User talk:Jmaynard/October 2006

Jmaynard, re: Linux on zSeries, I placed the word "apparent" because IBM holds patents on z/Architecture and it is not clear to me, at least, whether they will assert those patent rights at some point in the future. I don't at all believe in software patents (although this one is certainly a gray area -- software that emulates hardware), but adding that little word "apparent" seemed the best way to capture that much longer and more complicated issue in this article's context.

What do you think?

-- BBCWatcher

I think that nobody inside IBM cares about pursuing any patent claims against Hercules, and I've been told that they've actually decided that they would not. I've also been told that, before they bailed out of the mainframe world altogether, Amdahl researched the issue, and came to the conclusion that a software emulator would not violate any of IBM's patents. I further believe that pursuing such a claim would severely damage their credibility in the open source world, something they've spent a lot of time, energy, and money establishing.

There's been a LOT of FUD slung at Hercules by one particular industry analyst, to the point that everyone's wondering just what axe he's grinding. This is his major contention. Nobody else - and this includes lots of folks I've spoken with, both inside and outside IBM - thinks it's an issue.

I believe that casting doubt on the legality of running Linux for z/Series on Hercules violates NPOV, since it's definitely one person's POV that there's any problem at all.

Thanks for the comments... Jay Maynard 12:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jmaynard/October 2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Jay Maynard 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Found a better link

I just found this page today. You might be interested: Wikipedia:Jimbo on Userboxes. I've probably wasted about an hour total digging up old Jimbo statements when it's all been collected on that one page this whole time. Gahhh. --Cyde Weys 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Saw your comment on the Peppers' talk page

Just wanted to say welcome to Wikipedia and I totally dug your costume. I know I probably sound a little lame for commenting here, but I remember it getting posted on the niche video game forum I admin (as do all internet memes), and I was just utterly impressed by the work you put into it. Rock on! -- Bobak 19:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

hah! Well, you at least got to choose to put on your Tron skin, alas I didn't get to choose my Persian skin (rug?) and I guess I knew it would a matter of time before I got pulled in --but I try to stay sane. A lot of machismo among the Persians/Iranian and Caucasian/Turkic peoples (especially those who aren't 2nd generation expats like me). After wading through a lot of the comments I feel like I need to do a feat of strengh or something to prove I'm a dominant male. Have a good one and happy editting. --Bobak 20:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Policy "Proposal"

Sorry, overlooked that part *_* Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Sure

Not sure what you meant on my talk page...My name does not come out correctly using four titles. Forest

That's "tildes"...and yes, I saw the discussion with a developer after I posted that. Hope he finds it soon.

As for vandalism warnings, you can save copy and pasting by simply entering {{subst:template name}}. That also makes it less likely that things will go wrong. Finally, the user had already been warned enough times; the inciden of vandalism you warned him about was sufficient to get him blocked (as has now happened). The details are on WP:VANDAL. Jay Maynard 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

de KC0ECT

Yes, it is a good example, but all it did was add MUPP to the list of Wikipedian amateur radio operators. --Rayc 02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your work on the WP:CSD talk page. You have done a teriffic job presenting the evidence. I was especially impressed to learn you are a newcomer, as you came off as an admin. Nice work! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!}) 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

T2

From what I've read of your comments you are against T2. Do you have any ideas on how to stop it's use? —David618 22:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Ultimately, I believe that it will be rammed through, no matter how many folks oppose it or for what reasons they do so. Jay Maynard 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

I think it premature because I think any proposal coming to a vote at this time would be premature because there's obviously no consensus as yet as to what a good solution would be. My proposal was one of many (and like many, it failed). If you didn't agree with that then that's fine, but don't you dare translate that into a bland assumption of bad faith. That's insulting. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you know how those of us who believe that the anti-userbox movement (trying hard to find a neutral word) is wrong feel about it all. Comments like yours, and Cyde's, and Tony's, are dividing the community far more than the userboxes themselves are. People keep questioning our good faith, and don't get called on it.

I believe that there will never be a consensus. Opinions are too hardened. Your proposal was not a bona fide compromise; it was a demand for surrender. The proposal you voted against is a genuine attempt at compromise. Unfortunately, there's a binary question at the root of it all, and if the only valid answers are 1 or 0, compromise is not possible. Jay Maynard 01:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposal I voted against sets an appalling precedent. You say there will never been consensus. You're wrong about that. There's consensus already–the majority of Wikipedians, to which you do not belong, do not care about userboxes. They putter away happily in the article space. I've been trying to find a solution that will placate this hardened minority that demand boxes. I can't because you'll accept nothing less than total victory. This is appalling, but it's your choice, and the consequences are on your head. I tried. I honestly did. The fact that can't even understand where I'm coming from saddens me, but I've no choice now but to accept it. I don't question your good faith, but I do question your perspective. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was puttering away happily in article space. I popped over to some user's page and saw userboxes, thought they were a really good idea, poked around a bit until I found the userbox index, then saw that some that seemed reasonable to me (I think the first was {{user rotary dial}}) had been marked for deletion, and got sucked into the whole war. Now I'm disheartened and disillusioned.

You see, while I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, I am quite experienced in the management of volunteer organizations. I've been doing it for three decades or so. I understand what makes volunteers tick. What I see happening here is classic: one group of people gains power, tries to do things they feel are in the best interests of the group, in the process runs roughshod over others, and causes a schism. I've seen it time and again.

What's most disheartening to me is that the Wikipedia pages on policy make lots of noise about seeking consensus and getting people's agreement before policy is hardened. That's just not happening here. The anti-userbox admins (not you so much, but Tony and Cyde and those folks) are relying on Jimbo's statement as though it was handed down on stone tablets and consensus is irrelevant. If that's the case, then put it on the policy page, over Jimbo's signature, protect the page, and mass-delete the userboxes. Quit blathering about consensus.

I don't care where userbox templates exist. I only care that they do. You don't want them to exist, period. Existence is a binary state, and so is not amenable to compromise; only their location is. WP:MUPP is a genuine attempt to compromise on that. The proponent even offered to write the code so the developers wouldn't have to. As was pointed out on the WP:MACK talk page, your proposal isn't a compromise either.

I do understand where you're coming from. I simply think you're focusing on a hypothetical endorsement of userboxes by Wikipedia that doesn't, in fact, exist, and isn't seen to exist except by those who feel they're evil and should be deleted.

People keep accusing me (directly or indirectly) of not agreeing with WP:NPOV, or wanting to turn Wikipedia into MySpace. Neither is true. I point out my biases precisely because I'm new and not experienced in writing the NPOV way. I'm trying to avoid getting screwing up and getting hammered for it. As for the MySpace thing, I find that particularly offensive. MySpace is a site infested with immature high school kids who think nothing of putting several meg of inane comments and movies and music and pictures that, together, say very little of substance. That's great for them, but inappropriate for Wikipedia. Nowhere have I once advocated that userpages should turn into that kind of crap.

I've wasted a week on trying to influence this policy. I now see that it was utterly for naught. The anti-userbox admins have won the day, and the users be damned. Jay Maynard 11:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you for your response; I lack the time to reply in full. A couple brief points: if I wanted userboxes destroyed, I wouldn't have pushed a proposal that left them intact on user's pages and provided a means for them to be added in other pages. I tried hard for that damn it. This is only a binary situation if you want it to be; insisting on that creates a situation where compromise is impossible. Regarding MySpace, many of the most vocal proponents of userboxes have hundreds on their userpages. For better or for worse, they symbolize that group for many of us.

You don't think "we" (a very loose term) want agreement or consensus. That's fine, because you obviously don't want it either. Any position other than your binary positive is unacceptable to you. Given that position no compromise could have ever satisfied you. The fact that this issue has groaned on for six months is proof that the nefarious cabal wants to solve this somehow without simply running roughshod over everyone.

A final thought. I appreciate what you say about volunteer organizations; I respectfully suggest that what you say doesn't apply here. The userbox crowd has always had the right to fork; it wouldn't be the first time or the last. Many of them contribute very little to the article space (you're an exception, but we're speaking of factions, not individuals). What would they fork? Their boxes? Those boxes are only of value to Wikipedia if they encourage collaborative editing. Otherwise they're nothing but social networking which is better done elswhere. My userpage can describe who I am without a damn bumper sticker. Anyway, not as a full a response as you deserve, but the most I've time for. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I said:

Oppose - What in the hell is so special about userboxes that they deserve their own namespace?! I can think of a dozen better things that deserve their own namespace. Userboxes are just one of a variety of silly things people put on their userpage. They're not even a good way to present information - they're just a fad. Legitimizing them by giving them their own namespace is absurd. How about we split apart the category namespace first, so that Wikipedia maintenance categories aren't in the same namespace as encyclopedic categories? That seems like a much better use of developer time than adding a namespace for userboxes.

You really think that's "dividing the community"? Frankly, I find it hypocritical that, in the interests of free speech, free expression, "owning up to your biases", and individuality and what not you think people should be given great freedom to do what they want in the template namespace, but when people such as I voice our concerns suddenly we should just shut the hell up because we're "dividing the community". --Cyde↔Weys 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comments in the poll, but in regard to userboxes generally. You're one of the worst for assuming that POV userboxes on user's pages automatically mean the user is making non-NPOV edits in mainspace. It just ain't so. Jay Maynard 01:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please show me a single diff where I've made that claim? Because that's just not something I've said. I've said lots of things about userboxes but I never said that they automatically make a person incapable of NPOV. And by the way, you still haven't reconciled your libertarian ideals of free speech with your call for us to censor ourselves. --Cyde↔Weys 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look, though I'm at a con this weekend and it may take a few days. As for censoring you, I have no problem with your expressing your concerns. I do have a problem with admins running around acting though there's a consensus for policy when there is no consensus, and acting on that basis. It's your actions I really have a problem with, not your words. Jay Maynard 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here, what the precise heck gave you the right to de-userbox my user page with no request for permission, no consensus policy, and no notice? Keep your bot off my page unless it's in response to stated, consensus policy. Jay Maynard 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. If you don't want stuff edited create a personal site that only you can edit. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Cyde↔Weys 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okkay, fine. Do it by hand. Don't turn your bot loose to implement nonexistent policy, or as $DEITY is my witness I will pursue it for vandalism. Jay Maynard 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This latest run was actually a courtesy run to substitute the templates before deletion (the alternative being just creating a bunch of redlinks on users' pages) ... but in the middle, T2 was pulled right out from under my feet, so the templates get a little bit of a reprieve ... for a bit. --Cyde↔Weys 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's a true policy - either by somehow magically achieving a consensus, or by fiat by someone with the ability to declare policy in that manner - then fine. Until then, your bot is an auto-vandal. Jay Maynard 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Caribbean English Texas State Highway 30 Sri Lankan English Welsh English Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Duncan Hines Texas State Highway 64 Hiroyuki Nishimura U.S. Route 259 Texas State Highway NASA 1 Jane Metcalfe Manx English Zilog Z280 Andy Stern Liberian English Texas State Highway Loop 286 U.S. Route 190 Chicano English Kathmandu

Cleanup Purchasing power parity 2-1-1 South African English Merge Square kilometre Lexus SC Fort Bend Westpark Tollway Add Sources Super Mario Bros. (film) Texas State Police Commonwealth English Wikify Stephan Pyles Program Specific Information Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 Wave Net Expand Court Toyota Canada Inc. Supersonic

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why transclude userboxes?

(Noticed your puzzlement on D-Day's talk page...)

I do it, and prefer to have it done that way, because if someone improves the userbox, I want it to be reflected on my page. I trust the Wikipedia mechanisms for stopping vandalism to deal with that problem; they work well.

I also greatly prefer the simple template, rather than the complex {{userbox}} generic template, when editing my user page - it's a lot cleaner and easier to deal with. I believe most users would agree.

That said, since it appears the desire of Wikipedia admins is for bland, homogenous user pages that do nothing to distinguish the user fromanyone else, I've redone my user page accordingly. Jay Maynard 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There remains a problem that if someon changes a template in a way that they regard as an improvement, but you do not, there is no way for both of you to have the template of your choice on your respective pages, which you could if it was in user space.

The complexity of the editing is increased slightly, yes, but that can be reduced by using a subpage for all the userboxes. Also, it wouldn't have that great of an impact, as user pages generally aren't edited frequently, you've made less than 10 edits to yours, doe example.

Saying that admins desire "bland, homogenous user pages" is incorrect. Wikipedia:User page is the guideline for userpages, and in any case, moving userboxes from template space to user space would not change the look of any user page if subst'd before deletion. Regards, MartinRe 14:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The overall effect of the entire debate over userboxes, to someone reading that mountain of verbiage, is that the admin community does not believe that anything belongs there that serves to distinguish users from each other; they're all supposed to just be Wikipedians. Okkay, fine. I'm not a ham radio operator; that is a divisive tag (between those who are hams and those who are not). I'm not a licensed pilot; that's divisive. I'm certainly not a Republican; that's really divisive, as well as potentially inflammatory.

Of course, I am all of those things - but I'm not allowed to actually point that out, lest I help turn Wikipedia into MySpace. (I REALLY wish people would quit using that analogy; it's inaccurate and highly insulting.) So, in order to not divide Wikipedians, and just to make sure I'm not targeted by some admin determined to turn Wikipedia into one homogenous place where everyone's required to hide the things that make them unique, I took some preemptive action. Yes, I've only made a few edits, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't make more later - that is, if I felt that doing so would be welcome in the first place. Right now, I don't, and I'm not feeling all that welcomed, period. Jay Maynard 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is saying that userpages are supposed to be homogenous, as I pointed out above, the guideline about user pages is reasonably open on this, editors are allowed lattitude to cutomise their page, but it has to be within reason. It is important not to look at things as "all or nothing", from your recent userpage change you seem to taken the comment that "userboxes shouldn't be in template space" and extended it to mean "userboxes shouldn't exist at all, and userpages should be bland" and disagreeing on that point. It is somewhat fustrating to put forward explainations for A, B and C, for people to dismiss it based on not liking D. Based on userboxes being subst'd before being deleted (which would make your user page (userbox version) look the same as just prior to the change), are your main objections that it would make the editing more difficult, and if someone else made a change you liked you wouldn't see it? Or are there others? Regards, MartinRe 15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one arguing all userboxes should be deleted. Tony and Cyde are doing that. Further, they're getting massive support.

The two objections you cite are two that I have to subst and delete. Just as importantly, though, they're attempts to solve problems that simply don't exist. No reasonable person would go from seeing a template that says the user is a Republican to thinking that Wikipedia endorses the Republican Party, especially when there's another template that says the user is a Democrat. Votestacking is another issue people have raised, and they don't even see the incongruity between that and the oft-repeated refrain that voting doesn't count on Wikipedia. The same folks raise both points. If voting doesn't count, what's the problem with votestacking?

Further, doing the subst and delete bit may be fine for folks who have them now, but what about folks who want to add them? It's going to be much harder for them to get it right, and they'll either put up with having it wrong, or get frustrated and leave.

There is a refrain going around about keeping Template: space pure. Not once has anyone advanced any technical or, indeed, any other non-religious argument to back that up.

My objection is fundamental: The anti-userbox folks are trying to deny that communities, inevitably, have sub-communities. That's human nature, and there's no way to stop it. Everything that's been raised against userboxes boils down to a smokescreen for trying to homogenize all Wikipedians. It's not "check your biases at the door"; it's "sweep your identity under the rug". The latter is far, far too much to ask. Jay Maynard 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No reasonable person would think wikipedia supports one party, but by wikipedia having the userboxes displayed gives the indication that wikipedia encourages people to pick a side and what party you support matters. This implied factionisation of wikipedia users is what I believe Jimbo meant by being "damaging to our culture"[1] Yes, everything is not a vote, but votestacking is still a problem because consensus is more difficult to reach when you have many people from one point of view contributing, or worse if you have votestacking on both sides, the discussion disintegrates very quickly.

If someone in the future wants to add a user box, they can copy and paste it from where they saw it. However, if someone leaves wikipeda because they can't get a little box on their userpage working, then I would seriously wonder why they were here in the first place. With regard to your final point, I have not seen anything that would imply that this is an attempt by anyone to "homogenize all Wikipedians", so on that point, I would respectfully disagree completely. Regards, MartinRe 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose that you're willing to consider that if a lot of folks weigh in on one side of a controversy, it simply means that that side may be the consensus view? If you're going to solicit opinion, be prepared for that opinion to be one you might consider incorrect.

I simply don't see that allowing people to put a userbox on their page that says "This user is a Republican" factionalizes them any more than they already are. That argument presumes people check not only their biases, but their identity, at the door. I'm not willing to demand that, or put up with demands that I do so, for that is a demand that I accept being homogenized - and I find that unacceptable. Jay Maynard 13:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Jay Maynard, I'm sure you already have an impression of me, and I don't know whether this message is welcome. I just wanted to thank you for continuing to help us sort out the arguments desipte your clear and understandable frustration. I really hope we are able to come to some resolution that leaves you more satisfied with Wikipedia and its governance than you are now. You've brought a smartness and clarity to the debate that I appreciate, and I hope we get to work together in the article space sometime. I hope you don't think I want your userpage to be bland; I prefer the creative ones, although mine's not much to speak of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Messages are always welcome (as long as they're civil). I wish I could share your confidence that some acceptable compromise can be found; it seems to me, right now, that the anti-userbox admins have won the argument, using Jimbo's statements as the stone tablets to hit everyone who disagrees over the head, and all that they're willing to discuss are the terms of the surrender. Fundamentally, any resolution that shows that only the admins have power to determine Wikipedia's governance, and the average user does not, will leave me dissatisfied, for it will fly in the face of the Wikipedian statements about governance by consensus - for it seems there is no consensus here except among those admins who think userboxes must go.

Most folks are saying that they don't want user pages to be bland, but the repeated insistence on deleting userboxes says otherwise. That's why I changed mine as I did. Jay Maynard 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that as an expression of your exasperation... I've tried to emphasize again and again throughout the debates how much I like creative userspaces, and I've cited numerous examples of extremely creative pages that nobody's objecting to. You seem to want to equate userboxes with all forms of creativity. I understand that you're frustrated; but I don't believe that you really believe that. I happen to know that you're a very creative person, and it saddens me that you've gotten the impression that Wikipedia doesn't want you to let that light shine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of folks say they like creative userpages - but one primary outlet for that creativity is userboxes, which have been under attack for 6 months now by a determined group of admins who appear to have the backing and political favor of the project leadership. Yes, I really do believe that at least that group of admins wants to homogenize all Wikipedians, and creative user pages, and especially userboxes, get in the way of that homogenization. No, I don't believe userboxes are the only way of being creative - but they're one of the most accessible, even to those who are not technically inclined. The harder you make it to be creative, the less creativity you'll see. Jay Maynard 00:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Templates are to userpages what methods are to C++. Their modularity and short invocation statements is what makes them so nice. Some of us are frustrated because we see "userfying userboxes" as inefficient duplication and hellish maintenance. Templates were created to make life simpler for everyone, including newbies. Managing lots of html and css can get out of control real fast, especially for people not fluent in css and html. That's one reason why many of us insist on keeping them in template form. But,I will confess, that it is a pet peeve of mine to see such inefficency forced on people. --Dragon695 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As a programmer, I fully understand your point. Unfortunately, it's the very elegance and functionality of templates that is the problem in this case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jay, what do you think of The German solution? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the reply took so long; the past weekend has been very busy. I don't mind it, as long as there is a central directory equivalent to the existing WP:UBX (ideally, that specific page), the templates may be freely transcluded, and the templates are totally immune to speedy deletion unless they violate some other Wikipedia policy that applies to user pages. (Specifically, T1 and friends must not be applicable, period.) Jay Maynard 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading Tony's endorsement of the German solution, I'm now very, very deeply suspicious, especially since he claims T1 still applies. If it does, then this is no compromise at all. What do those who favor userboxes gain by endorsing the German solution? Jay Maynard 01:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they gain a lot. Tony had a lot of admin support largely because of a general understanding among experienced Wikipedians that Jimbo wanted the userboxes out of template space. I, for example, provided a lot of the keep deleted arguments, to the point that I was getting quoted often: "keep deleted, per GTBacchus". Now that the userboxes are moving where Jimbo wants them, I wouldn't dream of supporting a bunch of speedies there. So what do userbox supporters gain? Jimbo and most admins on their side; that's what. You might think that Tony just does whatever he pleases, but you haven't been here long. Of course divisive and inflammatory userboxes may still be deleted, but nobody's going to interpret that broadly anymore, because they won't be supported. If you're asking for specific rules giving you specific guarantees, I'll just whistle and continue to support the other, reasonable things you're supporting, like "wide latitude regarding what people can do in user space" (Jimbo's words, more or less). The "if it walks like a template" clause - it's been pushed off the boat. Userboxes may be transcluded from user space.

If nothing else, you gain my support, for whatever that's worth. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo and most admins are on the side of userboxes in user space, then there's not a problem with explicitly restricting T1 to userboxes in Template: space, is there? Fundamentally, I don't trust Tony Sidaway. Fundamentally, I think he'll continue speedy-deleting userboxes after they're moved to userspace. Fundamentally, I don't think that they'll be undeleted even after massive support for them on DRV.

I'm asking for specific rules giving specific, enforceable guarantees because without them, the killing will not stop. I have no reason to believe the "if it walks like a template" clause has indeed been pushed off the boat, as long as there's no guarantee that Tony and his friends won't keep deleting them. Tony has explicitly said, in his endorsement, that T1 still applies even to userboxes in userspace. That guts the compromise. IT MUST GO.

Oh, and on a personal note, I'll add that someone commented on Doc's talk page after his departure, "Who will we go to when we're wiki-sick?" That term describes me. I'm sick of the whole thing. I'm getting depressed just in the past 20 minutes or so from wading back into this. I feel like I did when I was getting bullied in school, and for the same reason: I'm getting pushed around by someone, just because they can. (No, not you. Tony and those who support him.) I'm wondering why I should subject myself to this, and the answer is the same: I'm too stubborn to let the bullies win. Dammit, if nothing else, they should feel at least some of that same wiki-sickness. Jay Maynard 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I understand that you're speaking from hurt and frustration, and your feelings are completely justified. I'm sorry you're so burned by your experience here that you don't trust the site. I don't know what to tell you, and I don't think disagreeing with anything you said will be helpful at this point, so I'll just leave you with this: if you ever need any admin help, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'm very sorry you were hurt by all of this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I trust the site. I even trust most of the admins. There are just a few I don't trust, Tony Sidaway being at the very top of the list. I mean, really: How in the precise FUCK is "This user is an organ donor" "divisive and inflammable??! If he'll delete that under T1, he'll delete anything. I don't trust him, and I don't trust others to rein him in: he's on a mission from God, and the ends justify the means, users be damned. The trust I had in the community doing the right thing and balancing his crusade is gone, gone, gone. The only way to get it back is for people to stop Tony from speedy deleting everything in sight, and that means speedy restoring anything he speedy-deletes that is not plainly in violation of something core like WP:NPA.

The minute he speedy-deletes something from user space as a violation of T1 and it's not promptly undeleted, I'm outta here, permanently. I suspect I won't be alone. Jay Maynard 21:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing you can do that helps is to just forget about userboxes. They're not important. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it isn't some experiment in a massive collection of personal sites. I noticed that you seemed to get into userboxes almost immediately upon starting your editing on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that the userboxes did that to you. There's so much more to editing on Wikipedia than userboxes. You really should just forget about them and devote all of your efforts to working on the encyclopedia. Remember, the first amendment only applies to government censorship ... Wikipedia isn't the government and this site isn't some battleground in free speech. And I'm sorry that your only interactions with Tony seem to be userboxes ... he's actually a great guy, you've just gotten a warped perception of him because you stepped into the middle of this userbox conflict after it had already been going on for months. --Cyde↔Weys 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I realize you don't think userboxes are important. Had I not found what I thought to be a perfectly innocuous userbox tagged for deletion, I wouldn't have been drawn into the war; I'd have spent maybe a couple of hours on my user page, and then gone back to editing stuff in mainspace. As it is, however, I did get sucked in, to the serious detriment of my trust in the Wikipedia community.

I might be able to forget about userboxes themselves - and will be forced to, if you and Tony have your way. What I can't forget is the utterly callous way those on your side of the issue have treated those of us on this side. That will linger long after the issue itself is settled. It's not about userboxes any more so much as it's about how policy is made, and how much voice people not in positions of power have in making it. The answers right now are very, very ugly.

I'm not one of those who claim that the First Amendment is involved here. As you point out, it's purely a restriction on the government. That does not mean that I believe that stifling expression on user pages is a good thing, as there are other reasons to support it. Wikipedia is a rich, diverse community, and that should be celebrated, not swept under the rug.

I wish I could believe that Tony's a great guy. Right now, though, the only perception I have is that he's a crusader utterly convinced that God (or at least Jimbo, which is essentially the same on here) is on his side and that the end justifies the means - users be damned. I try hard not to associate with such people, and am uninclined to associate with organizations where such people make policy. Jay Maynard 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, it may use some democratic processes to solve minor issues (like article deletion), but a lot of major policy decisions come down from the top, either from the developers, the Board, or even Jimbo. That's simply the way it is, and that's the reason there's no point in being on the side arguing in favor of userboxes ... because you're arguing against the side with ultimate authority, so in the end, you can't win, and in the interim, you're just making a lot more fuss and creating unnecessary bad blood between users. A few months ago I was vehemently against the deletion of Brian Peppers ... but once Jimbo stepped in and deleted it I gave up that fight, because it is his site, and his decisions are final. And you know what ... in these intervening months I've realized that it really isn't important at all that we have an article on "Brian Peppers", so I don't even care anymore. I think the same will happen with userboxes once you get over them, accept the inevitable, and focus all of your efforts entirely on the one thing that Wikipedia is, always will be, and that you will never be against Jimbo on: writing an encyclopedia. --Cyde↔Weys 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If the developers, board, or Jimbo would simply state that userboxes shall go as a matter of policy, then you're correct that the debate would be over. The problem is that they have explicitly refused to do so. This leaves it to the consensus of the community - and, as should be blindingly obvious, there is no consensus in general. Thus the six months of debate and acrimony. I don't know why Jimbo has explicitly declined to issue policy. I wish he would. If Wikipedia is not a democracy, then the site should be purged of anything that discusses decision making by consensus, for all it does is raise expectations that will not be met.

I do wish you and others who oppose userboxes would quit presuming to tell others how to spend their time. You're not my boss, and so you don't have that right. As it happens, were it not for this debate, I would be making casual edits here and there as I poke around the encyclopedia and run across things that need fixing. Instead, I'm spending my free time defending a community from the actions of a few who think they know better than everyone else.

If the German solution becomes widely accepted, and people like Tony don't stretch T1 to userboxes in user space, then the war may subside - but there will be a lot of left-over bad feelings. I don't expect many folks to care about mine; I know Tony will never care what I think of him, for example. Even so, what I see as high-handedness on the part of a few has left a bad taste in my mouth that will take years to go away. Jay Maynard 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-sick?

"Now who will we go to when we are wiki-sick?"

What about those who are feeling wiki-sick because fo the positions of Doc and his friends, especially Tony Sidaway and Cyde? Jay Maynard 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure what you ment by that. Mind elaborating :) --Cat out 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikisickness, continued

What I was referring to was the endless debate over userboxes. You'd commented that Doc Glasgow was someone to whom people could come when they were feeling wikisick...but he was one of the people causing it with his position in the userbox debates, along with Tony Sidaway and Cyde. They've all got me feeling sick and depressed because of the unilateral, scorched-earth, bullying tactics they've used to deny that Wikipedia is a community of diverse people with diverse interests and diverse PsOV.

Hence my question: Who do I turn to? Jay Maynard 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... Doc Glasgow is an awsome vandal fighter and a close friend. I'd gladly exchange him for all the userboxes on my userpage, and I am quite protective of them...

POV boxes were declared bad by Jimbo Wales, as they started being counter productive... The second Jimbo made his ruling, the debate ended. Like it or not Jimbo Wales and WMF owns wikipedia servers. Doc was only enforcing that.

--Cat out 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that, by his own words, Jimbo was not making policy, and not encouraging people to go on a deletion spree. But that's neither here nor there, for the moment...I hate to see any valued contributor leave. I just wish that those on the other side of the issue saw that's what they're doing. Jay Maynard 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one see the entier userbox issue an exagaration. When the "war" broke out I subst: my userbox templates (none were political). Waited a month or two and found out my precation wasn't even necesary.

I would wish to see people evolved culturaly beyond prejudice, sadly however there are many who disagrees with that kind of ideology. Userboxes with political or religious content facilitates and sparks this prejudice. Of course you taking the time talking to me aren't the prejudicing kind, but not everyone is like you.

Some people have difficulty supressing their emotions and views, other than that they are excelent contributors. It would not be wise to slap a patriotic american with a userbox showing US army people beheaded etc. (and that user contributing to say Sep/11th attacks). Placing a limit to such cases is the problem, safest would be to delete anything political.

--Cat out 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that it's the user's actions that count, not their beliefs. Only when their beliefs leak into their actions is it that it's a problem (and I'm not in any way trying to minimize it) for Wikipedia. Just because someone is a Republican and proud of it does not mean they're putting a Republican POV into their articles; indeed, it could well mean just the opposite. I put the User republican tag on my page, when I had them at all, so that others could watch and make sure I wasn't writing with that bias.

In any event, this has all been hashed out at great (some might say, with justification, interminable) length other places. My comment was aimed more at the toll this has taken on me, personally. Jay Maynard 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What about a userbox portaying blacks in general for being fundemetaly stupid or whites being arrogant, Japanese being tretrous, muslims barnaric... How is all that creating a friendly and civil enviorment? --Cat out 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, something a lot more important to Wikipedia than userboxes is our fundamental policies, like, say, WP:CIVIL. I don't see how it's constructive for you to be running around calling me a "bully". This isn't middle school. And I think most objective outsiders would say that I haven't been doing anything of the sort. So can we please stop it with the name-calling and continue to civilly discuss the issues? Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How would you describe taking unilateral action in the face of at the very least controversy over the advisability of that action, if not an outright consensus that that action is inappropriate, because the person taking that action can get away with it? If not bullying, then what term would you think is appropriate? FWIW, you're not the greatest culprit, and AFAICT you've backed off from that approach (which I do appreciate); Tony Sidaway has not, and indeed revels in it. It is he who I believe is the biggest bully in this playground.

No, this isn't middle school. This is a community of responsible adults. Responsible adults, especially in a community that values consensus, do not rush out and take unilateral action while the community is trying to figure out the best way to approach an issue. Responsible adults do not respond to complaints by doing even more of the very actions that have raised the complaints in the first place.

Tony's actions are not those of a responsible adult. He is acting like the playground bully we all thought we'd left behind. He's hitting people over the head because he can get away with it. The recent RFC is a case in point. You and he may think that signatures are trivial things to get worked up about. The problem is that, regardless of your opinion, others do think that they are worthy of that reaction, and spraying napalm on the flames by taking the very actions against the complainers in the formal complaint forum is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Note that I am not attacking Tony, merely his actions. That is all that I can judge him by, since I do not know him personally. I do not, however, believe that saying he is acting like a bully is any less civil than the actions I'm talking about, and at some point, this discussion must be held before Tony runs off any more folks. Jay Maynard 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of wills

If you were to do that (adopt an obnoxious signature to piss him off), that would be letting the bully win. If you let him dictate whether or not you enjoy Wikipedia, you're letting the bully win. If you buy into the idea that there was ever a "war", you're letting the bully win. If you do anything other than be excellent, you're letting the bully win. Your choice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said be excellent, I wasn't restricting that to any particular namespace. As for Tony, what makes you so sure nothing's being done? What makes you so sure nobody "in power" cares? Your handing of so much power over your experience to Tony Sidaway seems very sad to me. If your enjoyment of life depends on how other people behave, you've chosen a very hard road. You should know that it's entirely within your power to rise above that stuff, and enjoy Wikipedia despite the screaming babies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: As things stand, especially if T1 applies in user space, Tony will have won his battle of wills - and that's the same as giving in to a bully, which is exactly what I refuse to do.

You see, as foolish as it is for Tony to create that dynamic, where he pushes people around and tells them to do things; it's just as foolish for you to agree that he gets to set the rules and decide which drama we're going to play out, and you cheerfully climb into costume and play the supporting role, all according to his terms. That means you've already lost. To win is to say, "no, you don't get to set the terms. This isn't a battle of wills after all." If you want to win, redefine. If you keep letting them define your role as "the bullied one", you'll be fighting this fight for the rest of your life. Think about that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. I'm tired of reassuring you that you'll be protected from the big, mean bully. You probably won't be. You were right all along; there really are "bad guys," and they win. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Either that, or we're not nearly as stupid as you think, just far more patient. I take a long view of things, and I'm really not worried. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

from Deletion Review

Hi. You're right that we were getting rather off the subject there. I think I may have managed to clarify my view to you, although I'm not sure we have complete understanding. I'll be grateful for a little bit of understanding, as preferable to a lot of talking at cross purposes. Thank you for patiently reading my ranty panegyirc on my Wikipedia philosophy. I'd like to reply to you, but I'll save that for another post, and let this one say no more than: I suspect we're having a real conversation, and thanks for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Tony

Jay, please make an extra effort to be civil when dealing with Tony. Your temper is up, and I suggest that you get in the habit of looking for less inflamatory ways to say things. Don't fling mud just because others do also. GRBerry 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was triggered by the most recent DRV comment. I've been considering giving you a cautionary note about civility for a day or two though, and not just in the context of Tony. Try to be more polite than those that you are discussing with. Flamewars don't make people change position. If one is courteous, one is more likely to be listened to. I am struggling with an over eagerness to respond myself - I'm trying to act on my knowledge that it always wise to respond quickly. GRBerry 01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject User Page Design Committee

Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd here. You thoughts would be appreciated. Thetruthbelow 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your attack on unidentified administrators

Hi, please read this edit and understand that I'm only interested in the following questions:

1. whether you continue to make an accusation against an unnamed Wikipedia administrator
2. whether you persist in arguing that the behavior of the unnamed Wikipedia administrator, as reported by you, is to be taken as indicative of the opinions of all administrators.

I'll be honest and state that your recent behavior, not only this edit, has given me reason to doubt your good faith. But of course if you can name the administrator in question it would definitely increase our mutual understanding. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with Tony Sidaway (response from my talk page)

I see that other editors have been giving you good advice on this subject too. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that we discuss our differences civilly, using the dispute resolution mechanisms. Look at the recent RFC about him. Whatever you think of the results, it got a lot of attention. If you have suggestions or insights that you want to air widely, an RFC can be a good platform. Most of all, though, I need to emphasize: making rude comments about him in various places is not going to help you or make you look good, and it goes against our community principles. FreplySpang 14:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, you might be interested

In this page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! Jay Maynard 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Something not about signatures or userboxes

I don't know if you've ever worked on Minnesota articles or if you've ever seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota, but if you have any interest in helping out with articles in your area of the state, the project could always use your help. It seems that most of the participants are from the Twin Cities area, which isn't bad, but it's hard for people like me to get around the state and take photos. If you can help out, especially with photos of your area of the state, that would be great. --Elkman 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I shoulda gest

that everyone ends up on Wikipedia. Worse than LiveJournal, it is - David Gerard 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians FROM Texas

VOTE to keep Category:Wikipedians from Texas from merging with Category:Wikipedians in Texas. Being FROM Texas is not necessarily the same as being IN Texas. --Renice 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the heads-up on the proposed deletion of the Wikipedians from Texas category, I must point out that you may have jeopardized it by mass-posting notices to users in the category. This has been viewed as spamming in the past, and tends to elicit a very negative response. Jay Maynard 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the renaming warning was added to the category around 1:00UTC, and there was no "relevant entry on the Categories for Discussion page" when I finally noticed the warning at 14:00UTC, it seemed prudent to notify those in the category. If this type of notification is spamming, please point me to the policy. Thanks. --Renice 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I guess I haven't been here long enough to understand the anti-userbox position and the fanatical opposition to userboxes. --Renice 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Video

IMO the whole "net neutrality" issue is overblown, but we've gotten quite a kick out of that video over at Something Awful. Gazpacho 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ==Categories==

?????????100110100 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert's Rules

Regarding your comment that: "It's generally accepted in the parliamentary community that ..." Those are "weasel words". Wikipedia should not be telling people which books are the best, whatever the subject. It is fine if Wikipedia quotes someone saying that a particular book is the most widely-recognized representation of Robert's Rules, but Wikipedia cannot be proclaiming that "everyone means this one particular book" when they refer to the general concept of Robert's Rules. At least not when there are many books on the topic. And quoting a book describing itself as the best seems kind of weak. Everyone thinks their own book is the best. -Mulligatawny 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup

---

2009

Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

---

Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)