhere else. If they make an edit you think is against policy, let someone else deal with it and go work on another article. 'Banning' another editor from your talk page is both silly, POINTy and contrary to policy; but if you have a tacit understanding between you that neither will listen to the other's comments and hence there is no point interacting, the same effect can be obtained with considerably less aggravation. There is plenty of wiki out there for you to both work productively and peacefully, without ever having to come into contact.
- The alternative, of course, is to attempt to resolve the dispute. Whatever means of moderation you might choose (Mediation committee, mediation cabal, dispute resolution, whatever), it will only work if both parties agree to be fully involved. As I've said, I haven't read the full history of this dispute and so do not feel capable of making findings-of-fact, but I would be very surprised to learn that either of you was entirely innocent of contributing to the tension here. If you want to resolve this dispute, you will both need to change your attitudes and approaches to some degree. If you're both prepared to make that effort, then you will get much more satisfaction from a full resolution than you will from simply making the problem go away. But unless both sides are prepared to go that extra mile, I would recommend that you continue with what you're already doing, but do it properly. TT, that ambox at the top of your talk page is certainly not helping matters, I would recommend that you remove it (or at least the big purple message from the top of it), as I would expect Arcayne has got the message. If you are going to ignore each other, do it everywhere, not just in User talk:. Try to avoid any situation where you might want to post on one another's talk page, and it won't matter whether or not you're 'banned' from it.
- There are only two other comments I'd make. Arcayne: remember Essjay; no one cares whether or where you went to university, even if we could verify it. And TT, your signature is still affecting linespacing slightly on IE7 :D. Happy‑melon 12:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I still maintain that I do have to say things of value, and since Arcayne persistently makes wacky changes which require the entire rest of WP:WHO to fight against them (because Arcayne Is Right), it is awkward that I am expected to bow out of such project-wide issues. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you are keen to keep interacting with Arcayne, then I encourage you to start or participate in some form of dispute resolution. Arcayne has claimed above that he has offered such mediation before and you have declined; not having researched the full background I do not know if this is the case (and do not particularly care), but I would encourage you to approach WP:DR or WP:MEDCAB. If Arcayne genuinely is at odds with an entire WikiProject then I am surprised that his block log is not longer than it already is. Happy‑melon 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am by no means keen to continue interacting; I just have to choose between communicating with him (difficult, when he falsely maintains that I am a waste of space) or boycotting "my" WikiProject - something it is unreasonable of him and/or you to expect me to do. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what I'm asking you to do at all; there is plenty of room in a project of 1,400 articles for you and he to never be on the same page at the same time. However, if you don't feel that that is possible, then you need to be proactive in starting and participating in some form of dispute resolution; so I'd encourage you to take the lead and investigate those processes without delay. Happy‑melon 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- You offer some good advice about how to not interact with the other editor. I've mostly done that, except when poked with a sharp stick by TT. I do not make a big deal out of my education (though I am proud of it); it has come up when explaining that I actually went to secondary school, when something basic comes up. I know all about Essjay, and I wouldn't make a false claim. If I did, I'd claim something far more interesting, like having slept with Maxim's Top 10...at the same time (Nudge nudge, say no more).
- As far as DR, the most recent attempt was here and quickly deleted/dismissed here. Before that was either in article discussion space or in one of the failed AN/I's the fellow offered up, but it was indeed offered prior. While I hold out hope for just about everyone, someone who posts a specific attack at the top of their user talk page gets little in the way of rhythm from me. Ignoring him seems the best way to proceed, or ANI when he goes on the attack. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Main Page Redesign - Pretzels
-
- Hey! I took your comments into account and here's what my proposal now looks like. Notes on the discussion page. Any more hints or tips to offer? =] My submission » Pretzelschatters 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
main page redesign proposal
Hi, I saw your comments over on main page redesign proposal and was hoping that you could take a look at my proposal and give me some feedback.--88wolfmaster (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Non-admins and the mediawiki namespace
Hey, just saw your comment at abuse filter regarding a non-admin editing the MW: namespace... Just wanted to let you know, that it hasn't always been limited to admins... See, The list I generated of edits to the MW: namespace by non-admins for instance... There are of course, plenty of former admins in there, but, also a bunch of IP's (fwiw it's a *complete* list)... Anyhow, didn't know if you knew :) SQLQuery me! 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is also posible for non admins to rack up edits to the mediawiki namespace by editing outside and then haveing the edits moved in.Geni 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Toolserveraccount
Hello Happy-melon,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to  . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
|
