User:Fang Aili/Thoughts

{| width=100% style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: #ba77fe solid 2px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: #F5F5F5;"  Thoughts |- |

Edit counts
I noticed a peculiar thing: since I became an administrator I don't pay as much attention to my edit count. This may be the result of several factors, only one being my current admin status. During my RfA, I ran into real life problems and had to step away from Wikipedia for a while. So, I wasn't paying much attention to WP at all. Then, Interiot's tool stopped functioning, eliminating the easy way of checking one's edit count. But after becoming an administrator anyway, it seemed that edit counts were less "important" because I was doing admin stuff (deletes and whatnot) that don't add to my edit count. Honestly though, I think that if Interiot's tool was working I'd still check my edit count daily. (Was there any point to writing this? I dunno.) --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 02:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
I'm just not going to pay attention to the debate anymore, unless someone tells me I have to remove my userboxes or else. Reading the userbox policy talk page is becoming detrimental to my mental health. 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I have been paying some attention. Mental health be damned. 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent thoughts (written January 25)
My opinions on userboxes: The way I see it, there are three main points of contention regarding userboxes.
 * 1) Personally expression. I don't see the difference in expressing oneself with a userbox rather than with straight text. Wikipedia has always been against vitrolic or non-civil behavior, and this should continue with userboxes and user pages in general. But to advocate the elimination of all opinions and affiliations is a slippery slope--where will it end? When all individuality is eliminated? When I can't express a dislike for green beans without being reprimanded?
 * 2) Categorization. There is another argument that userboxes categorize users into voting blocks. I'm undecided about that point. On the one hand, I see how categories might be misused. On the other hand, categories can have real benefits. So.. I'm not sure. (No one has yet produced evidence that categories are being misused.)
 * 3) Server load. The third argument is that userboxes eat valuable server time that is better used serving the encyclopedia. I've heard variously that userboxes (or more specifically, the images in userboxes) tax either a negligible or heavy load on the servers. If userpage images are indeed a heavy load on the servers, I suggest a soft limit on the total number of images on the user's main space, with no limit on subpages (which are less likely to be accessed). (I'm thinking somewhere in the range of a dozen images, but that number is only based on my "common sense" and not on any technical expertise.) I do not think we should ban anyone for having too many images, but rather remind s/he gently to move some images to a subpage.

Older thoughts (earlier January)
A debate has been brewing among wikipedians regarding the use and existence of userboxes. Recently, Kelly Martin began a unilateral mass-deletion various userboxes. Mistress Selina Kyle replaced those templates with a message stating the template had been deleted by Kelly Martin. I noticed this replacement box, started digging a little further, and discovered a request for comment concerning the deletions. In my opinion, Kelly Martin should have at least asked the opinion of other Wikipedians before deleting the userboxes, especially deleting so many (about 70 so far, from the looks of it). I thanked Mistress Selina Kyle for her actions. Though they may have been inappropriate, I believe the replacement boxes alerted people to the debate.

Userboxes have many purposes on Wikipedia, among them:
 * 1) Userboxes add to the "fun factor" of Wikipedia. It's just fun to express oneself and then click to see who is similar to you. Users who are having fun are more likely to contribute.
 * 2) Userboxes encourage users to learn more about Wikipedia. Upon seeing various userboxes, I decided I wanted to add some to my own userpage. I had to figure out the coding, putz around with tables, etc. Thus my meta-wiki knowledge is increased, and I can also use such knowledge to improve articles.
 * 3) Userboxes identify individuals knowledgable in certain subjects. Not sure about a certain Star Trek fact? Ask a fellow trekkie!
 * 4) Do you have another? Please feel free to add it.

Generally speaking
General comment: We all have a point of view (POV). To say otherwise is to delude yourself. It is your responsibility to not let that POV influence the way you write articles. This is not always possible; failure is inevitable. Accept this fact and continue editing. Other Wikipedians will review your work. (written in January or February, 2006)

July 2006
It appears I'm number 586 on the List of administrators by edit count, as of May 26. I've probably moved up a few spaces since then. Overall it seems about right that I should be somewhere in the middle, not that it really matters.

I don't recall what brought me to that page, but afterwards I spent some time clicking on relinked admins and discovered why people have left. It's sad that dedicated users become disillusioned or "lose the faith" somehow. I wonder it will ever come to that for me. I hope not. I wonder what Wikipedia will be like in 10 years and wonder if I will still be editing then. 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird
First, I thought it was weird that the "Random article" button would land me on a page that I have edited. I don't remember which article it was, though. Then, I go to Ravji Patel, which I clean up a bit. Several hours later, I hit random article again, and again land on Ravji Patel. What are the chances of that? --Fang Aili talk 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)