|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
|
Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the contributors to the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:
totd task list template
--Go for it! 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out my comments here, Wikipedia awards committee. Thanks! --evrik 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to improve Girl Scout articles in the United States. Please help fill in some blanks for Girl Scouting in Michigan! Thanks, Yours in Scouting, Chris 02:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
On July 8, 2006, Jimbo proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs with a prod reason of "per the emerging consensus that the German solution is best". See [1]. I've posted this to WP:JOU, WP:GUS, the userbox location straw poll, and will also be dropping a message on GTBacchus. GRBerry 02:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. That's fine with me. I'd just like to have a smooth transition process to userspace. I'm going to volunteer User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes as a place for any orphaned directories and/or archives. Rfrisbietalk 02:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- My personal guess is that he decided he wanted less talking about doing it and more doing it. But that is a total guess. It is not like anyone very rational is going to remove Jimbo's prod, so he essentially gave us 5 days to implement it for the Beliefs subsystem or to decide that we aren't serious. GRBerry 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I posted my offer at GUS. I think the structure is in place to make a relatively smooth transition to User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Beliefs. Any boxes that need/want moving can go to User:Rfrisbie/Userbox. What else can I do to help?
 Rfrisbietalk 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Please just let me know when it's received.
All the best. -- FT2 (Talk | email) 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk
Why did you edit my user page? with this {{User:UBX/Atheism}} > |Bonojohn 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)|
Hi Bonojohn, The emerging consensus is to migrate userboxes to userspace as part of the Userbox migration. You had {{User atheist}} on you page. After I moved that UBX to userspace, I bypassed the redirect. That's why you see the new link on your page, but the box was already there. Rfrisbietalk 02:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
THanks for your comments in the (now-closed) MfD. I had drafted a reply, but the MfD closed between my writing it & my posting it. So, I'm posting it here, so you'll know foremost how much I appreciate your kind words, words that demonstrate that you "get" what I was saying in my comment on the MfD. So, without further delay, here is my reply to your comment:
- Thank you for acknowledging that my passion is genuine. I've spent considerable time thinking about the (supposed) problems with userboxes. I've devoted time to discussing userboxes in various fora, as well as to actively trying to persuade both userbox deleters & userbox creators to set down their implements until a consensus emerges. Most recently, I suspended all of my activity & discussion with regard to userboxes for a time, to give myself an immersion in editing the encyclopedia, which is what I came here to do. I've even been out stub sorting & copyediting, because, to me, even these mundane activities are so much more valuable than all the energy wasted on userbox discussions. Yet, people keep bringing the war to my doorstep, editing my userpage to subst userboxes or to change userbox links to point to userfied versions of the boxes. Good intentions aside, it's as if my neighbors thought my house needed a fresh coat of paint, then painted it without my consent.
- I wanted to address myself to the points you raise in favor of deletion. You state that if userboxes are used to rally Wikipedians in the name of partisanship, then that is their worst application. I disagree strongly with what has become a main plank of the deletionist movement: that userboxes cause partisanship. The technology isn't the problem. Rather, it's the use of the technology. If we applied the same standard to editing, this would no longer be an open Wiki. Behavioral problems are best solved by intervention, not by locking down the tools. As far as moving these userboxes to a subpage of your userpage, I forsee an issue with that. Using you strictly as an example, what happens in the case of a userbox advocating a belief you object to? Since it inhabits your space, others are left to rely on your mercy.
- These are the things I worry about. As these templates get pushed into spaces with fewer procedural safeguards, I worry that we will see an increase in content-based userbox warring. Prominent deletionists have asserted that they will leave userboxes alone if they're in userspace. However, one of the prime movers behind executing userbox TfD's, pledged in his RfA that "I've never deleted a userbox and I don't forsee myself getting involved with that in the future." He went on to say that "I'll leave the userboxes up to other people." It's clear that he didn't keep that committment, and I firmly feel that only strong protections can keep userboxes viable should someone else fail to keep thier commitment.
- This deletion is one of many steps along a road which I firmly believe we shouldn't travel down. The further this goes, the harder it will be to stop. The more the deletionists are appeased, the less ability we will have to halt further deletion. For these reasons, and the ones I spoke of above, I feel compelled to raise awareness of the potential harm of these actions, and to raise that awareness in the strongest possible voice. --Ssbohio 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ssbohio!
 I expected your call. And to no surprise, I was in the middle of userfying some boxes at the time. (Tweaking the tip of the day and other Wikignome activities are my main activities here. :-) We really are birds of a feather of a sort, so it's easy for me to identify with what you say. One of our main distinguishing characterics these days might be my pragmatic approach to the userboxes/categories issue. Jimbo has made his wishes quite clear IMHO and he's just giving us the opportunity to divine a way to implement them. I've written many of the same types of comments at some of the more recent discussions you mentioned above and in the MfD. As a "psychology type" and "organizational development type" among others, I enjoy "experimenting" with how to move an issue forward. To me, the risks are relatively small because this is "just a web site." On the other hand, just like a reality show, people can't help being themselves. It's a fun way (for me) to study characters' characters. Surely (may I call you Surley? ;-), there are risks with "trusting" the migration approach. But at the same time, opportunities abound as well. I'll go out on a limb and predict userboxes will become even more pervasive and robust as they migrate over to userspace. The standards of acceptability are more lenient there, the Big Kahuna actually instigated the process, an organically redundant network is forming, and the costs of the ill will that would be caused by attempts to eradicate them from userspace would be debilitating to the fabric of the community. So, yes, you point out real risks to the emerging process. On the other hand, real opportunites exist as well. The fun of it will be watching it unfold and playing a few hands along the way.
Regards, Rfrisbietalk 03:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of us on the Psychology Wikia are using a version of these. We would naturally like to attribute authorship. Most have your name attached. Do you claim authorship or can you point me in the right direction? And what are those with "2" on the end? Robin Patterson 09:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Robin Patterson, the MBTI userboxes listed at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality simply are those I "userfied" as part of the Userbox migration. My username simply is a part of the location designation. It has nothing to do with "authorship." If you're interest in "editing" of any page, just check the history on each box. However, please keep in mind there's no such thing as individual ownership anywhere on Wikipedia (except for some copyrighted images) "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:" A number at the end of a name usually means it's "version 2" of something, e.g., {{User:UBX/INTP}} and {{User:UBX/INTP2}}. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Signing Userboxes is inappropiate, since userboxes are GNU. besides the userbosex belong to ALL WIKIPEDIANS.-- User:Atenea26, 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Atenea26, of course, signing anything on Wikipedia is inappropriate because of GNU. What I assume you mean by "signing" simply is the location desigination of some boxes I "userfied" as part of the Userbox migration. And as we both know, I have no ownership of them, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:" Regards, Rfrisbietalk 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a good technical reason both for doing this (particularly without telling me) and the fact that the userboxes you've changed don't all actually come out as userboxes, but if you get the chance would you mind fixing the mess so that my userboxes in fact are userboxes and not ugly-looking code? BigHaz 07:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Further, I'd suggest that marking edits which could (and in this case did) result in major changes to how the page looked is hardly a "minor edit". BigHaz 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- BigHaz, I apologize for the inconvenience. In the cases of the "ugly-looking code" on your page, it was a matter of separating many "is" from "is interested in" redirects for religion userboxes as part of WP:GUS. I see you already removed the redirects. You might be interested in looking at other userboxes in the directory at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion. If you don't see what you are looking for, I am willing to help you design one or more boxes and place them as your own subpages, which could be added to the directory, if you choose. Again, my apologies, but some more inconveniences are inevitable from this controversy. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why did you change my user box from "User is a Roman Catholic" to "User is interested in Roman Catholicism"? There is a BIG difference. If you are going to change userboxes for technical reasons, fine and dandy, but try to at least get them right! TruthCrusader 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi TruthCrusader, I did not change the content of Template:User rc, Cyde did. [2] What I did was userfy it [3] and display a list of alternatives. [4] I see you already picked one. Regards Rfrisbietalk 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- ok thanks!! TruthCrusader 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not mind complying with a WP community decision on user boxes, but I do mind you changing my user page. Substitute the controversial template with a redirect, put a note on my discussion page, but please leave it to me to change what's on my user page. -- Meyer 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Meyer, I apoligize for your being offended by the process I used to help clean up the userbox controversy. I made a change on your page that did not affect the display. The edit summary served as the note to you. And as we both know, none of us own our userpages. I know I'll offend some users along the way, but it's a price I'm willing to pay to help get this thing behind us. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It may seem unbelievably trivial, but to me it's important.--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. That's why I've put so much energy into helping resolve the userbox controversy in whatever small ways I can.
Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit I don't quite understand what userfying is. I am a Wiccan and have no problem with using the user box 'has Wiccan interests' or whatever but can you make sure what you edit are the userboxes on my site and not the written parts?! --luvlymish 23:46, 18 July 2006 (GMT+9)
- Hi Luvlymish, I'm sorry for changing the Wiccan link. That was an oversight on my part. Userfying is part of the Userbox migration to the userbox controversy (migrating and redirecting boxes from Template namespace to User namespace). What I was trying to do was have your page look the same, after some boxes were moved. Once again, I apolgize. Rfrisbietalk 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. It was the verb I didn't get so thanks. Your apology was appreciated. Ganbatte kudasai (Good luck/Keep at it) with your userfying! --luvlymish 18:30, 19 July 2006 (GMT+9)
Sure I'll delete this for you if you want, or you can jsut make it a redirect to mine. Let me know. — xaosflux Talk 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm waiting on MiraLuka to make sure no boxes get misplaced. Then I'll ask for a delete. Rfrisbietalk 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just got the okay, blast away! Please delete.
 Rfrisbietalk 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Optional userbox archives and directories in userspace
Hi Xaosflux,
I have a proposal for setting up optional userbox archives and directories in userspace. Because of their locations, I assume the only way they will have a chance of surviving deletion attempts is if an involved admin supports them. I’ve outlined the basic steps below with suggestions of who could do what.
Even though this will be seen as controversial by some, I believe it’s one of the best ways to establish some long-term userbox stability that the vast majority of parties can live with. Let me know what you think. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- At this time I think that consensus would need to be determined to use these "role accounts" to house this type of informatoin. At this point enough admins don't want to see them around as well. It appears at this time that mirroring the boxes / directories to multiple user pages is their best chance of growth right now. — xaosflux Talk 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I'm about done with trying to move this thing forward for now. Rfrisbietalk 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Beliefs Userboxes talk page, you describe Cyde's actions as 'out of process when he tried to delete Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs. That was the best way to characterize his actions I've seen. Back when he wanted to delete userboxes outright, his reaction to losing that fight was to start nominating userboxes individually to TfD. Now, Cyde is on his second userbox deletion from this page. I reverted his last one, but I don't want to get into a revert war with him. I had the thought that if other editors reverted his deletions, it wouldn't have the taint of being a me vs. him kind of thing. It's ridiculous that he's trying to game the system this way to get what he wants despite the lack of consensus for it. --Ssbohio 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ssbohio, maybe I should become the play-by-play comentator for the "Userbox Games"!
 Don't forget that "condoned and enabled" part too. But really don't forget, "What happens in Wikipedia, stays in Wikipedia" - not!
Rfrisbietalk 02:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rfrisbie. Thanks for fixing my error at {{User:UBX/male}}. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. That wikimarkup is goofy anyway!!!
Rfrisbietalk 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out a better way to combine the two pages on norm-referenced test/assessment (Norm-referenced test and Norm-referenced assessment). There hasn't been such a conflict with criterion-referenced tests, so I figured it would be okay to leave it as is, even though the name doesn't match the norm-referenced article anymore. Is there a more general term for criterion-referenced tests that would match "normative assessment"? Basically, both topics are about assessment, so the titles should say assessment, in my opinion. Or, we could just call them "norm-referenced" and "criterion-referenced." What do you think? Sorry for screwing up your article names. Chris53516 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Chris53516, one of the main reasons I originally created the two testing articles was to establish the historical citation for Glaser coining the terms. I reworked the one sentence to fix the "screw up," so that's done.
The way I see things, "testing" and "assessment" both are forms of "measurement," with assessment being the more general term. They all also are forms of "quasi-evaluation" (Evaluation#Evaluation approaches) I'm not a big fan of using the "assessment" term because it tends to be used interchangably with all of these other terms without specifying their distinctions (e.g., Evaluation#The distinction between evaluation and assessment). Also, I'm aware of professional standards for "testing" (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing) or "evaluation" (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation), but not "assessment." My preference would be to keep all of the articles. My second choice would be to have a distinct testing section in an assessment article. "Criterion-referenced assessment" is parallel to "norm-referenced assessment." Again, a distinction between testing and assessment is the key. As far as I can tell, "normative assessment" is a derivative neologism from "norm-referenced testing." I really think the history should be kept straight (back to Glaser). The key to me is to identify "designs" and "methods" and that distingush assessment as a broader term than testing. If you do that, I'm fine with the changes. Rfrisbietalk 19:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess I was working with what I hear in the education field. I hear "normative assessment" a lot, but not so much other terms. I don't really think there is a difference between a test and an assessment in the educational sense. It is not often that an assessment is not a test. In other words, most assessments are tests in the real world. This point is supported by the fact that both of the old, separate articles are about the same idea, that is, testing. I'm going to think about this for a bit, and I might take the article back to "norm-referenced test" with a note that the use of "norm-referenced assessment" is typically the same thing. Perhaps this whole problem would be simpler if we just wrote more extensively on the assessment page rather than separate articles. Is there more to say to warrant a separate article for these types? Chris53516 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- My doctorate is in Educational Leadership with a specialty in educational evaluation. I've worked in the field for the past 20+ years. My job title until this month was "teacher education assessment coordinator." I spend most of my time coordinating performace assessments for licensure and accreditation. We must run in different circles because I've never heard the term used like that until now!
I don't get around much and I'm in a very specialized area, so I'm really not surprised. Teacher education standards today focus on what they should know and be able to do. "Performance assessments" (such as of planning, conducting, assessing and reflecting on a series of lessons) are a clear example of something different than a "test," which usually is a measure of a controlled stimulus and response set. I still say have an article for each with cross-references where they apply. They always can be merged later. To me, the undelying problem is the term, "assessment" has multiple meanings in the collection of Wikipedia articles. That's why I added The distinction between evaluation and assessment to the evaluation article. Strengthening the assessment article regarding its multiple meanings works for me too. Rfrisbietalk 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think I will turn back the article to "norm-referenced test," but I don't think the article "norm-referenced assessment" (NRA) gave any distinct information. I'll make something up for the NRA page that says something like "The term 'assessment' is sometimes used for the term 'test.' See 'norm-referenced test' for information on testing that compares students to normative samples." Is there such a thing as a norm-referenced assessment that is not a test? What would the comparison be? If the comparison is some number (e.g., normal curve equivalent or percentile rank), then it would have to be based on a test (as opposed to any assessment in general), right? Chris53516 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I converted it back. Please check it for any mistakes. If there's any more need for discussion, let's talk about it on it's talk page. Chris53516 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks.
Rfrisbietalk 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello there...there are three templates that I have created that merge similar ones together...the other two are Template:User Star Trek series and Template:User Monty Python. I can add them to your listing, and do you think that I could just switch out the ones on the main Userboxes/Media page and not get into too much trouble?
Also, another thing, since you are really big into user templates, would you be willing to help me identify those that might work with merging? I am looking at the GMT and Card games ones at the moment, but Dog breeds (if a common color scheme and image naming scheme could be decided upon) could also use this.
Also, I have a long post on the Userboxes WikiProject talk page about why I am doing this. It is in an effort to keep user templates in the templates name space.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi
← (ParserFunction
 ) I saw Monty but I hadn't seen Spock. You're welcome to add them to "my" (not really) listings. Go for it at Userboxes/Media too.
- I think the approach you're using works best for a "themed" series like the ones you've already done. Doing "dogs" etc., doesn't make much sense to me because the "diversity" is what makes them special. I would get upset if my "mutt lover" box got changed. Something like the User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Personality page is interesting. {{User:The Thadman/Userbox/MBTI}} (he's the real userbox expert!) is parameterized (is that a word?) with a color scheme. The others are thematic but individual color schemes. I would support a template that didn't change the displays. You showed me how to pass a parameter argument in a Babel box. I'm sure The Thadman would know how to pass more than one, if you don't. Of course, the ultimate box is Template:Userbox. That seems to be the way to cut down on the number of templates (even though I really don't see that as a central issue myself).
- Since I'm an inclusionsit, I prefer giving users options. When I see disputes of multiples on the same topic, I prefer to add usage notes on how to choose options, such as {{User:UBX/Religion}} and {{User:UBX/RC}}.
- Anyway, I appreciate what you're doing and wish you the best. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 21:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- To see how to pass multiple parameters, see here in my sandbox how to do the Monty Python ones. Also, you can comment on the current usages I have come up with and maybe give me a few more. - LA @ 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Rfrisbietalk 22:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that my used box which said I was interested in Hinduism has made me a Hindu. I dont understand. I am more intereted in Hinduism than to say I am a practising Hindu. Thanks RaveenS 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi RaveenS, someone changed the meaning of the box, so I changed it back with a note to the "Hindu" box. Thanks for pointing that out!
Rfrisbietalk 15:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick. Thanks RaveenS
- Click, click, copy-paste, type, type!
Rfrisbietalk 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I'm checking the code right now, I think the t1| through it off. Luckily this is not in use on most pages. My random checks (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]) seem to be accurate for the most part. — xaosflux Talk 04:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like an AWB bug, Fluxbot's underlying framework. I'll try using regexes instead of the auto find/replace for the next run. Do you think this is serious enough where I should stop repalcing these until this is 100%? — xaosflux Talk 04:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (please reply on my talk)
- OK, just got a clearer POV on this....Not an AWB bug, from your history it looked like I improperly repalced something, not just missed one. I'll look for those type of instances on future runs. — xaosflux Talk 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the list! — xaosflux Talk 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Im trying to make "Sum" userbox center at the top of my table in User:Shinhan, but I cant get it centered. I did colspan=5 and align=center but the userbox still stays on the left side. Anyway, I just thought to ask you since that box is your namespace, but I can understand if your busy, so if you could just point me whom/where I could ask this. Thanks. Shinhan 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Shinhan, when I look at your page in IE6, "Sum" is centered. At first I thought it was on the right until I noticed you have a wider display than I do. If it still doesn't look right to you, try putting it in the third column of the first row of your main table. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Im using Firefox. Should've thought earlier of putting it in 3rd column :) And it does work now in both FF and IE6 Shinhan 19:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool!
Rfrisbietalk 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
could somone make userboxes for the main 3rd parties in the United States? Constitution Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Reform Party --Ted-m 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Ted-m, I posted your request at User talk:GRBerry/German userbox solution#Political party userboxes. Rfrisbietalk 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hiya. Ive just created a new (and better, imo) userbox for soulseek and i thought id share it. you can look at it here. my question is where do i share it? it seems that adding it to WP:UBXCO is frowned upon or something nowadays so im kind of stumped as to learn where exactly i should put this to help it get attention. thanx -(chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 06:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi chubbstar, you could link it at User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Computing and User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Music. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rfrisbie. Can you explain what you did on my user page and why you did it? It doesn't seem to be a problem or anything, it's just that I don't understand it. – Morganfitzp 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Morganfitzp, take a look at WP:GUS and User:GRBerry/Userbox migration. Userboxes have been going over to userspace for a while now. Expect to see more of it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
See my reply here: User_talk:Xaosflux#Deleting_UBXs — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's nto technically a speedy deletion criteria, but seems like it their change of defeating a TFD is like a snowball's in hell. I've been deleting them as Userbox since migrated to userspace under [[WP:GUS]] which now has no incomming links, and is a cross namespace redirect or a redirect to a deleted page. ([[WP:CSD#G6]] - housekeeping deletion). — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it's okay with you, I'm just going to keep listing them at the cat talk page. Rfrisbietalk 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see, and contribute if you would like, to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#German_userbox_solution. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
|
