User talk:Errabee/Archive August 2005 - May 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Errabee/Archive August 2005 - May 2006, 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:

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! D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Winter Queen

Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dull LoPbN Pages

Please don't put images onto LoPbN pages. These are purely navigational pages, like Dabs and Redirects; anyone browsing them is wasting their time, and perking them up is just a distraction from using the eyes to find the desired name and move on to the bio for the person.
--Jerzy•t 08:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it could also perk their interest in the person displayed. It does no harm, does it? Errabee 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Articles are the place to perk interest in relevant directions; on navigational pages that is 99% of the time irrelevant and a disruption. Attempts to perk interest randomly, unsought by the perkee, has a name: spam.
--Jerzy•t 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you said:

I really don't see the harm of putting images on the LoPbN pages. Errabee 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reasons besides the ones you have already been given. Here are more:

Response time increase to deliver useless material.
They take up space on the screen, so that sections may need to be subdivided to keep a full section on screen for typical users.
In some cases the additional sections will force subdivision of the page, multiplying the already roughly 700-strong count of LoPbN pages.
Every entry among the roughly 30,000 is a notable person, so which should have images is either a PoV issue or the images will take up more space than the entries. The maintenance effort is already greater than resources, delaying needed restructuring work, and edit wars over images would further interfere.
You are not the first to think of this, but the previous images were removed two years ago without a single objection, and you are the first to suggest it since. You need to start a discussion before defying the de facto precedent.

That's off the top of my head.
If this needs further discussion, let's keep it all together on this page, OK?
--Jerzy•t 10:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suppose the list on Meta with the articles all wikipedias should have is POV also, and should therefore be deleted as soon as possible, since a NPOV version can never be made. I need to start a discussion; I thought wiki was all about be bold? Ah well, even the simplest of pleasures is not allowed. Wiki ain't fun anymore; time to quit alltogether. Errabee 12:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ While it's a really good idea not to undertake something as broad as your group of around 50 similar edits, without waiting for comment on the first one or half-dozen, i didn't intend you to infer that your coming up with a bad idea was unacceptable behavior. Editing boldly is good, and so is recognizing that not every bold is a good one.
_ _ I can't say abt "wiki" in general, but yes, WP is indispensably about WP:BOLD. And that has as its first rubric ...but don't be reckless!, and ends with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you decide that the necessary work of the revert and discuss part is worth the fun of being bold, perhaps you'll decide you want to return, and the door is always open to the well behaved -- which includes you: petulance is not a form of vandalism or personal attack.
--Jerzy•t 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have noticed, the en:wikipedia was not my major working ground until recently. I was admin on another wikipedia, gave that up, and ended up being banned indefinitely on my own request for my own peace of mind. I had hoped to do a small and imho uncontroversial project without discussion and was proven wrong. I hope this explains the petulance, which originated from earlier experiences. Nevertheless, my conclusion still stands: Wiki ain't fun no more (for me). Please do not think you had anything to do with that conclusion; I did not mean to imply that in my previous contribution.
Errabee 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Got it. I had the sense that we each knew the other was talking abt policy rather than personalities, and thanks for confirming that. Actually, i did stray from that in mentioning "petulance"; i hope you are sincere (and not just polite) in suggesting you took no offense. I also hope i was right in thinking that mentioning what was for a moment an elephant in the living room would ease rather than inflame the discussion, since it was a prerequisite for pointing out it was IMO a harmless, well behaved, elephant.
_ _ Things change, and you know where to find us.
--Jerzy•t 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed took no offense; and the discussion was certainly eased by mentioning the elephant. Errabee 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yasnaya Polyana

Thanks for letting me know about the move. Whenever I have questions about Russian geography, I usually run them by Ezhiki. Olessi 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]