Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Concordia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Beliefs

This sentence does not make sense: "A decision should not be made because of the morals, beliefs or personal preferences, unless it breaches Wikipedia's policies." Jim Apple 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A decision should not be made because of the morals, beliefs or personal preferences of a member, unless it breaches Wikipedia's policies." This still doesn't make sense. What does "it" refer to? The decision? A decision should be made only if it breaks WP policies? Do you mean a punishment should not be meted out unless the behavior that prompted it broke WP policies? Isn't that how things work now? Jim Apple 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't make sense: "A decision should not be made because of the morals, beliefs or personal preferences of a member, unless these beliefs breach the Wikipedia's policies." If the beliefs of a member breach wikipolicies, then a decision can be made? What if a member believes that The Mormon article should be expanded? That's a personal belief, it doesn't breach wikipolicies, and an editor might expand the article based on that belief.
I think what you want to say is that a user should not be punished for personal beliefs. What the sentence says now is that no one may take any action unless they know some editor who has some belief that breaks wikipolicies.
FWIW, I don't think any belief can break wikipolicies. Wikipedia only restricts actions. Also, the term of art is, I believe, "editor", not "member". Jim Apple 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. We are a wiki. :) Ian13ID:540053 11:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This project seems completely free of any actual plans. I can't add more to a project that is functionally vacuous. It seems absurd to have elections and publicity before you even decide on any sort of preliminary policy. And no, "reminding people to be good wikicitizens" is not policy, since it doesn't require or utilize any group effort. Jim Apple 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce)Currently reads: An editor should not be denied any privilege on Wikipedia because of the morals, beliefs or personal preferences they hold, unless these beliefs breach the Wikipedia's policies

Sorry, this is still nonsense. Beliefs cannot breach policies; actions can. Suggest either you ditch the whole shebang, because all that's left after beliefs is taken out is "don't break policy", or else if you want to put in something about no bigotry or bias, ditch the absurd phrasing that beliefs can break policies. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I had another go at this and it now reads;

An editor should not be denied any privilege on Wikipedia because of the morals, beliefs or personal preferences they display, unless by doing so they breach the Wikipedia's policies.

Does that actually get at the original intent? --Alf melmac 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly much, much, better. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed quite a few wikilinks, as I felt they were unnessecary, being rather common concepts. In the case of [[fair]] and [[Justice|just]], fair's disambiguation linked to Justice for the meaning we want. Also, there were multiple links to Community, so keep this in mind if you decide to restore the links. - Pureblade | Θ 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

Does this project actually need formal governance at the moment? I believe until some formal intent is formed and some structure is necessary we shouldn't worry about it. --Alf melmac 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I join the temp Governance? Eddie 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justice?

I was invited here to take a look by Alf. I'm a bit skeptical. Our goal, put very simply, is to make the community more fair and just towards all of its editors.. My goal's to write an encyclopedia. Fairness and justice are entirely secondary; if someone's acting detrimentally toward the encyclopedia, I don't care if it's fair or if it's just; I want them gone until they can contribute positively, and I want them gone quickly. Once the issue of "fairness" arises, we run into issues such as "It wasn't fair to boot XXX; he's got Someoranother Syndrome and that makes him act like a jerk a lot of the time." Wikipedia is not therapy. Our policies are pretty clear, and if it seems like there's insufficient clarity in the policies, they need to be improved.

Every individual in our community has the right to express their own opinion, and we all should be allowed to do so in an appropriate manner. No, not really. We don't really give a damn what your opinion is here. Wikipedia isn't a chat room or a BBS or an online forum. It's certainly not any sort of "free speech forum".

So, that's my halfway devil's advocate/Wikipedia hardass response. Controlling civility is a bitch, and people disagree honestly about what constitutes civility; one admin got into a bit of slightly warm water because he decided that the use of the term "fuck" in itself constituted a personal attack; I noisily disagreed. Other people have basically driven one editor off of Wikipedia, and a large part of their attack was based on things the editor said on her User talk page, usually in response to what she considered racist attacks and/or cluelessness. My position (see Wikipedia talk:Civility#User talk:) is there is exactly one place that constitutes a free speech zone, and that's one's own User talk: page.

I await further discussion and distillation of the purpose of this "Community justice" concept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to note the next line (infact, they should probably all be one line: "unless by doing so they breach the Wikipedia's policies." I believe that the idea is that outside of wikipolicy, and outside of the encyclopedic namespace, justice should be the main priority. That Is what I feel it's about anyway. Ian13ID:540053 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian. ComputerJoe 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings Tags

I've started giving out a few {{civil1}}s, and people have taking a little note from them, as you can see here [1]. However, I think, from the tone the message is on, he's mocking me. We need people to take these seriously. ComputerJoe 08:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't thin experenced editors like the whole blocking aspect. Ian13ID:540053 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{civil1}} and {{civil2}} should be changed to reflect that admins can't actually block for WP:CIVIL violations, except in extreme circumstances. -- SCZenz 19:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Ian13ID:540053 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian! ComputerJoe 08:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) ComputerJoe[reply]

Council

When is this council to be started i would like to join! --Dr. Mahongany 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here eddie 12:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both seats have been granted - you are now part of the temp. council. Ian13/talk 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to be part of it, if that is possible - • The Giant Puffin • 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted. Computerjoe 18:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Id also like to be apart of the council, if seats are open ^_^. TheOneCalledA1 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

I'm waiting for someone to ask for a higher post, or to join, in the council. If you do, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Computerjoe 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi, I have already enrolled as a member and agree with the principle behind this group so would like to add my weight behind it to hopefully progress from a community in it's infancy do develop and grow into a genuinely useful and helpful group. Could you give me more idea as to what is entailed with being on the council. Thanks. Death Eater Dan 14:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, we have a temporary council - as we haven't had enough members to hold elections. We are about big enough to have an election now. If you wish to have the post - I'll call an election. I want an election. :P Computerjoe 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel it would be better to wait until we have, lets say, 30 members, because with the amount of posts, it could be hard to get a good spread of votes otherwise. Recruit! Ian13/talk 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm for an election, but we need more members first - • The Giant Puffin • 15:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So it shan't be done until we reach 30 members. Computerjoe 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or there abouts, yes - • The Giant Puffin • 22:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I created a new template, and listed it (along with the existing userbox) at the bottom of the page, here. They are intended for userpages, and should hopefully help spread the word about the project - • The Giant Puffin • 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is really cool! Computerjoe 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I approve ;) Well done! Ian13/talk 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

O.k. CJ members I think maybe we should start advertising, it could be very unique like maybe add a userbox on a talk page saying check this out! Dr. Mahogany

We have to be careful not to spam. We've created a template for talk pages, but have no CJ branding. The civility warnings do have a link to us. Computerjoe 18:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. so I can just post it on a talk page as an advertisement? Dr. Mahogany
When appropiate.
Beware of any negativity from using userboxes, in this current climate of userbox wars. I have been trying to create an info box that can be tagged to a signature (using the tildes) but I'm only a novice at HTML and I cannot get it to follow on after other text, it always sarts on a new line....like so......
Community Justice - Working to promote civility in Wikipedia

Please feel free to change/improve it. It could be an alternative to userboxes and in my opinion doesn't look like spam, especially if it makes up part of ones signature. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Computerjoe 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me - • The Giant Puffin • 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, I support. Ian13/talk 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the template a bit annoying and conspicuous. The template idea's fine, just cut out the CJ logo and the Wikipedia:Community Justice text and leave Promoting Civility in Wikipedia. --Osbus 03:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic questions

I just nipped into the IRC channel to get a couple of answers, but there was no one there, so I'll pose them here. Thanks in advance. Rob Church 01:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does the project do?

Allow me. The project aims to promote civility throughout the Wikipedia. The current way in which we are tying to do this is by templates warnings or reminding users to remain civil. Due to Ian's good wording, these templates do not enfuriate. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the council for?

The council is there to decide which way the project should be heading, and to help think of new ways to promote civility and this organisation. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Computerjoe for the Calm talk tag

Many thanks to Computerjoe, Purblade, and Wikibarista, who created and edited the {{Calm talk}} template. I think it is the best one here yet.

I've used {{Controversial}}, {{Controversial3}}, and the like in the past, but I find them vaguely impolite often too overbearing; I wonder if that is why people ignore their instructions. So, I will be recommending and using the calm talk tag instead for the time being to see how that goes. I wish someone would add the elements of Calm talk to those controversial tags, and try to tone them down a notch or two in the process with more polite language.

Anyway, good job! --James S. 01:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James! I shall put it on the project page as a task. I think it would be good as well. Computerjoe's talk 16:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Until the end of the month, I'm going to be very busy. Therefore, I've chosen an acting chairman and acting chief executive for this time. I shall still check in. Computerjoe's talk 21:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool-Dr. Mahogany

May I...

...ask why you think I made a personal attack on anyone? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking in regard to this edit Computerjoe's talk 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First meeting

I'm asking all of our members, especially councillors, to participate in our wikimeeting. You can view the agenda, add to it, and discuss the items on the agenda at Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Meeting.

Minutes will be published next week. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Minutes are at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting. Computerjoe's talk 13:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Just a thought, while the organization is still young and potentially malleable, but for me "Community Justice" invokes images of vigilantes with clubs taking the law into their own hands. Might you consider if there are better naming possibilities? Dragons flight 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Haveing read their page taking whatever the wikipedia equiverlent of the law into their own hands appears to be their intention. Still at least they will probably cause an original form of trouble.Geni 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dragons flight. The name has got to change. This counds like a lynch mob rather than a civility-awareness organization. Perhaps Community Respect or Civil Society.—thames 02:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be changed to a proper noun,like Society or Commission or something like that. For some reason, I like the sound of Civility Commission. - Pureblade | Θ 02:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of work rewording this would be quite high though. Computerjoe's talk 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like "Civility Commission" or "Civility Society", but it would take quite a bit of editing to accomplish this. Maybe we could bring this up after the elections? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not the name that's the problem, it's the concept, as espoused under "Our Goal". "Civility police" is one thing; that's a fine endeavor. Politenessman would approve. The rest? Either wrong or meaningless. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than willing to take care of any of the editing required to go through with the change. I still have the original photshop files of my edited logos that I can change and upload. I still think that Community Justice reminds me of some fanatical corrupted sheriff's posse or something. - Pureblade | Θ 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first elected council should vote on the issue. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go with that, yeah - • The Giant Puffin • 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The warning tags are a form of personal attack

Please drop this idea. Possibly the very worst single feature of wikipedia is that one's user page can be covered in unfair attacks, such as these templates, and one is supposed to accept it, and is abused further if one has the temerity to remove these personal attacks- which unlike everyone else one has to look at over and over again. CalJW 23:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not a bad idea. They are useful just to remind and editor they are been a little incivil and then to warn them. They can be removed, as they have no official meaning (you can't be blocked after {{Civil2}}. Computerjoe's talk 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning tags are a fundemental part of wikipedia process. If you have a specific problem with a tag put on your talk page then I suggest talking to the person who posted it, failing that bring it to an admins attention. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 07:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the idea of these tags but I have to say that I also agree that some may take it as a form of personal attack, sadly. - K a s h Talk | email 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that are a form of personal attack, but thay are a bad idea. They don't have any official meaning and can be removed at will. But not everyone knows that...and since most of these types of templates do have a real meaning you're going to mislead those that don't know about this group (which is most people). And this on the judgement of a single CJ member. Why can't you just write a note if you think someone is being uncivil? It's not like vandalism warnings where speed is an issue... Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they may not be official wiki tags does not mean that they don't have a valuable function, they are an effective way of trying keep potentially heated exchanges civil. The point you raise about people not realising what the CJ is about, they are pretty self explanatory and also thats why the tags link back to the project page to provide any info the user may want on this new community. Secondly your comment which implies that the tags are not valid because they are posted on the judgment of one CJ member, it's exactly the same criteria as posting any tag, CJ or WP. Finally I believe writing a note could be more easily misinterpreted as a personal attack rather than a carefully worded tag. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they will be misinterpreted as an official warning. And there's nothing that says they aren't. I really don't see how a canned template is better than a real note from someone if you really want to help. I think it's within everyone's capacity to ask someone to remain civil without turning it into a personal attack. Even if the personal note is just the text from the template, it shows someone took the time to write a note. You can also customize the note to the situation to whatever extent you feel necessary. Impersonal, canned reminders to be civil aren't very likely to help when someone is feeling stressed. But, do what you need to do I guess. Rx StrangeLove 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this on the judgement of a single CJ member. - As far as I know, any registered person can give official vandalism warning templates at their discression. Ian13/talk 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They can, but I'm talking about civility reminders, not the vandalism warning templates. Those are a totally different kettle of fish! Rx StrangeLove 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should include the CJ logo in the civil tags. -eddie 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This would associate too much. Anyone can issue one - not not CJ members. Computerjoe's talk 18:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are useful, and can be used by anyone. If you take offence from a template simly asking you to remain civil, then you should go live in cotton wool. They are polite, and are not personal attacks. If you dont agree with them, dont use them, or make your own version and submit it to CJ - • The Giant Puffin • 19:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, if someone is being uncivil, don't you think hand-writing a note will likely be more constructive than a one-size-fits-all template? People take offense at being hit with generic templates, and tend to feel like they're under attack from authority—it's better to get a friendly note from a colleague. -- SCZenz 19:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the point I was trying to make, a note will be more effective (and engaging) than a canned template. Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps a personalised message for each vandal? Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, sometimes vandals can be calmed down with personalized messages and careful research into what's causing them to vandalize. But people who make personal attacks or incivilities are very often serious contributors, and they deserve a personal note—and they will respond much more positively. -- SCZenz 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This could be used against blatant trolls though. Computerjoe's talk 20:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. It could be used for that. -- SCZenz 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the warning look too official, and seems frankly to be a form of advertizement, neither of which is appropriate for a reminder about civility that an individual chooses to send. I don't think these should be used at all, but if you're gonna use them, they shouldn't misrepresent themselves. -- SCZenz 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am happy to remove the link. A comment maybe wise, though. Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds fine. -- SCZenz 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be bold and wikilink the "Community Justice Member" and "User Commnity Justice" templates; they are meant to be forms of advertisment, surely? Batmanand | Talk 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Already done. Sorry. Batmanand | Talk 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they not link to [[WP:CJ]] on the WP:CJ page, in the table at the bottom? I have just spent the last ten minutes fiddling around with it, but I cannot do it. Any suggestions? Batmanand | Talk 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Template

Working to promote civility in Wikipedia

I think the above template for advertising is more effective than the current one. The current one is too conspicuous, and when users see it, some might think oh, it's just another Esperanza-like organization. However, the revision will hopefully make users more curious about the organization. --Osbus 16:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike how civility is linked to WP:CJ. However, feel free to create this as a proper template and add it to the template box. Computerjoe's talk 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is linking civility to CJ not good? Isn't that our cause? --Osbus 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. But if I was was to click civility, I would expect to be taken to WP:CIVIL. Just me £0.02. Computerjoe's talk 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer how it was..... {{CJ small}} but then I could be considered biased as I created it. I have to agree with Computerjoe though, I linked the word civility to WP:CIVIL as that is the page you would expect civil/civility to link to. Having it link to WP:CJ may cause confusion. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use both and let individual users pick between the two. I am in the process of redoing my userpage and noticed that what works with one layout does not work for another. (^'-')^ Covington 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the old one is better. olaboy-

Assume good faith templates

Didn't know this page existed, but a while back I created {{agf}}, and recently {{agf2}} has also been created. Thought I'd mention it. Hiding talk 18:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Mind if we add it to our templates? Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add it as you wish, that's why I mentioned it. Hiding talk 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. May I suggest adding a smiley face to the "nice" template? (^'-')^ Covington 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit it as you wish. Hiding talk 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice templates. Could come in very useful - • The Giant Puffin • 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Meeting minutes reply

Re: "...and that it may be an idea to create a civility noticeboard, to be used prior to a user-conduct RfC."

There is already Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. You should use one of them (and help decide the merge issue). :-) --Quiddity 18:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could edit it? Computerjoe's talk 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "edit it". The archives of your meeting? (that could imply i was present for it, which i wasn't).
I was just pointing out that there are already 2 "civility noticeboards", so that you don't reinvent the wheel ;)
This isnt my domain at all; I'll leave up to you. --Quiddity 20:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More publicity

I added CJ to the list of Wikipedians' organisations at Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Hopefully, more people will now stumble across us (just as I did). Batmanand | Talk 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Justice newsletter?

It could include things such as recent updates, incidents, ect. Would it be a good idea?--TBC??? ??? ??? 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the ESP one, yes. Computerjoe's talk 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I wonder if we can borrow the MiszaBot; I like the idea of having it posted on my talk page. (^'-')^ Covington 23:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ESP one is quite useful, and a newsletter for CJ would help keep our members informed, and remind them to come back and at least check the page reguarly - • The Giant Puffin • 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a good idea. But I think we're rushing a little. Let's get the elections down first, finalize the name, then do a newsletter. --Osbus 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Justiceman

Community Justice has its own superhero! :O--TBC??? ??? ??? 21:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe cool, shouldn't it be the woman in the logo though? Olaboy-

File:Communityjusticewoman.JPG

Thank you for the suggestion Olaboy. Community Justiceman is now community Justicewoman!--TBC??? ??? ??? 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like both, good idea - • The Giant Puffin • 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit to About Us

Hi,

Please reivew the edit I've made to the About Us section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACommunity_Justice&diff=48898434&oldid=48898139

I've tried to make it clearer; if you don't like my edit, either discuss here and/or do a revert. Thanks, T. J. Day 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, sounds pretty good --TBC??? ??? ??? 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. (^'-')^ Covington 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edit - • The Giant Puffin • 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence is a little wordy. But the rest is good, it clarifies. --Osbus 00:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags?

Where should the tags be specifically placed? Only on user talk pages? Or also on Afd discussions and and article talk pages? --TBC??? ??? ??? 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by tags? templates? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm refering to the "be civil" templates --TBC??? ??? ??? 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says here what type of usage applies to each template - • The Giant Puffin • 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Calm Talk

I love the "Calm talk" template and think it was used to good effect on the Jesus article. The "civility" templates look too aggressive to me and I would be reluctant to use them. Often I find civility occurs when someone with a different view point from an established group of editors is failing to clearly explain their point. Each side is making a lot of assumptions about what the other really means due to preconceived ideas. Also communication purely in the written form is new to lots of people so unless they carefully read what they have really written they will not realise how it could be misunderstood. Cultural differences play a big part too. Things that are obvious to users from the USA will be unknown terms to the UK and vice versa. Weight given to certain words is cultural and age defined so some will not be offended by the use of certain words whilst others will. Anyone who has lived in a country other than the one they were born for an extended time will have come across all these things but so many will not that I think a template advising people on how to avoid civility in an international written project would be very useful. I learned the hard way years ago and it would be nice to save someone else from the rude e-mails responding to unintentionally terse messages from me. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. --Osbus 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions for nominees

Been going through the CJ pages for the past few days, trying to get a hold on what exactly it has in mind... but beyond having created a few decent templates and proposing elections, I'm not seeing much direction here. Don't get me wrong, I like that the group is seeking to promote a more peaceful environment on WP (which is why I tentatively joined)... but now what? If you're throwing your hat in the ring for these elections, what are you promising to do? What plans do you have to move this forward? And what role is CJ filling that isn't already filled by other Wikipedia groups like Mediation? Tijuana Brass 11:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my statement has a lot of the things I promise to do in. Also, Tijuana, we are not a mediation organisation. We try to ensure civility, we don't (currently) mediate. Some of my aims are to rewrite WP:CIVIL. Computerjoe's talk 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation reference was just an example of a group that touches on a related topic (in the sense of improving civility), it wasn't meant to imply that CJ was a mediation group. Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that before for some reason. Looking forward to going over it. Tijuana Brass 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My statement has some examples of what I would like to happen with Community Justice - • The Giant Puffin • 19:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Since we're all fishing for votes, I'll add my two cents. While I understand and support what CJ is and does, I am aware that many users don't. That is one of the main things I want to work on if I am elected (and even if I'm not)- to build our image. If other users don't recognize what CJ is, how will they take them seriously? That's also why I feel that if there was a time that I'd be most beneficial to CJ, it's now, and that's why I'm running. --Osbus 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars?

What about a civility and Community Justice barnstar? The first to be awarded for civility, and the second for those who've put extra effort into the project?

We need to encourage users to remain civil, not just discourage them from been uncivil. Computerjoe's talk 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea. -- - K a s h Talk | email 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, I think we should run with it - • The Giant Puffin • 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just had that idea a day ago. I agree wholeheartedly. (^'-')^ Covington 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the same. Tijuana Brass 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Perhaps a badly drawn Community Justiceman award? :P--TBC??? ??? ??? 20:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New members

Some new members act incivil from very begining so I have made a template to encourage them to be Civil: Template:WelcomeNewComer

{{WelcomeNewComer}}

Please tell me if it is a bad idea, and in other hand if you think it is good, feel free to improve it.

Much thanks! -- - K a s h Talk | email 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little too specific, and some users may find it strange. ow about integrating some more general messages with it? Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! It gets new members off to the right start - • The Giant Puffin • 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Im sure a little generalisation wouldnt do any harm - • The Giant Puffin • 21:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it as more of a gentle nudge in the right direction for newcomers that are already showing signs of incivility. The best thing for generalization is just a generic welcome template (or a huge generic wel. template like mine :P) — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary of the mention of a block at the end, for the same reasons that it didn't seem right with the first few templates. I don't think a level one template should mention them... not a necessary warning until users show a blatant disregard for policy. I might play with it a little, if you don't mind. Tijuana Brass 22:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse I don't mind :) -- - K a s h Talk | email 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with Ilyanep; it works very well as a kindly reminder to new Wikipedians who are getting acquainted to Wikipedia's civility policy. I'd like to see a sentence that says what to do (as opposed to what not to do) included in the template, such as "Mutual respect greatly improves the Wikipedia experience." A small link to CJ would work well; new users might want to join CJ too. Great job, Kash. (^'-')^ Covington 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great template, something that will be very useful. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much friendlier that the current warning ones. I think we must concentrate on using these to modify behaviour if possible. People respond much better if you understand why they are frustrated and then calmly explain why there may be a problem with how they are behaving. Maybe we could include some sort of "I understand wikipedia can be a frustrating experience but ...." with advice about the specific problems with a project of this kind that I mentioned above. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 06:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made a few changes. For starters, I softened the tone just a little bit; it had just the slightest hint of accusing the recipient of incivility — and while that's presumably the issue which would prompt this notice, since it's a level one, context alone should handle that. Second, I removed the link to the five pillars, just because it strays a bit from the more immediate template topic of civility. Third, I added a WP:AGF link, since that seems to go hand in hand with any WP:CIVIL issues. Last, there's now a tag inviting questions on either the poster's talk page or at the CJ page. Take a look, see what you think, don't hesitate to change anything that you feel was a mistake or could go better. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracker

I've created {{tracker}} so we can see the placement of civility warning messages, even after subst'ing. Simply go to {{tracker}} and click What Links here to see it in action. This works with all newly placed warnings. Computerjoe's talk 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - • The Giant Puffin • 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Computerjoe --TBC??? ??? ??? 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Just wondering, do these messages go away once the dispute is over? (^'-')^ Covington 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you refering to the civil templates, I believe they have to be manually removed. – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. Nice idea. Tijuana Brass 22:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

It seems like CJ is a cool idea, but it also reminds me of Esperanza in some regards (even similar colors :D). Perhaps we can work closely with them in being an almost gentle enforcement buddy? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how long will the terms be for the people we are currently electing? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first comment, CJ is similar to Esperanza in some ways, although we strive for civiliy, whereas they have slightly different goals. I think we should work closely with them to help both projects achieve their goals. As for your second comment, I dont remember anyone mentioning a term - • The Giant Puffin • 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the election page, the terms will be 6 months for each of the positions. Hope this helps. (^'-')^ Covington 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your replies. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Esperanza is about community, CJ is about civility. In my opinion, these are two very different goals. --Osbus 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions

Every individual in our community has the right to express their own opinion, and we all should be allowed to do so in an appropriate manner.

— Project main page - The Understanding of Rights & Responsibility as a Wikipedian

It says allow them to do so in an appropriate manner, refering to wikipiedian free expression of opinion. If they aren't expressing there opinion in an appropriate manner do we refuse to allow them express their opinion? I understand we would use the civil tags in such case or follow suggestions from Wikipedia:Civility but that sentence seems to be saying that anyone who does not express their opinion in a proper mannner will not be allowed the express it. If this is true what would be the concequenes for such repeated actions, blocking?

Also should I use the civil tags where the bad faith posts happen or just talk pages? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My take on consequences for inappropriate expressions of opinion: absolutely there can be such consequences, but in some cases they cannot be imposed quickly or without discussion. In the extreme case where you count blatant trolling as an expression of opinion, blocking can certainly result. If a user might or might not be trolling, but is continually disruptive in their expressions, a block might result, after much debate, if there was broad consensus among administrators. In less clear-cut cases, either we can use words to convince people to behave reasonably, or go up the dispute resolution latter all the way to ArbCom—they can impose bans from specific pages or other consequences appropriate to the situation. -- SCZenz 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying SCZenz, it was very helpful but Also should I use the civil tags where the bad faith posts happen or just talk pages? just wondering... – Tutmøsis (Talk) 01:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They should be used on user talk pages. {{Calm talk}} on talk pages, the AGF templates on user talk pages. Usage is provided! Computerjoe's talk 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call us when you need us

Do we do Mediation type work where if a user is having trouble with someone hot headed, he can call on us to warn that user? – Tutmøsis (Talk) 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't mediate. Computerjoe's talk 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation isnt one of our practices, no - • The Giant Puffin • 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came here concerned

HI ya. I just thought I'd mention that on first inspection, the stated aim to "make the community more fair and just towards all editors" sets off the special interest faction alarms. Reading more about your group, may I suggest you play up more the "promoting civility" aim. The angle of "making" people treat editors more fairly, suggests you are out to avenge some past grievance, and that by "editors" you mean yourselves most of all. If you feel this interpretation is based on bad faith, please note that I came across your group after following up on the user making this RFA vote, which struck me as being against the spirit of WP, and raised concerns about the Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt and this organization, which features prominently on the editor in questions' userpage. Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Supreme Court isn't one of our official ideas, it was invented be General Eisenhower without any discussion or consensus. I too raised concerns over General Eisenhower's contribution, which was prior to him joining the organisation. As for our goal, it has shifted. Perhaps we need to rephrase the whole thing, but this and the Supreme Court is something for after the elections. Computerjoe's talk 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[3 Edit conflicts!] Personally I would strongly oppose the Supreme Court, as I feel it is a bad direction for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law, contrary to what some trolls and vandals seem to feel - Wikipedia as a whole doesn't have to prove anything to ban users from private Wikimedia servers, and I think this could bring the wrong impression. I also think the 'promoting civility' should be pushed more, and the statement possibly rewritten - as once more it makes this community of editors seem somewhat official. We are a set of editors with no official power who want to contribute together to make civility more promoted. That's my view anyway. Ian13/talk 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe the adjective "making" was intended to mean that we were going to force people to be nice. I am not out to avenge anyone, and I do not know of anyone in this group who is - certainly not any of the council. Esperanza want a more friendly community, a community which Esperanza's members are part of. Although I do not think they are doing it for themselves only, and that applies to CJ also. We are hoping to influence the community towards civility and fairness towards editors. Both our aims you mentioned are of equal importance and relavence. I hope this clears things up a bit - • The Giant Puffin • 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you the best in promoting civility, and appreciate the responses. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting us know. See you around Wikipedia. (^'-')^ Covington 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt

This is ran by a CJ-member, and is claimed to be a CJ-project, though it has having a negative effect to the organisation and was created without consensus.

All those who object and support this being part of Community Justice are asked to comment below.

Support

Object

  • This was created in good faith, though it is true to our original goals; it is impratical and detrimental to the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont remember being consulted about it being officially linked to us in any way. As far as I'm concerned, although it may have similar goals and aims, it is a seperate organisation. We may choose to work closely with it in the future. But that is as far as I am willing to go in terms of how connected we are to supreme court - • The Giant Puffin • 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [After 2 edit conflicts!] STRONG oppose: Certainly in good faith (although 'officially' linking to CJ could be questionable) - but Wikipedia is not a court of law. As it stands, responsibility stands with any admin who so chooses to block a user at their discression. Wikimedia servers are private, and they can choose to do whatever they want with them as long as they abide by the licencing requirments for contributions (in the case of Wikipedia, the GFDL). There is (and hopefully will never be) a need to prove anything. Ian13/talk 19:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We have WP:ARBCOM too. Computerjoe's talk 20:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I have never seen a case of simple vandalism go through there, that is generally seen as an administrator task. Ian13/talk 20:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but do we really need to make such a big fuss over simple vandalism? Common vandalism can be resolved without the need of a "Supreme court" --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what I'm saying. Ian13/talk 20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I sort of misinterperated what you said, --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Re-writting of the main page

I have done some rewritting to help it hopefully seems less forceful, and more promoting of civility per. certain users conserns. All are welcome to review and add anything they thing I have missed or rephrase. [3]. :) Ian13/talk 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, it seems more friendly now - • The Giant Puffin • 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WD! Computerjoe's talk 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, Ian13. You have a talent for writing. (^'-')^ Covington 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent! Now, could you please rewrite {{Community Justice member}} accordingly? - Pureblade | Θ 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but I don't like it being written in first person. Compare with WP:ESP, where third person is used. I find it more professional, but then again, maybe it's just me. Misza13 T C 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make it third person, but i must have missed some - so please feel free to change. Ian13/talk 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Channel

When Misza13 joined, he asked when we would have an IRC channel. I just wanted to say that I will take care of this as soon as we have decided on our new final name, just so no one will waste time making a channel that we will not use after the name change. - Pureblade | Θ 23:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (to both Misza13 and Pureblade). (^'-')^ Covington 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an IRC channel [4] . Computerjoe's talk 08:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the funny name is because of a ruling by Freenode. Computerjoe's talk 08:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the two hashmarks in the channel name? Looks strange. I really think that's a mistake. Channels start with 1 #, not two. I honestly don't think Freenode would have agreed to such a bizarre channel-naming convention. (I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, it really isn't meant as such; I've been using IRC for 10+ years and have never seen a channel named in such a way) — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 15:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, anyone running Mac OS X can't access IRC channels. If anyone knows a work around (that doesn't include puttingb a hatchet through my mac and buying a PC) then I'd love to know about it. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of IRC clients#Mac OS? Plus, if you're using Mozilla (like you should ;-), ChatZilla is also a choice. --Misza13 T C 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe, by looking at the discussion on our name on this very talk page, it seems that we won't be 'CJ' for much longer. Also, why are there two #'s in the channel name? - Pureblade | Θ 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IRC link never works for me, it just brings up a "This page cannot be displayed" so I have never actually seen it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Open your IRC software, go to network irc.freenode.net and join ##wikipedia-en-cj —Preceding unsigned comment added by nathanrdotcom (talk • contribs)
Pureblade: the reason there are ## is a Freenode rules which states any channel beginning with #wikipedia requires Freenode approval. Freenode denied my request. Computerjoe's talk 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template categorization

I've reorganized the template section in order to make it less cluttered and to let us find the appropriate templates more easily. - Pureblade | Θ 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, awesome work. (^'-')^ Covington 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work - • The Giant Puffin • 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Why not put the category in the userbox. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 04:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:User Wikipedia/Community Justice is in the userboxes. - Pureblade | Θ 04:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project

This is a project, right? The page is more-or-less formed like a project page; it has members, tasks, and goals like a project; and it doesn't have any formal recognition as an "official" body. That's not to put it down (I haven't studied it, don't have an opinion one way or the other). If it gains acceptance through the energy, forthrighness, and wisdom of its members, it will have influence. And someday be a formal body, who knows.

But for now, lt should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Community Justice, and categorized as a project, right? Does anyone object to this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

Me. We are not a project; we are an organisation. Computerjoe's talk 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also object. We are not a project - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: WikiProjects are groups of Wikipedians focused on a specific content of the encyclopedia. Conversely, Wikipedian organizations are groups that unite W'pedian in a common goal/under common standards. Misza13 T C 15:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Objection here as well; Misza makes a good point, that projects focus on the encyclopedia, whereas organizations focus on the Wikipedians themselves. - Pureblade | Θ 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, right you are. Herostratus 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is {{Calm talk}} A Warning?

With the recent redesign of the template section of the main page, I've observed that {{Calm talk}} is a warning. I disagree, if it is a warning it's not a warning like {{Civil1}}. Computerjoe's talk 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see {{Calm talk}} as a warning. We should place it on talk pages of controversial articles, Userbox debates, etc. and hope that it does it's work and prevents at least some people from saying things they would regret later. Therefore, it should have as mild tone as possible, so that it doesn't aggravate people into more flaming. Misza13 T C 11:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Computerjoe's talk 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't most all of the warning/reminder templates meant to be used on talk pages? - Pureblade | Θ 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. By talk page I mean things in the talk namespaces. Warnings are in the user talk, which is a talk namespace - but in a different way. Computerjoe's talk 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of Ethnopunk

I've suspended user:Ethnopunk due to the fact he has a history of personal attacks, and he made one on the CJ page [5]. The user will be expelled or taking off suspension, per the ruling of the first elected council. Computerjoe's talk 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good - • The Giant Puffin • 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can look at the statment two ways. What may seem to be a personal attack is maybe not. But yeah, I agree that he should be suspended indefinitely. --Osbus 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility barnstar

This is the second draft of the civility barnstar. Your thoughts? 

Computerjoe's talk 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Very very nice! Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 14:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, its very good, but I didnt see the first draft... - • The Giant Puffin • 15:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really understood the whole thing about a cup of tea, and I don't think that symbol is widely understood as 'civility'. Perhaps hands shaking or people talking or something more recognizable and showing respectful interaction between people? - Pureblade | Θ 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dan suggested that, but we decided it was too like mediation. Computerjoe's talk 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the first draft is available on the file history at commons. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tea is good. But the pic looks too much like a coffee mug IMO. Herostratus 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any better images on the Commons? Computerjoe's talk 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:A small cup of coffee.JPG, despite its name, looks more like a teacup IMO. It'd have to be edited. Herostratus 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable using that as it Creative Commons; over public domain. Also, it's a photo. I'm after clipart. Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about the scales of justice, perhaps? - • The Giant Puffin • 19:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. We'll use that in our Community Justice barnstar! Computerjoe's talk 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe the mug is ok then - • The Giant Puffin • 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated again, as you can see again. Version history available at the Commons. Computerjoe's talk 20:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. May I suggest removing the cup's shadow? (^'-')^ Covington 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the is tea recognised internationally for civility - tea is a world wide recognised ice breaker and is part of a lot of formal and informal ceremonies- try buying something in Turkey or Indonesia - so I like the multicultural inclusion of it too. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 10:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although a shadow-less cup would look better - • The Giant Puffin • 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lack PSDs or whatever. Computerjoe's talk 17:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, User:Misza13 has fixed this. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks perfect now - • The Giant Puffin • 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks, you all. (^'-')^ Covington 02:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page format

The page format is screwed up. It could be because I'm at 800x600 (the last holdout?), but I've never had this problem with any other Wikipedia page. The TOC is squeezed all narrow to the left, the Abraham Lincon quote is laid over the TOC rendering both practically unreadable, and because the TOC is so narrow it is long, leaving a large whitespace beneath the logo. It basically looks like hell. Anyway I tried to improve it but I got reverted, so whatever, if you really like it that way... Herostratus 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange and hopefully fixed. :D Computerjoe's talk 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya looks OK now. Herostratus 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small question

I the little e in my signiture green? Because I see it as blue even though it is supposed to be green... - • The Giant Puffin • 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is blue. The color codes need to go inside the brackets, like so: [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">''e '']], which produces: e - Pureblade | Θ 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A CJ-link? Also, this isn't the place. next time use {{helpme}} on your user talk page. Computerjoe's talk 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've been thinking of putting a CJ-link in my signature. I'll think of where as I have neither a c nor a j in my username. I guess I could link the o.
EDIT: I used the Esperanza {{greene}} template and changed it for my own purposes. If anyone objects, please let me know. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works now, thanks Pureblade - • The Giant Puffin • 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite dandy --Osbus 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archive talk page

Shall we? --Osbus 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is getting a bit long - • The Giant Puffin • 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, I accidentally moved the page intead of creating a subpage. Can anyone fix this? (I'm so sorry) .--Osbus 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Concordia/Archive_1&oldid=1160875145"