User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/ArchiveX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is talk archive X. See the main archive index here.
This archive contains discussion specifically related to my choice of not having a user page since May 2006. All new discussion is being ignored, as one can clearly see below, I have said more than enough on the matter and I will simply not discuss it anymore.
Don't add to this page (not that you can, actually). For the active talk page for Jeffrey O. Gustafson go here.
If I may
Suggest a userpage, if only a place to leave some barnstars (you deserve a few :) -- Tawker 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- And I've got a few in my talk archives. My userspace (when I've had one) was always a barnstar-free zone. Thanks, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your red link
Maybe user pages are a bit evil, but especially as an administrator, it might not be very helpful for newbies to click on your name and find a red link. You might want to consider adding just a line or so (something similar to what you have at the top of this page) to User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Or even just turn that into a redirect to this talk page. I don't mean to intrude too much, but thanks for listening.--Pharos 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've gone from one of the most active administrators on en to barely editing, so my interaction with newbs is limited. Additionally, I just plain don't feel like having a userpage (redirect or not) any more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I redirected your user page to your talk page
Since you claim that you don't want a userpage, I decided to redirect your userpage to your talk page so that it will be more convenient for people who are trying to reach you. Feel free to undo this if you want to.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Somehow, people can edit an encyclopedia without knowing how to fucking read. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
31 hour block?
Don't you think that was a little over the top for what could have been a good faith edit? After all, as you point out you are the only admin with one but they may not have seen it until too late. I could understand the block if s/he had been recreating it several times. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone with half a brain stem will see, either throughout multiple points in my talk archives, the extensive deletion log, or the little thing directly above, that I do not want a userpage, period. Any attempt to create one for me when I have made it extensively clear that it is not my desire is not just vandalism but disruption (nine times deleted and counting)... doing it without somehow seeing that a userpage is not desired is disruption and ignorance. This is black and white, but I have unblocked him. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I do realize that it's pretty obvious that you don't want a page but someone seeing your red signature may just click on it and not take the time to look at anything else. People can be very lazy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with CBW that it's obvious to someone looking at the logs that you don't want a user page, but I also have to agree with him that some people are lazy...or just don't know how to find the logs. It's the price you're going to pay for doing something that is – you must admit – a bit unusual. There's an argument to be made that blocking someone over something like this is equally antisocial, disruptive, making a point, downright rude, etc. If someone persists in recreating your user page after being instructed not to, a block would be appropriate. Otherwise, accept with good humour that you're going to have to do some maintenance work if you want to keep a red userpage link. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I realize you already unblocked, but I just wanted to express the opinion that it was a highly inappropriate block. I saw nothing in the edit to suggest vandalism at all. Friday (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest a BIG thing above? Perhaps red and blinking or something? Some people don't take the time to read the most obvious things. - CobaltBlueTony 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- One's lack of remedial reading skills in the English language is not an excuse to subject everyone else to hideous html. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Well meaning folks simply not paying attention...
You might consider simply redirecting your usepage to your talk page. It prevents red links and makes you easier to find. If you don't like that idea, cheers anyway. --Doc 23:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
User page bidness
Hey, since you've deleted your user page yet you still edit, people may confuse you with someone who has departed Wikipedia. Perhaps a redirect to your talk page is in order? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Page
I think you can safely block RDH now. Perhaps you should do d delete protect? Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)07:47, Wednesday, January 31 '07
- I've blocked him. Thats enough. And delete-protect would defeat the purpose of the glorious red link. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha! It's not red to me! To me it's blue, due to my custom monobook, lol. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)09:52, Wednesday, January 31 '07
Userpage
May I suggest you redirect your userpage to your talkpage? That way when people click your signature it will take them straight there. Regards, KazakhPol 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about erecting a giant flashing neon sign that says "No I Do Not Want A User Page and that Includes Redirects And There Have Literally Been More Than A Dozen People To Ask Me That Same Question."
- You know, instead of a user page, of course. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Copied from AN/I
Red Links
(refactor)
Note this this user has no user page. Axiomm 22:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that's because he himself deletes it from time to time. Rightly or wrongly, admins do sometimes do that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- From time to time? It's been redlinked consistently since May '06. The only reason the log is so bloody large is because I keep having to redelete vandals and well meaning fools. And nothing says I have to have a user page either, rightly or wrongly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I was just explaining for the user asking, why you don't have a user page. From time to time is a generic term that certainly encompasses "often". I did not comment on whether you should or should not have a user page in answering the question. Sorry if I gave offense, it was not intentional. But now that you mention it, while I agree there is no firm requirement, I do think it's reasonable to expect an admin to have something on their user page, however small, that users can find when they have questions, rather than being redlinked, and the user's remark that one wasn't there seemed reasonable to me. That's just my opinion, I'm not claiming it is a generally held sentiment. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Having a redlink userpage instead of a redirect to one's user talk page is pretty much done just to annoy people, much like voting oppose in every RfA and so on, but there's no actual policy against it... so he can continue, if he really likes annoying half of Wikipedia over something so petty. --W.marsh 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Saying "he's being annoying" isn't incivil, especially if the claim is supported, which it was. --W.marsh 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think it's uncivil. Actually, I think it's pretty accurate. Why can't he just have his user page being a redirect to his talk page? The redlink is just annoying and makes it harder to contact him. --Cyde Weys 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- First, I my redlink is not to intentionally antagonize or annoy people, and I take offense at that. Second, I have never bought into the ridiculous claim that it makes it "harder" to contact me. Honestly, two clicks instead of one (and just one click if you're savvy)? While we do have our share of idiots, most Wikipedians are not as lazy or stupid as you seem to think. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you want people to stop ascribing your actions to malice, perhaps you could stop referring to fellow editors as "fools" and "idiots."
- Out of curiosity, why do you prefer to maintain this red link? You're entitled to, but why is this something that you want? —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's not the biggest deal in the galaxy, but I have always considered maintaining one's username as a redlink to be inappropriate for an administrator. Newyorkbrad 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(outdent) It serves no useful purpose to not have one, and it makes you less approachable for many users. I know I often check out userpages before leaving messages, and I rather doubt I'm the only one. While you're not required to have one, I do remember your personal policy statement that we should stick to best practices at all times, even when it's not mandatory, or something to that effect.
That said, oddly, I support Jeff's desire/right/privilege/whatever to have the thing redlinked. I've certainly defended having a transcluded .sig for quite some time (including to the developer that wrote the code to prevent people from doing that), which some people find annoying, and I think the instant matter is a good example of why everything not mandatory is not prohibited.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-21 09:51Z
In answer to Jeffrey's question "why?": (1) because it's distracting to have completely unnecessary redlinks (the least important reason, but still true), (2) because it suggests (incorrectly in your case, to be sure) that the user has not yet fully engaged with the community, and (3) because it misleads people not familiar with you into underestimating your role on the project. The latter concern is not a purely theoretical one, I will add, although it is complicated to capture just how without violating the "all contributors are equal" ethos we rightly have here. A couple of months ago, in discussion of one of the controversial Philwelch blocks which occurred at a time when he had a deleted userpage and a redlinked username, it turned out that Phil had tried to explain policy on something to the editor, and the editor had disregarded the explanation because, in substance, he assumed that anyone too inexperienced to have created their userpage yet was unlikely to be a fount of policy experience and advice. The editor indicated that had he realized the person making suggestions was an experienced editor and admin (the former being as important as the latter, really), he would have reacted very differently. So other than being different for the sake of being different, why do it? Newyorkbrad 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, it basically boils down to the fact that he's doing something that people are saying "Hey, this annoys me" and it wouldn't effect him to change it or let someone change it, but he says "No, you can't make me, I am going to continue annoying you because I can." And yeah, he can. We all could do a lot of things that annoy eachother but aren't technically against any rule. Thankfully, most of us don't. --W.marsh 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you blindly misinterpret my intentions. It should be reminded that everyone has the right to have (almost) anything in their user space deleted. I can because we all have that right, not just because I have the ability to. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- In spite of the fact Jeff (inappropriately) supported a ban on me (probably didn't read all the facts) -AND in spite of the fact that he reverted that "you all need to get a job" comment just a few minutes ago (a perfectly legitimate, if slightly insulting comment) -I support his desire to use his User Page in whatever way he wants -so long as, like, he isn't threatening, cussing, or slandering. You people all need to get a life -and leave Jeff alone- duuuude! Talk about a major waste of time on such an unimportant matter- man oh man...--GordonWatts 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- There is explicit harm: this annoys people and makes it slightly more difficult to contact you. There would be explicit benefits: it would stop annoying people and make it slightly easier to contact you. You're under no obligation to create a redirect to your talk page, but I wonder why you choose to exercise this particular right. —David Levy 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Isn't that exactly what I said? I never disputed that you had the right to do it... it's that many people have come to you and said it annoys them, and you won't change it. You don't care that you're annoying a lot of good editors. If you're going to do that, I have "the right" to point it out. --W.marsh 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think he has the right to not have a user page, which includes not having a redirect to the talk page as a user page. But why not just have the link in the signature be to the talk page instead of the redlinked user page? Unless the intent is to show people that there is no user page. Leebo86 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm suddenly tempted to delete my own userpage, except it would have the confusing side effect of improving Wikipedia's aesthetics. Even some arbcom members have pretty red links. A userpage is an editor's expression of his or her currently preferred Wikipedia personality. Sometimes editors prefer that to be a tabula rasa: "make of me exactly what you will"; or, alternately, "My edits stand on their own". Or possibly, "you people have nitpicked my userpage sufficiently that I'm not going to bother having one." Given the way self-expression on user pages is over-scrutinized here, I can understand that point of view. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A redirect to one's user talk page is totally harmless, though. A lot of people find a redlink userpage annoying. --W.marsh 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Oh for the love. Jeffrey's attitude, responses, and style may not benefit the community, but if anyone is "annoyed" by his lack of a userpage, they need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously folks, this is the Internet. Wikipedia is not censored for a wide array of things, and one of them is annoyance value.
Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. The same goes for annoyance. If this is getting to you, think about why, and what you can do to temper your reaction. It is not the responsibility of the universe to shield you from all vexation -- you will encounter many annoyances in life.
A user can do anything they want /w their userspace within policy; users are not intended to be cookie-cutter homogenized mutually substitutable apparatchiks.
Please, let's give this a rest. Thanks. —Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-02-22 00:17Z
On the point first raised, of it making Jeff any harder to contact: I think that would be a very good point if he had no link at all, to either talk page or redlinked user page (as I raised recently for unrelated reasons at WP:SIG), and a half-decent one if he only had the redlink. However, as he links directly to his talk page (and actually, to both), I don't really see any substance to that. Personally, I'd have a distinct preference for admins (specifically) having user pages, and I recall this arising as an issue in some RfAs. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much of a "so what", as clearly Jeff is aware of several people's such preferences, and as been noted, it's not against policy. However, it does seem extremely pointless to have a link to the lack of a user page (unless the point is to annoy people, or to make a "I deleted my user page" 'statement', or something along those lines, to speculate freely). Perhaps he might consider de-linking the user page from his signature, while he chooses not to have one. Alai 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Priorities
Do you honestly prioritize your personal preference over the good of the project? People have pointed out the downsides of the redlink. Perhaps it's only mildly harmful, but with no offsetting good, shouldn't the balance sway toward not having the redlink? I don't get it. Friday (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of folks have said it is "annoying." The argument that it makes me hard to find simply does not hold water. No-one has demonstrated that it is even "mildly" harmful. Jpgordon's comments partially reflect my views on the matter, and, frankly, I don't want a user page of any kind, I don't have to have a user page of any kind, and not having one does no damage to the Project or the editors involved. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- At the worst, he said a redlink is "misleading." I disagree to the extent that userpages should not be used as a judgment of quality or character (trite book/cover bullshit, I know).
- And making it into a redirect would not give me what I want, which is absolutely nothing there at all - no links, no redirects, nothing but red. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
I support your block of Clayboy
But I think it is really really obnoxious and unbecoming of an admin not to have a userpage.--Jimbo Wales 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jimbo. I appreciate your comments, and respect your views on my user page, and I apologize if I offend. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I intended to block the user myself, but in order to avoid any potential wheel warring, ended up seeking clarification from the ArbCom first. Unfortunately, they didn't get back to me and then throughout the following week and a half I was hospitalized and out of commission. Anyway, glad someone else got around to it and am pleased to learn of Jimbo's endorsement. Keep up the good work. El_C 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Jimbo's Talk Page
I support administrators having user pages
But I think it's really obnoxious and unbecoming of important people such as yourself to use language like "obnoxious" and "unbecoming" on fellow administrators, especially those that choose to be different! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Dear God, with all the Essjay stuff and Jimbo is remarking about he thinks it is unbecoming for an admin not to have a user page? The priorities are a bit misplaced. I wonder, would my user page be too sparse for Jimbo? I'm almost tempted to delete mine in protest. Really, right now of all the things to worry about, this should be very far down on the list. JoshuaZ 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the perspectie Jeff. JoshuaZ 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Jeffrey wins. Thanks for the dignified response. And just curious, why do you NOT have a user page? It just seems obnoxious to me, but perhaps you have a good reason.--Jimbo Wales 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- While I've never explained the full reasoning, I have admitted that it's a mixture of a few things, part personal aesthetic, part desire to reject vanity, and maybe to be different, I guess.... Ultimately, though, Jpgordon described the bulk of my feelings on the matter far better than I ever could with this post to AN/I during a discussion about my red link from a couple of weeks ago. Like I said at the time, I have no desire to be obnoxious or annoying, and I apologize if it is interpreted that way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Don't fret it Jeffrey. What seems obnoxious to me is spouting "love" and intimidation simultaneously; and I don't think you are doing that. 64.229.64.59 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
So why not make the homepage a redirect to your User talk:? It would serve the same purposes stated, it saves readers an extra click when heading to your User talk: page, and it avoids the double-take when they see the "This page has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation" message. (on the more general point, I agree that User: pages are often just an interstitial when most visitors are probably wanting to head to your User talk: page instead) --Interiot 23:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe make your sig point to your talk page. Or don't. It's a good filter for people who'd rather be fussing than improving the encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
User page
"If you would prefer not to have a user page, then it is recommended that you redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors." (Wikipedia:User page). This is a Wikipedia guideline, and not binding like a policy, but it seems to be a matter of courtesy to others. As an admin, I think that following guidelines should be expecially important to you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I won't do the whole insulting "it's just a guideline not a policy" / IAR argument... And I could easily point to other policy points or guidelines that fit my argument (CSD U1, etc.)... It ultimately comes down to this: I don't want a user page or redirect for reasons that are important to me, and I don't have to have one. It's been ten months, I'm not the only admin with a redlink anymore, and I am just not changing my mind about this, sorry. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can't imagine what deeply held principle could be involved, nor how it could override the principle of courtesy to others. Still, it's your choice; as a choice, others will judge you in line with it. If you're happy to be thought less of, that's your choice too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think less of you because, first, you're going against a Wikipedia guideline despite being an admin, and secondly, the vague suggestion of unexplained "important reasons" for wanting a blank User page is unimpressive (what does "important" mean here?). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Since this has come up again, I have to say your stance on this makes me seriously question your priorities. There's no benefit to the redlink, you just keep saying "I like it". The downsides have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Why do you place more importance on your whims than on what makes the project a better place? Saying "the rules allow it" and refusing to listen to reason are not the actions of a responsible editor. Friday (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Priorities? I am busting my ass deleting garbage, blocking vandals, and reverting vandalism. You... are bugging me about my user page. Yeah, priorities. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just let him keep it blank in peace if that's what he prefers, what is the big deal? El_C 16:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind changing your sig so it links more obviously to your talk page and not the blank one, then? What's there now isn't useful. Friday (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- My sig has always had a link to my talk page, in the <*>. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously, yes... How could anyone miss that? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"... a bit of a dick"
More glorious overreaction from our buds at Wikitruth. But, hey, I inspired a holiday, so its a win-win. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
your userpage
Why don't you redirect your userpage to your talk page? Most people who don't want a userpage do that. Retiono Virginian 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Um, I did notice on that page you gave directly contradictory reasons — both that you're barely active as an administrator and so accountability to newbs doesn't matter, and then that you're very active in fighting vandalism and so shouldn't be bothered. Seriously, I think not being accountable to newbs is in bad taste.--Pharos 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Because they have no idea what a red link means, and expect to click on the name to find out something about you and how to contact you. I realize you did this just for "style" reasons, but it does not create a good face to the newbs.--Pharos 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh come on, you know 95% of newbs are gonna click on that red link and sit stupefied. And deliberately obscure idiosyncratic personal prerogative definitely falls under "style". Look, I have no problem with you vandal-fighting, that's fantastic, but if you're gonna do that you really should be accountable to newbs.--Pharos 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
