Talk:437 - Revision history

Shiori at 01:12, 22 March 2008

2008-03-22T01:12:59Z

Phoenician: move along folks, nothing to see here . . . .

2008-03-20T21:21:32Z

move along folks, nothing to see here . . . .

QtheC at 21:16, 20 March 2008

2008-03-20T21:16:32Z

Nancypants at 20:58, 20 March 2008

2008-03-20T20:58:05Z

Shiori at 20:48, 20 March 2008

2008-03-20T20:48:37Z

QtheC: /* 436 Userbox */

2008-03-20T20:18:40Z

‎436 Userbox

QtheC: Deletion Policy Discussion

2008-03-20T19:32:23Z

Deletion Policy Discussion

QtheC at 18:56, 20 March 2008

2008-03-20T18:56:09Z

QtheC: discussing the appearance of a concensus

2008-03-20T18:35:47Z

discussing the appearance of a concensus

Modelmotion at 21:28, 19 March 2008

2008-03-19T21:28:50Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::Really, I think all the information on the 437 page probably belongs on the 436 page or related discussion page as it is already a reach that newer users will find 437 - it may be a little too obscure in my opinion, though 436 purists may disagree - further relegating something to 437 discussion page is even more obscure.  I'm also not sure where else this Userbox could be found (other than on my user page), or whether there is a better location than this article. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 04:55, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
-:::All of the userboxes can be found here: [[Category talk:User templates]], and the 436 template is on there. We really shouldn't be putting userboxes on any pages other than that one or User pages.- [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 07:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
+:::All of the userboxes can be found here: [[LGPedia:Userboxes]], and the 436 template is on there. We really shouldn't be putting userboxes on any pages other than that one or User pages.- [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 07:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
 ::::Why not? Seems arbitrary. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 20:38, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 {{Userbox 436}}
 {{clr}}
-For other Userboxes, see [[Category_talk:User_templates]].
+For other Userboxes, see [[LGPedia:Userboxes]].
 {{clr}}
 ''The text above may later be added to the 437 content page.  Discussion of the addition of Userboxes or references to Userboxes on content pages rather than on talk pages is underway here:
-[[Category_talk:User_templates#Userbox_use_on_LGPedia_.28proposed.29]]''
+[[Category talk:User templates#Userbox use on LGPedia (proposed)]]''
 ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 15:18, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 == humor? ==
 i seriously don't understand what you guys are talking about.  you're a bunch of goofs. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] march 13

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 What the? This is absurd, Shiori is one of our very best editors and we love her!  (thats all I have to say, I really don't want to argue with anyone and won't reply to any arguments on here)[[User:Nancypants|Nancypants]] 15:58, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 :It is nice that Shiori is liked and appreciated for her contributions to the LGPedia, and I have no wish to change that.  That does not give license to disrespect and delete the contributions of others arbitrarily, which is how this all started.  It's the old standard of your freedom ends where the next person's nose begins - corny but useful.  ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 16:16, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 ==436 Userbox==
 Fans of the 436 may be interested in adding {{tl|Userbox 436}} to their LGPedia User page.

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Oh for the love of-... Fine, QtheC, I see you won't be satisfied until you get a public apology, even despite what Jon said. Since I ''really'' loathe arguing, here you go:
 {{Quote|Shiori|I, Shiori, am hereby formally apologizing to QtheC, as well as the many other great members of this community for reverting edits without offering rationales as to why I was doing what I was doing. I realize now that I, foolishly and impolitely, was stepping on everyone's toes and making the Pedia a truly unwelcoming community. '''For this, and all of my other horrible faults, I apologize.'''}} - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 15:48, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
+:I really don't think a sarcastic apology is helpful or appropriate, though I understand this is a response to criticism from me that may have been strongly worded and too abundant.  For a constructive proposal to avoid or reduce such problems in the future, please consider and contribute to the discussion of a "Lesser Deletion Policy" : [[LGPedia_talk:Deletion_Policy]] to apply to deletions of content within existing pages where there is not established policy and a difference of opinion arises. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 16:16, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 What the? This is absurd, Shiori is one of our very best editors and we love her!  (thats all I have to say, I really don't want to argue with anyone and won't reply to any arguments on here)[[User:Nancypants|Nancypants]] 15:58, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 ==436 Userbox==
 Fans of the 436 may be interested in adding {{tl|Userbox 436}} to their LGPedia User page.

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 {{Quote|Shiori|I, Shiori, am hereby formally apologizing to QtheC, as well as the many other great members of this community for reverting edits without offering rationales as to why I was doing what I was doing. I realize now that I, foolishly and impolitely, was stepping on everyone's toes and making the Pedia a truly unwelcoming community. '''For this, and all of my other horrible faults, I apologize.'''}} - [[User:Shiori|Shiori]] 15:48, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
+What the? This is absurd, Shiori is one of our very best editors and we love her!  (thats all I have to say, I really don't want to argue with anyone and won't reply to any arguments on here)[[User:Nancypants|Nancypants]] 15:58, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 ==436 Userbox==
 Fans of the 436 may be interested in adding {{tl|Userbox 436}} to their LGPedia User page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:48, 20 March 2008
Line 52:		Line 52:

	'''Further to the above discussion:''' [[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] wrote ''"I mean that the policy she stated is how things are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with reverting someone else's edit if the edit is perceived to be incorrect or against policy. So, QtheC, Shiori was completely within her bounds with her revert. At that point, if Shiori thought the revert needed explanation (often times they don't), she could have started a discussion on this talk page explaining her rationale."'' I think Jonpro is making an incorrect assumption in this statement that the deletion was made because the addition was "against policy." There was no policy about Userboxes - I proposed one on the Userbox page. I think it is also important to distinguish between reverting an edit and deleting wholesale a well-intended addition without justification of the removal, or proposing an alternative location or form for that addition. The idea that deletions of other peoples' contributions to the LGPedia without clear policy and without a discussion first is a bad idea, will foster conflicts like this one, and is against the spirit of the deletion policy as expressed in the [[LGPedia:Deletion_Policy]] for pages. It is, of course, refering to page deletions which adhere to a higher standard than small edits, but the spirit of the process is clear. ''"Only admins of the LGPedia can delete pages. Pages that only contain inflammatory content, are hateful, are clearly advertisements or spam can be deleted without discussion. Other pages will typically go through a discussion process of no less than one week. For larger articles, this discussion period can be extended. If there is no consensus, the issue will be put to a vote."'' If that is required for page deletions, surely a simple discussion is merited where a deletion is under consideration of something that is not offensive, etc. This entire conflict would have been avoided with a bit of courtesy and consideration in the first place. ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 14:32, 20 March 2008 (CDT)		'''Further to the above discussion:''' [[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] wrote ''"I mean that the policy she stated is how things are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with reverting someone else's edit if the edit is perceived to be incorrect or against policy. So, QtheC, Shiori was completely within her bounds with her revert. At that point, if Shiori thought the revert needed explanation (often times they don't), she could have started a discussion on this talk page explaining her rationale."'' I think Jonpro is making an incorrect assumption in this statement that the deletion was made because the addition was "against policy." There was no policy about Userboxes - I proposed one on the Userbox page. I think it is also important to distinguish between reverting an edit and deleting wholesale a well-intended addition without justification of the removal, or proposing an alternative location or form for that addition. The idea that deletions of other peoples' contributions to the LGPedia without clear policy and without a discussion first is a bad idea, will foster conflicts like this one, and is against the spirit of the deletion policy as expressed in the [[LGPedia:Deletion_Policy]] for pages. It is, of course, refering to page deletions which adhere to a higher standard than small edits, but the spirit of the process is clear. ''"Only admins of the LGPedia can delete pages. Pages that only contain inflammatory content, are hateful, are clearly advertisements or spam can be deleted without discussion. Other pages will typically go through a discussion process of no less than one week. For larger articles, this discussion period can be extended. If there is no consensus, the issue will be put to a vote."'' If that is required for page deletions, surely a simple discussion is merited where a deletion is under consideration of something that is not offensive, etc. This entire conflict would have been avoided with a bit of courtesy and consideration in the first place. ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 14:32, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
		+
		+
		+	Oh for the love of-... Fine, QtheC, I see you won't be satisfied until you get a public apology, even despite what Jon said. Since I ''really'' loathe arguing, here you go:
		+	{{Quote\|Shiori\|I, Shiori, am hereby formally apologizing to QtheC, as well as the many other great members of this community for reverting edits without offering rationales as to why I was doing what I was doing. I realize now that I, foolishly and impolitely, was stepping on everyone's toes and making the Pedia a truly unwelcoming community. '''For this, and all of my other horrible faults, I apologize.'''}} - [[User:Shiori\|Shiori]] 15:48, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :::::::::::::::::Ah in my absence someone clearly drummed up some support (probably on IRC) and encouraged a few people to post here.  Jonpro's comments are the most thoughtful, and I am willing to defer to appearance (if not reality) of a concensus that Userboxes and even links to Userboxes are not fair game on content pages.  (I could of course round up a few users to post contrary opinions, but why bother?)  However, the lack of recognition that shiori was out of line from beginning to end in her handling of this matter is really an embarassment to this community, and no doubt other toes will be smashed in the future as a result.  The idea that users can without good reason and where there are no clear guidelines make arbitrary deletions of other people's well-meaning contributions to this shared resource is a mistake.  A better policy would be one that encourages mutual respect, and you (collectively) have failed this time. ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 13:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 Clarification requested:  Are those who said "No Userboxes" opposed to Userboxes themselves on content pages, or both Userboxes themselves and references (links) to Userboxes on content pages? ~ [[User:QtheC|QtheC]] 13:56, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
 ==436 Userbox==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 20 March 2008
Line 48:		Line 48:

	:::::::::::::::::Ah in my absence someone clearly drummed up some support (probably on IRC) and encouraged a few people to post here. Jonpro's comments are the most thoughtful, and I am willing to defer to appearance (if not reality) of a concensus that Userboxes and even links to Userboxes are not fair game on content pages. (I could of course round up a few users to post contrary opinions, but why bother?) However, the lack of recognition that shiori was out of line from beginning to end in her handling of this matter is really an embarassment to this community, and no doubt other toes will be smashed in the future as a result. The idea that users can without good reason and where there are no clear guidelines make arbitrary deletions of other people's well-meaning contributions to this shared resource is a mistake. A better policy would be one that encourages mutual respect, and you (collectively) have failed this time. ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 13:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)		:::::::::::::::::Ah in my absence someone clearly drummed up some support (probably on IRC) and encouraged a few people to post here. Jonpro's comments are the most thoughtful, and I am willing to defer to appearance (if not reality) of a concensus that Userboxes and even links to Userboxes are not fair game on content pages. (I could of course round up a few users to post contrary opinions, but why bother?) However, the lack of recognition that shiori was out of line from beginning to end in her handling of this matter is really an embarassment to this community, and no doubt other toes will be smashed in the future as a result. The idea that users can without good reason and where there are no clear guidelines make arbitrary deletions of other people's well-meaning contributions to this shared resource is a mistake. A better policy would be one that encourages mutual respect, and you (collectively) have failed this time. ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 13:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
		+	Clarification requested: Are those who said "No Userboxes" opposed to Userboxes themselves on content pages, or both Userboxes themselves and references (links) to Userboxes on content pages? ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 13:56, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

	==436 Userbox==		==436 Userbox==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 20 March 2008
Line 46:		Line 46:

	::::::::::::::::Since 436 does not exist, how can this discussion exist?--[[User:Modelmotion\|modelmotion]] 16:28, 19 March 2008 (CDT)		::::::::::::::::Since 436 does not exist, how can this discussion exist?--[[User:Modelmotion\|modelmotion]] 16:28, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
		+
		+	:::::::::::::::::Ah in my absence someone clearly drummed up some support (probably on IRC) and encouraged a few people to post here. Jonpro's comments are the most thoughtful, and I am willing to defer to appearance (if not reality) of a concensus that Userboxes and even links to Userboxes are not fair game on content pages. (I could of course round up a few users to post contrary opinions, but why bother?) However, the lack of recognition that shiori was out of line from beginning to end in her handling of this matter is really an embarassment to this community, and no doubt other toes will be smashed in the future as a result. The idea that users can without good reason and where there are no clear guidelines make arbitrary deletions of other people's well-meaning contributions to this shared resource is a mistake. A better policy would be one that encourages mutual respect, and you (collectively) have failed this time. ~ [[User:QtheC\|QtheC]] 13:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

	==436 Userbox==		==436 Userbox==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 19 March 2008
Line 44:		Line 44:

	:::::::::::::::To be fair, QtheC, your logic is understandable and I see why you thought Shiori was acting out of hand, but now you know that the policy in these situations is to leave the disputed edit ''off'' the page until the discussion is finished and a consensus is reached. Now, of course this system runs the risk of encouraging people to challenge any old edit and in that way keep the edit off the page until a consensus is reached. However, using the system that way abuses it and likely won't work as consensus can be reached very quickly on edits which obviously have no rationale for removing them.--[[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] 16:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)		:::::::::::::::To be fair, QtheC, your logic is understandable and I see why you thought Shiori was acting out of hand, but now you know that the policy in these situations is to leave the disputed edit ''off'' the page until the discussion is finished and a consensus is reached. Now, of course this system runs the risk of encouraging people to challenge any old edit and in that way keep the edit off the page until a consensus is reached. However, using the system that way abuses it and likely won't work as consensus can be reached very quickly on edits which obviously have no rationale for removing them.--[[User:Jonpro\|Jonpro]] 16:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
		+
		+	::::::::::::::::Since 436 does not exist, how can this discussion exist?--[[User:Modelmotion\|modelmotion]] 16:28, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

	==436 Userbox==		==436 Userbox==