User talk:HighInBC/Archive 17

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

MfD

You're name came up. Thought you might want to know. Synergy 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. Chillum 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Wikipedia

Hi again Chillum,

I wanted to talk to you a bit more about how Portal:Wikipedia would work. Rest assured, this is not going to break the main page. I have gained valuable experience about how CSS works and how to test thoroughly, and besides, pretty much all of the CSS changes required to make the transition are already done. Plus, other technically-minded administrators are doubtless going to be helping with the transition, so even if I forget to do something they will surely step in and help out.

Anyway, with that out of the way I wanted to explain to you what ais523 pointed out. It turns out that having the main page in the article space is causing even more problems than I initially realized, and moving it to the Portal space would resolve these problems. Specifically, moving the main page would do the following:

The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a special declaration to hide it.
The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that are likely to get mixed in.
It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.

I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns. And I know that you are probably going to be a bit distrustful of me after the mistake I made two days ago, so if I can help clarify this proposal more or do anything else for you, please just ask. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your coding, everyone makes mistakes and I am sure it is technically feasible. However, I don't think the discussion at VP is close to a consensus to do this yet, and I am not sure it will ever reach that point. Chillum 13:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I count 20 "supports", 11 "opposes" and 2 "opposes" that were given for reasons that have been completely invalidated. That includes your own oppose, though - do you still oppose the proposal? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really basing my interpretation of consensus(or lack of consensus) by counting heads. I do still oppose the proposal, it is news to me that my reasons are invalidated, perhaps it is a matter of perspective. However, the more centralized discussion is a better place to judge consensus. I suggest you ask what other people think the consensus is if you want more opinions, but I personally don't think there is a consensus. Chillum 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the headcount is only one rough estimate of consensus. The reasons you gave are more a matter of perspective, and so I haven't considered them invalidated. Personally, I think that it's worth it to make the switch sooner rather than later, as the problems I listed above are likely to fester and increase in number, and the difficulty of making the change will increase the longer we wait. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing

In addition to edit warring on Pirate radio and breaking 3RR he is now using fake references to justify his edits. This edit is not sourced by the book, you can view it online (link). Nowhere on that page does it state the signal was aimed at the British Islands, or that the intended audience was in the UK. Please help stop this disruption of Wikipedia, thank you. EmpireForever (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the page I decided to block both of you for edit warring, but it appears someone else beat me to it. If you ever need anything else don't hesitate to drop a note. Chillum 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments

I came across this: User:HighKing seems to think that Lemon is a SPA out to get him. HighKing's primary contributions to Wikipedia is to remove the term "British Isles" from any article that has it for any reason he can think of.

Do you really think you are following WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with this? Seems to be a rather crude baiting comment. Or how about your claims that that your review of my recent block was correct and proper. This is a warning (without a template) to ask you to make no more of these remarks. And if you take the time to check out my edits (which you obviously have never done) you'll see that my accuracy rate is very high (at a guess, over 90%) for spotting incorrect usage and fixing it.

Tell you what. Spend some time looking at my edits. Make a list of the ones you think are bad edits. Post them on my talk page. Then lets have a discussion. For someone who spends a lot of time telling everyone that I remove the term for bad or no reasons, not once have I seen you try to join the discussion or make a point (And while you're at it, take a look at all the non-BI contributions too....)

And then take a look at Lemon's contributions and tell me you think he wasn't an SPA that was busted.

--HighKing (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wtf? I posted that for your benefit so that attention could be drawn to your concerns about Lemon. You complained nothing was being done so I did something. What part to you object to? You do think that Lemon was baiting you, you said so. A brief look at your contributions shows that your primary contribution is removing "British Isles" from articles. It is like you are walking around with a big red hat on your head and saying "how dare you tell me I am wearing a red hat?"

Sorry man, but I am only pointing out that which anyone can see. I am not making assumptions about your motives, I am merely pointing out your actions. I am not being uncivil, I am pointing out the way you are behaving. I really don't give much attention to what land masses are called, I could not care less. What I care about is that the neutrality of this encyclopedia is not damaged.

Many many people have pointed out your behavior, and the longer you do it the more people will do so. If you keep up the same actions you will keep getting blocked, you will probably claim this is unfair, but that won't help. Instead of blaming the people pointing out your behavior why not just act in a manner that does not disrupt. Chillum 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big red hat :-) Nice image. But the analogy I'd use is that I'm walking around with a big red hat and certain people are saying "Look at the cheek of that guy wearing a huge green anti-british outfit and wearing his IRA membership badge on his chest pinning shamrocks on everything in sight including hurting small children and pets with the sharp pins". And certain other people hear this and without checking, believe it. I'm sick of it. And your unhelpful comment propagates this myth. Step back, pick *any* article you think there was a fight over, and take a look at the history. Look at the contributions. See the discussions (or lack). Take a look at the accounts that "disagree" (and see how many are SPA's or anon IPs). Only one, CarterBar, actually seems to try to discuss and you'll see I give what he says a lot of weight and a lot of respect. Of the rest, it's usually a case of revert, revert, revert, with no discussion. Something you're very quick to lay at my door but *never* laying it at anyone elses. Not *once* have you been fair and objective on this issue. Not *once* have you actually taken a close look at what is going on. It's a clear case of those who make the loudest noises get believed by you. So don't make any more accusations or insinuations that I edit willy-nilly for any reason I pull out my a*se, even if you think you're trying to help. Finally, it's a laugh that you tell me that my behaviour is disruptive. I'm not an idiot and I've seen how you've been peppering every discussion with commentary like the one I've highlighted above, I've seen how you mumble up your sleeve when I ask you to justify the WMC block, and more than anything, I'm aware that you're never going to change your mind even if the evidence is served on a plate. --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really my point. Here you are still talking about how WMCs block of you was wrong somehow. It has been reviewed by numerous people, admin, non-admin, Irish, non-Irish, there is no conspiracy against you. You received each one of your blocks because you were acting disruptively. It seems every time the community reacts negatively to you that it is somehow the fault of someone with a bias. You say I have not been fair and objective, I disagree, this is about your behavior not any sort of preconceived notion I have. Until you can take credit for the way you are behaving, I don't think you will understand why other people and I criticize your actions.

I have actually used rather a lot of restraint with you, I have not once seen fit to block you. Well, I was going to block you for 3RR but another admin got to it first. Chillum 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh c'mon. I was blocked by an involved editor, who btw if you check, never once discussed any of his blind reverts. If you can't see that, it shows that you're viewing the world through very coloured glasses indeed.

I hold my hands up to the last 3RR - although it was provoked by an SPA targetting my edits. The previous one invoked an odd interpretation of the rules which I was not aware of, but I accept it existed, and ignorance of the rules doesn't make anyone exempt.

Until you take off your coloured glasses, and accept that I am editing in good faith, with no anti-British axe to grind and zero republican tendencies, then you are exhibiting the type of behaviour that as an admin, you're meant to try to stamp out, not promote. Start by AGF, then look at my edits and behaviour. If after you've done that, you still see a problem, I'll listen and take on board whatever you say. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with AGF. I am not making any assumptions about your motives, I don't know why you remove "British Isles" from articles, and it does not matter. This isn't about good or bad faith, or assumptions of bias, it is about what you do and how the community reacts. Chillum 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I'd believe you if it wasn't for the fact that it seems that recently you nearly exclusively use commentary like I've highlighted above, and there are many many more comments just like it (emphasis is mine):

Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only.

HighKing, your constant campaign against the term "British Isles" is becoming disruptive, please stop

For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA

You view my editing as being a disruptive constant campaign. You appear to give great weight to complaints by obvious SPAs and anon IPs, and none to the fact that I try to discuss my edits and try to reach an agreement. You ignore the fact that many of the SPAs and anon IPs blindly revert and never discuss. Even when I wait for a discussion, none appears. When I then revert, its reverted again. And if I continue to revert, you tell me that *I* am being disruptive. I can't win - there's nothing I can do. And this standard only appears to apply to me - very one-sided and unfair. There's a very small handful of editors that are playing a game. Many of them were only set up recently with the specific purpose of targeting my edits - but you don't think they're disruptive?

Chillum, I see you're a very active admin, and you try to do the right thing. But I believe that in this case, you need to dig a little deeper and take a closer look at the actions of the other editors. You'll see a one-way street of me having a discussion or asking for references that are being ignored, while they act in concert as a revert club. --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will come to agreement today. Perhaps we can try again later, but we should let this sit for a while. Chillum 22:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Peace. I still think you're one of the good guys... --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins and policy disputes

Note: This discussion is continuing at WT:ADMINS#Admins and policy disputes. Please place any further posts there, not here to keep it all in one place. Chillum 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal policy disputes aren't the same as the (very) hotly contested NFCC policy. Blocking a user when they simply revert one of your editorial and interpretational (of that disputed policy) actions is a clear violation of WP:BLOCK, and there's about a 110% chance that an admin blocking in that circumstance would end up at ANI, and it wouldn't go well. As I said, I much prefer free images myself, but this hardline interpretation of NFCC is not productive at all. S. Dean Jameson 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin sees a policy violation they are allowed to correct it based on their interpretation, they are also allowed to enforce that. If you disagree just take to to a wider consensus. Take it to DRV if you think the image was deleted incorrectly. I disagree with your 110% estimate. It is not a "clear violation" of anything. Seek a wider audience, but don't claim the admin is wrong to enforce his interpretation of policy. Chillum 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're in favor of the strict NFCC interpretation. I just wouldn't recommend your blocking based on that widely-disputed interpretation, that's all I'm saying. Remove the images. Nominate them for deletion. Just don't block people who happen to disagree with your interpretation of a hotly-contested policy. Tools aren't weapons to use in such disputes. S. Dean Jameson 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an interpretation, it is policy. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, this is not controversial, it is policy. It has long been accepted policy. This is not a "strict interpretation", it is the literal wording of the policy. When an admin tells you that this policy needs to be followed, then that is not controversial it is just an admin enforcing policy. You can go to our non-free content criteria talk page and try to convince them that the criteria should change and that is all fine and well, but saying it is contested in no way invalidates standing policy or a block for not following said policy. Chillum 02:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think it's an interpretation, but the fact remains, there are a ton of people who disagree with you on that. That makes it hotly-disputed, and makes using your tools to enforce your views on the matter inappropriate. You certainly don't have to agree with me here, but it would certainly be brought before ANI if you did so. S. Dean Jameson 03:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that both of us vastly prefer free content, yet disagree so strenuously on the matter of how NFCC should be interpreted. S. Dean Jameson 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" does not leave much room for interpretation. If people's disagreement of this idea has been unable to influence policy, then that is what policy is. This idea has stood since I started here in 2006, and while some people don't like it there has yet to be a consensus to change it. Pretty much every policy is disputed to some degree that does not mean we hang up our tools. You show me where in policy it says we only enforce policy that is not disputed. Chillum 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disagreement--as I'm sure you know--comes in the intepretation as to what might possibly "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." What you believe does not fulfill this, another user believes does. It leaves a ton of wiggle room, and is open for a lot of debate. Until the scope of NFCC is clarified, blocking based upon your actions based upon your interpetation of that nebulous policy is questionable to say the least. S. Dean Jameson 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same picture? Can you explain to me how that image significantly increasing the understanding of anything? I have told you before that there are existing forums for arguing the validity of a fair use claim. If there is a consensus contrary to an admins interpretation then that consensus is followed. But until there is such a consensus then it is up to interpretation. Blocking is done to prevent people from continuing to violate policy. Chillum 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not discussing any particular image, but the philosophy behind an administrator using their tools to block based on an intepretation of an NFCC policy that has a large variety of possible intepretations. I am not an administrator, but I know a bit about the blocking policy, and that would seem to be more than a trifle questionable. S. Dean Jameson 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are supposed to use their discretion to interpret policy and then use their tools. If you disagree with that interpretation then seek a wider consensus, we have appropriate forums. If you disagree with the policy itself then the policy talk page is the appropriate forum to seek change. But it is just incorrect to say there is anything wrong with an admin using their tools based off their interpretation of policy. Chillum 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the policy, on principle. However, there is strong disagreement as to how that policy should be interpreted. Admins are not supposed to use their tools to enforce their disputed view of a policy like NFCC. The talkpage there shows no consensus for the agressive intepretation that both you and Fut Per advocate. Therefore, I would recommend discussing images, nominating those you believe to be non-compliant for deletion, and attempting to clarify how NFCC is to be interpreted, but I would not recommend threatening blocks against those who disagree, or blocking those you feel are wrong. S. Dean Jameson 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel like we're talking past each other a bit? It's almost like we're having conversations about two different things. Perhaps an "agree to disagree" is in order? S. Dean Jameson 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am fine to agree to disagree. My only point is that Future Perfect at Sunrise‎ was well within his remit. Chillum 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my point--in that case, specifically--was threatening a block for undoing an editorial action taken by the administrator (and removing the image was an "editorial action") was not appropriate. On that issue specifically, and the larger issue of NFCC intepretation in general, I guess we agree to disagree. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an editorial action, it was an administrative action. That really is the key difference. If he was removing it because he felt it did not go with the flow, or if he though another image would be better that would be editorial. But he removed it because it was not in line with policy, not editorial, administrative. Chillum 04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing: administrative actions are those actions taken by an administrator not available to regular editors. You know what these include. Because I (a regular editor) could just as well have removed (or readded) that image, it was--by definition--an editorial action. Now deleting that image, that would be an administrative action. But simply removing it from the article is nothing more than an editorial action. I (or any other regular editor) could have done the same. S. Dean Jameson 04:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any user can enforce policy and warn of impending blocks to people who violate policy. Admins don't have special authority they just have the tools. Just because a regular image can insist that policy is followed does not mean insisting a person to follow is not acting in an administrative capacity. Chillum 04:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. An administrator "acts in an administrative capacity" only when s/he uses the tools. Otherwise, they're an editor, no different than me. And threatening to use those tools to enforce an editorial decision (which removing an image is) would seem a clear violation of the blocking policy. (And here we are again! :) Good night to you, sir (or ma'am), I'm going to bed...) S. Dean Jameson 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got the idea that administrative capacity is limited to administrative abilities. Just because other users can enforce policy through editing and communication does not mean that an admin doing the same thing is not acting as an admin. You say "An administrator acts in an administrative capacity only when s/he uses the tools", I say there is no such rule. Administrative capacity is not limited to a set of buttons, and if you disagree show me the policy that states this is so.

Just look at what the policy says: "However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute."

Address a dispute, problematic conduct, outside advice/opinion, enforcing policy and the like. It spells out that these things do not make you involved. The wording goes directly against the idea that admin capacity is limited to admin tools. Good night. Chillum 05:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And acting on a policy where interpretation of that policy is not obvious and clear (as it isn't for NFCC), and then using the extra buttons to block someone who happens to disagree (but doesn't have the extra buttons to enforce their view of it) is clearly a problem. It's akin to an admin protecting a page they've edited directly after they make an edit they feel makes the page more compliant with NPOV. It's simply not acceptable, even if they're right. They need to find an admin that hasn't been involved in editing the page and have them take a look.

Also, as an administrator, the only difference between you and me is a few extra buttons. When you act on an article-- whether to remove text, images, or when adding the same--you're acting in an editorial capacity, as you're doing nothing more than any editor could do. It's only when you step up to using your page protection, blocking, or deletion buttons that you are then acting as an administrator. This should be patently obvious, but I guess it's not. This interesting philosophical discussion/disagreement might be better placed on WT:ADMIN, WT:BLOCK, or one of the similar pages, do you agree? S. Dean Jameson 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now we are just repeating ourselves. I just quoted to part of the blocking policy that makes it clear that acting in an admin capacity is not limited to "only button pushing". I just quoted to policy that says admin actions such as "Address a dispute, problematic conduct, outside advice/opinion, enforcing policy and the like" do not make you involved. Yet you still stand here saying that admin actions are limited to button pushing. What you say is patently obvious is directly contradicted by long standing policy that I just finished showing to you. I wonder if you are listening to me.

The NFCC policy is obvious and clear. I am not going to argue in circles with you. It appears you have in your mind the way things work and that you will not accept and alternative, even when that alternative is our long standing policy. Your concerns seemed to be based on your lack of understanding of the admin policy. I highly recommend you take this issue to policy talk pages if you disagree with policy where you can either encourage change or come to a greater understanding of existing policy. Also, there are a variety of forums you can go to challenge the interpretation of an admin by seeking a wider consensus.

Sunrise did nothing wrong. You have no complaint. Sunrise was correct in that the presence of the image did not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. He was right to remove it per policy, he was right to threaten to block if the policy kept being violated. All that while acting as an administrator enforcing policy. The blocking policy says that enforcing policy does not make you involved. Accept it or lobby for change, but don't just present your own set of rules and insist they be followed because that is not how we do things. Chillum 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets continue this at WT:ADMINS#Admins and policy disputes so it is not happening in two placed. Chillum 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I just got a message.

June 2007

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 16:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're full of shit because that wasn't me. I even went into the fucking history, and did not once see my address! So before you go on blaming people for doing absolutely nothing, I except you to get your fucking act together.

I would also like an apology for the blame.added by 70.49.33.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Yes you did. S. Dean Jameson 00:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off this edit is from the same IP as you: [1]. Secondly the message to you clearly says "If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any un-constructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings".

If you continue to talk abusively you will find yourself blocked because we have minimum civility standards. You need to do a bit a research before you start spouting obscenities to a stranger. I am not going to do anything dramatic like demanding an apology, but I would prefer if you used more care to be civil when talking to people. Chillum 00:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were talking to the IP, right? Because I know my IP and it doesn't start with 70.49..., so I just wanted to make sure. S. Dean Jameson 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to the IP. I am sure you had nothing to do with this, it is just the sort of thing you get if you revert vandalism. Chillum 01:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I care if you block me?? I have better things to do with my life than to edit Wikipedia! Which I didn't even do! But according to you, I did!!! You sir are a liar, and I'm sure you've accomplished so much in life by pinning vandalism on those who never have never done it!! Why not stop graffeti in real life, and make an actual difference in this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.33.137 (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never blocked you, well I have now that you have gotten abusive. But I never blocked you before. Stop posting at me, you clearly don't understand how IPs work, or you are just trolling. Chillum 13:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FP

Future Perfect's snarky condescending attitude at image deletion is uncalled for. Can you talk to him? He seems to listen to you. See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_31#Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a saying about equine farm animals who have ceased to be alive that may apply here. It's no big deal, really. FP is simply having a disagreement with me (and a few other editors) on an IfD. Not much to see there, really. S. Dean Jameson 02:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Sunrise will accept whatever consensus is arrived at. I don't think any outside comment is needed at this time. Chillum 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cassius29

Hello, can you please explain why my user page was deleted? I read that I could use the user page to draft an article before taking it "live" on Wikipedia. Was it the fact that the content was on my user page that was the problem, or the information itself? Please help me understand. Thank you very much. —Cassius29 ^(talk)

That article seemed to me to be excessively promotional. If you disagree with my interpretation, I will be willing to undelete the page and let the community decide through a debate if the article is appropriate. Chillum 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

Thanks for temporarily blocking User:Poecilia Reticulata. Could you delete the redirect too? Cheers, Face 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes of course. Thanks. I have done that now. Chillum 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Issues in template_talk:weasel

I've read that it's not worth considering performance issues on wikipedia. In computing science I would write:

First you make it work.
Then you make it work well. (Add features)
Then you make it work all the time. (Make it reliable)
Then, and only when you can't think of features to add, do you make it work fast.

There are exceptions to those rules of precedence when you know that the product can be brought to market with a lot of incorporated and linked-in subroutines. Those rules can be summarized in one rule: pay much more attention to how much time you spend bringing products to market than you spend imagining how much performance is in your product, because in eighteen months or so, that performance will double. Please issue a decision on how to merge two views of how the template should be. I will copy results to that talk page in a few days, and you are welcome to do it sooner if you see that the results are complete. BrewJay (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is usually not worth considering performance, altering templates that transclude to large numbers of pages does in fact increase the job queue to the point where the server cannot keep up with it realtime. This causes a delay in producing cached copies of pages which can result in people getting outdated versions of the page. I don't think altering {{weasel}} would have too much of an effect because it is only trancluded onto 1,100 pages. Several consecutive edits could cause a problem though.

Pages like Template:Ambox on the other hand, which is trancluded onto over 300,000 pages will indeed cause a problem when edited, and should only be changed once we are sure what it should be. Chillum 03:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.