User talk:Enigmatical

PLEASE TAKE NOTE

It is the absolute height of Bad Faith to tell someone they are not assuming good faith while doing the exact same thing in return. Before contemplating your desire to admonish me for not showing good faith, take a damn good look at yourself and the actions you are about to perform. Are you leading by example? Is what you are about to do automatically assuming I am not showing good faith? If that is the case then save your time and your fingers and don't bother writing here. Hypocricy is something I cannot stand in people, I find it offensive and inflamatory and it is the absolute height of arrogance for a person to ignore all good faith in waggling their "holier than thou" finger at someone else for the very thing they are being critical of.

'''Got it? Good.'''

Roblefko
Hello, Enigmatical, would you mind telling me at what time you received your e-mail from Roblefko? If he sent it after 03:07 21 April UTC (I have no idea what that would be in South Australia--sorry, I'm no good at that), when I warned him, then I'm blocking him indefinitely. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks--it was just before I warned him then. Well, I'll definitely keep an eye on him.  There's no log of e-mails that he's sending, certainly, but if he gets any more complaints he's gone (someone else may block him in the meantime anway).  Cheers, Chick Bowen 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Adelaide
Helloe Enigmatical. Thankyou for editing City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Join us at WIkiProject Adelaide, where we are trying to improve coverage of Adelaide related articles in a coherent manner. Thanks, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I use Linux so I can't use the editor, ergo, no scripting. Kamatsu

Suburb Infobox / Template
Two articles have attained featured article status; Waterfall Gully and Yarralumla. They provide an example layout and a useable infobox. Just noticed the comment on Blnguyen's page, thought you might want to take a look! michael talk 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got my own custom User SA box!

michael talk 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting your sandbox
Hey -- if you want to delete your own sandbox page, just mark it with ; author requesting deletion is one of the speedy deletion criteria (specifically, general criterion #7, or CSD G7); it should get taken care of pretty quickly. Hope that helps! Mango juice talk 23:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger
hi there, yes I just noticed it, I can't believe what is going on with that article, it's insane. I am going to put it under protection from anonymous and new users, because this needs to stop. Thanks for noticing. Gryffindor 22:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Titanic CGI
As per your comments on my talk page, I have started a discussion on Titanic and whether it was the first historical drama to use CGI. See Talk:Timeline of CGI in film and television. PBP 12:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Australia/Anniversaries
Hi Enigmatical. I have started a proposal at Portal talk:Australia for an inclusion of an anniversary/on this day section to be displayed on the portal. If you are interested in this making this happen, you can comment there or go to the anniversary pages and adding in things that you consider to be notable. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism of Timeline of CGI page
Your Post: I think you would be best to simply label the person a vandel considering they have done it more than once now. Enigmatical 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: I prefer to ensure ample warnings have been issued. It could be a different user. Also, they stopped after my second test warning. --Alan 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Austsuburb
I modified the template slightly, taking out the "distance from city" part. Hope you don't mind! michael talk 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Distance in Austsuburb
That would have to be the most impolite, bad faith message posted to me in a while. Enigmatical, please be aware of Wikipedia's civility and etiquette guidelines in your future postings. You seem to be under the misconception that because you created the template you therefore have authority over it: this isn't so. If you don't want your contributions to be "edited mercilessly", as the disclaimer says, do not submit them. There is no obligation upon me or any other editor to contact you before editing something you have done prior. The parameter was obscure: "distance from city" can mean a multitude of things. And there was no urgency for me to remove it from the articles either; it was simply redundant text. Furthermore, while one doesn't require a "vested interest" in order to edit any section of Wikipedia (an absurd suggestion), it highlights the presumptuousness of your comment to reveal that I was in fact involved in the development of the template you copied. Happy editing, -cj | talk 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it was impolite of you to make such changes yet leave the 2 templates which use it untouched. Notice how I only get a proper explaination as to why it was done after having to pull you up on it? If the parameter was obscure as you call it, then a simple addition of (in minutes by car) would have completely alleviated that obscurity wouldn't you say? Thus you obviously chose to remove it completely instead of fixing it. Sorry if it may sound harsh to you, I have no problem with people mercilessly editing something I have done... but when you have absolutely nothing at all to do with a template, no connecting article, and certainly no real care one way or the other if its there I dont see the point in removing it instead of fixing it. So let me ask you a simple question, do you think it is useful to know approximately how long it would take to travel from a suburb to the major city? I think that information is far more relevant than population or median house value. But I do appologise for my abruptness, shall take it on "good faith" and revert the edit by fixing the problem and alleviating the obscurity. Perhaps in future it may be worth noting that the fixing of a problem may be far more effective than the wholesale removal of it. Enigmatical 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've completely ignored my comment. I asked you to take heed of Wikiquette, and yet you still fail to assume good faith. I explained in my message last that nothing I did was outside of standard editing practice. It was not necessary to remove the deleted parameter from the articles transcluding the template because it was simply redundant text. It is not extraordinary at all for this redundant text to remain in articles when the template proper is amended, particularly in those that are widely transcluded. In any event, you've had both my and Michael's reasoning from the start: we both stated our positions in our edit summaries. I do not think it a worthwhile component – infoboxes are intended to offer only pertinent information, and distance from city is superfluous and highly variable (even though averaged). Given the parameter is opposed by two other editors, I find your revert highly inappropriate. It is upon you to argue its merits at Template talk:Infobox Australian Suburb and seek support rather than to disregard the dispute. It is very wrong, not to mention insulting, for you to consider me to have "no real care one way or the other" with regards to this template and suburb articles. I've been long involved with the writing of and standardising of articles about Adelaide, and as aforementioned, I was indeed involved with the development and distribution of the template. But it is important for me to once again point out that there is no requirement for an editor to have an involvement with something before he or she contributes to it. In fact, Wikipedia actively discourages such sectionalism. Happy editing, --cj | talk 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear rather convinced of your own infallibility. You did ignore my comment, because you overlooked my clarifications and continued with the same accusations. Had good faith been assumed, these would never have surfaced. It is not your – or anyone's – template and you did not create anything new; it has existed for a long while in and out of template namespace. My understanding was not tainted nor has my reasoning change; I have always considered it irrelevant and have stated this consistently. It is plain obfuscation to play semantics. As I said, the infobox should contain information pertinent (read: directly related); whereas population and median property value (two elements you have criticised) are in direct reference to the subject of the article, distance from city relates to another subject (Adelaide). Sure it may be useful, but it isn't necessary. Anyways, as you said, matter is closed. I don't know how it's relevant to highlight flaws in the statistics of a particular article; as it's a template, I've been discussing in generally. I haven't made any presumptions with regards to your actions – I have responded to clear examples of bad faith in your postings to me. And you seem to have misunderstood my reference to systemic bias; I alluded to that to refute your view that people (namely me) should only edit things they have an interest in. It is fine for people to do that, but it isn't a requirement and Wikipedia tries to persuade them otherwise. On a final note, Enigmatical, your interactions with other users needn't be conflicts. If civility is adhered to, and attacks avoided, even the most contentious disputes (which this shouldn't have been in the slightest) can be worked out amicably (or at least with due respect). Thanks, --cj | talk 08:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a useless indicator. Even with "by car" its so vague - what about traffic lights, roadworks, peak traffic, accidents, etc? Its not worth having - it is not exact like other figures. Remember, I was the one who deleted it in the first place. michael talk 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael, I believe that Cyberjunkie will be along shortly on your talk page to quote to you about your error in telling me about a change you made to the template. "Apparently" its against the rules, and as he is very fond of quoting rules to people, "good faith" would suggest that he informs you of this as well. Enigmatical 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand all this fuss. Its one line, on one template, that means absolutely nothing. I left a message because I wanted to be courteous to a new user; I hope you understand that. Anyone can change anything on this encylopedia a million times over without notifying anyone else. No one "owns" any articles / templates. "My" articles have been changed significantly from what they were originally - and I accept that - because its for the best. If you are not happy with a change made to an article / template, argue that point. Don't argue about how its "yours" or how someone is not playing by the rules by notifying you if they've changed it. If you still want to continue, don't hesitate to ask me to explain anything further, I would be glad to. Enjoy your time here. michael talk 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "I really don't understand all this fuss." Leave it, please. michael talk 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links in Home automation
I haven't had time to review all the extrnal links currently in the Home automation article in detail, please feel free to do this and if you feel that they are commercial entities (company pages included) - feel free to remove them. Generally, commercial entities should only be linked to from their own wiki articles, such as IBM.com from IBM rather than linking IBM.com from computer, personal computer, company (law) etc... If the companies are considered notable enough, they will have their own wiki pages, subject to notability requirements, which in turn can be linked to from a related page (for example apple computers being linked from personal computer). Generally speaking, if its possible to accompish a goal with an internal link it is better than an external link. --Usrnme h8er 07:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

List of prestige classes
Good show. Can't imagine going through all those links, and fixing them. -- Ec5618 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to CSD?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you give me a diff? Tom Harrison Talk 02:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&diff=62254329&oldid=62252520 Bad faith edit" Your use of this in your edit summary here did not assume good faith. It is not bad faith to change something with a reason, its bad faith to know prior to the change that it had been discussed previously and a consensus found, do you have that evidence. Ans e ll 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied here for completeness:

I have to say, this is really starting to irritate the absolute hell out of me. The number of people that keep telling me to assume good faith while at the very same time completely ignoring good faith themselves is getting beyond a joke!!! In fact, its reaching the point of being catastrophically hypocritical.

Mr Tom Harrison clearly stated HERE an I quote:

"No, there was no accident. I saw your edit, thought it was not an improvement, and changed it back. I don't think it warrants an extended dabate on the talk page. Write up a 3rr report if you want; as you say, mine was the third revert. You can have the last word if you want it."

Not only did he fail to show good faith, fail to check the recent edits, fail to check the talk page to see that discussion as going on... but he did it because he felt his views were more important than anyone elses. Now I get you coming in here shoving "what you did didn't assume good faith" in my face while doing exactly that in the process!!!! I am struggling to remain civil when people horrendously fail the very thing they walk around snobbing everyone else for. So in the most politest and civil manner I can muster at this time, please check your facts before spouting off and please in future try not to be so unbelievably hypocritical when you feel the urge to admonish other people. Why not lead by example and show some of that "good faith" you seem to think I am lacking.

Let me ask you someting? What on earth possessed you to throw "good faith" in my face and not for a moment consider whether you were doing the same thing? Did it simply not occur to you at all? Or do you believe you are beyond such mistakes? Was it an oversight? (Note now I am assuming good faith in at least giving you an excuse for your actions) Or do you go around blindly telling everyone else what to do while ignoring it yourself? So please BACK OFF, your hypocricy is seriously offensive and inflamatory...

Good bye! Enigmatical 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tom Harrison talking about incivility
Hi there, I'm not sure exactly why you posted that message onto my talk page... I don't know who Tom Harrison is, nor do I know anything about this particular issue. Could you please explain what is going on? Did you perhaps get me mixed up with someone else? Thanks, rom a rin [talk ] 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am referring to a discussion you had with him in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Section break (1). The way in which he talks suggests that he is not part of the incivility and that "we" (ie administators) cannot allow it to go on. I see this as amazingly hypocritical and looking at some of the other edits he has done it seems this attitude of ignoring conscensus and using his own views as being beyond any kind of discussion is common. Enigmatical 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, ok, sorry I had forgotten his name. That is, as far as I can remember, the only interaction I have ever had with him. That thread on ANI got out of hand for many reasons, but luckily it seems to be over now. I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, you wanted me to do; what was the purpose of drawing my attention to his edits? I do think there is a growing problem regarding incivility, and also a growing problem between administrators and non-administrators. However, I am about to go on a long wikibreak (due to real-life vacation) so there's not much I'll be able to do about any of this in the next month. Good luck, rom a rin [talk ] 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts for Hypocricy
Hey there. I noticed you asked for a citation regarding Hypocricy. I am just curious as to why you feel that this needs to be cited, yet the previous sentence which appears to be someone elses interpretation does not? I should be able to use the difference in any future edits.


 * Hi Enigmatical. I feel the entire article needs citations, which is why I added the unreferenced tag. I tagged two specific phrases for additional attention because they used vague attribution/weasel words: one sentence used "arguably" in lieu of citing a reference; the other sentence began with "Some people believe...", assigning an opinion to an anonymous source, and providing no reference to establish the validity of the statement. --Muchness 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What I found incorrect with the hypocricy page was that it alluded to the fact criticism of bad behaviour even though "most people do bad things" were somehow connected. It failed to actually state that hypocricy only comes about when the behaviour being critisized is something the person who is critisizing has done. Most people do bad things, that is true, but most people don't critisize others for the same bad things that they themselves do unless they are hypocrits. Can you see my point? The previous wording was misleading, I believe the new wording is more accurate and althought I know wikipedia often requires citations I don't think you will ever find a sitation of the previous text because it is simply incorrect. Enigmatical 06:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My fact tags were only aimed at the vague attribution issues, which predate your edit; they were not aimed specifically at your reword. Your wording was a definite improvement in my opinion, but it shares the previous wording's problem of vague attribution/lack of references. The aim of my edit was solely to encourage interested editors to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article's content. Regards. --Muchness 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that is where my confusion comes in as I dont see how anyone could find any verifiable sources on this other than just a dictionary definition. At what point does such a source become valid? If the local uni lecturer says something about the topic is it good enough? If it comes from someone who has a degree in psychology is it good enough? This kind of thing is usually very subjective being non-quantifiable and it isn't like there is any one true source that is beyond doubt. I think many people will see hypocricy as many different things for this reason and citations will be difficult to come by. Enigmatical 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Enigmatical/Template:User transhumanist
I do not mean to start anything up again. I just wish to let you know that the "Template" bit is not actually needed. From being involved in the discussion a bit in the past one of the concerns with the userboxes are that they are perceived as standard templates. In my opinion part of this would be removing the "Template" reference from the address of userfied ubx. This is just my two cents, feel free to ignore it at your will. Cheers, Ans e ll  05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re:User:Tony Sidaway
Enigmatical, thanks for the considerate note that you left on my talk page. I was beginning to worry that I was the only one who felt that way (disregarding the opinions of the other editors there, who seem to agree with me). It's good to know that it isn't just me. Avoiding this user is probably a good idea. I did my best to give him a chance to explain himself and to open up the channels of civil discussion. It's unfortunate that he has administrative tools at his disposal. Anyways, best wishes, and happy editing. :) --AaronS 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I wanted to thank you for your recent comments on AN/I. I am glad to see people who are not even involved in the issue supporting me. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "link" between Victim-blaming and Self-fulfilling prophecy
"If you could possibly explain your reasoning on how the two topics are connected"

As I understand the concept of SEE ALSO, Enig., LINKING two articles need not imply any direct relationship whatsoever between the two concepts. It may, but I did not make the link to suggest that: I made it because by exploring RELATED concepts a person gains perspective.

"I think the association would be misleading"

Let me give you one example of how they might be related: a teacher might expect a student to do poorly based on his father's performance in school. As a result, the teacher's behavior might result in the student doing more poorly than they would otherwise. Then the teacher might blame the student (a victim of the teacher's bias) for his poor performance. See here for example; an example of SFP and BTV from racist bias.

This example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as you can see, is not in line with your idea that victim-blaming is "the belief or fear one has about a given person/sitiuation leads to their fear being realised." The student is UNAWARE that he has been blamed for teacher's SFP. Actually I don't think you've expressed a complete grasp of BTV in that sentence.

I don't think people in the Encyclopedia business need to do the thinking for the readers. A SEE ALSO is a list of articles that are RELATED in some way and MAY be helpful to a reader looking for a broader POV, which MAY GO BEYOND consideration of the subject of the immediate article.

Consequently, I'm RESTORING the link you removed. If you want to pursue this (rather minor, I think) quibble further, and provide me with a position based in WP POLICY that clarifies what belongs in a see also, fine....

Personally, I'd rather spend my time working on articles than on the endemic quibbling that seems to pursue everyone trying to contribute anything of consequence to WP. Twang 08:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The concept of "see also" is that there is some relationship between the concepts in some way. There is absolutely no relationship between these two and the example you provided simply showed a chain of events. If the teacher then decided to eat an apple after doing this to a student do you put a link under see also to eating fruit? Of course not. I am removing the link for 2 reasons:


 * The existance of the link doesn't add to wikipedia, in fact it confuses the issue and gives people the impression they are related or that one may lead to the other when in fact they are totally seperate issues and can exist without the other withuot problem.
 * As you said, it isn't worth quibbling over... lets see if that is true

Enigmatical 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Header Sizes
No need for apologies. As far an arbitrary application - well, I'm just one user who happened to be visiting that page and applied the "fix" when I saw it was needed. It wasn't part of any updating campaign or anything, though I have applied the "fix" whenever I've come across such incidents.

As fo whether it "adds" anything: well, not per se. It does give a more professional, standardized feel across articles, though, to keep to the same conventions. I'm not sure why the convention starts with == instead of =, but it's probably a factor of both html (= translates into an h1 tag, == into an h2 tag, === into h3, etc.) and aesthetics (the =/h1 header is kinda big). You'll probably get a more official answer at the MoS page, though. --Xanzzibar 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

re:T1 and T2

 * Was reading your comments on this topic and you asked how you would go about removing something if you felt that it was directly harming wikipedia. The answer is incredibly simple yet purplsely avoided in my honest opinion. You simply return to Jimbo and seek further clarification and explaination of T1 and T2 to the point where absolutely nobody could misread the policy. Curious how admins are happier to take it as it currently is, such that it is ambiguous enough to use when it suits them but when given a clear path to make it absolute they refuse to do it... my educated guess is that they would be afraid they couldn't continue deleting things from their own POV if they had it clarified. Care to prove me wrong? Enigmatical 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been completely offline for several days now, and only just got your note on my talk page. I admit the whole T1 issue hasn't quite got my foreground attention right now, but I'll attempt to reply to what you said. Your suggestion is to get Jimbo to clarify exactly what should get deleted and what shouldn't - you want the Deus ex machina solution. Problem 1 is that Jimbo has been asked repeatedly and is apparently unwilling to do that, and I think he's smart to leave it as a problem for us to work out over time. With an appropriate level of patience and perspective, you realize that nothing here is permanent, and letting things work themselves out at their own pace is often the correct approach.

You go on to suggest (your "educated guess") that some admins prefer the rules hazy because it allows them room to abuse the system by deleting according to POV. Although that must happen inadvertently to some degree, no matter how unambiguously you try to phrase a "rule", I think your suggestion that it's actually the motive behind many admins positions to be paranoid and unrealistic. If some particular admin is deleting things according to their POV, then you should bring it up directly with them, because that's unacceptable. Otherwise I don't know to whom your allegations are supposed to apply, and speaking for myself and the admins with whose work I'm familiar, I can say they don't apply at all. If you want to know why I think it's smart to avoid having very concrete and specific "rules" for how to run the Wiki, you should ask me.

Regarding your last question, I don't know what you're talking about. If there's something you want me to do, please ask directly. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I'm finally back online with some degree of regularity, and able to give Wikipedia some actual time and attention.  It's nice to find not much has changed, in my absence.


 * I hardly know what to say to you, though. If you think that someone is using the abiguous state of the "rules" to push a particular POV, then I won't know what you're talking about until you get specific: give me a name and a supposed political agenda, and I'll cheerfully look into it.  Until then, then only agenda I know of relating to userboxes is to get rid of all of them forever (excepting Babel and project-related ones), which is an agenda I agree with.


 * You predict that, if Jimbo doesn't do the Deux ex Machina solution, then in five years we'll still be arguing about it. I predict that in five years, people won't remember userboxes, because they'll be long gone by then.  That's what we're working towards.  We're just doing it slowly instead of all at once, because that makes fewer waves.  Frankly, the problem is cultural, so the solution will be cultural and gradual, and trying to address a cultural problem by edict is short-sighted and foolish.


 * If you oppose userbox deletion, then your best strategy is to actually convince other people that userboxes are a good thing. I've seen all the arguments on all sides, as far as I know, and frankly the userbox crowd hasn't convinced me that userboxes are necessary or good.  If you can persuade me that userboxes are cool for Wikipedia, then you'll be one person closer to being right.  Until a lot of convincing goes on, the general sentiment among more experienced Wikipedians is that most userboxes are frivolous at best, and damaging at worst.  I'll be pretty impressed if you can even correctly repeat back the arguments against userboxes - I don't think I've ever seen a userbox supporter get it right.


 * The current state, as I understand it, is this: a few GUS people are running around userfying a bunch of boxes. A few admins like Cyde are keeping up the deletion pressure.  This means that more and more userboxes are living in user space, and fewer and fewer in template space.  This means that new users are entering a Wikipedia in which, as long as they can remember, there's been momentum in the direction of deprecating userboxes.  Fewer and fewer people will be drawn to the whole userbox fad, because more and more people will sense that it jumped the shark a while ago, and in about a year, once it's already been the status quo for months that userboxes don't live in Template space, someone will add it to a policy or guideline without raising any remark except for "I thought that was already a policy."


 * There's your timeline and mechanism for how the issue will get resolved. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. In order to convince someone of something, there has to at least be room for convincing. There is no use in trying to convince someone who is adamant before anything has been said. A person wishing to stick to a particular point of view will never change that point of view because being subjective, we humans can find whatever we like to support our own goals and agendas. Just as you wont convince me they don't believe, I wont convince you that they do... to then argue people need to be convinced is done specifically becuase you already know the answer to that. Funny how you construct the answer to specifically meet your own POV... is that what a good administrator should do?


 * I'm sorry, I only sort of understand what you're saying here. When you say "you won't convince me they don't believe," who is "they", and what exactly are they believing or not?  Are you saying in the above paragraph that I'm not open to being convinced?  What evidence do you have of that?  I'm actually having this conversation, listening and trying to give you my best and most honest answers.  What do I need to do to convince you that I'm listening?  Why not try getting to the point, and see how I react?  The reason I suggest that you need to convince others has nothing to do with trying to suit "my POV" - your attempt to read my intentions is failing.  I suggest you need to convince people because I have this idealistic belief that such is how progress occurs.  You'll note that my activities in the userbox affair so far have been mostly limited to trying to honestly convince others of what I genuinely believe to be right.  I'm a deletionist, but I'm not a deleter - I suspect you've noticed that.  I'm a discusser - talk to me.


 * You have your own photo on wikipedia and it is in the photobook. Don't you consider it a complete and total contradiction to do something as "frivilous" as that and then bemoan how useless userboxes are? I see people playing hangman, doing personal topics and many other things here... so why do userboxes get the flack? I believe that until you are consistent in your POV, and that you automatically share your view with all things on Wikipedia that are frivilous then you truely don't have a right to be "divisive" against one particular aspect of wikipedia.


 * First of all, my photo is not in the facebook. I uploaded one, but I seem to have failed to grok the appropriate copyright rule, so it's gone.  Secondly, I don't think of the facebook as frivolous.  I think it's a useful tool to assist Wikipedians locating each other in offline events, which I sometimes attend, and I'm happy for people to be able to recognize me in those cases.  Thirdly, I don't "bemoan how useless userboxes are"; I point out how I believe they are specifically damaging to Wikipedia.  I have never cited frivolity as a reason for deletion; if I have, please show me where, and I'll eat my hat.  As to your question "why do userboxes get the flack?", I believe I've answered it quite thoroughly, but I'm quite happy to do it again: They reinforce a culture of partisanship, which is directly antithetical to what I see as the defining vision of Wikipedia.  Like Jimbo said, they give people the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.  I would hope that most people would react to this suggestion by opening a frank and honest discussion about what it really does mean to be a Wikipedian, but it seems that many people would rather chase red herrings.  I find that sad.


 * Prove to me first that you are open-minded and willing to accept all possibilities, and I will gladly share with you what my point of view is in the hope of finding a proper solution. (in return I will also be open minded in listening to why it should be removed, and why it should be done in contrast to other useless content). Deal?


 * Uh, deal. I don't know what kind of "proof" you need that I'm open minded... how about my saying so: I'm open to what you have to say.  Please tell me what your views are, and please don't assume that you already know what my views are, but please be open to finding out. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first things first: ''The fact that you call yourself a delitionist means you have already prescribed to that view and I dont believe that even if there was sufficient evidence to "convince" you otherwise that you would in fact change that view. Do you not agree?'' No, I don't agree at all. I started out as a userbox supporter, and changed my mind because of reasoned arguments that I saw presented. I firmly believe that it can happen again, and I continue to invite userbox supporters to communicate with me.

I'm sorry you're convinced that I'm not open minded. I would like to be open minded, and I'm totally willing to let you teach me what I'm not seeing, but if you're going to dismiss me without attempting to do so, then I'm not the one forfeiting the discussion. I'm standing here with my ears open saying, "please share, please communicate, please teach". Will I not seem open-minded to you until I say "yeah, you're right about evetything"?

Regarding the facebook and hangman, (which I still know nothing about). I think the facebook has a small reason for existing. It's not particularly useful, but it's not actually damaging either, as far as I can tell. Playing hangman sounds like something people don't need to be doing on Wikipedia servers. It sounds very slightly harmful, but at least it doesn't have the disadvantage of contributing to a partisan atmosphere, so if I had to rank these activities, I would say the facebook is the least of a problem, hangman next, and userboxes next. Regardless, I have a limited amount of energy to put into Wikipedia, and frankly the only reason I'm talking about userboxes at this point is because you initated this discussion. If your impression is that I'm campaigning against userboxes while letting other things slide, then your impression is mistaken. I'm not doing a thing to campaign against anything here right now. I'm editing a few articles, having this conversation, and considering an essay I want to write about how to avoid edit wars.

You seem to have missed my main point in the facebook paragraph, which was this: I believe that partisan userboxes actively harm Wikipedia. I'm aware of the arguments that userboxes aren't harmful, but are in fact a good thing, but I'm not convinced by them. I would be happy to discuss with you precisely what those arguments are and what I find lacking about them. I would also like to see that you know what the arguments are on my side. If we can mutually understand each other, then a lot of other problems just go away.

Can we drop discussion of which of us is more open-minded, and actually just talk about the pros and cons of userboxes? In response to how you predicted I'd react to your argument: (But none of this will matter to you, there will be some reason why this is irrelevant, why this doesn't matter but hangman is perfectly valid wikipedia content and userboxes are not.), you're incorrect in at least two ways. First of all, I don't think that hangman is perfectly valid Wikipedia content. Direct me to a deletion discussion, and I'll put my money where my mouth is. Secondly, I don't consider your arguments irrelevant. I consider them absolutely central, and worthy of respect and detailed consideration. Now, do you want to keep second guessing me, or can we have a real discussion now, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, here's the question you posed for consideration: Do you believe the current policy could be changed in order to remove the problem of being partisan, without actually having to remove userboxes altogether?


 * Before I address that, let me try to establish some common ground for discussion. We've got suggestions out there that userboxes have some specific advantages, and some specific disadvantages.  The general argument in favor of userboxes is that the advantages are real and significant, and that the disadvantages are either non-existent, or at least insignificant.  There is also an argument that there are some specific disadvantages to deleting userboxes.  On the other side, we've got the suggestion that the advantages of userboxes are not unique to userboxes - i.e., that we can obtain the same advantages without them - and that the disadvantages are real, significant, and worth taking the trouble to avoid.  Please let me know if you find any part of that summary to be inaccurate or misleading.  (As a point of reference, these arguments are fleshed out in some detail here)


 * Anyway, I think what you're asking is this: Is is possible to eliminate the disadvantages of userboxes without eliminating the advantages as well? I guess I'd say... maybe.  I think that people moving them to subpages is actually one of the best solutions, because it addresses the problem of what impression is given to new users.  If it's longer before someone sees userboxes, maybe they'll have more time to get the right idea about Wikipedia.  Still, having them around really gives the wrong impression, and I'm really not convinced it's worth it to maintain something that goes directly against the image we ought to be projecting, and which confers very little in the way of advantages.


 * I think the important discussion that hasn't really happened yet is on the topic of what it means to be a Wikipedian, and what kind of image we want to project, and just what is the right idea about Wikipedia? (And what is the wrong idea that I'm claiming some people are getting?)


 * Implicit in my slight rephrasing of your question is one other point, which is that we're actually dealing with a cultural problem, and it isn't going to have a simple policy solution. There's no magic sentence you can write down somewhere that will somehow make it irrelevant that we've got increasing numbers of people with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is.  The solution will be gradual, and difficult.  The good news is that we're working on it right now, by having this conversation. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and replied at my talk page, in the interest of keeping the discussion somehow linear. It's kind of long, with the most important part towards the end. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 24th August 2006
Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated on the meetup page, it's going to be in the hall (which is at the church), not in the church itself, and I had nothing to do with organising the venue, I just thought I'd be bold and let everyone know about it. [ælfəks] 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited your list as I have already addressed one of the items on it. I put a strikethrough on it.
 * Epolk 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons Prestige Classes
I have no idea if you're still working on them, but I thought the fastest way to find out was to ask. ^_^ I've been working on filling in some of the many redlinks whenever I have the time, and I've been attempting to make a sidebar for them similar to the character class one, so the character class bar can be trimmed down a little. If you are still working on templates or info boxes for the prestige classes, is there anything specific I'm not putting in the articles? If there was, I thought it would be easier to find out now and start adding it in as I went rather than rewriting later. Most of the articles I've done are in the same style as Shifter (Dungeons & Dragons) Morgrim 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Could i get a vote here on the neuroscience barnstar. Please vote how you feel about the star, i just dont want it to die because noone votesthuglastalk 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Neverwinter templates
I've nominated Template:Infobox_Neverwinter2PW and Template:Infobox_Neverwinter12PW for deletion, as it seems unlikely for them to ever be used. If you're still around, come comment at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 23. --- RockMFR 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Meetup on 23rd April 2007
Hi Enigmatical,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) NB: The above message is being delivered to users who are listed at WikiProject Adelaide or in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia with AutoWikiBrowser.

Image:Coopers logo.png
Hello, Enigmatical. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Coopers logo.png) was found at the following location: User talk:Enigmatical. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aurora_toolset_logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aurora_toolset_logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Sunshine Man 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:User cvg-Nin
Would you mind changing your user box link from the redirect Template:User cvg-Nin to User:Ac1983fan/Userboxes/cvg-Nin (as you are the only one using it right now). I am attempting to finally clean up the template namespace after the CVG - VG switch, and if no-one were using this redirect it could just be deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Enigmatical - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks!

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3
Hi Enigmatical - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Dungeons & Dragons prestige class
Template:Dungeons & Dragons prestige class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Conversation Editor.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Conversation Editor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Visual Terrain Editor 2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Visual Terrain Editor 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Script Editor.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Neverwinter Nights 2 Script Editor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox NeverwinterPW
Template:Infobox NeverwinterPW has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  05:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Adelaide Meetup 22 – Friday 6 March 2020
WikiProject Adelaide Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!

DATE: Friday 6 March 2020

TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm

VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide

Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVP here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Adelaide at 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please advise Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.