http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=User:Canar

He has:

- Made GFDL violating moves (solved by Jan)
- Removed messages by other users on his talk page
- Refused to leave the mandatory {{talkheader}} on his page
- Insisted to use his naming scheme for subpages, User:Canar:Title, which mediawiki treats as a user named Canar:Title, reverting when I changed it to User:Canar/Title, which MediaWiki recognizes as a subpage. When asked why he insists that his personal conventions override MediaWiki syntax.
- Told me to sod off when I added {{talkheader}} to his user talk page.

I don't want to go overboard and insult him so I'm just asking for some advice. Any ideas?

And your response "You obviously canot reason beyond flames" is somehow an attempt at mollification and isn't going overboard and being insulting? Seriously? I will leave the irony of insulting a person's ability to reason while being unable to spell correctly intact. (Edit: I did not tell you to "sod off", but rather to "kindly sod off".)

My subpage naming scheme doesn't break anything, nor does it show up as a user on the user list. Elliott's claim is unsubstantiated here.

Many other user talk pages lack {{talkheader}}; it is annoying and adds nothing of value. At the time he posted the comment "First, talkheader is required to go at the start of all pages. It just does." there was no talkheader on his own talk page. Now, he's free to be as hypocritical as he likes, but it seems silly to me to bitch at someone else about a problem when he is also afflicted.

The alleged "GFDL violating move" is a non-issue that is now resolved, resulting from my crude early attempts at moving a document. This is well-documented. I have apologized, although I consider the perceived slight to be somewhat pedantic.

kjoonlee states on my talk page "at Wikipedia, it's considered bad manners to remove other people's comments from your talk page." This is not Wikipedia.

I would like clarification on the ownership of talk pages. Wikipedia apparently indicates they're somehow communal. Does HA believe likewise? Is the contents of my user and user:talk pages ultimately under my control or not?

I see this as simply a case of a legalistic 11 year old being annoying and blowing simple things way out of proportion, creating conflict where there was none before.

i don't understand what is this dispute about.

Well, where there's a system, there's a culture. Similar systems are bound to breed similar cultures, and I think people who are accustomed to Wikipedia would make similar judgments when dealing with HAK.

I think that's a fair assumption.

It is a fair assumption, granted. What I'm asking is not whether or not it is a fair assumption to exert control over one's own user:talk page. Actually, really, the HA policy doesn't even matter.

I've wasted too much of my life on this already. Time to get back to actually doing something constructive.

I think talkheader's intended for articles. Assuming the templates should just go on articles.. I'm against putting it on all article talk pages.

Some people at WP feel the same way about their version of that template. There's a somewhat-similar template ({{lynx}}) at the English Wikiquote (IIRC) and some people dislike it as well.

If it contains info that applies to all articles, it's better to mention it somewhere else instead of writing it over and over on all talk pages. Better yet, if it's important enough to mention on all talk pages, why not make it automatic?

Consequentimente, no mandatory/auto headers on talk pages at Wikipedia or Wikiquote.

I love ageism too.


Which is why I made {{usertalkheader}}.

My point still stands. We should have a {{welcome}} template for user talk pages, that people are free to delete.

We shouldn't have {{talkheader}} on all talk pages.

edit: fix

By Wikipedia's populist standard, as ageism is a feature of all modern democratic governments, is it not imperative that we act as society designates and propagate such concepts?

Anyhow, it still remains that you were the first one to flame, attacking my ability to reason. I simply told you to stop, even going to the extent to modify it with the adverb "Kindly".

You've made claims that kjoonlee and I have refuted regarding the existence of the talk header and regarding the construction of the location of the one unfinished article I have on my user page.

You're bringing up old history as something that somehow has some validity, despite the actions of admins to fix the "problem" and my own resolution of that problem.

The only problem here lies in your actions. Now, would you rather I take the easy way out for both of us and blame your age, or would you like me to get personal?

Last time I checked, age was a personal detail.

Who are you to take it upon yourself to modify someone else's personal page?

EDIT: Censored per Beto's comment.

Well then, more personal, as if that wasn't blindingly obvious.

ok ok. cool down people.

That is why we need a better written wiki policy. So how to handle episodes like this one is clear to everyone, specially staff.


I am not taking any sides, but a page in a wiki is anything but personal. Let me quote you the current wiki policy:

Ownership of articles
You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

I believe this also applies to user pages as of now. If we don't want that to happen, then the policy has to be changed to make this clear. We may discuss this further here.

I don't like your tone, greynol, because since I don't see you actively participating in the built of the wiki you should not be creating noise in this thread either. Things are already complicated as they are between Canar and Elliott. Let's avoid this kind of personal attack posts, shall we?

Fine, I withdrawal my comment.

Editing my post <now>.

EDIT 1: Now, not to sound overly-defensive, but for now on should I ask for permission to post to threads which make their way on to the Latest Threads section of the HA Forums home page?

And if so, who should I ask if Beto isn't around?

EDIT 2: Finally, I take responsibility for not reading the wiki policy and instead turning to my own personal notion of common sense and common courtesy.

Forums aren't like wikis. Wikis are editable by anyone.

I don't know why you insist. Abusing sarcarsm is not very polite either.
My post wasn't rude to you in any sense, nor was it sarcastic. You don't have to ask my permission to do anything. I am not part of the HA staff, however IMO members of this board expect constructive posts that may help regarding the topic at hand instead of this.
But, you are free to do as you please of course.

This seems pretty impolite to me. It also seems a bit authoritative, so why shouldn't I seek your approval in the future?

I have some things I'd like to see changed in the wiki, but I would much prefer to seek the group's approval before brazenly changing things. Again, common courtesy. Speaking of, you won't see me telling people that they have no business posting to a topic.

Yes, I am taking this personally.

You are quoting only part of the post to suit your argument. I feel my post is clear enough and states my reasons:

Anyway, we don't need to go further with this. I do apologize if I sounded harsh and imperative to you, but your replies to me weren't better in this sense either.


Great. From now on I sure hope to see you more active in editing the wiki and participating constructively in the discussions.

greynol, chill. beto's just adding his opinion. I appreciate your support (assuming I may interpret your edited comment to contain some degree of support ), but it is quite possible to take things too far.

Taking offense to words on a screen is silly. Perhaps beto's tone was somewhat "impolite", but you're taking things out of context. It is quite clear to me that beto is trying to simplify the situation. It is also quite clear to me that the mods here find this situation humorous and/or futile at best.

Elliott, it may be worth noting that the HA KB is only editable with administrator consent. I wouldn't be so pedantic to suggest that by your definition it would not a be wiki, but it is definitely different from Wikipedia in many respects.

beto:
Thank you for extending an olive branch. You are absolutely right, my replies to this post were not cordial nor were they constructive. I was trying to illustrate a point regarding the editing (censoring) of other's comments/contributions/posts/etc. and it got out of hand.

I guess it is clear that I sympathize/empathize with Canar here. It is also clear that too many feathers got ruffled in the process (including my own and by my own (un)doing for that matter).

Can anyone tell my why my cursor looks different (a vertical line with nub twords the top pointing to the right) when replying to this thread?

greynol:
No offense taken.

I believe we have to further discuss this specific part of the policy. I'd like your opinions so we can come up with a better policy for cases like this. See here.
All opinions are welcome.

To be fair, that edit was for *your* benefit, IMHO. You might say your choice of article naming didn't break anything, but it did break the link to your user page from your user subpage.

Anyway, everybody could have used a level head, regardless of whether people were annoyed or not.

edit: switch to "people" instead of using a pronoun

I agree I went overboard and apologise to everyone involved. Personally I'm treating this as solved.

Incorrect. It breaks nothing. Using my method of namespacing, there is no longer a link to my userpage on it. That is not breaking anything. Now, I see the difference between the two, that one does nice automatic things regarding links. Yet shouldn't it be my decision which way this flops? Even after asking Elliott to cease mucking about with my user pages, seven hours later he reverted the change I made, against my explicit request.

His apology is accepted. He should take this episode as a lesson that when people ask him (kindly) not to do something, don't do it or risk of creating conflict.

I consider this solved and closed as well.