Template talk:Featured/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I plan to add this to the template once all FAC discussion is moved to subpages: "Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured/Archive1" --mav


I propose adding an image, like above. Please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Featured_Images to support or contest.--Alexandre Van de Sande 20:39, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Alternate layout

I would like to propose an alternate layout:

{| class="boilerplate toccolours" id="featured" style="width: 90%; margin: 0 auto; margin:0 auto 1em auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;"
|-
|width="60px"|<div style="vertical-align:middle">[[Image:Featured article star.png|60px|The whole is greater...]]</div>
|This is a '''''[[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]]'''''. We believe it to be one of the best examples of the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia community's]] work.  Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved still further, we invite you to contribute. <br />
<small>Archived discussion that led to this becoming a featured article should be at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{PAGENAME}}]] (this may not exist for older featured articles).</small>
|width="60px"|<div style="vertical-align:middle;">[[Image:Star_piece.png|60px|...than the sum of its parts]]</div>
|}
[[Category:Wikipedia featured articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

which renders as:

Note the tooltips on the images. NB: I've left the category out of the unquoted code on purpose. --Phil | Talk 10:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medal

The Polish Wikipedia uses the Wikimedal image for featured articles. What do you think about using it also here instead of the star? Ausir 20:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violetriga - poor layout issues

Poor layout issues... could you elaborate?

Because the current version ain't an improvement from my POV.

- RoyBoy [∞] 01:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the extreme delay in the answer. The version you did might've worked in your browser but on mine (IE6) it caused an odd displacement of the images and the text, leaving huge areas of whitespace. violet/riga (t) 19:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah... well I use Firefox, but for any significant layout tweak I check on IE6 also. Oh well. - RoyBoy 800 19:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrasing

I'm a little troubled by this template as it stands...

I understand the basic message that it's trying to convey. It seems to be trying to strike a balance between A) Telling people not to mess up a good thing and B) Letting them know that further change may still be a good thing. But the problem is that the tone feels to me more stanted towards A than B.

But it's the very nature of knowlege that new things are always being learned - particuarlly, I think, about things that a good number of people are interested in - the very sort of articles more likely to attain featured status. And so it's important that these articles be updated and improved on a fairly regular basis.

So I think it might be a good idea to rethink this template so instead of coming across as "don't mess with this article unless you've got a damn good reason" the message sounds more like "we've got something here that we think is pretty darn good, so make sure that whatever changes you make will maintain or improve this quality."

Here's a rough idea of what I'm thinking the text should be changed to:

"This is a featured article, which we feel is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. In order to maintain that quality over time, as new information comes to light, it must be reguarly updated. So users are invited to contribute, but please make sure that the quality level is maintained"

Well maybe that's a little wordy, but it should be something along those lines. Which I feel would be a lot better than what we've got right now... --Blackcats 05:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree there should be something in there about keeping up with new knowledge, but I disagree with your overall slant toward B. If the template is changed and something about new knowledge is mentioned, it will need to be balanced by something saying "if a section, paragraph or sentence is unaffected by said new knowledge then keep yer cotton-pickin hands off it sucka" (perhaps this phrasing could be a little less emotional). Seriously, the FA template needs to stress care in amending high quality prose. If an editor isn't too impressed with the writing in question he should be urged to consider the consensus judgment and perhaps review his/her own grasp on good/bad writing. Wikipedia has had a smallish cadre of truly fine writers. Their valuable work, in articles all across the board, will surely be eroded like a beach under a strong surf unless active measures are taken to strike some humility into (let's face it) rookie writers. FA template wording should be an important part of this. I would even advocate an interstitial page on a new class of article (say, "1st Tier Featured Article") which would always appear whenever the Save button is pressed on a new edit for that article. The interstitial would say "Is your name Ernest Hemingway? Have you won a Pulitzer Prize? If the answer to both questions is "No", cancel your edit and learn your place in the world sucka." (Well maybe that's a little wordy, but it should be something along those lines.) JDG 02:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"will surely be eroded like a beach under a strong surf" Blackcats goes into English teacher mode and marks "TRITE!" in red ink. ;-Þ
But seriously though, I think that article (prose) quality is more a matter of stylistic/grammar editing - the less glamorous stuff. And feature article quality will be maintained all the better the more frequently folks do those m edits.
Your "rookie writers" designation doesn't strike me as very well thought out. Does this mean people who are new to Wikipedia (but may be great writers) or people who are crappy writers (but may have been active here for quite a while)? I would think the template would have more effect on the former group than the latter, as people who have been here a while generally become more comfortable and confident and don't tend to take Wiki-templates and such quite so seriously. You also fail to differentiate between writing skill and knowledge of a subject. I doubt Hemingway or your Pulitzer Prize winner would know much about say Mitochondrial Eve, nor would they likely choose to spend their time stylistically editing such an article here.
I would prefer to see a somewhat poorly written (in terms of style) article by someone who really knew what they were talking about than beautiful prose by someone who just did some rudimentary research. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a creative writing gallery. And of course this sort of writing can be edited for style and such while leaving the essential information and message.
I agree that (if/when the technical stuff is worked out to do it) the template should be placed directly on the edit page. Though of course I disagree with what you would have the template say. The talk page strikes me as a bit of an ironic place to put this sort of template. With well-developed articles in general, and featured ones in particular, the talk page is the place where you want to be encouraging people to contribute - so that they talk things over there with the other interested parties before going ahead and making major changes, and so that the "great writers" can get feedback from "the masses." Conversely, people who don't give a damn about what others think are more likely to jump straight to editing and bypass the talk page entirely.
--Blackcats 19:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blackcats, I was going for comic relief in the above. I see no pantheon of "great writers" here in need of protection from the horde. Nonetheless, and it's strange in an English teacher (if that's what you are), you seem to minimize the value of competent usage, grammar, topic and sub-topic composition, etc.,. to this project. It's nice if a really knowledgeable UNIX admin comes around and contributes rock solid details about, say, the primary uses of the sed command. But if he writes like most UNIX admins it's equally nice if a writer comes around and does his stuff to turn it into a respectable reference article. Inevitably, more UNIX geeks will be back to hold forth on finer points of sed, and this is where Wikipedia needs to establish respect for the contribution of the "writer". Discouraging hasty edits in FAs could go a long way here, don't you think? JDG 19:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey JDG - I was going for comic relief too - I'm not really an English teacher. I guess maybe all this was bad timing for you - as you were in the middle of that whole conflict and revert-war with Violet.
At any rate - the issue I'm bringing up is more of a long term issue that I feel should be considered. I don't think I ever tried to "minimize the value of competent usage, grammar, topic and sub-topic composition, etc." In fact, I specifically said that those sorts of edits were key to maintaining style quality. And I do agree that discouraging "hasty edits" (my emphasis) on FAs is essential.
What my original comment and continued discussion here has addressed is how to most effectively achieve that goal (Goal A from above) while not having the template be misunderstood or get in the way of Goal B. For example, I'm concerned that the template, as it's currently written, may discourage new users from contributing not only on the article but on its talk page (where it's posted). It seems to me that two possible solutions to this would be for someone to find the technical means to have the template appear on the FA's edit page (but not its talk page) and/or for the template to be reworded so that it says something like:
""This is a featured article, which we feel is one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Our Be Bold policy must be balanced here with maintaining that quality. Users should bring their ideas to the talk page and allow for adequate discussion before making any major changes."
Something like that, such that the basic message would be to reach some sort of concensus in the talk page first - rather than "maybe you shouldn't contribute at all." Blackcats 22:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JDG - could you please explain why you are reverting the template? The new wording is more-or-less identical to the old version to which you are reverting. The primary difference is the color schema. Violet has done everything by the book - she made the proposal, she asked around, got generally positive feedback, and then made the switch. I fail to see why this is causing an edit war. →Raul654 18:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, I'm now exhausted by this whole thing. I'm going out onto the porch with a Coca Cola. If you want to see what caused the problem there are now reams of material about it on both violetriga's talk page and mine. Her wording is not nearly identical and has a basic grammar error. My aesthetic objection has more to do with table sizing and positioning than color. The positive feedback you refer to related to the concept of uniform templates, not to Violet's particular templates. This all spun out of control because Violet refuses to see detailed edit summaries as a form of discussion for harried editors and insisted I address each particular on several Talk Pages, which I by then refused to do out of principle. She then tried to create a revert tag team with ContiE, who admirably took a pass...Look, why don't you set up a page where people can submit their designs for standardized templates. These templates are now so pervasive, it's obvious their wording and look/feel will need to come about by consensus. If you want to go live with Violet's design in the meantime, I'll bite my tongue and go along. I couldn't, however, abide her designs up there without the contest in place. JDG 19:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An interjection: Wikipedia tradition is that discussion isn't carried out in edit summaries, but rather on talk pages. Your insistence that it be done your way because you are "harried" carries very little weight. Refusal to engage other editors in "the way that things are done" around here does not help your case; rather the reverse, in fact. —Morven 19:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't disagree more. My most productive times on WikiP, at least on articles that required a lot of simultaneous collaboration, have been with fellow editors in sync enough to do all necessary communicating via edit summaries. When people are working hard and in good faith you usually don't need the verbose, often self-indulgent holding forth so often seen on Talk pages. In this tussle with Violet it was already plain that others were not accepting her template version, so I didn't want to waste time discussing it further. JDG 06:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics

Featured article

I'm not sure that this particular color scheme is the way to go.

Setting aside the argument of wording for a moment, what was wrong with the previous template look and feel, such that it required replacement with a sea foam green and lavender table? I'm very not happy with this new look and feel. – ClockworkSoul 14:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it looks good! Just look at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment and maybe try changing the colours yourself. violet/riga (t) 14:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raul-- are you going to set up the contest for this or not? Feedback from fellow editors on violetr's design is uniformly negative (see User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment#Thoughts_on_new_layout), yet she keeps putting it live. ClockworkSoul above is another no vote. User: OldakQuill is another (see his Talk). Not one person on these pages has endorsed her design. What is it going to take for her to desist until a fair process for Talk templates is underway? JDG 07:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. There is support for it - you're just refusing to see it.
  2. Any criticism was of either the vertical size (now fixed) and the secondary-coloured table (removed).
  3. I've tried for a compromise here but how are you trying to work towards this? Why do you insist that you are right and that the other version is so much better?
I can't believe how you're behaving with this. violet/riga (t) 08:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please point us to even one person supporting this design. You can't. Your supposed "fixes" addressed two of at least eight specific objections, and after your changes no one left any statement saying anything like "Ok I like it now". Please cut the intransigence and enter your design in a fair contest. JDG 09:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let me copy and paste from your talk page...
Supporting comments for me:
  • Raul654: "this sounds like a good idea"
  • Bishonen (on Wiki-EnL): "I was just admiring your templates yesterday, and thinking they look great!"
  • ContiE: "with a consistent look like this it looks really good IMO"
Additionally:
  • Talrias: "I'm a fan of your proposal to have a new template look for articles"
  • I doubt Matt Crypto would be editing it if he didn't like it.
I've twice tried to compromise and work towards a solution, but you're being too arrogant and pig-headed to consider them. I will be entering my design(s) into the contest, but there is no problem with having them there now. You need to say specifically what is wrong with my version (which you have still failed to do) or work on a solution yourself, because I'm not about to give up and go away. violet/riga (t) 09:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The lengths you'll go to are just astounding. How many times do we have to tell you that praise for the proposal for uniform templates does not equate to praise for your template design?? That removes all the Wikipedians you name above except Bishonen, and Bishonen's alleged comment was made on a mailing list! And now I am becoming truly annoyed at your personal attacks ("arrogant", "pig-headed", many others on my Talk page), which you have the gall to make even after I have answered your insults with politeness. You say "You need to say specifically what is wrong with my version (which you have still failed to do)" even though I did exactly that at User_talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment#Thoughts_on_new_layout...Now, again, please give us just one link to somebody supporting this design which you incessantly place onto the live site. JDG 10:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Alleged" comment by Bishonen? Here you go. Another positive? Try ALoan's comment at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment. Praise for the proposal shows that the idea can work - what would be wrong with implementing it to give people an idea of how it will look live, and give them the opportunity to change it? I will be organising the competition soon, so you'd only have to live with a it for a while. As for your comments about the design I think that they're aesthetic arguments, just as I have with the old one, so surely that makes our dislike for the opposite implementions equal? And the insults are indeed regrettable but the development of this silly bickering. violet/riga (t) 11:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yet again you try to pawn off support for the idea (ALoan's comment) as support for your design. And this mailing list stuff doesn't cut it. I could make an email name "Bishonen". I want to see a link on Wikipedia. I'm too busy with life and researching/writing to keep up with AdminGab on mailing lists. In fact I've never and will never become an Admin because I don't need the distraction from the actual work to be done here: writing articles. And yes, the insults are regrettable and you will soon regret them palpably. JDG 11:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) ADDED: What's amazing is, Violet has been lobbying people (presumably people she thinks would automatically support her) and even they are telling her to do what I have been saying all along. She went to User:ContiE hoping to form a revert tag team. Instead ContiE tells her "This is not a very minor change IMO, and I think that there should be more discussion about it first. I noticed your project just because I have one of the templates you changed on my watchlist, so maybe you should get more attention (through the village pump or goings-on for example) on your idea before you implement it." I will bold those all important last four words: before you implement it. She goes to ALoan to solicit a positive comment on her design (probably so she could get one, just one actual nod of support) and ALoan tells her: "Much as it may pain you, though, I think the best approach would probably be to revert to the old templates for a while [...] and discuss the proposed changes to reach a consensus, hard as that may be". Folks, this is all I'm asking. JDG
I see that peace has broken out all over below, but at the risk of opening old wounds I must object to JDG total mis-characterisation of my comments.
  1. violet/riga did not in any form "solicit" a comment from me, positive or otherwise.
  2. I posted to User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment on my own initiative to express support for the proposals and for being bold, and as a direct response to comments I had seen saying there was no support for the proposals (which, incidentally, was a false claim, as others had given positive comments elsewhere).
  3. violet/riga subsequently thanked me on my talk page.
  4. However, being bold has its limits, and when people object to your boldness then the wiki way is to talk about it and reach a consensus, and that is what my comment on User_talk:violetriga said (posted in response to the thanks on my talk page).
Ultimately, I don't mind particularly which new form of templates the community decides to use: Violet's are fine, as are those of Talrias and many of the others that have sprung up (I quite like the simplicity of Netoholic's actually) - but the avalanche of opprobrium and abuse dumped on Violet for a good faith effort was entirely unjustified. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't take much time to try User:Bishonen now, does it? As for ALoan, does "I have no objections" not work? So your tactic didn't work with that one so you continue to make threats and insults? LOL, I'm very sure I'll regret it. violet/riga (t) 11:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What threats? What insults? JDG 11:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good grief you're trying to twist this. Right, so I went to ContiE asking for him to revert it "if [he] saw fit" and "would not take any offense at you not doing this". You went to OldakQuill and tried to get your own tag team, as you call it, going on ("it's going to take some energy to get her to desist" and "we can keep this thing off the live site"). I thanked ALoan for his positive comments - note the edit times.
Your insults about the template are unwarranted and incorrect ("universally disliked template change"). Your attempts at goading are petty at best ("count the rv's violet"). Your threats have been to try and remove my adminship along with things such as "insults are regrettable and you will soon regret them palpably".
I've been trying to resolve this and improve Wikipedia. You're trying to undo positive attempts and have it all your own way. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More untrue bluster. You solicited a user to help you win a revert war. You think adding "if you see fit" makes it any different? I invited OldakQuill to record his opinion on the page hidden away under your Talk which you set up as the place for opinions. This is nothing at all like trying to create a revert tag team, and you know it. Threats and insults? Anybody bothering to follow this (and I hope no one is bothering) will easily see you're the one going ad-hominem time after time. As for the Adminship "threats"-- you're darn tootin'. People who solicit reverts, sling ad-hominem junk and try to bully template designs simply should not be Admins. Wikipedia is in great need of good, calm, effective Admins but recent crops of Admins include truly inexplicable characters who are seriously alienating some topnotch writers. Apparently the Admin selection process needs real tightening up. Jeeez, I'm almost tempted to cross over into the meta world for a while to make some real changes. You don't want that, Violet. You don't quite appreciate... who I am. JDG 12:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I went back and said to ContiE that I was wrong about asking him to get involved. I am usually a nice and calm admin (you have no idea about me) but when someone tries to bully something that is in good faith (have you forgetten that?) then it's kind of annoying. Don't you realise that I've spent a load of time trying to do this to improve this place? I don't appreciate who you are and it doesn't matter to me – you've acted poorly. Yes, I've hated having a revert war, but when you put a lot of time and effort into something it's hard for it to be summarily dismissed. You enjoy working on your articles - I've been trying to enjoy helping this place out in another capacity secondary to my development work. violet/riga (t) 12:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal evaluation: JRM

Yucky colors. I know that saying "Wikipedia" means saying "pastels", but still. The dark blue/green above clashes horribly with redlinks, especially (I know this shouldn't be much of an issue since you wouldn't expect much redlinks, but still). Also, links and followed links vary on blue as well, giving the whole thing a rather palettish look.

Coalescing the various boxes seems like a good idea, but don't take it too far. If you want a metadata section, then make it a little more explicit than a banner where all the article's travails are listed line-by-line. Each of these things is separate and should be clearly distinguished from the rest. That may not require a separate box for each, but the schema above is a little too subdued.

Talrias' alternative design is much better in vertical layout, even though the colors on that are worse, because there seem to be at least three or four different pastel tints vying for attention. Can we please have just one color for the background, revolutionary as that may seem, and clear, sharp borders (nobody ever got fired for making them black, you know)? Don't get fancy. These are talk page notices; they serve a clear purpose. I would go so far as to say that making them black-on-white, as anti-designer as that may seem, would probably not hurt that much either, but I'm not seriously expecting people to believe that.

Half-open boxes/banner thingies are not used anywhere. While consistency should not be overrated, there's no particular reason to be Special either. Why do we need borders left and right? To make it look more like a roll call? Talrias' idea of using only the left works better here, too, though even there I question the need. If you're going to have weird colors anyway, what's the point of an extra border to make the thing stand out? JRM 11:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

[edit] War! Huh! Good God! What is it good for?

As an aside, JDG and Violetriga, please stop revert warring over this template. Wikipedia will not break down if your favorite layout is not the one to currently be featured (pardon the choice of words). Put up an RFC if you need to resolve a dispute. Revert warring never solved anything (no, really). I see you've been careful so far to avoid the 3RR, which is good. Don't come back tomorrow to put in another three reverts, please.

Violetriga, there's no reason you can't work on a separate version if it's clear your existing ideas do not meet with overwhelming approval, no matter how much you'd just like to sweep the opposition away as irrational and unreasonable. Be bold, but not reckless. You've already got up User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment, people have seen the proposed live version now, what more do you want? We have ways of bringing these things to the community's attention without just going in and changing them. That's a good (the best) initial move, but if it doesn't pan out, scaling back is still an option. The original layout was not so broken that immediate repairs can brook no delay. I know it can be frustrating that even (especially?) trivial things can take so much time to resolve on Wikipedia, but that's just the way it is.

JDG, there's no reason to go and obstruct Violetriga just because she's being bold and you don't like it. (Gender assumption, I don't know Violetriga; please correct me if I'm wrong.) Throwing around reverts because you feel "consensus" backs up the earlier version and the current one is "universally disliked" is not helping Wikipedia in any way. Violetriga is not suddenly going to see the light because your reverts are so well-founded; Wikipedia will not break down because "the wrong version" is up, especially since the semantics are the same. Yes, you're not alone in not (yet?) liking the new layout. Yes, Violetriga is probably going too fast. No, this doesn't mean she's evil, and it doesn't mean the best thing you can do is revert to show your displeasure. We can always have a vote later; reverts are poor subsitutes for that.

Stay cool, folks. C'mon. It's just pastels and borders. JRM 11:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Since this template has been revert-warred over for the last 2 or 3 days (with participants studiously avoiding the letter, if not the spirit, of the 3 revert rule), I'm protecting it until everyone's cooled down a bit. Please let's discuss and arrive at consensus, rather than constantly reverting with acerbic edit summaries — it's not like it's something world-shatteringly important, after all. Personally, I care very, very little about the colours and layout of this template, and I'd happily go with any of the options if we could only stop bitching about it. — Matt Crypto 15:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opposing view; I want a slick, sexy, compatible template that will do FA's justice!!! It's inexcusable we don't. - RoyBoy 800 20:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are, of course, welcome to contribute to (and later, vote on) Wikipedia:Template standardisation. violet/riga (t) 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Bishonen only exist on the mailing list?

I came here to correct a trivial grammar error that I'd noticed in Violet's template—an oversight, rather—I see it referred to in what seems a needlessly combative tone somewhere above. I mention my reason since JDG has concerns about Violet calling people out to agree with her: please note that I haven't been canvassed in any way, I just happened by and saw that JDG is also concerned that I might be only an e-mail address. I'd like to set his/her mind at rest : I'm a contributor in good standing. Most people that I see on this very page would be willing to confirm that, I think. And yes, I do like the new templates; I did write this message on the mailing list, and it expresses my opinion. I'll add that I'm a little surprised at how quickly JDG swings into war mode on this page, and especially at some lines that could come from an April 1 spoof of a wikiwar: "Jeeez, I'm almost tempted to cross over into the meta world for a while to make some real changes. You don't want that, Violet. You don't quite appreciate... who I am." The date is all wrong, but are you serious, JDG? Three dots and all? Or did somebody edit that one to have a joke with you? --Bishonen|talk 22:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bishonen, prolly the swinging too swiftly into war mode perception on this page is caused by the fact we were going at it on several other pages before the bulk of it moved here. So if you're reading this page only it's like, it's like you're a kid who's been sleeping through the slow buildup of a crazy domestic quarrel, suddenly hears people throwing pots around and says "Man they just exploded!"... I'm of course aware you're an actual being and a contributor in good standing. The concern with someone bringing in support from a mailing list is, they could pretty easily spoof a username, no?... Was my dramatic ellipsisoid statement serious? Well I was smirking a bit as I wrote it, but, yes, it was mostly in earnest. Violet had not responded to the usual calm, reasoned tone affected by most folks in these sorts of dust ups, so I shifted to a tone with, let's say, a bit of far off thunder. I know it's kind of amusing, yet it's not based on nothing... Violet got into a kind of negative repeater loop with this thing and for some reason I decided to stick to my guns rather than sneak away as I usually do. I'm sure Violet has been and will be, on balance, very valuable to the project. But there is something about the "culture" of newish Admins that's worrisome. Can't quite peg it yet, but if I know what's good for me I'll put my head down and get back to researching/writing. Those things will work themselves out I'm sure. JDG 13:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. The reason I asked about the way you spoke was actually that it troubled rather than amused me. It still does. I'll take your word, or your continuing hints, for it that you're a big gun with thunder to bring out, but I always thought the Wikipedia culture discouraged expectation of special deference based on "who you are".--Bishonen|talk 16:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed -- the statement of "you don't appreciate...who I am" surpised me, and it worried me even more to learn above that it was meant in earnest; I would of thought such a statement would only be ironic self-mockery, but there you go. What kind of "thunder" does JDG think he has? I would be interested to hear JDG explicitly help us appreciate "who he is", and what arcane punishments he might invoke should he "cross over into the meta world" ;-) — Matt Crypto 17:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see that you both are very subtle, yet forceful, yet calm, arbiters of online behavior and I have no doubt that if I were to follow wikitrails to other discussions in which you have dispensed judgment, my esteem for this subtlety (and forcefulness and calmness) would soon rise to levels approaching your own. For my part, I'll say this: I take people as they are and somehwere around my 40th year it occurred to me that I didn't necessarily admire or like those who carefully maintained an approach and a tone of moderation, responsibility, level-headedness and many other allied personal traits we are accustomed to think of as good or admirable traits. In fact, in reviewing my family, friends, acquaintances, professional contacts and figures from history, the sciences, the arts, etc.,. who I felt I "knew" in a certain removed sense, I was taken aback to discover that a majority of those I particlularly liked and respected very often showed tendencies toward immoderation, irresponsibility, uneven-headedness; their approaches to other people and to situations were not carefully modulated or submitted to a kind of internal censor charged with ensuring their reputations as upright, well-loved, well-respected dudes and dudettes. So it came to be that I loosened the controls I had long placed on myself. I spoke my mind and spoke in the tone that first came to mind. I went where I would when I would, sometimes with an almost military bearing, sometimes in an apparent narcotic haze, and all postures in between, as I'm a very changeable creature, like the weather on a small planet. Happily, I've discovered this lifting of control and this slight care for others' judgments have served me very well, mentally and even physically. I recommend it.
All this was the long way of saying: Violet and I had a fight; we did not clamp off our emotions; in the end it was rather productive. No regrets, guys... As for your curiosity regarding the "thunder" I apparently pack, I'll say this: no human community (including kinda dubious "online communities") is purely formal. Try as you might, you will never eliminate every last personal element among those who, for reasons good or bad, occupy particularly powerful positions and who may exercise that power at least partly on the basis of these personal elements. You may be glad to know, however, that in this case the personal bonds are not only between people of good will but in fact came into existence from that shared good will. If I were ever to avail myself of these personal "connections" in a matter of online behavior between Wikipedians (and I have not so availed myself to this date and hope never to), you can be sure that any emotion blinding me to, let's say, any intransigence on my own part, would not escape the notice and judgment of my friends. JDG 22:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Before judging me as just another admin with the "culture" you dislike I invite you to take a look at my contributions – currently over 8000. You will note that I have never been the victim of a block, an RfC (I don't count Kreen as he's a sockpuppet and it was totally dismissed) or arbitration. The only edit wars I've been involved in (up until this one) have been against vandals, most of whom have eventually been disciplined the arbcom. While I understand your frustration about this surely you can accept that I was trying to move forwards with the project? I truly believe my approach to be better than the existing system. The competition should be the best for all concerned.
For the record, I do feel that you have been quick to dismiss things I've said, attempts at compromise and that you became riled too quickly with very little discussion. I do, however, respect your determination and sticking by your guns. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Peace be with you, Violet. And also with me. I hope we can collaborate on an article in future. JDG 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)