User talk:Dr. Blofeld
Dr. Blofeld, would you please remove the banner ad of Wales from your talk page? I realize that you have a fundamental disagreement on the civility thing, but this is going too far. It's a violation of WP:POLEMIC and is only going to create more time-wasting drama. In the interest of, well, building an encyclopedia, please remove it yourself before someone else does. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is posting an ad, which Wales himself uploaded, and which contains nothing but a positive message, be a "polemic"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- If the community is uncomfortable with the banner, then I'm sure it's nothing on how uncomfortable I really feel right now contributing to something run by people who obviously are not showing enough interest in promoting the actual encyclopedia and don't appear to be trying to improve relations between editors such as myself and the foundation. I'm at an all time low in enthusiasm for this thing and find it incredibly hard at the moment to want to produce anything of value. And a large part of that is realising how this thing is being run and the poor will to overcome site problems. I'm feeling that this is a huge time sink currently and work which further glorifies Wales at our expense. The people running this thing have the real power to breathe new life into project and bring us the people we need but what are they actively doing? Where is all the effort to bring in twice the number of female editors and realistically meet the 25% goal? The site is riddled with massive administrative problems and needs a major focus on content but what are they doing? If you're going to pay people to run this thing then they should be concentrating mainly on using their position to maximise the growth and potential of the website at the grass roots level of actual day to day editing of wikipedia and invent new and exciting new ways to get us the expert editors and new content we badly need. Jimbo, a member of the foundation, however strongly he feels about Eric or incivility, right now is doing just the opposite and creating an even bigger divide in the community, however good he thinks his intentions are. He's well within reason I think to want a more pleasant atmosphere on the site, but he's obviously not doing anything to tackle it personally in practice and he doesn't seem to acknowledge that the way he's going about it is actually increasing incivility and hostility by encouraging a culture of lynch mobbing to gain quick brownie points and further distractions from actual encyclopedia building. If he or the foundation are concerned with anything I've said or think I'm wrong, they're perfectly entitled to email me off wiki. I doubt I'll change my mind on the current situation until I see any indication that they do care what the most active editors on here think and start to show an actual effort to try to improve the problems on the site. Personal attacks are prevalent on here, and not just in sweary remarks; until you get to the root of the actual problem and try to make changes which reduce editor conflict then nothing is going to change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen the image before today, and can't say I would call it "Polemic". It isn't calling Jimmy a name, it isn't questioning his character, it is questioning his priorities. That it does so in a satirical manner doesn't take away from the message, a message that has been expressed by a number of people, that Jimmy is putting civility above content, the social aspects of the site above the articles. Whether or not you agree is meaningless, as the latitude we give editors when expressing themselves isn't dependent on whether or not we agree with them, but instead on whether or not the message and vehicle is "reasonable". Posting this message on a singular editor's talk page seems reasonable to me. Posting on Jimmy's, that would depend on the context of the discussion, but would probably be seen as soapboxing and I would strongly discourage that.
- But lets get down to brass tacks, shall we? Here is the real problem: What if someone (me, Blofeld, whoever) typed this on their talk page when they were in the middle of a discussion:
- "It's like Jimbo is saying "Imagine a world in which everybody was really, I mean, really nice to one another and a project which brings together the most civil people on the planet into one project to make the worlds a better place. This is what we are trying to achieve, oh and that encyclopedia thingy some want as well as a bonus, I almost forgot!! Click here to donate today!""
- Would you call for sanctions against that person for that satirical observation? Is there anything that resembles a personal attack in that paragraph? Would you file at ANI for it? If you did, how long would it take to get closed as a silly case? The ONLY difference is that Dr. Blofeld embedded those exact words into a graphic with a freely available image of Jimbo. And frankly, that is one of the better images of Jimbo. It is on topic (about Wikipedia), it is properly placed (in their own space) and non offensive (no attacks). Some might not like it, but isn't anyone's job to please everyone, nor is it anyone's responsibility to be politically correct as to not offend every single person here.
- Just as I would defend any editor's right to express their opinion about how Wikipedia is run, or the priorities of people who have more power than they have, on their own talk page, I just can't see a reason to force someone to delete something that is perfectly fine when expressed as text. That someone disagrees with the message, thus finds it convenient to request action, is insufficient for me. People on Wikipediocracy and other websites often complain about how some censor genuine disagreement with the "powerful" types here, and this is exactly the type of situation they refer to, seemingly with some good cause. If we can't accept healthy criticism of ourselves, our leaders, when done tastefully and without personal attacks, then all is lost. Dennis - 2¢ 19:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thoughtful comment Dennis. Coincidentally I too had written a reply that got edit conflicted with the temporary removal of this section. (I ended up sending it via email.) It wasn't nearly as eloquent as yours, but the main point was that mockery isn't going to make someone change their mind, and will most likely make them more entrenched in their views. I also suggested that a more productive approach than going on the offensive would be to defend those who are being attacked.
- I should probably also clarify that I'm not try to force a removal here, devalue satire or criticism, or seek sanctions on anybody. I think an open conversation about civility could be a good thing, but I also think that conversation has a better chance of being productive if it takes place in a more civil manner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- If all methods of displaying disagreement were as civil as Dr. Blofeld's image, we wouldn't have a civility debate. I don't see it as "mocking" as there was no cruelty. I saw it as using satire and hyperbole to communicate a message, one that says he thinks Jimbo is worrying more about our manners than our articles. ie: priorities. That is specifically why it is so easy for me to support using the banner. Jimmy cares about civility. Jimmy cares about articles. This, we all agree on. The image was simply using humor to say he cares about one of those too much and one too little. Nothing else was injected into the message, no nefarious motives, no character flaws or insults. Jimmy is a big boy, he can handle it. To compare, if someone drew a cartoon of me holding an umbrella over Eric Corbett, while it was raining "blocks", I wouldn't make them tear it down. I would probably laugh, but that doesn't mean I agree. I use this as an example because a few say I "protect" him. when the truth is, I just hold content to a higher level than minor incivility. That is particularly funny since during his last block, I agreed with the blocker and said I would have done exactly the same, a short block. So yes, if someone wants to opine in a way that is not cruel or defamatory, and do so in an appropriate space, we should allow it. If we are to err, we err on the side of freedom of expression. Dennis - 2¢ 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect many of the more committed builders of the encyclopaedia are becoming too afraid to debate these issues. It is not helped by the way Jimmy Wales, instead of responding thoughtfully, either attacks, gags or ignores editors if they speak out on his talk page and mutters instead about purging them. At the same time he encourages input from social networkers with agendas that have little to do with building the encyclopaedia and much to do with controlling the behaviour of content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Dennis, I see your point. And that would indeed be a clever cartoon, though I think that there might be other admins who it would fit better than you :-). I'll admit I too smiled at the ad when I first read it, but I don't think everybody would read it the same as you...I fear others might see it as being more divisive. Anyway I'll stop beating this now. Thanks ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I welcome the opportunity to talk about this stuff any time. I don't think it is so divisive, and certainly not as divisive as what happens on Jimmy's page. If anything, that little smile might make someone open to new ideas, or at least open to tolerating ideas they don't agree with. The only way we can avoid that "little jolt", be it an image or a sentence, is if we just shut up and say we agree with each other when we don't. That is not a price I'm willing to pay. Dennis - 2¢ 23:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Going through your array of awards; you truly deserve all, just reiterating some of them:
|The Indian Cinema Barnstar|
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|genuinely preventing Wikipedia from fraudulent purposes by standing up for what’s right Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)|
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|for that extra mile Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|Your hard work is seen and appreciated. Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)|
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|large body of work, never sacrificing quality. Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)|
|For Every Hindi Film Page Created By You Award|
|And finally once again, I thank you for this! Kaayay (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)|
- Ah... This talk page is full of stars. Jim Carter 19:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Stub contest - final prize
Just to confirm that September 1 was indeed the highest-viewed article for the Stub Contest, beating out its nearest rivals by about sixteen times over. Sorry for the delay in sorting that one out - I ended up having to write a script to process the logfiles to be sure and it took longer than I expected to work out how to do so! Casliber will be able to sort out the prize details for you... Andrew Gray (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Florence Nagle.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Florence Nagle.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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 00:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Aad Mansveld.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Aad Mansveld.gif. 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 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).
Orphaned non-free image File:ArmandTemptress.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ArmandTemptress.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 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).
- The same message applies to the following images:
- File:Due notti con Cleopatra.jpg
- File:Nino Manfredi.jpg
- File:JyotiprasadAgarwalla .jpg
"Hubble bubble toil and toffee" (the noo)
Wikipedia needs your help
Doc, actress Nutan (Nutan Behl) was married to Col. Rajnish Behl. However, their son appears in Wikipedia as Mohnish Bahl. I have a feeling you can solve this mystery. No hurry, after vacations perhaps... Enjoy it, we will be here when you're back. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)