Archives

Archive - Archive 1 - 04/2007 - 05/2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, is pretty amusing, as is pretty much all the other stuff at Template:Wikipediholicism... Smee 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

After careful consideration I find it more true than funny, and it's not the first time comedy has made points so clearly for me. (Some comedians really know/knew how to make a funny but thoughtful point. Richard Jenni was one of them) Anynobody 05:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to try to find some of his stuff. Anyway, I think the whole MMORPG idea is really funny. Smee 05:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is funny, just really REALLY true. As I read it I almost had flashbacks of Counter-Strike because the personality of the other players is almost more important than the rules of the game, as it is here in this game. Anynobody 07:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the quotes don't really do his comedy justice, but the truth I was mentioning is still apparent:

• At least Charles Manson has the decency to look crazy from the moment you meet him.
  • Referring to some women he's met (but meant to imply the frustration normal people have finding a significant other)

Anynobody 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are great with graphic design, I was wondering if you could help me with something? Currently, the standard DYK award uses this image: Image:DYK medal.png, and the template is used like so: {{subst:The DYK Medal|message ~~~~}}. I would like for there to be a special DYK to strive for, to motivate other users active in the project - 100 DYKs. Thus, is there a way that you could take the image Image:DYK medal.png, and put the number "100" on the red ribbon horizontal part somehow? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'll see what I can do, should have something in a few hours. Anynobody 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This would be really cool... Smee 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here's a concept:

• 
  The 25 DYK medal
• 
  This is a modified version of the original to emphasize the number, original had the background and number colors reversed: Original
• 
  This is a modified version of the original to emphasize the number, original had the background and number colors reversed: Original
• 
  The 200 DYK medal
• 
  The Bot Builder DYK medal

Anynobody 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! This looks really, really cool! I will start on making some new templates for these awards, and give them out after that. Neat! Thank you so much! Smee 01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not a problem, I'm actually kind of surprised you liked the first concept. Anynobody 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, right? Smee 02:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just surprised, I looked at em as a rough draft but I guess a hole in one happens from time to time. It's ok in this case though (looking a gift horse in the mouth), if there was something I missed. Anynobody 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the font on the numbers could be a tad darker, to show up a teensy bit better... Smee 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can do, are the numbers themselves appropriate? 25, 50, 100. Anynobody 02:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, perfect. Eventually we might need a 200, hehe. Smee 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good deal, I left a couple of "levels" open. 200 would be Platinum and 500 Diamond. Anynobody 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 500, that would take a looong time, hehe. Smee 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I tweaked the color of the numbers, if the gallery hasn't updated reload the page and purge the cache. Anynobody 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, cache purged, not noticing a big change though, that's okay, they still look awesome. I am going to go make up some award templates. Smee 02:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Okay, this one looks really, really cool: Template:The 100 DYK Medal. Let me know what you think. Smee 02:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It does look pretty sharp, a suggestion though (in two parts). Try a gold background with red letters. Anynobody 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to find out which coding for background and text is gold or red... Smee 03:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I dunno the number either but the names seem to work when designated.

Gold

Red

Anynobody 03:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I experimented with the color. The way it is now actually looks best. Now to go and spread the Wikipedia:WikiLove! Smee 03:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here are what they all look like:

• -- {{The 25 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (25) or more contributions to DYK.
• -- {{The 50 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (50) or more contributions to DYK.
• -- {{The 100 DYK Medal}} -- Award for (100) or more contributions to DYK.

Smee 03:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Great job, they look awesome :) Anynobody 03:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much for helping out, this has really been a fun little side project. And it's nice to know I've helped others get some recognition and feel happy (see User talk:Smee). Smee 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anytime :) Anynobody 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, it looks awesome! And I thought I had something to aspire to at 100, yeesh! Here is the new template: {{The 200 DYK Medal}}. Smee 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • We probably can stop at that, for a while...  :) Smee 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Naturally, if it took this long to get to 180 or so, 400-500 is a long way off. (200 is right around the corner though so I figured might as well get this all done today.) Anynobody 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Eventually, probably 500 would be the next one... The only one who would get that if we are counting him for noms (which we are not), is the bot at the bottom of T:TDYK, User:AlexNewArtBot. Smee 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, somebody did create the bot though. If it's been doing a good job and is useful there should be an award for the programmer. Granted they aren't doing the edits, but putting in the time to create a well designed bot can be just as time consuming. Anynobody 10:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A good point, I will get right on that. Smee 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Done. Smee 05:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

JSIK, how long do you usually leave talk pages on your watchlist? (I'll usually leave them myself between 2 - 5 days if no conversation is happening). Anynobody 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Something like that sounds about right. Sometimes a bit shorter, sometimes a bit longer, depending on the situation... Smee 05:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Muchas gracias :) Anynobody 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. Smee 05:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I also figured bot makers should have their own recognition, no offense meant to the old DYK medal. Anynobody 08:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, I already gave him the old medal, and as I think that there is only one bot related to DYK, this might be a bit much. Smee 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know, but the old medal really seems like something to give editors with 5-10 DYKs. (25 is a long way to go before getting any recognition) It also seems underwhelming to award it for the amount of effort that goes into a successful bot. I made the template myself,

• -- {{The DYK Bot Builder Medal}} -- Award given to editors who create a bot for DYK.

Anynobody 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I experimented with the background on the 25 medal... [1] Anynobody 22:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot builder award looks nice, but again, we actually really don't want to encourage bot building just for DYK too much, we already have an overload actually of too many nominations for DYKs lately. But as your graphic just says "BB", maybe it could be a generic award for excelllent bot-building on Wikipedia in general? I don't know if we have an award like that yet. You could just move the page to Template:The Bot Builder Award, and change the associated text. I actually think that would be a really nice award... Smee 04:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, I'll do that in the next day or so. To be honest this seemed like a good way to test my ability at template construction. (I'd made one a while ago {{PD-SOHO}} and didn't want to get rusty.) Anynobody 05:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anynobody, I saw your comment on Major Bonkers' page. All blocked users get a screen showing them how to request an unblock. Perhaps you'd like to share your opinion on WP:ANI, where I posted the block for review. Bishonen | talk 04:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Honestly it depends on Major Bonkers, if he/she feels guilty about what they said and decides to accept the block I see no reason to further comment on the WP:ANI. I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight a battle for them.

I had given some thought to bringing up the general issue of blocks without warning on Wikipedia:Blocking policy though. By that I mean I hadn't planned on mentioning your name since the concept is what I'm interested in not so much this specific situation itself. The idea was to ask on the talk page: When is a block without warning appropriate? (I'm sure there are some times they are, I just think that WP:NPA blocks without warning are probably unnecessary given the amount of personal attacks thrown around an offending PA could be a reply to another editor's prior PA thus resulting in an editor being blocked for defending themselves while the aggressor gets no warning/punishment either.)

I've found that WP:NPA issues tend to unfold because two or more editors start a back and forth series of PAs. In my opinion if harsh measures like blocking are to be instituted without warning it should apply to all participants. Anynobody 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You mean you only just feel strongly enough to troll on talkpages? In my opinion, you should put your money where your mouth is and post these opinions on ANI, where so far nobody has had the slightest problem with the block, or cared enough about the lack of warning to even mention it (except me, right in the header). What's the problem, would you rather not look like a fool in public or something? Bishonen | talk 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Did you notice the editor in question referred to WP:DICK and WP:FUCK as policies? I mean no offense to him/her or you by saying the editor looked unhappy about the block and also unaware of some fundamentals and thus perhaps needed help. (People don't always read important information that is right in front of them, since the editor had confused two essays with policies I figured there was a good chance he/she missed the ...screen showing them how to request an unblock... too given the nature of their reply.)

I stand by my original answer. (It's slightly ironic that less than two weeks ago you were angry at me for not accepting your suggestion I post on WP:ANI less and avoid discussing disagreements on certain editors talk pages despite the fact I had already been doing that for a while before your proposal. Now you're angry because I won't post on WP:ANI and you're saying all this not on the other editor's talk page but here on mine.) Anynobody 05:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, what can I say? I'm a creature of paradox and you're a troll. The combination will give effects like that. (Are you seriously suggesting, though, that I should be arguing with you on the blocked editor's talkpage? I'm sure you, or anybody, has more sense than that, if you think it through.) Bishonen | talk 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Um, yeah I am. We are talking about a block on that editor right? You are defending your decision about the block are you not? If we're not talking about Major Bonkers then the paradox that is Bishonen | talk seems to be occurring again in the form of trolling my talk page to tell me not to WP:TROLL. (After all, if this isn't about Major Bonkers it's about your dislike of having one of your decisions disagreed with or of me, so which is it?) Anynobody 06:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important you understand my interest in blocks without warning predates your actions regarding Major Bonkers and I really REALLY hadn't planned on mentioning this situation on WP:BLOCK because the 24 hours will have long expired by the time anything would be done anyway. I simply want to know when they are appropriate. It has nothing to do with you as a sysop or editor, frankly I have better things to do than waste time trying to make you look bad or something. I'd be asking this question if anyone had done the same thing, it just so happens it was you this time and because I knew this would happen let me tell you I had second thoughts. Then I realized pointing out that another editor can request unblocking AND finding out when these types of things are warranted is more important than worrying about denting your ego. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it really isn't about you. Anynobody 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rael symbol.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attn anyone following up on this bot

Delete the image, a better one is being used. Anynobody 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This post in a nutshell: Blocks should be the last resort of Admins. Make the attempt to find out where the editor is coming from. WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK apply to Admins as well.

By which I mean: why do so many editors simply give up after a while, often leaving a message on their Talk pages blaming other people's rudeness or some other frustration?

First a bit about me: I have an undergraduate degree and two postgraduate degrees, plus a professional qualification which is generally reckoned to be the same as an undergraduate degree. I'm 40, with a wife and child. As you've noted, I've been posting for a year or so, and in that time I have gone from working exclusively on articles to more or less completely neglecting them in favour of posting on Talk and Discussion pages. My contributions have dropped off and, eventually, I expect, so will I. And yet, I must be precisely the sort of knowledgeable professional that Wikipedia wants to contribute. And I'm not alone.

Two points: firstly, the rule of thumb in my industry is that recruiting a new customer costs 5 times as much as retaining an existing customer. Now, Wikipedia is voluntary at the point of contribution and free at the point of distribution, of course, so the monetary parallel is not exact. However, if you consider the amount of mentoring or training required for a 'newbie' or (on the other side of the coin) the amount of inadvertent damage that they can cause, the parallel becomes a bit clearer: it's a damn sight easier to keep editors who have gone to the time and trouble of educating themselves within Wikipedia than treating them so casually that they wander off and are replaced by a new generation of ignorant editors. Secondly: I'm a VOLUNTEER: when I charge for my time, I'm extremely expensive. I edit on Wikipedia because it really is a good idea and I believe in the ethos.

In my opinion, a lot of the - frankly - disappointment that I, and others, feel comes from disastrously poor Admin decisions. In far too many situations, it seems to me, they wade into an argument, make no serious analysis and hand out instant judgments. They adopt the famous John Wayne quotation: 'Never apologise, never explain'. They feel that they can be rude or sarcastic with editors, which is unfair because both sides know that only the Admin has the power to block. If you can't uphold the Wiki ethos, in particular WP:CIVIL, and make every effort not the throw your weight around, you shouldn't be an Admin.

My training is as a lawyer, although I never took it further; but the same principles should apply: before an Admin makes a decision he should remember that there are two sides to each story and he should educate himself as to the situation (which almost always arises out of some frustration between two editors and with a bit of common sense and goodwill is usually resolvable); he should have the courtesy to talk to the editor(s) with whom he has an issue before rushing to judgment: audi alteram partem. We often say stupid things because we're frustrated which we can apologise for and redact with no harm done: as the good book has it: 'a soft word turneth away wrath'. And yet Admins seem to love blocks and treat them as a first resort: if you're an editor quietly plodding away, a block comes as a shock; the contempt of the community is being manifested towards you. It obviously rankles and it leads an editor to ask the obvious question: if what I'm doing is so little appreciated, why am I wasting my time with these ingrates? In fact, you come up with answers like these.

At worst, I've seen one particular heavy-handed Admin, handing out blocks almost at whim, actually inflame a situation because he wasn't explaining his actions and was consequently seen as being partial.

Think about it, any Admin reading this (as if!): you're dealing with a volunteer who has bought into the same ethos of building a encyclopedia that you have, and you're treating him like some naughty child, often being bloody rude yourself in doing so. Are you really encouraging editors to stay contributing by your actions? Are you in danger of driving away someone who is prepared to work for nothing, and in all likelihood has specialist knowledge that would be valuable to the project? Might you, in fact, be doing more harm than good?

Another shortcoming is the rush to instant judgment. This is constantly seen on the Administrator's Noticeboard, amongst other places. Often, as stated above, it's based on superficial judgment: a single Diff and a short explanation (which may well be partial). The Administrator's Noticeboard often comes across as a chest-beating exercise (including in my case); a Diff, an explanation, a whole load of instant pundits pile in, and the snowball starts rolling.

My interest now in Wikipedia is now more as a outsider; I see myself watching a number of inadequates splitting hairs over issues which are almost completely irrelevant and have no real world application. And I content myself with the thought that, like those subject to Essjay's 'corrections', I know my subject, and myself, better than some random Admin does.

(Which, PS, is not to say that there aren't good Admins out there - generally the ones with a more mature outlook, the quiet ones - and that there aren't stupid and disruptive editors as well.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to start by saying you are indeed not alone in your beliefs, and you have exactly described one of the most serious problems on here. Toward your ps I totally understand what you are saying, I have come to think the majority of admins and editors are good but, are rendered harmless by those who you've described.

The question you've posed is one I've given much thought to. Using various lessons I've learned about people coupled with what I've read from history I have formulated an answer which works for me:

In short human deficiencies prevent the endeavors of idealists

On paper, Communism is a brilliant idea but in reality the "equality" it aspires to can not be achieved because someone will always want or have more than others. Jimmy Wales wants to create an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with administrators decided by the community. As noble as this sounds in theory, in practice it causes exactly the kind of issues you've discussed.

Making this situation even worse is the less than specific nature of the rules, everybody thinks they understand but sadly many (even some admins) obviously do not. This is the end result of electing people without having them prove themselves in a uniform way, and welcoming editors who may be well intentioned but do not understand the fundamentals of how this project is supposed to work. Anynobody 23:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, at root, there are two, very much related, problems: firstly the problem of anonymity and secondly the problem of brevity. The problem of anonymity is this: someone using a pseudonym for his posts - as we both do - can hide behind that anonymity to behave in ways that he would either not do, or consider very much more carefully, were he operating under his own name. This is a general rule, only, in my experience; for example, one Admin recently posted news of a ban which he had handed out with the additional gratuitous comment, 'Fuck off' on the Talk page of the editor in question; and yet he posts his full name on his own Talk page. The problem of brevity is the familiar problem that, because we all use the bloody awful QWERTY keyboard and type with two fingers, we try to be as brief as possible. Given the anonymous nature of the people that we are dealing with, and the brevity of the messages that we post, it's extremely difficult to pick up nuances. An example that I came across yesterday had User 1 making his point, User 2 disagreeing with him, and User 1 rejoining that User 2 had made a mistake, the two were actually in agreement.

Contributing is a solitary endeavour: there's no wife/ girlfriend/ whatever to pull you up when you're making an idiot of yourself; and it's human nature not to notice one's own deficiencies.

The problem with the rules is twofold: firstly, they are written generally, not specifically, so that if a spat blows up between two editors, for example, each immediately starts waving WP:AGF at the other (which gets nowhere and probably serves only to inflate the problem). The second problem is the plethora of essays hanging about, which seem to be bandied about and used as trump cards. Ultimately, don't we all know how to behave, deep down? And perhaps the first rule of Wikipedia should be, 'Do as you would be done by'.

I agree with your comments about electing people without having them prove themselves. In my job (insurance, but I'm sure the observation is general), the people who are promoted are those who bring in the business; they get a pay rise, a new title, and given a management position. The problem is this: that the skill of getting business is completely different to being a manager (actually the two skill sets are completely antithetical). Being an editor - making thousands of posts, bringing pages up to scratch - is completely different to arbitrating between warring parties.

I suspect, as a demographic, most Admins are in their 20s, with editors in a spread between teens to 70s, but with a bulge around 16-26.

Finally, before I posted yesterday, I went to the trouble of reading through your entire Talk page, archives and all. It seems to me that either you're some Zen Buddhist or otherwise have the patience of a saint, and for that reason they're the coolest Talk pages that I've come across. And as for your User page - finally: someone who thinks! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Exloring levels creation bk.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]