Template talk:User Asperger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is currently in the Category:Aspergian Wikipedians, though it is clearly not a wikipedian. How might I go about removing it from this category? -- Ec5618 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You wouldn't. That's a byproduct of the fact that the template adds pages it's on to the cat; pages that it's on includes itself. Rogue 9 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You can, put <includeonly></includeonly> around the category.
Prodego talk 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Stop

Stop reverting each other. I think several people are in violation of of the WP:3RR. This is the talk page. Use it. -- Samuel Wantman 22:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Any takers for WP:LAME?--God of War 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war explanation

No arguing ;-) Prodego talk 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Ec5618

I just think it looks better, it looks better big, and presumably the large amount of people who added it to their user pages in its present form have no problem with it either otherwise they wouldn't use it -_-

There is no reason to "standardize" all templates. It really doesn't matter that they're not all the same size.

As for trying to use "Asp" instead of Aspie... No. Thanks, we're not "snakes", not even metaphorically. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Mistress Selina Kyle

We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Let me assure you that I have no intention of vandalising this template, nor do I desire to inflict pain. As I've told our kind moderator, Prodego, I noticed what appeared to be an error in a template a while back, and sought to fix it. You reverted within two minutes, and quickly called me a vandal. I do not take kindly to that, I'm sure you understand.

I did not call you a "vandal" or indeed anything until after you instantly-reverted my change which could by no way be seen offensive to you at all.[1] You did not make any effort to talk to me nor talk on the talk page here, yet later you accused me of not making enough effort to talk..
It seems you're trying to distort what actually happened here when it's clear to see in the edit history.[2]
Please don't shout. I reverted immediately, because I assumed you had reverted what you believed was vandalism. I assumed you had made a mistake, as my edit wasn't detrimental. I now know you didn't make a mistake, but rather reverted an honest edit without comment. -- Ec5618 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some points, for you to consider:

  • That I don't use the template doesn't mean I'm an idiot, and it doesn't give you, or anyone else, the right to restrict my access to the template.
  • I don't care that several users use this template. Perhaps they use it because they have Asperger's, not because of aesthetical considerations. Perhaps the fact that the template is being used doesn't prove, or even suggest, that it is perfect and should be protected against 'outside' influence.
I never said you were an "idiot": The point is that I don't understand why you are so vehement that the template be changed when you nor any of your friends use it: It doesn't affect you in any way. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
And I, likewise, don't understand why you want to keep it as is so desperately. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the template must be categorised as an Aspergian Wikipedian. If there is a valid reason, I'll accept that. If not, I'd like to fix the error.
It's not an "error", it's to make it easier for people to find the template (as they are looking at the category), as the template is the template that adds people to the category (other than actually typing in the category on a userpage itself). Another example would be Category:Wikipedians against censorship which does the same thing --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
A quite. Thank you. I had been wondering. Since you never explained this before, I had no reason to see your version as the 'better' one. I specifically asked what the purpose of this categorisation was. Repeatedly. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since part of the text in the right part of the template appears in black, I'd like to change the colour to a lighter tone, for legibility.
I can read it fine. Maybe your screen is too dark or something. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps. So why not change it so that all users, whatever their screen, can read the text. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to reduce the font in the left part of the template, because the text currently stretches a little beyond the standard size of similar templates. On any page containing this template among many standard templates, this template will stand out. I'd like to reduce the footprint of this template.
There is nothing wrong with it standing out, nor it not being a "standard size". It is not important that every template be the same size at all. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there are many more Wikipedian Aspies who do not use this template because it is too loud. You may not feel there is anything wrong, I considered that there might be. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the significance of using the phrase 'Aspie', but it has been explained to me by our moderator that there is some. I respect that, and will not change the wording. Had you explained it yourself, you might have found support for your version. You did not.

Please, next time use the talk page when you want to say something. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I already said much of this in the edit summary, and you obviously saw what I said because you replied to it: You just chose to ignore me and carry on reverting. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No arguing, the revert war happened, just, both of you, next time use the talk page. Prodego talk 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw. You saw my edit summaries in the same way, and chose to ignore them. A proverbial kettle appears in my mind's eye, calling a pot black. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I do want to point out, I am not an Admin, or an offical mediator. Prodego talk 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template

Go ahead and edit this now, but if someone makes a change, no reverting, discuss first Prodego talk 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspie This user has Asperger syndrome.


This good? Prodego talk 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, the top template is the final version. -- Ec5618 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of userbox

Why make the text darker? Your very dark blue "Aspie" against a black background is much harder to read than black against light grey.

It's fine as light blue and looks much nicer --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you find it had to read? Prodego talk 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above one, yes
Aspie This user has Asperger syndrome.
This one, no.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
How about now? Prodego talk 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes.. I don't understand, why are you making it harder to read? The words against the grey background are now almost unreadable as well as the Aspie being a bit camoflauged:
Surely you're not saying that this is easier to read than black against white or light blue against medium grey? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Your version is almost white on white to me, I can barely read it. Prodego talk 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Encorporating some of my points:
Aspie This user has Asperger syndrome.

This template isn't added to a category. -- Ec5618 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How about now? Prodego talk 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It's fine in it's current form as I pointed out above. There is no reason to make the text smaller nor change the text colour.
However I think I just worked out what one of the major issues is:
The background of the main part of the box is MEDIUM GREY on my browser (Firefox) but I just tried it in Internet Explorer (after Prodego's "white on white" comment) and found that Internet Explorer actually displays it incorrectly as a white background when it should be grey. I'm going to change the example I gave above now. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Now don't get jumpy, maybe firefox is wrong. ;-) I'll check. Prodego talk 00:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Apperently, the color should be purple,so both browsers are wrong..... :-D Prodego talk 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Internet Explorer is wrong.
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: Grey;"
That's the bit that specifies what colour the background bit should be.
Firefox understands what grey means, Internet Explorer refuses to recognise anything but American English
No idea where you found purple in there... what were you referring to? o.O --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop shouting. There is no need. -- Ec5618 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The HEX code matches purple [3] Prodego talk 00:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
And your template is written in an odd(to me) format Prodego talk 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok got it, how's that? Prodego talk 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok that looks fine.
Yeah looks like a lot of this was simple misunderstanding due to Internet Explorer showing the background as white (when it was grey on mine and anyone else using Firefox or other browsers)
by the way "grey" (the words itself, like originally used and appearing white) isn't a hex code, and on that page you linked to "grey" is listed as #808080 which is in fact grey not purple. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think was reading your siganture #800080, or purple......... Prodego talk 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Assuming we are talking about the template at the very top, I'm fine with it. I still find it a little dark, but that's not a problem, more of a preference.
I understand it will be added to the category, for easy access.
Fine, implement it. Thanks to you both. -- Ec5618 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note to Ec5618

You're telling an Aspie to stop being obsessive? Do you have any idea what the syndrome entails and what the primary symptom is?  :p That is all. Rogue 9 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I know? Should I assume that an editor has a serious neurological condition, and tread carefully around them? I'm sorry, but I refuse to stare at the wheelchair, if you get my meaning. -- Ec5618 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't expect or want you to stare at the wheelchair, particularly as I don't consider it a disability in the literal sense. FYI, two of the trademarks are obsessive-compulsive behavior and obsessive specialty on a certain subject to the point where the Aspergian knows that subject inside and out. The first part leads to what we saw here, which is a problem when displayed on Wikipedia. The second leads to brilliant article contributions in areas that are the Aspergian's obsessive specialty, which is indispensable. However, all this is ancillary to what I was pointing out, and I didn't even intend it as a criticism; I simply found it funny that Selina Kyle was being told to stop being obsessive on a topic that she's basically bound to be obsessed about, namely her own syndrome. Rogue 9 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know much about Aspies, but I have come accross a few of you here and there. The above note points out a problem I have been pondering, and for which I don't as yet have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that it really isn't my role to figure this out, but rather is up to the Wikipedia Aspie community to address. While Aspies have made some wonderful contributions around here, I and others, have found some behavior to be very disruptive. There are some rules of behavior that have been reached by consensus by the community. Some of these rules, like assuming good faith, the three revert rule, no personal attacks, etc... are essential for the continued success of Wikipedia. It seems unreasonable to exempt some people from these rules because of a neurological condition. Instead, I hope the Aspie community could figure out a way to participate without being disruptive. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to help out in whatever way I can to implement it. Perhaps some sort of mentoring situation is possible.

I was the first admin on the scene here yesterday, and my first reaction was to block everyone. It is not the first occasion that I have felt like blocking an Aspie and didn't. I believe in talking about things and trying to work them out first. It would be very unfortunate if these problems do not get addressed and many Aspies get permanently blocked. I hope that doesn't happen. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that impulse. I have Asperger's syndrome, and I know from very firsthand experience that it's not uncontrollable. I don't expect special treatment, and don't think any of the rest of us do either. I was simply pointing out that the behavior complained about is to be expected, though I didn't mean to imply that it should be condoned. And I recognize what you're saying; I've more than once caught myself plowing ahead on a disputed edit because I simply wasn't empathizing with the other person in the way that a neuro-normal (as some of us call normal people) would. It's a disadvantage, but not one that we can't learn to circumvent. This isn't the time or place to launch into a lengthy explanation, so I'll leave off here. Rogue 9 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle was permanently blocked yesterday, so I guess that those Aspies that can't play by the rules will not make it. My suggestion is to try and find mechanisms to help those who need it so that the permanent block is less frequently the solution. -- Samuel Wantman 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone considered creating Wikipedia:Asperger's Syndrome notice board as a place to discuss common concerns, related articles and such? See Wikipedia:LGBT notice board (which I started) for an example. --Samuel Wantman 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, she was permanently blocked, and I vehemently object. Again, not the place, but I intend to object long and loud on that one, particularly as the reason she gave for reverting this was one that she was told was SOP herself, namely that if you don't use a userbox, you shouldn't mess with it. I am of the firm belief that in light of that message on her talk page, she was acting in good faith throughout this revert war; having been told that users who don't use a template shouldn't edit it, she proceeded to take that literally and enforce it. I would have done the same thing. Rogue 9 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that the revert war on this page was a big part in the permanent block. Her conduct has been the topic of discussion for weeks. For more background read this. -- Samuel Wantman 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful Category?

I was wondering how the inclusion of this userbox and category helps in building an encyclopedia. --malber 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that a sincere question? Why have you added it to your user page if you think it is inappropriate for Wikipedia? --Tabor 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't have Asperger Syndrome. He thinks AS is a "social construct for hiding bad behaviour" and that people with AS "just need to accept that they are a jerk". See my talk page, near the top, for quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AMistress_Selina_Kyle
He recently got blocked for making this kind of bigoted hate speech, then for vandalizing talk pages of people with Asperger Syndrome. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Block?page=User:malber --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a serious question. How does this category help Wikipedia, or does it divide? I ask this because Neurodiversity is a social movement with a political agenda. --malber 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
So adding the userbox to your page and messing around with the colors on the template was just an attempt to be disruptive? --Tabor 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything about black and grey that is particularly descriptive about aspies? --malber 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but there's nothing about green and purple that is either, and meanwhile the colors clash horribly. Rogue 9 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, people on the Autism Spectrum, including Aspies, tend to see the world in more black and white terms. --JFred 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autism Spectrum Disorder

Since Aspergers is an Autism Spectrum Disorder, wouldn't it be better if this userbox (and the accompanying category) were changed from the specific Aspergers Disorder/Syndrome to a more generalised Autism Spectrum Disorder userbox, considering how the criteria for diagnosis within the Autism Spectrum is everchanging? --JFred 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Special club? What do you have against Asperger's Syndrome and people that are diagnosed with it? You act like it's not a real diagnosis or something, even though it is in the DSM-IV. --JFred 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. ILikePikachu v|d 23:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But most Aspies on the Internet are self diagnosed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.168.46 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)