User:Avriette/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day

I've added a snippet from the Gettysburg Compiler regarding sharpshooters during this engagement. You may want to rearrange things. I do feel that it adds additional substance to the article, however. I have also loosened up the "may have been staged" wording regarding the picture therein. The text from the Compiler indicates that the body was at the very least disturbed by investigating soldiers. ... aa:talk 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some tweaking, trying out the relatively new Quotation macro. It seems to overlap the picture a bit in my browser; I hope that's a bug that will be fixed eventually. Thanks for finding the quote; interesting. Hal Jespersen 18:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to. Thanks for the fixup. I tend to use so many browsers that I can't really test on all of them. I generally get Deer Park (the nightly build of firefox) and IE7 (also nightly builds), but everything else gets lost in the noise. ... aa:talk 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

What's up? Moe ε 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Moe ε 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to tell me what the problem between you two is? Moe ε 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have e-mail enabled. Moe ε 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certain users

Please try to accept his apology. Moe ε 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it didn't seem likely for him to apologize but I requested he did. Please try to be understanding. Moe ε 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Understanding is knowing when somebody walks away from you that they don't want to talk to you. I'll continue to remove his comments. I won't be treated this way. I appreciate your efforts. ... aa:talk 01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I never said you couldn't remove his comments. ;-) Just saying... Moe ε 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like that. Well, new friend, I'll talk to you later! Moe ε 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe it, User:Gators222, Auburnfan4, I ignore you, Gators222isgayfucker and the IP address are all the same person. If Gators222 and all the abusive users are sockpuppets of each other shouldn't they be blocked per WP:SOCK? Moe ε 04:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can believe it. However, I was trying to mention it to you, you know, on the sly. I figure the abuse will only escalate now. This is, incidentally, why I try to tell people to be even headed and calm with vandals/trolls/abusive wetware. I don't think this is going in a very good direction. We'll see, I guess. ... aa:talk 04:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I am going to report it an hopefully they will be blocked. Moe ε 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem admins

Do be aware that having a speedy deletion listed on deletion review, and even overturned, does not make one a problem admin. That's about the 20th deletion of mine to appear on DRV, and the first to be reversed. If you think I'm being problematic, I'd be quite happy for you to utilise my talk page, or RfC if you prefer. Name calling is indeed a poor way to make friends and points. -Splash^talk 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to make friends, as everyone is so fond of pointing out. I called you your name, not a name. And it's something of a surprise to me that you immediately think I would be referring to DRV. Regardless of whether I was, that's clear acknowledgement that there is a problem with you at DRV. I think the problem is larger than you or I, for what that's worth. I also don't think either of us will resolve it on your talk page. However, I'd be willing to discuss it with you, if you like. I do have my opinions (as I'm sure you can tell from this and other pages), and I hate to not get along with people. Matter of fact, I'm trying to smooth things over with Tony right now. However, I think he'd be the first to admit that users do have a problem with some of his actions. Dig? ... aa:talk 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The asterisk at the end of your message on Oleg Alexandrov's page is the best I have been able to find for my problematicness. I have edited DRV I think 5 times in the last week, and one of my speedies is likely to be overturned, if it hasn't already. Where is that problematic? -Splash^talk 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me to go through your history and find it? That seems a little excessive. I really don't feel like this needs to be a tarring-and-feathering. DRV is symptomatic. Did you not read others' responses to your comments on DRV? What is it you're looking for from me? Would you like to resolve this, or do you want to justify my original claim? I see the two as being mutually exclusive. If I go as far as to cite things that are problematic on your account, you will most likely consider that to be some form of attack (and I believe it would, actually). The alternative is just expressing what I think the current problems are. If the latter is the case, I'd welcome a chance to hash it out with you. Perhaps even with Tony. Alas, I have my doubts about that getting to any head, as even if you and I all agree to be Care Bears and love one another, it won't fix the community problems as a whole. It's something of a ... kerfuffle. ... aa:talk 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to suggest that there are 3 admins who are, in your words, so bad they need to be culled (yes, you said exactly that) then you might reasonably expect them to enquire why. You seem to think that the problem is insoluble and not worth talking about, except in this implication-fingerpointing kind of way. Well, I guess that's up to you, but if you're just going to be coy about it, then really I'm not sure why you started. -Splash^talk 03:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say that you or anyone else should be culled. Please see the original edit. I can, however, see how the juxtaposition might have led people to say that. I apologize. I had meant to say that it would be good to cull people from the RFA process before they became admins. Not to cull the current admins. Is that difference clear? I can clarify a little more. Really, I'm not out to muckrake or create dissent. I'd like to see the problem resolved. Again, I'm also not here to call names. I was simply (as I said elsewhere) citing where the problems have historically been. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What say you? Would you like to fix the problem? I see a compromise as the solution, not a mandate that "one side" or the other "win" the argument. ... aa:talk 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (alex)

[edit] Extermination

Extermination of socks have begun:

Gators222 - exterminated
Auburnfan4 - exterminated
I ignore you - exterminated

Moe ε 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know. I guess I'll batten down the hatches and await the inevitable return vandalism. Sigh. ... aa:talk 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I became suspicious about those first two accounts when I saw this message. Their user pages also looked suspiciously similar, and they both used some of the same annoying internet-slang mannerisms. But I assumed they were just friends who started editing Wikipedia at about the same time. I'd like to commend Moe Epsilon for his professional approach to the situation, and I'd like to express condolence to Avriette for the trolling he's been through. Hopefully, if the user behind the sockpuppets comes back, he will make some constructive contributions instead of disrupting legitimate users. --Tantalum T e lluride 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

You filed this case. Do you still require mediation? --Fasten 10:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While I was glad to not deal with it for a while, I would still like an external opinion on it. So, yes. Thanks for getting back to me. ... aa:talk 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal on userbox policy

Greetings. Thanks for writing about my userbox proposal. I wanted to answer some question you have. I've copied your questions below for reference.

Is {{User:Avriette/ec}} considered a template, though it may live outside of the Template: namespace? I would disagree with the policy of userboxes not being allowed to reside in a template if that is the case. The reason for having it separately (in the /ec page) is for purposes of editing. I find it very difficult to maintain lots of individual pieces of wikinotation.
- If it is being used as a template, appearing on multiple people's userpages, then it should be treated like a template. If it's only being used on your page, then it's not a problem. But we could disagree on this point and still agree on the overall policy proposal.

Why is it that templates and categories are considered harmful? Brion has recently said that subtemplates are not problematic for the servers, are categories? It would seem that with Category:living people that this is not the case.
- On their own, templates and categories are not harmful. (There's no particularly heavy load on the servers, for instance.) What's harmful is specifically when templates and categories are used to express or promote a POV. Why is this harmful? Because having a category invites people to look through and find people who will vote the way they want - and that's factionalism. Or having a template invites looking through the list of people who include the template on their userpages. The software makes it easy. That's why it's harmful in this case.

Vote stacking always happens. Tony recently said:

Quite a lot--the more you centralize discussion the less chance you have of getting a feel for Wikipedia consensus. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This says to me that the more you allow everyone to participate, the less likely you are to get your own point of view across in a discussion/vote. This is particularly egregious in the RFC process (see bottom of this comment), and happens everywhere. One doesn't need templates and categories to find out where people stand on an issue. Call it inside-out wikistalking. Rather than following a specific person around, I can follow a specific topic, and very easily find people who fit my own point of view on a subject. Be it on Tony's behavior, Valerie Plame's covert status, or on userbox policy. I don't see how this particular complaint is justified other than very superficially.

- Yes, vote stacking always happens, and it will happen whether userboxes exist or not. But it's better to not make it easy. Having templates and categories for beliefs and biases naturally invites people to split off by POV and factionalize. It's like a built-in tool to help people do things we don't want them to do. It takes at least some effort to search through and find people who disapprove of the revealing of Plame's status, whereas it's awfully easy to look through a category. As an analogy, if someone really wants to break into my car, then they'll find a way to break in even if I keep it locked; but that doesn't mean I should leave my car unlocked - that's just inviting trouble.

Lastly, while I agree that the current kerfuffle about userboxes is harmful to the encyclopedia, one could quite easily contend that the problem was in all the dissent -- not in the userboxes. To rephrase, the problem is not that userboxes are problematic, but that so many people are upset about them. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if Kelly Martin hadn't gone and scorched the earth. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if the {{db-divisive}} template didn't exist. The userboxes wouldn't be a problem if there weren't discussions happening at length on wikien-l (which not everyone is privy to). Finally, the userboxes wouldn't be a problem if users who saw {{thinks jwales is stalin}} just said "oh, that user is an idiot," rather than "omg, i must destroy that userbox."
- Some people do believe the problem is in the dissent. And some of the forms of dissent have undoubtable harmed Wikipedia. But many, including Jimbo, believe that having POV categories and templates hurts Wikipedia by promoting factionalism - even if the dissent were non-existent.

Again, thanks for your comments. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my homepage for an alternate view. StrangerInParadise 06:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Yeah he does! Natasha and Killer are coons right? They sure look like it. Rufio's our big studly kitty man. He's breaching 15-16 pounds by now. Fat ass....LOL.Gator (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yessir. They're 2nd cousins, actually. We looked around at several breeders before finding the right cats. Killer is 20 lbs and Natasha is somewhat portly at 15. If you can find it, the Royal Canin Maine Coon food is terrific. We have a hard time keeping weight on Killer. He just has the metabolism of a hummingbird. I feed him as much as 2.5 cups of food a day! With regular food, he just doesn't keep weight on and will get down to 12-13 lbs, which worries the vet. Natasha is another story. She can gain weight looking at food. My father has a cat who is about 20 lbs, but, shall we say, not of maine coon genes. She's diabetic. I am really hoping to avoid bills like that. So cool to see 'coon people on wikipedia. :) ... aa:talk 21:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on vote-stacking

I really don't understand your views on vote-stacking at all. You see nothing terribly wrong with someone "calling out a posse" with the explicit intent of disrupting process? --Cyde Weys 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're overreacting. The user said,

I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm.

The user did not explicitly intend to disrupt process. The user explicitly intended to get users to vote. I think you're overly sensitive to this, and I understand. It's been a tough couple months now. But I think we're getting places with our WP:UBP. It is possible the user wanted to involve many people in the debate -- who might not have been aware of it because they were, you know, editing. That would be the "good faith" thing to assume. Also, if you look at my own edit history, you would see that I spend over twice as much time in the main: space as I do in the Wikipedia: space. And these last couple months are the exception. In the past, it's been eight or more times as many edits in main: as in Wikipedia:. I think it's fair to help other users find discussions which they don't have time to go and find on their own. Think how many discussions we have on userboxes right now. I'd love a digest (the NRA does this for me; I'm a member of their Institute for Legal Action, the NRA-ILA. They send me updates when congressmen are doing things I won't agree with, when a bill is in danger of passing (or not...), and generally just keep me informed. This isn't illegal. It's rather common.) of the things that I'd be interested in discussing, especially if I don't have to spend thirty minutes finding them. But I digress.

I do understand your concern. I also think you've grossly misstated what happened. The user didn't say "LET'S GO AND DISRUPT DRV." In fact, the user said that the deleter of the boxes had done the disrupting (calling it a "jihad").

Does that clear it up? I'm of course open to your read on this.

p.s., I was looking at the user's contributions, and noticed the discussion you're having on their talk page. Remember I said to you on IRC ('keats') that I really wanted to understand other people's point of view on this? I think you were overly harsh with the user. The language you used, such as "I have reported you," and "your actions are unacceptable," are overly harsh and not necessary. We can express to users that they have run afoul of convention and policy without using that tone. Also, why not allow the discussion to happen on WP:ANI or wherever else it needs to be reported, and let somebody who is not attached to the dispute warn or otherwise educate the user? Let's be civil, and maybe we can get through this and all be friends. I'm asking you as a favor to me, not as a requirement of the community, and not because you've done anything wrong. Just please, for me, try to be a little nicer. Even if you think the user is 100% wrong. Do you think you could do that, for me? ... aa:talk 05:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Janizary has made some statements that certainly don't seem to be in good faith - [[1]], and calling for the death of those who delete templates here: [[2]]. And that's just a start. It's ... a bit hard to assume good faith with that kind of claim going on. Michael Ralston 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken (mind signing your comment?). However, I think the point stands -- that "vote stacking" is not necessarily the evil it is said to be, and that when it is brought up, it is usually brought up inappropriately. e.g., to make a judgement on the validity of the opposing argument. If vote stacking is bad, build policy before (or after) it happens, not when it happens. I just don't like the atmosphere that surrounds vote stacking claims. ... aa:talk 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies about not signing - I keep forgetting from time to time. Michael Ralston 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tools development

I've written up some info about toolserver stuff here. You don't need to be an admin to get an account on the toolserver, anybody can potentially get an account there, so go for it, see if you can get an account. If you don't get an account there, but you have SQL queries already written, it might be possible to send a query my way and I might be able to run it for people on live data.

All of my scripts are written in perl... for all of my scripts, just put a "?code" on the end of the script, and the script will output the latest version of the code. [3]

Also, based on your user page, it looks like you're interested in userbox policy. Some of my recent stuff might interest you... userbox creator profiles... and various other stuff on my tools/reports list. --Interiot 06:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I am only marginally interested in userbox policy. It just disturbs me greatly that I am spending so much time with this meta discussion and not editing articles. I feel like if I don't help everyone come to some compromise here that one group or another will be marginalized. I really couldn't stand that.

I did see those looking over your page. Neat. That's precisely the kind of thing I was thinking about, although not those two specifically. I was thinking more of coming up with trending data. Like, having a chronology of "significant events." Things like, when policies went into effect, when certain users left or joined, when articles were published, and so on. Subsequently representing their effect on the community. It's just something I've been curious about. One thing in particular I'm curious about is the editing tendencies of users who are added the sysop bit. Especially over time. Also, I don't know that the schema supports it, but I would like to know what the average edit size is. My guess is rather small. It would be nice to be able to map that data across namespaces, and so on.

Basically lots of ideas, and it would be neat if I had the opportunity to actually flesh those out into prototypes.

Also, it's terrific that you're doing this in perl. Is there a toolserver svn or cvs (or whatever) server? Would you be willing to accept patches?

thanks for getting back to me so quickly. ... aa:talk 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, CVS is on the server. Embarasingly though, I haven't figured out how to use it yet (I use ClearCase at work, but haven't made the jump yet). But sure, I'd take patches. The wikisign database is a little different though (it doesn't include historical revisions, or user ids, for instance), so I don't know if you'd be able to test queries very well. But whichever.

Edit diff size. Hrm. It's not explicitely available in the database, so you'd have to do all the diffs yourself. But the toolserver doesn't currently have the wikitext of each page, so.... first one has to convince Kate to update the server to start replicating over page contents.

On the other hand, there are ideas one might have that are easier to implement than one might think due to the database layout. So often, it's best just to try it and see how easy one idea or the other might be.

So, do you have any examples of programs you've written in Perl? Do you have any SQL experience? I don't know it takes for the toolserver admins to create an account for someone, but it might help to have an existing member advocate for new accounts. --Interiot 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some examples, I will email you. ... aa:talk 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. IMHO, anybody with SQL experience should get a toolserver account. I think there are a lot of very useful SQL queries that could be written, but I don't personally have enough time to write all possible useful ones.

So, I strongly encourage you to apply for an account. If you'd like, first put your name here. Then talk to DaBPunkt on #wikimedia-toolserver on IRC, he's the one who makes new-account decisions, but it sounds like you should easily be able to get one. --Interiot 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it when you left IRC, DaBPunkt said:

DaBPunkt keats: Write an eMail with your prefer accountname and ssh-key to kate
DaBPunkt zedler-admins (at) wikimedia.org

If you don't have one already, you'll have to generate an SSH key, and email it to kate, and use it whenever you logon to the toolserver. It might take a little bit for the account to be created, I think they're finishing some sysadmin work on the server. But once you get on, if you want, let me know and I can show you the perl routines I'm using to make things a little easier. --Interiot 21:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

Yeah sure but over the weekend as I won't have any time till then, SqueakBox 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see the problem with this article now, see my comments at Talk:Hashish#cleanup tag and Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Marijuana, SqueakBox 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pore

Argh, haha, thank you I fixed it. I am a pour speller. (the worst joke you will read today!) - cohesion★talk 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Navy Historical Center Images

Might I suggest you rename them as you upload them to better reflect the subject matter, and possible crop off the captions at the top and instead type them in as a wikicaption? It really makes them display a lot cleaner. Cornell Rockey 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been slowly doing the cruisers one by one, and yes, its time consuming as hell. Guess I'm just crazy like that ;) Cornell Rockey 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My final good-byes

Hello Avriette. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. Moe ε 05:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. [4]

See you soon. Or not. Good luck in your endeavors. ... aa:talk 06:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper rifle pic

I will have a look later today Guinnog 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also happy to have a look at it, but it might take a few days before I have some spare time. --Fastfission 23:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

- Is this the sort of thing?

Actually, that might work, although I like the detail in the original. I may see if I can get the lighting worked out a little better tonight. Anyways,

this is what I'm looking for. The image of the gun is great in that it is the whole gun, rather than cradled to somebody's head in a firing position. Additionally, it has all the gadgets and whatsits that a common sniper rifle would have. I'd like to have, instead of lines pointing to components iwth descriptions, lines pointing to components terminating in (1), (2), and so on. So that in the description, we can say "(1) retractable bipod", "(2) riflescope objective", "(3) bolt", and so on. Which can subsequently be translated into japanese or whatever. Having the words in the image means that it's useless to other encyclopedias. Dig? ... aa:talk 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and do it over te weekend. Guinnog 21:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, that appears to be a Remington 700P, with what appears to be a Leupold Mk IV tactical scope, in a magnification apparently larger than 10x40mm (or maybe my eyes deceive me but it looks bigger than my 3.5-10x40mm. Probably a 12x50mm). Let me know if you need any better pictures or anything, I've got my own remington m700p, and I'd be more than happy to provide pictures of it (will have to wait until I return to town on monday). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remington 700VS, Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56mm mildot, harris bipod. I've converted a part of my home to include proper lighting and everything, so I'm happy to provide pictures. Finally I can control the lighting (although admittedly, the lighting changed between the two shots). I'm still getting the camera end worked out, but I'm overall pretty happy with it. I've got several firearms that could be placed in articles. The GLOCK articles in particular are somewhat lacking. I'm also putting together some material that should really beef up the sniping-related articles. ... aa:talk 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, how much did you pay for the Nightforce ??? Are you running it with a long-range base? How much usable MOA are you getting out of it? I'm considering picking up a Nightforce myself, but I"m not sure if I can justify it because there's nowhere where I live to shoot beyond 600-800 meters, and tbh a .308 is gonna be wonky at that point anyway.

The NF was a couple times the cost of the rifle. I want to say it was in the neighborhood of $1500. I shoot down at Quantico MCB, and we're getting a couple inches at 600 yards. Part of the problem is getting through the "wavy lines" coming off the ground due to heat. The range at Quantico is structured as a set of berms, so you're never more than a foot or two off the ground. If we had a proper shooting position, I think it would be a lot better. On the other hand, being civ, I'm probably never going to get the opportunity unless I go out to Montana and go varminting, or something. As far as range, you'd be surprised what the .308 can do. You don't have to have a .50 to get out to 1,000 yds, you can do that with a .300 win mag, or a .338 lapua. Both fit into a rem 700. If you have a nice scope, like the NF, all you have to do is compensate for drop and windage, and you should be able to walk your round on up to the target, and be consistent all day long. This isn't very effective, in theater, though.

I think the most popular rounds at Quantico are the .223 (of course), the .308 (again, this is easy), the .300 WM, the 7mm magnum, and the .50. We've kind of turned heads by taking a Marlin .44 mag levergun out there. You'd probably be surprised what a .44 rifle can do, too. Really, you just have to go out and shoot it. You then adapt to your target. The .22 LR ruger we have with a 1x redot sight is capable of hitting all the way down at 50 yds, repeatably. ... aa:talk 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thanks. Yeah, I haven't had any time to do any REAL long range shooting since MTT up in Kirkuk (which was only a 2 day course) and then when I came back stateside and bought my rifle, I took it out to a 3-gun competition in Arizona hoping there would be a distance range, but visibility restrictions prevented me from exercising it to its full potential.

I don't know, maybe it's just the M118 cartridge I've been using ( I don't have the equipment, time or patience to handload) but I just don't get very good ballistics with any .308 past 800m. Oh sure, you can hit paper, and with a couple shots yeah you can very definately hit 1,000m. But the odds of maintaining sub-MOA accuracy at 1000m, with a .308 are far too low for my liking. I'll take .300WM or .338 Lapua thanks (or .418 CheyTac if you're willing to throw a few grand my way ;) )

[edit] What??? Flukeman???

What are you talking about? SGCommand*Give me a week tops - SGCommand

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Pro-cannabis userbox

This user is pro-cannabis.

If you would like to have this on your userpage, just add {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis}} to your userpage, and the box at right will appear on it. Also, if used in your user space, the page will be listed on Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians. If you would like to share it with someone else, type {{User:Disavian/Userboxes/pro-cannabis|stamp|right}}

Also, consider weighing in on the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll.

Stand up and be counted while you still can,

StrangerInParadise 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that I am pro-cannabis? ... aa:talk 22:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I remembered your work on the cultivation article, and thought you might be interested in hearing that the userbox had been created. Perhaps I needed to stamp SAMPLE accross it in red, so that it didn't look like I was presuptuously labeling you. =)

StrangerInParadise 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That'd be a neat trick, css-fu. I dare ya. :) ... aa:talk 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked to take up your challenge, but couldn't find anything on css-fu but vague references. Could you give me a pointer. By the way, I updated my instructions, the ones I put in were wrong. StrangerInParadise 06:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just saying I'd like to see it. I don't know enough css myself. ... aa:talk 19:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for catching that pronoun!

I've been looking for it, and couldn't remember where I had dropped it. StrangerInParadise 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal Mediation Request

Hello. I've been assigned to your mediation request regarding issues with the Leet article and another poster. I'm going to review the article and all the posts you mention. You can contact me via my talk page or click on the "email this user" link to send me an email. Dreadlocke 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Cansat male cannabis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cansat male cannabis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Cansat female cannabis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cansat female cannabis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] Cansat image

Hello Avriette, You have written description but please add an appropriate tag from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags with the image. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 17:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to add the tags as time permits. -- Shyam ^(T/C) 17:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely not!

Why should Guanaco remain blocked? Why haven't you unblocked him yet? I'm not going to sit by, and neither should you. There is no need to compromise here. StrangerInParadise 07:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I am not an admin. ... aa:talk 08:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote stacking

...as you mentioned on ANI you didn't understand the logic

I don't need to understand the "logic", since it's clearly a post-facto rationale for "getting my own way". If StrangerInParadise wants to get his anti-authoritarian ya-yas on, he ought to go elsewhere and not make up excuses as to why he's immune to the established norms.

The reasoning you posted, in fact, confirms my distaste: the kinds of pressure campaigns you highlight I find abhorrent to the practice of American democracy, as small pressure groups try to tilt politicians their way by flooding them with mail, faxes, and phone calls out of proportion to their actual numbers. Except, in this case, since the impact is direct instead of indirect (piling up "votes"), more corrosive. Why you approve of StrangerInParadise's attempts to game the system I don't know. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. We aren't here for people to correct problems in democracy in the world at large. Voting blocks is a side effect of democracy, as are straw polls. Wikipedia is also not a democracy. So perhaps when you say you are against voting blocs, you should simply say that you don't like lots of people voting when you can instead culture a smaller audience. Or did I miss the point? ... aa:talk 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caliber lists

I snagged the category lists[5] from the Midway USA website's ammunition pages for handgun and rifle. Those reasonably cover cartridges that are popular enough to warrant commercial sale in the US. They don't cover the esoterics and wildcats, but they'll make sure we don't miss a reasonably popular caliber. I still need to go through and regularize the naming scheme (I think RUM, WSM, and WSSM are accepted enough to be used in short form) and then integrate the lists with the ballistics data so we can see the holes. scot 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about WSSM, WSM, and RUM. What about things like "44 Magnum" vs (the possibly more correct) "44 Remington Magnum"? Or "7mm magnum" and "7mm Remington magnum"? ... aa:talk 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I think that for the purpose of the ballistics tables we can abbreviate or use the short forms (to keep the table from being too wide); when we create the cartridge info table, then we can title it with the most "official" name (".44 Remgington Magnum") and list the more common short forms (".44 Magnum, .44 Mag, .44 Rem Mag"). I think for the magnum rifle rounds, "Magnum" will do for most handgun rounds, while "Win Mag", "Rem Mag" are probably best for rifle rounds. I think whoever is doing the integration in question needs to make that decision, as there are just too many naming schemes out there to come up with a general rule. Take for example the guy who posted the picture of the 6.5mm to hollow point bullet. He's in Sweden, and to them it's just a 6.5mm or 6.5x55mm; to us, it's called a 6.5x55mm Swede. scot 15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was unaware of a hatchet needing burial

Apart from mild bristling at your characterization of my UN note as tacky (I can take it, besides, I rather liked my note), you've not given me cause for offense, and I cannot recollect have expressed any. Please remind me if I have, it has been a busy week.

I was on the point of asking for a list of terrible userbox-induced incidents which I could review, and now you may have saved me the trouble of asking one of my uncivil detractors. I am interested in assembling a list of incidents in the userbox wars, including perceived causi belli. For example, why does everyone talk about that Catholic group? I'd like to know.

I appreciate your comments on the invalidity of a charge of vote-stacking. I'd encourage you to say so clearly at my alert.

As to my newness to the community, I'm afraid you have mischaracterized this: well over four years without incident. Yes, I have another mild-mannered account with which the bulk of my edits have been done, and two years of off-and-on anonymous editing before that. No, I never, ever double-vote or sock-puppet in any way. Don't worry, being spoken to as a newbie is the least of my annoyances lately. Cool edit profiler

You are correct that this Userboxenkampf has absorbed so much of my time, that the articles I take care of- as well as those I would read and fix en passant- have suffered by my neglect. Here is where we differ: I believe that helping guide Wikipedia out of this crisis may be the most important thing we can do for the good of the project. It is not the elitism that I find offensive, it is the anti-intellectualism disguised- pretentiously- as elitism. It is the transparent corruption of process in its waging. It is the surly disdain admins have developed for the obligations of process. It is the clumsy royalism which has unleashed so much of this disaster (the English especially ought to have known better). It is the resignation in the words of those who would give in to these thugs just to end the conflict. Worst of all, it is the shallow understanding of NPOV and encyclopedism evidenced in this conflict and this proposal which, if institutionalized, will damage the project for years to come, and likely shatter the new userbase.

To stand by is not an option.

I believe that, more than anything, this conflict evidences a failure of the administrator community to adapt to new modes of dialog and process, abeited in part by a misunderstanding of ignore all rules. The newbies are moving faster than admins can control with a mode of dialog with which the adins are not comfortable. This failure to adapt, and to provide more certain, non-authoritative ways to referee articles has led admins to push for changes which make Wikipedia easier to manage. In this light, one may also understand the recent change to WP:3RR, the insertion of the language ...in whole or in part... to the rule gives admins virtually unlimited authority to block. Easier to manage.

Worse, many seldom bother with the notion that administrative and editorial powers must be separate, and that administrators only govern process on behalf of the community. There are many admins who have little sense of self-recusal and imbue their editorial views with administrative privileges. By handing to admins carte blanche to delete what they personally deem unencyclopedic or unhelpful, a class of privileged editors is created. Add to this the notion of admin exceptionalism by which vandals with sysop powers justify their actions, and you see the end of Wikipedia.

'	This user believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned.

The expectation of fair process has never been lower. So many people who were resigned to giving in are now standing up and fighting back. Good. I am not interested in a truce with the likes of those who would burn userboxes. I am interesting in destroying any effort to evolve policy towards deciding what is and is not permitted speech in talk pages or permitted assocation, beyond those required by progressive community (no hate speech, personal attacks, legal threats, etc).

This user is pro-cannabis.

My creation of this userbox was not only an outgrowth of my interest in the issue. I had intended to do so for a long time, but it was part of a larger project not quite started. The process of creating it was in part an exploration of the potential of the form, as well as a clear example of what I thought should be encouraged, yet would be entirely prohibited under UPP. It is useful to preface a note to someone, for example, who does not think of prohibition as oppression or his remarks as a prejudice. As to the category, it is a fine group commited to opposing wrongful oppression, consider joining! =)

StrangerInParadise 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, So we mostly agree on all of the above. If you're willing, let's break this down into some important sections (consider this a work-in-progress, and maybe -- as it seems UPP will fail -- we can re-propose it as policy later):

Origins of the debate:

I believe this all started with the "new years day userbox purge" from User:Kelly Martin. There was a subsequent RfC and I believe an RfAr. There was mass uproar -- at the time even by the admin community. It is important to note that there were userboxes for long before this action, but it spurred the creation of literally thousands more, as well as users attaching userboxes to their page to simply voice their opinion (whether they felt that polemic userboxes were okay). User:Interiot has a tool which maps the creation of userboxes. Note that the tools is imperfect; it only matches templates which start with User_*.
A pro-pedophilia userbox was created. The RfAr is here. This created mass uproar, and I think for the first time, Jimbo stepped in and started making policy in a shoot-from-the-hip fashion. see this quote
Tony Sidaway also went and blew a bunch of userboxes away. Part and parcel to this occurrence is the creation of the "CSD T1" criterion. Tony made the comments, "fuck process" and "you don't have any rights" in this process. Note that I believe "fuck process" in particular is a quote of Kelly Martin's.
In response to all the boxes being deleted speedily with CSD T1, many were un-deleted, and listed on TfD. Many were voted "keep" on CSD, or no consensus was reached before...
Mark Sweep went and deleted another pile of them. Splash deleted a couple (see above comments by Splash). This was widely regarded as out of process or against consensus. Mark and Splash argued that "speedy delete trumps consensus." (I believe that quote is on this page as well). All or most of these were then listed on deletion review at WP:DRV, with their own subpage of userboxes. There was no consensus on when to "end the review," and as far as I know, the battle wages on. I have since left. There has been a lot of incivility and npa stuff there.
The ArbCom elections happened right after kelly martin's purge. During the elections, a few people (KM included) "dropped out of the running" due to the heat associated with their actions, and more or less took a "see if I care" attitude, rather than anything approaching remorse.
Around this time, User:Mistress Selina Kyle (not real name; reference to "catwoman" from the original batman series) had an RfC/RfAr involving her. I don't recall the specifics of the dispute. Here are some links that may help:
- [6]
- [7]
User:Radiant! has left amid conflict arising out of the above.
User:Freestylefrappe has been de-adminned, and as far as I can tell, has left.

see also User:Netoholic's attitude on consensus.

So all of the above (and no question, I am probably forgetting stuff) has really erupted in the last three months. Not all of it is 100% userbox, but it always comes back to the same issues. Censorship, the rogue admins, etc. I'm not sure I believe in a cabal of rogue admins. I will tell you what I see, however. Wyss first alerted me to the phenomenon. Rather, I knew it was here, but I didn't know what it was. It's role-playing. We give people admin status, and all of a sudden, their ears perk up, their posture stiffens, and nether parts pucker. They become the admin. Rather than wielding a mop, they're wielding a six-gun and badge. They go around stomping out vandals instead of moving pages, closing *fD's, and deleting things (within process and/or consensus).

You are also 100% right in saying there is an intellectual elite. Unfortunately, most of the intellectual elite don't know the meaning or spelling of the word "polemic" and have only just now learned the meaning of the word "divisive" and are seeking to prove that they know what's best for the community by rash actions. When somebody says "hey, that was rash, kindly chill out," they respond with "don't make me hit you." Somebody recently characterized this as bullying. I think it has roots in the same place, although I don't think it's the same phenomenon.

Part of the problem here is that while wikipedia is not a social experiment, it has become one. We can't ignore the fact that we have thousands of people interacting in a mostly novel forum. (I use the word "forum" intentionally) There are "rules," but because anyone can edit the rules (as you have pointed out), the rules change, and constantly. Further, we can all vote on how the rules change (although some elites in the community can unilaterally and universally affect change). It's rather like a thousand people in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean having debates about which way to row. The underlying concern of finding somewhere to park the boat has been overridden by people bitching that they are seasick, by people complaining that it's really hot, that the boat smells, or that we should throw everyone who isn't 14 years old or older overboard. Or even whether we should eat certain members. The debate surrounding the community has gotten so intense we've forgotten what we're all doing here. Or, at least, some of us have.

I answered the "voting bloc" question above. Take a look. Voting blocs (and I dislike the term "vote stacking" and "vote stuffing") are a side effect of people voting. Tony has made comment (tell me if you need me to look it up, I don't have it presently) that he feels that after voting blocs have been "called up", that the resultant vote is less representative of consensus than without. See, what people don't admit here is that when the original "straw poll" is called, only the person who calls it actually knows. Tony is fond of IRC and the mailing list. People casually mention votes on IRC. However, that is inherently the same process. IRC represents the clique they are a part of (if this was not the case, users would not be banned from IRC without a vote). So, voting blocs happen. And, it frightens admins that a hundred non-admin users (who aren't badge-toting, six-gun-packing role-players) could show up and vote on a subject. The reason is there are inherently more non-admins than admins, and while the RFA process cements the demographics of the admin community, voting can unseat it entirely.

This is where "common sense trumps consensus." We could hold a vote today, to "remove jimbo from power." We could even get a 200-to-50 majority (that is enough to pass an RFA). However, it would be closed on grounds of WP:POINT, WP:NOT, and so on. The only way to change the machine is through politics. Since the rules of the politics are malleable (again, as you've pointed out), the only way to do it is to make concessions and hope people see that you are right.

Too far to the left, and you'll be banned, muzzled, the rules will change, people will not listen to you, etc. You may already be there.

So. If you would like to use this account to continue your efforts, I encourage you to. I might have made a separate "politics account" myself (note that the "suffrage rules" were created to prevent this) just to keep my edit history non-politics. I suspect you won't get far, as you have attracted the attention of those who do the things you most object to. We agree on most points. My choice is to compromise and change where necessary and possible. If you need any help from me, provided I can give it within the (sigh) present set of rules, let me know.

... aa:talk 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You may also find this useful: [8]

[edit] Wikipedia policy

5) In general, Wikipedia policies are formulated through wide discussion by Wikipedia users who attempt by a process of consenus to make policies which advance the basic goal of creating a free and neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is discussed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the associated articles Wikipedia:How to create policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_decided.3F and [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]].

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

... aa:talk 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no big deal votes on WP:RFA

hence why on nearly all of my "request for administrator" votes, unless I can see a glaring reason why the person should NOT be an admin (i.e. history of blatant vandalism, racism etc.) I vote yes, with the reasoning that we need more admins to control the HUGE number of vandalous IP's and also to prevent a tyranny of the minority (in this case the minority being admins) over issues such as userboxes. I fail to see what someone's edit summary usage has anything to do with their ability to be a good administrator

A little off topic, I know, but semi-relavent to your comment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually had meant it there as a response to Stranger, but as you like. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you really want to

mediate with me, here is step #1... don't troll my talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If quoting your own user page on your talk page is trolling, you should very much consider what it is you are saying on your user page. That's why I did it. Does that make sense? ... aa:talk 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My user page describes my feeling that it is unproductive and silly simply to say someone did something "unilaterally", since by far most edits are done only on the impulse of the editor and totally undiscussed. Editor impulse is how most things get done on a wiki, and so anyone that doesn't like that should "get over it". You quoted it out of context by referring to this edit summary of mine. He (and I) know well that he made that change as part of a specific campaign. It wasn't some random, spontaneous, "undiscussed" change. -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So maybe you should remove that comment from your userpage entirely, as changing it to "we've all made random, spontaneous, undiscussed changes." kind of takes the teeth out of it. No? ... aa:talk 00:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The intent is to criticise people who complain about changes only by saying they were done "unilaterally". The point is that people should say "why" they don't like a change, rather than bicker about "how" the change was done. -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We actually agree on that, then. Why not change it? You are fond of saying that people don't need to be a dick about things, yet the way you have worded "netoholic's law's correlary" is deliberately ... dickish. I understand your point (especially with the above clarification), but I don't think you need to be so abrasive. I'd be 100% in agreeance with you if I had read the above paragraph on your userpage rather than "The Law." ... aa:talk 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leet

XD, no big deal. Thanks for the clarification. - CorbinSimpson 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:leet

Remove at your leisure, it's not going to happen anyway ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)