User talk:StrangerInParadise

What are you talking about?

I added to the talk page; I didn't change the article. CJCurrie 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I can explain this mystery: in your most recent reversion of the Buors page, you only removed the link (not the actual quote). This didn't make any sense to me, but I refrained from comment.

I plan on holding to our policy of not changing this section of the page until someone else weighs in.

I don't have any objection to you expanding the Compassion Club section, though I'm not sure what you mean by "restorations" -- I don't think anything was deleted from this section. CJCurrie 01:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Compassion

Stranger,

There's already a link to Compassion Club, earlier in the article. Hence my confusion.

Since you've adopted a more civil tone, I'll reciprocate (and maybe explain why I've been so resolute with my position):

About a month ago, an anonymous poster added three unflattering quotes from Buors on the article page. I didn't like the way this was done -- the three quotes were lined up one after an another, and were obviously posted with the defamatory intent. The only problem was, at least two of the quotes were accurate (I couldn't find a reference for the third). What's more, the quote on homosexuality struck me as entirely relevant for the page, coming from a public figure.

I recognize that Buors may not want the quote retained, but this ultimately isn't my concern -- I can't think of a more divisive social topic in Canadian politics today, and any public comment on the subject by a party leader has to be considered "fair game" for inclusion. (I did, however, try to mitigate the intentions of the original poster.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the quote is reliable, nor that it is relevant. Attacking the CC's reliability because the original post has been deleted does not strike me as a cogent objection -- especially when the Google cache is still available. Similarly, I can't see the "expectation of privacy" comment holding water on a public discussion forum. (Note that these statements are not made with hostile intent.)

I agree that the "Chomsky" quote was gratuitous, and I don't have any intention of restoring it.

Feel free to forward this message to Buors. Looking at the matter objectively, I hope he'll agree that I've taken the correct approach. CJCurrie 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Electoral record

I've been adding these tables to a number of different pages. I agree that they take up a fair bit of space, but since they're all clustered at the bottom of the article I don't see this being a problem.

My general approach is that if a public figure is important enough for a separate bio page, that person's electoral record is also appropriate for inclusion. Wikipedia has a clear policy permitting bio pages for party leaders, ergo ... CJCurrie 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry about the broken nature of this discussion. I responded to your message just before Ground_Zero's came in.

If the consensus is against having these elaborate charts on bio pages, I won't object. I don't see them as problematic, though I can accept that others might.

The "highlighting" is simply to draw attention to the subject in the context of a chart format; I hadn't thought of this as contentious, and I never considered doing anything similar for biographical information. CJCurrie 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Official welcome

Welcome!

Hello, StrangerInParadise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 01:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Buors

Thanks for flagging the existence of this article and person. I had never heard of him but the article is now on my watchlist, SqueakBox 01:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Buors update

Stranger,

I should inform you that I've done some expanding/referencing work on the Buors page. I don't think any of the changes are particularly controversial, though you may which to review them (and alert the subject) in any case. If there are any factual errors, please alert me/correct them/etc. CJCurrie 21:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Flourishes and sources

I won't dispute the quote if you can find it, regardless of the source.  ;)

(Just remember to update the endnotes section.) CJCurrie 03:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Square brackets

My understanding is that these are standard usage when indicating that text has been deleted (particularly when "..." also appears in the source material). I don't see this as particularly controversial, in any event. CJCurrie 03:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Buors retires from politics

Buors's decision does not come as a complete surprise to me. The impression I took from reading his posts (and particularly his reaction to the recent controversy) is that he never considered himself a "public figure", and wasn't ready for dealing with this sort of criticism. To some extent, I can understand his position -- he became the leader of a political party more-or-less by accident, and probably wasn't expecting the degree of scrutiny or publicity that he's received on Wikipedia. If he isn't able to deal with this, perhaps political life (even on the fringes) isn't for him.

You might be interested to know that I allowed Buors to vet the original page, when it was created in 2004 (this was long before the present controversy). At the time, he said it was fine. I'm not certain he remembers this exchange now. CJCurrie 23:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Marinol

Well, you're more involved with the article so I'll defer to you. I removed the anon's link at first because all the other links directly related to Steve Kubby, whereas that one was more tangential. --Malthusian (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So I see. I'm glad that I came across it, it's a very interesting issue but being in Britain I wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. --Malthusian (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Help has arrived

I noticed your call for help. I guess that's your question on your user page, you want to get the Kubby story into the {{In the news}} section of the Main Page? I'm looking into it and I'll get back to you. If you can expand on your query do so here. Also, where are the related Wikipedia articles?--Commander Keane 05:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the related articles, don't worry about that. It looks like there are Wikipedians that are conscious of the story at the Candidates page, so I'm not sure what else I can do. Perhaps it will be picked up by more international outlets and make it onto the Main Page.--Commander Keane 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The idea that more international press should pick this up ignores the fact that on the merits this matter already more than qualifies. I understand the value of having an objective rule of thumb, but the shear dimensions of this case coupled with the international exposure it has already surely already passes the objectivity test! StrangerInParadise 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the link. Can't help on current events (I am not surprised at what happened, though) but will certainly help with the article, etc. Very depressing news. I know both Honduras (whaere I live) and the UK (where I am from) suffer from the same problems of people being criminalised for their use of medical marijuana except that there is no legal recognition of medical marijuana, not that I personally believe medical marijuana should be treated as an exception as I believe the total legalisation of marijuana for all purposes (licenced like alcohol or tobacco) is the only way forward and a recognition of the powerful role marijuana can play in helping give up addictions to a whole range of noxious substances from tobacco and (the out of control drugs of) alcohol, heroin, cocaine and crack, etc, an area in which there has been little or no research. If this issue is debated on any article talk page please send me the link as I am happy to weigh in, and good luck with what you are doing, SqueakBox 14:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, to propose an addition to the "in the news" section on the main page, please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, as someone has mentioned above. Unfortunately we can't really be of any other further help in this, other than pointing you in the right direction to raise your query. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read the request and I understand your mission. However, I don't think a heading like this is will be included in the main page. The main page has room for only 5 or so headlines, and those headlines are a necessarily a very small selection of all news events. Many news events that are important to many people never make it to the main page, for several reasons, but one of the most logical ones is that there's just too much news to choose from. This does not make the news any less important, of course! It's just not as relevant to as many people as some other news items are. I understand that a lot of this is very subjective (a news item about a sports event might not seem as important to you as this case is) but unfortunately, that's reality... I will remove the helpme tag from your page. Please do not re-add it, it won't get you more response than you are already receiving right now. Sorry! --JoanneB 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

War on Drugs article improvement

Hey there. Just letting you know that the War on Drugs article has been nominated for improvement. Perhaps you may want to add your supporting vote or a comment on the process. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 18:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey man. I really like your userbox, but I removed it from Talk:Health issues and the effects of cannabis because it is not really appropriate. That article is very controversial and needs to remain NPOV. Including a pro-cannabis userbox advertisement on the page doesn't help that article stay objective. Thanks and take care. --Howrealisreal 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but you are absolutely right: I am concerned about the appearance of POV at the article because it is already easy for detractors to dismiss the content over there as being biased, POV, and pro-cannabis. I understand that you want to spread the use of the userbox, but in an article talk page it is not appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages, which states "article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article," and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." The use of the article's talk page to promote the userbox has nothing to do with the content of the article. I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to keep things professional, and that is totally different from the mindless censorship that you are accusing me of. --Howrealisreal 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is no definitive policy about userboxes. Regardless, the use of such templates, as their name implies, is that userboxes belong on user pages. I have seen your views on userboxes in general at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll (which you also linked in your comment) and cannot help but think that your pro-cannabis userbox advertisement doubles as a means of politicizing that un-related issue further. On the other hand, Wikipedia has established policies about no self-promotion (being that it is your userbox you are trying to get others to use), and about not using article talk pages as a soapbox. You claim that "I've announced a userbox, this hardly qualifies as mounting a soapbox," but by definition announcing or proclaiming something of unencyclopedic and questionable relation to the specific article at hand, surely can be seen as a soapbox. Lastly, I am not an admin and personally I do not care about userboxes for people who want to use them on their user space. Please, use the right platforms that have been established (directly relating to userboxes) and stick to discussing the health issues and effects of cannabis at that article and its discussion page. Regards, --Howrealisreal 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pro-cannabis

The category associated with this template was deleted. Please stop adding it to the template. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note that you walked very close to the WP:3RR block there. I understand that you were frsutrated, but edit warring isn't productive, it's just a test to see who is more stuborn. Talking is better! - brenneman^{T}{L} 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism

Edit warring is frowned upon even when you don't break WP:3RR and I'm frowning. Another, even more serious matter is calling editors who disagree with you "vandals". Please don't do that, it's considered a personal attack. Zocky | picture popups 11:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MfD - community assent

Wanna look? Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent — Dzonatas 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question

No, I wouldn't want you not to revert vandalsim on my page. I wasn't really sure what was going on and thanks for clarifying, SqueakBox 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Community assent

Thank you for your vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_assent. A deletion of a proposal seems irregular when the guidelines state to use the approval and rejection system. Hopefully, this does move forward the efforts to validate pages. — Dzonatas 23:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: In addition (re MarkSweep)

Thank you for the comment/clarification. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No; I will not take action when I have not spent time carefully reviewing the entire situation. In addition, because you've already posted the matter at WP:AN/I, if immediate action is really needed, I'm sure one of the many administrators will act after discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of right versus wrong, or clear-cut, immediate reversion needed. As I haven't had the time to fully review the circumstances of the dispute (nor do I wish to at this time), and the matter has already been placed for discussion, I will not act. Thank you for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

mark sweep and guanaco again

Hi, please don't go "looking for bail" for users who are blocked. I think presently the situation has enough attention to it that people will do the right thing -- given time. I know it seems urgent now, but twelve hours in the face of finally reaching a compromise here seems small. thanks, ... aa:talk 07:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks about the userbox deletetion warining ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your messages

Greetings. I noticed you sending a message in highly loaded language on dozens of talk pages about the userbox policy poll. This is a pretty unacceptable way of going about things, and it does not in any way help to find consensus on the matter; you've gone beyond simply informaing into presenting a highly loaded presentation of the issue designed to encourage people to "vote" a certain way. I urge you to take back this message and not to continue such behavior in the future; I'm placing a notice about this message spamming on the poll so those closing it may take its effect into account. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are two big reasons why this is inappropriate:

1. Massive assumption of bad faith. "Rogue admins", "sabotage", "reported damage". This is the language of someone who thinks people holding the other view are deliberately out to destroy something.

2. Vote stacking. It's not good. This is the reason people are against userboxes in the first place. It's just not on to go rally people you think will support you and urge them to sway a discussion a certain way.

This sort of thing only exacerbates any factionalism that was already there. This doesn't help solved the problem; it only makes it worse! Instead of making a solid, well-reasoned argument against the points of the proposal on the talk page and letting that stand -- which is the only way consensus can work -- you're going around doing the equivalent of putting up flyers on everyone's door, and it becomes a game of numbers; who can go rally the most support for their position. This is more damaging than any placement or remvoal of any brightly-colored box. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Spamming user pages is severely frowned upon - users have been penalised by the AC for spamming ten user pages - and I stopped counting yours after thirty. That it was a personal attack message is not tolerable on Wikipedia, hence the block. I've noted it on WP:ANI for the review of other admins - David Gerard 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not use a bot. I contacted one-by-one a list of people who were affected by a recent wrongful action. I did not attack anyone personally, except to characterize their actions as rogue, which they were. Finally, I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest. Please lift this block immediately. StrangerInParadise 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am entitled to speak with as many people as I like on a matter of common interest" — It turns out this is not the case. I strongly advise you to read and understand the reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK. He was banned for ten days for talk page spamming; 31 hours is a much shorter time, possibly to an out-of-process degree - David Gerard 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

David, out of curiosity (and please take this is no more than abject curiosity, I'm not trying to sway either side of this), do you think that the ruling applies to non-article discussions? It seems counterintuitive that it is not okay to ask people to discuss an issue. I can see it being very important to not do this when it comes to editing an article. However, when we are talking about a policy issue, "pov" is absolutely essential. We are being asked, in effect, to share our points of view. This is common practice "in the real world," with many organizations (be they PETA, the NRA, or your local congressman) snail-mailing or phone-calling their constituents asking them to act en masse to sway some body (be it the public or their respective politicians). That having been said, I find SIP's actions to be, at the very least, tacky. ... aa:talk 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The "discussion" in question is a straw poll, where the purpose of the straw poll is primarily to determine whether the policy has consensus. In such a case, where the policy is not only in discussion but is gathering consensus, ballot-stuffing really can mask a possible consensus. (In any case, trying to sway discussions through numbers is not cool.) --AySz88^-^ 06:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You all ignore the fact that the participants are mostly of those who have an ax to grind regarding userboxes, a self-selected audience. If I had wanted to stuff the ballot, I could have laid in hundreds of notes to polarized user groups from random ips, instead, I spoke to 40-or-so by hand of a fairly neutral group who were directly affected by this ridiculous proposal.

Also, citing an arbcom ruling rather than policy shows how contrived this is. Mindspillage asked me to reconsider, he said nothing about policy or blocking. How can you say inviting participants to a Wikipedia-wide issue is disruptive? How can you say that I should somehow have known that? The real question is, why is this thing not on the main page? The answer is, because most would oppose it, but the anti-userbox admins think they know what is best, and are pulling every trick they can to cram this through.

If you want to design either a jury-pool process or a general election process to decide such things, I'll be happy to help you.

How is this a personal attack, except to note that the mass blanking happened and the perpetrator is documented? Face it, the ban came only because what I said is unpopular with admins. MarkSweep made hundreds of blanking edits using admin tools, speciously twisted rules into knots and disrupted hundreds of users. He got a slap on the wrist, and polite applause. I've received notes from admins on this page threatening me for suggesting that his actions constitute vandalism, which they clearly do. I pass a note pointing out what was done to a small subset of the hundreds of users affected, I am banned for 31 hours. How is this not political? Now I'm afraid to contact my own friends here, whom I know to be against this, but do not know about it.

Tacky? Pretending this proposal is put before a representative audience is tacky, as is the slash-and-burn approach taken in the first place, as is the attempts by MarkSweep to fit me with a gag until the end of UPP (that is REALLY tacky), as is the naked political calculation on my AN/I as to how this speaks for their pet proposal, and how it should be played. The fact is that this proposal will never have community assent because of its deep flaws, and I am resented for pointing this out. Tacky is pretending in the face of all evidence that there is a basis for consensus here.

StrangerInParadise 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see I've been blocked again. Mindspillage's statement is in part patently false: yes, I do not believe I did anything wrong, no I did not indicate in any way I would continue to do so. I was unblocked for several hours and did not do so. Common decency indicates the block should be lifted, or am I simply being punished for my views? StrangerInParadise 07:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-blocked only because the admin that unblocked didn't add to the discussion or mention it to anyone...see WP:AN/I for my full explanation. Sorry :( Rx StrangeLove 08:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

His note was quite clear: I should not have been blocked in the first place. It is particularly galling that most of what was said at AN/I was demonstrably false, but I cannot even participate. StrangerInParadise 08:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, three of my personal pages have been deleted by Pathoschild, the author of the proposal I criticized. Only one was used in the UN campaign (User:StrangerInParadise/VNOUPP). Another was not used, and in any event no different that the lobbying on the poll itself (JesseW, the Juggling Janitor comes to mind), the third (User:StrangerInParadise/PCI) was used to personal contacts and pages I frequent at Wikipedia and only said that there was a vote, but did not make a recommendation. How far will this thuggishness go? StrangerInParadise 08:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one thank you for the heads up. Spaceriqui 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks w/ deletion of my userpage

Thanks for your help/note "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin". My Talk page seems to still be screwed up, I'll be fixing that as I get around to it. -- Writtenonsand 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kludge against userbox deletion

You may notice on my userpage (if it isn't currently deleted :-) ) a minor kludge I've implemented to help thwart rampant userbox deletionism. I've added a text caption to my userboxes which functions somewhat like the ALT attribute on HTML graphics; when userbox graphics are deleted, the text remains visible. For example, as I write this, the graphic for userbox:buddhist does not exist, but my page continues to proclaim "This user is a Buddhist". Everyone should feel free to disseminate and use this technique as desired. -- Writtenonsand 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

misplaced concern

Hi. I'd like it if we could, uh, bury the hatchet. I am not sure why you are so offended by our interactions. I have a couple things to say.

First, regarding the userbox policy poll. I can understand your being upset about it. It isn't a perfect solution. I tried to understand why you were so vehement about it, and I had a look at your edit history. It seems to me that maybe you missed a lot of the fireworks. There have been some pretty incredibly poisonous things happening over the last few months. It has died down somewhat, but I think we're all still living under the mushroom cloud of some of the following:

• Kelly Martin's nuclear war on userboxes and subsequent RFC/etc
• Mistress Selina Kyle's RFAr and claims of oppresion based on aspergers
• The ArbCom elections
• Tony's attack on userboxes
• -Ril-'s crusade against "biblecruft" and SimonP

and others I can't remember right now. All this happened around the beginning of the year. I see that you were only just starting when this all happened. Those of us who have been here for a while remember a time before all the politics and soapboxes. The UPP isn't perfect. But it is a truce. And I think most of us are desperate for a truce.

Second, I think you misunderstand my position on the "userbox debate." Have a look at some of my edits from the most heated times. I think you'll find that we agree more than we disagree. But as I said, I am very much hoping for a truce. We can work on an imperfect policy once it's adopted. But with no policy, we have to face the "rouge" of admins like MarkSweep deleting things out of a frustration which is just as profound as yours or mine.

Third, let us look at both of our edit histories. This is not an edit count measuring contest. Instead look at the spread:

• mine
• yours

We have a similar trend, although yours comes a little while after mine. Note that the trend for you since January until now has been to spend proportionaly less time working on an encyclopedia, and more time doing what we both seem to despise -- politicking. For myself, it was the comparison of March, 2005 to January, 2006. I had a pretty similar number of edits, but the spread very much disturbed me. I spent far more time this January farting around in politics than I did writing and editing articles.

I made a commitment to myself to spend as little time as possible in the Wikipedia meta space, and instead to focus on articles. The problem with this is that we are all required to spent time there. We do need to request that articles be moved or deleted, and sometimes we run across a vandal who needs a 24-hour block, or whatever. But spending so much time on policy is almost not required. Just think of all the people who are carrying on the policy debate. Why not watch, and cast your vote in the straw polls when they show up? It takes a lot less time to read a discussion than it takes to read the discussion and come up with supporting diffs and links for a few replies to the fracas. I would wager that it is far less productive to contribute than it is to read and simply vote. Your mileage will of course vary. But, consider it.

Lastly, I want to stress that the WP:UPP is not only a small representation of the community. Very, very rarely do more than a hundred wikipedians get together to make their opinions heard on a subject. See WP:100. To have the kind of participation we have had at UPP is really phenomenal -- regardless of which way the "vote" goes. I don't believe that vote-stacking is the evil that Tony and others thing it is. I think it's a perfectly normal facet of any community in which votes are cast. However, it really pisses people like him (and others, of course) off when it happens. In the case of the UPP, it wasn't really necessary. Anyone who had a userbox deleted, and followed the trail to AfD/TfD/CfD (or even read my userpage) would have found it. And they did. And they voted.

I think all of this comes at least partially from your newness to the community. I hope I haven't mischaracterized this, if you've changed accounts or something. But it seems to me like this is (I hate to hear myself say it) "one big misunderstanding." We don't disagree. We actually agree on a lot of stuff. Let's work together and build an encyclopedia. The userbox thing, whichever way it goes, is much less important. Try to make the same commitment I did: to work some factor more in the encyclopedia than in the "politics" space. I didn't really pick a number for that factor, but I'd be real pleased with four.

I look forward to editing with you in the future. ... aa:talk 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

If you will read my statement again, I was not making any actual recommendations as to what penalties should be imposed on anyone. What I was saying, and this is whether we can agree to disagree, is that there were too many userboxes, and that the userboxes were divisive and disruptive. I was saying that the ArbCom would have to decide how they planned to deal with the problem of conflict over userboxes. (I think that we can agree that the conflict over userboxes is disruptive.) I don't plan to be advocating for Mark Sweep, because I don't think that end objective of getting rid of the inflammatory userboxes justifies the inflammatory tactic of wheel-warring. Robert McClenon 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Declared-bias advocate

"De nada"... I agree with most of the arguments you made in your oppose vote at WP:UPP. To use the label you suggested in the talk page of that policy, you may count me as a declared-bias advocate. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:)

I just don't like people trying to toss out as many oppose votes as they can to get a flawed policy through. I don't like the idea of getting a flawed policy up and then working on it once it's policy, because as you can see from further up on the talk page that alot of admins are just sitting there waiting for the go ahead to start mass deleting userboxes from everyone's userpages. Seraphim 07:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

voting bloc

They are all over the place. However, only some of them are frowned upon. Would you be interested in collaborating on a discussion of voting on wikipedia? ... aa:talk 07:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CSD reversion

I see that you reverted the changes to CSD G3. I'm not saying you were wrong to revert, but I would have appreciated if you had at least given a fuller reason on the talk page. There is ongoing debate on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about this and related changes to CSD. I invite you to join in with those and add your views, in particular why you think "that's way to much power, "disparaged subject" is way to broad", so a broad consensus can be reached on this matter. Thanks, Petros471 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This particular expansion of the criterion is currently being established on the talk page, and has quite a bit of support. I would suggest that you raise your objections there, rather then reverting what is currently a consensual expansion. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Phish

We are having a dispute on the Phish page in relation to the band infobox. People continually insist on including Jeff Holdsworth in the "current members" area of the template, even though he was with the band for three years between 1983-1986 in the bands 20+ year career. Granted, he was a founding member, but shouldn't he be considered a "past member" in the infobox template? That was the resolution that was reached on the discussion page, but people of random IPs continually rv so that Holdsworth is part of the "current members". Thank you for any possible help. --Moeron 01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox policy

It seems that by recruiting massive numbers of inexperienced editors, you managed to heavily skew the userbox policy poll from what was overwhelming consensus to a mere supermajority. Ok, fine. :)

What adjustments to the policy could be made which would persuade you that it is a workable compromise to a serious issue? And which would persuade you to engage in the exact same sort of campaigning in support?

What I seek is something with a very very broad consensus, and it strikes me that you are well positioned to help with that.

I must confess that I can not understand what your objection is to the proposal as it was made, but probably the best approach would be for you to explain to me just what was wrong with it?

--Jimbo Wales 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, a comment about your user page discussion

You wrote "Telling people they cannot declare themselves Christian believer or Unreconstructed Trotskyite or Extra-crunchy Hippie Freak does not reinforce the culture of NPOV. Showing how these people have an immediate common basis for dialog based on NPOV does."

I think that you've failed to understand what I see as the essence of the problem, and the essence of the solution that you opposed. There is to my knowledge absolutely no movement to tell people that they cannot declare themselves Christian believers or Unreconstructed Trotskyite, etc. By and large, as far as I know, there is no substantive movement to suggest that people generally ought not to declare such things on their userpage if they really wish to do so. This concern about free expression is therefore a red herring in the userbox debates.'

Rather, the major concern is that Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions, that badges of group identity are the endorsed and sanctioned way to be a good Wikipedia, which is absolutely not true, and very much against our longstanding cultural norms. Here, we are Wikipedians, which means that we try our best to leave our biases at the door, and to treat all others with respect and kindness. We don't organize ourselves into group campaigns to influence the content of articles by sheer force of numbers, we engage in thoughtful and kind discussion to find a consensus.

The core of the proposal, then, is to move userboxes out of the Template namespace (which suggests that they are endorsed by the project and generally encouraged) into the User namespace. I think that this is a very nice compromise -- and one which has been tested successfully in German Wikipedia, by the way -- which allows a balance between individual free expression, and the overwhelming consensus of experienced editors that Wikipedia works best when it is not a field for group warfare.

Will you please reconsider your opposition, or offer whatever constructive tweaks to the proposed policy which you think would address any other concerns you may have?--Jimbo Wales 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

is it possible to create a User Template namespace? that might just stop this whole thing, and at this point I would propose standing on my head while juggling if i thought it would solve this problem AdamJacobMuller 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The concern about free expression is far more than a red herring, perhaps you misunderstood my comment. To avoid the misunderstanding, I've changed the word declare to badge. The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive.

Your comment that Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions is similarly belied by the vast majority of those who have userboxes and include themselves in categories but war with no one and treat others with respect and kindness. If article content can be affected by shear force of organized numbers, then that is a problem with how articles are refereed, a vulnerability which will not be addressed by adding to the mix an irrational intolerance of POV, as those so inclined can easily- and invisibly- organize off-site. Process must evolve to meet such a challenge, UPP tries and fails to defer that challenge to a later time. I have several suggestions for how to go about this properly to be made under separate cover.

Further, your statement "that badges of group identity are the endorsed and sanctioned way to be a good Wikipedia[n]...is absolutely not true", does not stand up to examination. I know several good Wikipedians who endorse and sanction such badges by using them, including myself. To declare us bad Wikipedians (or inexperienced Wikipedians, misguided Wikipedians, divisive Wikipedians, etc) at a stroke is to disdain the contributions of a large number of people. This would be, IMHO, divisive, misguided, inexperienced, and bad. The fact that so many bad Wikipedians ran around defacing userpages and deleting templates and categories involving thousands of presumably good Wikipedians indicates to me something of a back-handed endorsement. Such disdain for process and disrespect for others are real problems. Userboxes are not.

BTW, AdamJacobMuller's question is entirely reasonable, and the answer is "yes, it is possible to create a User Template namespace (along with User Category namespace), quite easily in fact". Why didn't we simply do this and gain widespread consensus, rather that trying to fight a culture war by placing limits on transclusion?

Template:User freedom

In principle, one should be able to lift Main, Help, Category and Template and get a complete NPOV encyclopedia out of it. Because of the ways in which categories and templates are currently used, this is not the case today. I think we agree that this is a fundamental problem which compromises the product. This is a simple matter to correct technically by creating four new namespaces— User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk— and asking people to migrate. Few will fight to keep POV items in the encyclopedic namespaces. These namespaces are the door at which I would leave my biases.

The perceived issues with factions and vote-bussing are small to begin with, and can be further resolved by encouraging affinity groups, which would develop trusted leaders who can moderate with opponents. This would reduce the thrash from individual POV warriors, improve transparency and stability, and stimulate dialog. Further, non-majoritarian processes can be developed to referee content questions in articles, giving concerned parties the reassurance that they are heard even when facts go against them. NPOV is a basis for dialog between passionate opponents, not a sterilizer of controversy.

StrangerInParadise 09:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to comment on your non-compromise (and to note, to begin with, that you were asked to find a compromise - a form of diplomatic collaboration in which all sides attempt find items they agree upon and then give ground on issues they do not until all sides may accept to proposed solution.)

I spent an hour and more putting together a carefully crafted argument, with citation, links to policy today and historically, and a point-by-point destruction of your lovely rhetorical sophistry.

Then I realized that Wikipedia is not Usenet. And Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It's a place to work on a free encyclopedia.

The essence of your argument is to place the interests of individual contributors ahead of that goal. Interests not at all limited to but certainly including arguing, vote-stacking, POVioring, and vandalising. In your proposed "compromise" you have compromised nothing, but instead asked the project to expand its mission to become a wiki MySpace.

This should be dismissed with prejudice.

If there were even the slightest attempt at a compromise I would encourage JWales and the community to continue to discuss with you. However, there is not. I would encourage them to invite you to leave, since this project clearly is not a project with whose mission or goals you are either familiar with or supportive of, and you should find a place you are comfortable with.

- Amgine 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded below, asking that you somehow avoid assigning me absurd motives, not realizing that I was already too late. My bad for not having read carefully. Your notion that, The essence of [my] argument is to place the interests of individual contributors ahead of that goal only shows you have not thought about what I have written, making your assertion that you understand my argument well enough to reply in a careful and well-documented fashion unconvincing, as is your pose that you are in a position lately to lecture anyone about vandalism.

Since I am in a patient mood, I'll simplify my statement, and leave it to others to decide whether I have succeeded in a diplomatic collaboration.

• Clearing the template and category space of POV can be accomplished simply, quickly and peacefully by providing a new set of namespaces to which to migrate. This accomplishes a primary goal of the project, to have an NPOV product.
• The cultural and procedural problems perceived to be caused by userboxes and Wikipedians by category are small, and will not be solved by UPP, but only masked by it.
• The vulnerability to vote-stacking must be addressed with intelligent process, not more whining that it should not happen.
• There is an opportunity to solve the deeper problems of factions by encouraging and engaging them (instead of denying they exist) and allowing leaders to form within them.
• Far greater than any of the above problems is the decline of respect for process, and by extension for administrators, which is so corrosive that leadership by example on NPOV issues becomes highly problematic, with administrators perceived as a class of priviledged editor pushing an agenda.
• Wikipedia is a complex project served by a community of (conservatively) tens-of-thousands of collaborators. To provide them with collaborative tools in which they express opinions, declare affinities and make announcements is not the moral equivalent of creating a free blogsite, free webhosting, or free soapboxes, it is simply good sense.

Typically, Amgine, you have lost patience, and suggested that those who disagree with you should be encouraged to leave, all this amidst a rant on the virtures of compromise in a discussion to which you were never actually invited, but in which you were included as a courtesy. If only you could take credit for such complex ironies! Let me know when you are ready to bring that carefully-crafted argument, rather than hurling unsubstantiated assertions and stomping off.

StrangerInParadise 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"...solve the deeper problems of factions by encouraging and engaging them (instead of denying they exist) and allowing leaders to form within them." I think this might be what is tripping your argument up. The fight to move towards NPOV can be interpreted as a fight against POV factions and affiliations: most especially, a fight against external or real-life factions (like "Democrats" and "Republicans", or "Labour" and "Conservative" if you'd prefer). Activism and factions (especially the externally influenced kind, maybe not so much the internal kind) haven't been accepted in Wikipedia for as far as I remember, and it's probably futile to try to change that. --AySz88^-^ 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You (and likely many others) say, The fight to move towards NPOV can be interpreted as a fight against POV factions and affiliations. This is a flawed thesis, I don't think this is what actually happens on Wikipedia, to any of us. What actually happens, to individuals and groups, is that they come to recognize the difference between NPOV and POV, and use the tension between the two to explore differences. The whole idea of fighting POV is nonsense, we only keep it from the encyclopedic namespaces. We are guided in part by our POV into encounters with others, where our views are challenged for their accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. The ability to engage whole groups who have an internal awareness of their membership is an opportunity, not a problem. As leaders evolve, and reasonable members seek one another out to resolve inter-group differences, stability grows. Again, this is not a change, this is moreso how things are really done, especially as people are members of many different groups, and may find a reasonable supporter on one issue is a reasonable opponent on another. In part this is why process is so important as a common ground in the absence of other common ground. StrangerInParadise 07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You have still not proposed a compromise

As you have said you would do. Amgine 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I have now in effect done so, I never said that I would propose a compromise, only that I would reply. Adding four new namespaces (User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk) and declaring them POV-friendly, is of manifest good sense, the vast majority would gladly comply in migrating userboxes, Wikipedian categories, and anything else appropriate. There would be solid consensus. This is a reasonable compromise.

StrangerInParadise 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I note you have not proposed a compromise. You have proposed Wikipedia change its mission and goals. - Amgine 17:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I suggest you review those goals, and explain how my proposal differs from them. In doing so, try (if you can) not to assign me absurd motives. StrangerInParadise 17:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing four new namespaces for userspace? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. I think that gives entirely the wrong impression. We are not encouraging people to build mini sites about themselves on Wikipedia with all of their random interests. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. In addition, your proposal does nothing to solve the very real problem of vote-stacking; if anything, with specific user categories, it just makes it easier. --Cyde Weys 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, attended by tens-of-thousands of volunteers who need a means of collaboration. I am giving no different impression from the status quo, though those who are so concerned about these impressions are doing more to distract from the mission of tending to an encyclopedia than any of the MySpace-style abuses, the worst of which are of little actual consequence to the project. Just what Wikipedia needed, its own Taliban! Besides, considering that most people are tending to articles on their random interests, is this really so bad? Drop in on #wikipedia and listen: much of the time it is random silliness, analysis of StarTrek or MontyPython— how useful would it be to wade into that yelling, "Jimbo's house is to be an encyclopedia, but you have made it a Bureau of Silly Walks!". User pages are no different. Lighten up!

As to vote-stacking, I've make a few analytical comments on the subject in my proposal, which is more that UPP will ever do to solve the problem. I'll repeat what I said above, factions are inevitable, and can be engaged for good. Actually, I would encourage use of User category talk pages to build rational coherence and leadership among factions. Dialog, respect and process, not impratical attempts at cultural purification, will address vote-stacking.

My proposals and concerns are exclusively about making a better encyclopedia and preserving Wikipedia's culture. It is these culture warriors' misguided attempts to return us to a purer, fictional past that are the real threat.

StrangerInParadise 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are waaaay out there. You're calling us the Taliban fer godssakes. And there's no possible comparison between an offsite, unofficial IRC channel that people happen to use and an onsite, Wikipedia-hosted userpage. And "culture warriors"? C'mon. You're way out there one the narrow tail. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think it ironic that admins can wrongly delete large quantities of material in templates and userpages without being blocked, but for suggesting that such behavior bore a resemblence to that of the Taliban (who in an obsessive desire to return Afghan society to an imagined prior state of purity, went about burning books and smashing televisions, radios and artwork in both public buildings and the homes of others) was enough to get me blocked. Of course this is culture war, and, as it is being waged, an elitist culture war, else my suggestion to add four namespaces and ask people to use them would be an end to the matter. This would have wide-spread consensus, purify the namespace, and open the way to resolving other problems.

BTW, I am not anti-elitist, I simply think that those claiming lately to speak for the elites are mistaken.

StrangerInParadise 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was very surprised by your post on Jimbo's page because you seem to fail to understand that the change you are proposing would have unexepected and possibly detrimental effects. Creating a userspace area as you are suggesting is likely to attract a large number of users looking for easily editable website which has great bandwidth and freely available hard drive space. Look at the mighty (and financially strong) google and it's release of Gmail as an example - it was released slowly so that the impact to their servers and their other infrastrcucture could be controlled. The wiki software is not designed to allow such an introduction; thus it would require a time-consuming effort on the part of the volunteer developers (and who knows if they would even be willing to do it - most freely give of their time but want to make an impact on the mission) and the time of the 4 (or is it 5) employees would distract from the mission to create an encyclopedia. Additionally the wikiway where concensus drives what is included on the page would be very difficult to control - what is ok - can nude pics looking for dates be ok? what about using them to soliciting for money? Then who is going to do recent changes patrol so that goatse doesn't show up on userpages, etc. I could continue with other likely scenarios - I mean just look at the arguments around this issue and imagine a free-for-all myspace where anyone can edit anyone's page. That is why you are getting such a strong negative reaction. Trödel•talk 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but a careful reading of what I have written here would at least indicate that I have thought the matter through. It may be possible I have "failed to understand", but I am certain that I disagree with all of your conclusions, specifically,

• that the change would provoke an influx of new usage (no, there is no evidence to suggest that it would)

The influx of users around the time that Infoboxes were introduced and thier preoccupation with them is evidence that an increase in users, while not a sure thing, is something that any rational executive, like Jimbo, would have to consider when deciding how to move forward. As to the opposition - I think that some of the people who speedy deleted userboxes (Tony Sidaway for example) are generally very good editors with even temperments. There may be some that are interested in a "jihad" but some definately are not.

The points below: development design and scalability are all presumptive on this assumption - that there will not be a new influx of users. Since we see this issue so diferently - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree - Trödel•talk 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are correct about such an influx, only scalability would change, not the other two, and your argument doesn't consider the need to scalefor growth in usage, which would dwarf the risk you're citing. I think you are reaching with your statement about userboxes causing an influx of users anyway, but even if it were so, neither UPP nor my proposal would cause a change in this. I know it is a popular argument, but it just does not stand up. This is about an ideological issue trying desperately to pass as a practical one. StrangerInParadise 17:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• that the change would introduce a new regulatory challenge with respect to commercial, graphic, or other inappropriate content (same as userpages currently, same regulatory mechanisms, which would be simpler for the reasons I have laid out)
• that the change would involve a significant development effort (it would not, full stop)
• that the change would involve a design change (it would not, full stop)
• that the change would involve a scalability change (it would not, full stop)

The proposal would involve a modest configuration change (which MediaWiki is designed for), which would have to be propagated through the datacenter. It would also require a modest bit of documentation to describe the usage of the new namespaces, and the procedures for editors to make the changes (which, BTW, are simpler than those required by UPP). The statement Wikipedia is not MySpace is true, and a very useful guideline, but is simply not relevant to what I propose.

Finally, one small last point of disagreement: certain people are reacting negatively because they had hoped to indulge their distaste for certain modes of activity with a jihad, and I'm telling them it is not effective, it is not necessary, and it is not even desireable. This adjustment to their thinking will take time.

StrangerInParadise 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not MySpace. We are striving to be as professional a source as possible. Encouraging a bumper sticker mentality by making four new namespaces for userboxes runs directly counter to that goal. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If you want to go make a website stating all of your personal interests there are many places that can help you with that — Geocities, MySpace, whatever. Looking at your contribution history (and the lack of article edits) I can't really understand why you're here. Let me reiterate: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And as for alleging that there is some sort of an ongoing culture war, don't be absurd. This is merely a reigning in of the users who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is all about. You seem to be under some false impression that you have a right to put whatever you want on Wikipedia, but you most certainly don't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a free webhost that anyone can use to host whatever material they want. Images that aren't being used in encyclopedia articles are consistently being deleted and the same is going to happen to all of these unencyclopedic templates and categories mucking about with Wikipedia's raison d'etre. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of mining my edit history for weak ad hominem arguments and assigning me absurd motives, you should carefully read what I have written, as your remarks indicate that you have yet to do so. Why do you say my four new namespaces are just for userboxes? Why do you continue to prattle on about MySpace? I have one brief user page which is devoted entirely to Wikipedia-related issues: why do you continue to imply that I want a free webhost, claim a right to edit, or seek to put whatever I want on Wikipedia? Why should I trust you to rein in anyone based on what you think their understanding of Wikipedia is when you have yet even to demonstrate the barest grasp of mine? Seeking rules to validate your substituting your cultural judgements for those of others is culture war; your poor grasp of my position is an example of why it is dangerous. You can say, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, until you are blue in the face, but you are not convincing me that you know what an encyclopedia is, much less what should be involved in a massive colaborative volunteer effort to create one. StrangerInParadise 06:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Dear StrangerInParadise: I very much regret having to do this, because I greatly value your work here on Wikipedia. However, on the basis of this edit where you make references to Wikipedia editors as "Taliban" I am afraid that I can't see any other way of giving you a chance to cool down, take a step back, and try to re-evaluate the tone of what we're trying to do here. I personally think that you're getting far too heated about the recent userbox issues - far, far too heated - and that you should please try to bear in mind that we're trying to write an encyclopaedia. Personal attacks aren't allowed under any circumstances, I'm afraid, and civility is well-entrenched as a tenet of Wikipedia policy. I can, as always, be reached via e-mail or at the #wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode, if you'd like someone to talk to about this, or have any questions about the above. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia, and please do feel free to edit when the block expires. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on conversation via IRC with this user, I've removed the block. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would've liked to know what he had said. Speaking of which, where is he? Besides calling us the Taliban does he have any ideas for compromising on the subject of userboxes? --Cyde Weys 03:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User template and category namespaces, encouraging affinity groups

Let's see if I can precis your compromise suggestion here so that we can discuss it without all the baggage that has encumbered the discussion so far.

1. You suggest that two extra namespaces, and two associated talk namespaces, should be created to be used for templates and categories to be applied in userspace.

1. You suggest that, instead of deprecating factionalism on Wikipedia, we should accept it as inevitable and should instead be "encouraging affinity groups, which would develop trusted leaders who can moderate with opponents."

Taking the points in order, I think I can see what you're trying to say on extra namespaces. If Jimbo's problem is that having the templates and categories outside the userspace makes them look officially sanctioned and gives them the wrong idea about Wikipedia, a logical solution would be to extend the userspace with associated namespaces for categories and templates.

And your second point is consistent with your view that the statement "Userboxes suggest to new users that what they ought to do is organize themselves into warring factions is similarly belied by the vast majority of those who have userboxes and include themselves in categories but war with no one and treat others with respect and kindness."

In short, your suggestions are entirely logical, given your views.

However, I do take serious issue with your views. Templates are still templates, and categories are still categories, no matter where they are. Putting them into separate namespaces would be very easy to do and would require few, if any, changes to MediaWiki's core software, but it wouldn't change the perception of newcomers one little bit--rather it would only serve to cement in the mind of the newcomer the idea that expression of political views is the purpose of Wikipedia, or plays some part in writing an encyclopedia.

And with your second point, indeed, you make this view explicit. You want us to involve this project in some kind of negotation with exponents of different views, so that what goes into the encyclopedia should be the result of a debate between factions, "moderated" by their "trusted leaders".

This is not how Wikipedia works. We have a principle here called the "neutral point of view", and it's regarded as absolutely fundamental to the writing of the encyclopedia. According to this view, we don't take votes or engage in negotiations on content between people of different ideological or religious viewpoint. Instead we each individually strive for a neutral description of all significant views on a subject (whether or not they are represented amongst Wikipedians). What you suggest is incompatible with that. The people who have come to Wikipedia in order to represent this or that faction are here for the wrong reason and, quite often, will be told that in no uncertain terms.

So I hope that you'll see why, although I recognise that you have made an honest attempt to bridge the gap, your suggestion for a compromise is not compatible with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A hopefully constructive modification

It seems that the separate namespace issue won't fly. And I think that's right because I think it fails to address the heart of the matter, which is whether or not official wikipedia pages and/or namespaces ought to encourage factionalism.

But it seems that the namespace proposal goes a bit further than what you need to achieve what you want to achieve. Let me quote you on something: "The text of WP:UPP is filled with what one can and cannot say, specifically, All userbox templates that show a POV or are not directly related to wikipedia will be deleted after a period of time. Note that a user subpage that is transcluded without substitution by multiple users is considered a 'template'. This is like saying, "You may have pamphlets, but you may not mechanically print and distribute them. This is not an infringement of free speech". To put it kindly, this is counter-intuitive."

Suppose we omit the bit about user subpages transcluded without substitution? If we do that, then a certain amount of userboxing can go on no problem, but outside the officially sanctioned spaces. This respects our long tradition of allowing wide latitude on userspace stuff, while at the same time keeping these userboxes out of officially sanctioned areas which would suggest to new users that this is an official thing that one ought to be doing. There would still be restrictions on the range of possible userboxes, of course, but this is not different from the restriction on all manner of things people might put on their userpages already.--Jimbo Wales 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)