User talk:Lostkiwi/Archive 1

Re: Template:User Cdn Armed Forces
It seemed like you may not have seen this (long, sorry) note I wrote about this (even though I linked it from the edit summary). I hope you'll read it, and let me know what your thoughts are regarding this. The re-wording was not made without consideration, or without discussion; I tried to start as much discussion as I could, without much sucesss. Thanks for your attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your numerous edits to the 'pedia. They are appreciated. Regarding the User Cdn Armed Forces template, I'd like to tell you a bit about the history of the User templates. The first User templates were the so-called Babel boxes, templates that created groups of users who knew various languages, both so they could communicate between themselves, and so others could identify them and contact them about the languages they knew. This was directly in service to contributing to articles - verifying interwiki links, translating articles, and other tasks like that. People liked the form of the boxes, and gradually expanded their use, first to musical instruments, then to the vast panoply of boxes we have today. Over time, the original focus of the boxes on identifying groups of users who had skills and abilities they wanted to use to contribute to the 'pedia was lost, and it came to be believed that the boxes merely expressed personal statements, not necessarily related to the 'pedia at all. However, the technical ability of the standardized, templatized boxes to identify and group users remained present, and potent. Unlike direct text, individually written by each user to express whatever personal statements they wish to express, User templates provide an automatic list of their users (via the Whatlinkshere feature). They have been used to contact only the members of the implied group, both as assumed allies, and as a hit list of intended victims to be harassed. As long as the boxes remained focused on the 'pedia, this, while sometimes unfortunate, still on the whole benefited the 'pedia, and only opened up the users to risks they intended to run. But the use of the User templates for purposes unrelated to contributing to the encyclopedia means that the group-forming possibilities of the boxes are and can be used for purposes utterly separate, and even opposed to the goal of contributing to the encyclopedia we are all trying to write here.

That's why I proposed the changed wording that I did; a group of Users who want to work on our coverage of the Canadian Armed Forces is a good and useful thing, and something that the group-forming abilities of User templates can assist with. A group of users who merely appreciate the Canadian Armed Forces, but who may or may not make use of that appreciation in connection with the 'pedia is harmed by the group-forming abilities of User templates. I look forward to your response, either here, on my talk page, or on the talk page of the template itself. If I do not get a response within a week of posting this message, I will assume you accept the proposed wording change, and I will reapply it. Feel free to revert it again if I do, but I urge you to respond to this message as well. Thanks again for your work on the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your historical point of view but a fondamental principle of Wikipedia is: Guidelines are a product of community consensus, as can be seen at How_to_create_policy and Consensus. The communinty has evolved, the babel boxes have become userboxes and we are using them differently now. Therefore, without some consensus, I feel the major change you made to the userbox was hasty. Changing a "I support the army" to "I want to write about the cdn army" is a conceptual leap presently for most of the userbox users. I recommend a new userbox as another option for users interested in the project. On a different note, I personally feel your statement is implied and doesn't need to be spelled out... it just makes the userbox too wordy Of course I'm here to write and edit about the subjects I care about! Lostkiwi 01:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. The issue seems to have died down, and I never had that strong a point of view on it in any case; but I do appreciate your reply, and don't worry about the delay; life happens to all of us. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)