User:Jdavidb/blog
This is my wiki blog. It's a bit like a blog in that it has dated entries and sporadic writing. You can also comment if you like. If you do so, please comment under the appropriate entry with appropriate indentation (use colon) and sign your post. I'll evolve procedures for this as I go.
Always redeemable 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
One maxim that seems to be woven into the core of our collective moral fabric here at Wikipedia is the belief that a problem editor is always redeemable. Though the system allows the human element to override it to handle true problems, policies are all written with a view toward giving problem editors chance after chance after chance to reform. And in fact this has happened sometimes.
I guess it just really came home to me when I saw the following suggestions for ways in which a completely banned user may still contribute to the effort to disseminate the sum total of human knowledge to the entire world:
- If you are banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Wikipedia while it applies. You can still contribute indirectly by publishing GFDL or public domain articles and images elsewhere on the web that Wikipedians can use as resources. Alternatively, you may contribute to one of our forks.
-- From m:Wikipedia:Banning_policy Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Criteria for Speedy Deletion 17:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The criteria for speedy deletion are intentionally very narrow. Anything that does not fit within them should actually be listed at WP:AFD. It's not a lot of extra work for three editors to concur on AFD that the article doesn't belong and for it to be deleted 5+ days later. Yet people continue to list items for speedy deletion that don't fit, even though perhaps they should be deleted with consensus on AFD. I'm sure admins continue to delete them. I know I have, both knowingly and unknowingly.
Should I take the time to put inappropriate speedies up on AFD? Half the time somebody jumps in, says, "Speedy!" and short-circuits the process. Is it worth the trouble to make sure we follow the rules? I feel like if the rules aren't appropriate we should change the rules. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Demi's admin guidelines 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
There are some good things to think about at User:Demi/Admin_guidelines. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Vanity warning 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should display the following warning any time somebody tries to edit or create a page:
- Please do not create an article or provide material about yourself, your business, or your website. Please also do not create an article or provide material about your favorite person, favorite business, or favorite website unless it is also the favorite of thousands and thousands of other people. Violation of this standard will likely result in your article or material being deleted. Complaining about deletions due to this standard will likely result in your being laughed at. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Gasp! 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I remember a time years ago, in life science class in the seventh grade, when we were grading each other's papers as the teacher called out the answer. Every so often a grading student would have to ask a question of the teacher for clarification as to whether an answer was right or wrong (or partially right, or whatever). Suddenly an outraged girl's voice shouted, "Miss Reeves! He put, 'Who cares?'" The girl was indignant and outraged. Nonplussed, the teacher said, "Well, that's not the right answer, is it? So it's wrong. Mark it wrong." I don't know exactly what the girl was expecting the teacher to say. I guess she wanted extra punishment for this horrible student (who happened to be my best friend) or something. Instead she came off as looking more than a little silly for getting so excited about something that had an obvious answer.
Similarly, it's interesting to me to see the way people use WP:VIP. This is not Wikipedia:All vandalism that has ever occurred, ever, so we can collectively gasp in shock and attempt to exterminate such people from the human race. The instructions clearly say to only report vandalism if it continues after a warning. (They say so even more clearly since I've edited them today.) Yet newbies persist in reporting users that have vandalized once and been promptly reverted (without being warned) and never heard from again. Why? All that does is make more work for the poor sap (me) monitoring the vandalism page. (Or makes it so useless and hard to wade through that said monitorers give up and leave.)
It's no news at all to me that stupid little boys like to shout "penis" and other such crap. But apparently some newbies take it very, very hard. To them, "serious" vandalism does not mean, "he's been blocked once a month for the past year, warned through {{test5}}, and he's vandalizing 20 pages a minute," but means, "Oh noooooooo! He put up something really offensive!!!!!!" The vandal who changes a number on an article once per day is, to them, not near as worthy of watching as the guy who put "penis" in the teddy bear article a month ago and who has never been heard from again.
News flash to some people: we don't actually dole out any punishment to vandals. All we do is protect the encyclopedia. Even blocking is not an actual punishment. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Going on UTC time 19:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've altered my preferences to use UTC time. There's just too much disconnect in my brain when I try to compare watch lists, recent changes, and user contribution pages in my time with comments signed in UTC time. This'll make life easier, especially when I'm looking at repeat vandalism by persons who have already been warned.
I've actually designed my own calendar and time system which I would love to use, but I guess that'll never work. :) Jdavidb (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Wiki-links to nonexistent articles 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Why in the world am I seeing links to articles that haven't been written yet as names with red question mark links after them rather than simply red linked names? I have never used this archaic wiki-syntax. I have definitely not changed my preferences. Why do people insist on editing whatever it is that they can edit that does this in such a way as to change other people's interface? Jdavidb (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
DVD covers 15:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Whose idea was it that all articles on movies or television shows should be illustrated with the most recent DVD cover image? This looks horrible in some cases: for example, the DVD cover for Charlotte's Web looks nothing like the characters in the movie. I've also seen better illustrations, such as original movie posters, removed in favor of these more recent and less accurate abominations. At the least we could use both in the cases where we have them. Really I think illustrating with the movie poster is a better idea. (Sometimes screenshots are a better idea.)
Given that so many of these DVD covers were made decades after the film in question, this is a bad case of Wikipedia:Recentism if you ask me.
Of course, most of the time none of these images (either the ones we're using or the ones I want) would really be available under GNU FDL. 15:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Single login 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
One thing that stops me from contributing more on other Wikimedia projects is the fact that when I go to those sites I am only an anonymous user. I don't feel as much urge to contribute, and this has actually stopped me from making edits I might have made otherwise. There are some proposals for a single login system but it looks like the political hurdles (they call them technical hurdles there, but they are really political: the whole thing could be solved by making some very not nice decisions, but those decisions honestly are not nice and probably would not be supportable) are such that this will not be overcome any time in the near future. It's about like the fact that we have the GNU FDL instead of a Creative Commons license: we're pretty much stuck with it unless someone wants to start over.
Now, I personally have no desire to ever contribute to a foreign-language Wikipedia. That's not entirely true: I would love to do so if I could, but I will never be able to do so. But I do want to do stuff at Wikinews and Wiktionary and such.
Meanwhile, Wikicities has some sites that interest me. And they have a single login system.
So today I went out and made myself accounts on every Wikimedia project: Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, meta, Wikispecies (okay, honestly I may never contribute there), and commons. I also set up a Wikicities account.
Now I'm logged in at all those sites (or able to log in quickly) and won't feel discouraged from contributing the next time I think about it. I really just had to finally get down to business and do it.
Then I set up this blog so I could talk about it. Jdavidb (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Start of blog 18:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A couple of weeks ago I had the idea of keeping a "blog" here. The idea was that when I learn something new (say, how to properly format lists), I'd like to put it up and say, "Hey, I learned how to do this." Or when I have a thought, such as "here are the criteria I personally use to decide on something" or "here are my thoughts about how edit summaries should be used," I want a place to put it. I don't want to just throw such things on my user page, and I don't anticipate all of these being significant enough or large enough to create a separate subpage in my userspace for. So, here's my wiki blog. Jdavidb (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)