User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 07

Fresh Start
First post on new server --  Random Time  00:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You have won two honorable mentions in the Create-A-Card contest, and the Grand Prize!--Łô√ë îğá †ħŕášħ 09:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CSS
It looks like you're having some trouble getting your CSS to set the default background color. Did you know that you have the  tag defined twice in your monobook.css? The first sets the color as #C1D5F8, and the second sets it to #f9f9f9 with a URL. Judging by the comments there, the second instance is in a chunk that's meant for Monaco, not Monobook. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 14:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I knew I was doing something foolish, but couldn't figure it out. (I forgot that I had tried to adjust the background before, unsuccessfully w/Mon---css.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to have the versions that don't do anything deleted, so you won't get confused in the future? --◄mendel► 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was going to tag those later. (Mebbe I'll do that now.) I think they can be taken care of as routine maintenance. I assume there's no need for the Capitalized.css or any of the monaco/Monacos (let me know if not, and I'll untag). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think the common.css does work, or does it? --◄mendel► 10:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, user CSS has to be skin-specific. User:X/common.css or User:X/global.css are not recognized.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 13:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gift of the Traveler, drop rates confidnece intervals
Just FYI, I've thrown together a couple templates for drop rate confidence interval calculation... see Talk:Drop_rate  As you've expressed previous interest in how I was doing the math I thought you might want to see what I was doing now... Yamagawa 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for remembering my interest and reminding me.


 * As a player, my main interests are: (1) is it worth spending time/gold to farm (or open a gift-type item)? (2) how likely is it that a really rare item will actually drop for me? For goth/gott, I think (1) is pretty much taken care of by the sheer volume of stats we have on their drop rates (here or at GWW). However, no one was really addressing (2)... until your recent work. I'm looking forward to seeing where you take it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You had a question under the traveler gifts that I'd not replied to for over a year (leaving the game for a period does things to prompt replies). I'd gone off to reply but there was the whole 'wikia rebrand' thing happening at the time so I withheld doing much more until recently.  My interests in drop rates are: (1) How productive is it for me to do x.  (2) What is the real value of 'random gift y' (lunar ticket, ToT, etc).  (3) How rare is this 'rare' widget actually?  This corresponds directly to its value.  Think: Mini Polar Bear -- we'd had quest run counts up to several hundred without a hit and people in forums were saying you can't calculate anything until you get one to drop.... nonsense.  At the same time, if they drop at a 1% rate you can expect a value measured in platinum.  If they drop at the 0.1% rate you can expect the value in the ectos.  And if it's 0.01%, that pushes it into armbraces.  Having tools that let us look at the data and say 'x' about it is crucial for determining what the price and pricing trends will be.


 * I've been doing some additional work in the way of an extension for drop rates (auto-builds lvl-2 data) but there are a number of potential hangups there, and a template can do much of the same work (Granted I know of none that auto-tally columns or kick out rejects)Yamagawa 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On the drop rates table in the main article, I've adjusted some of the rates that were in obvious error, and pulled the everlast items into the same section. It's clear you didn't use the same source for numbers that I did, so for consistency might want to have a peek and update the numbers.  Yamagawa 17:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you did the right thing reviewing the data. I probably used my own source data (which includes numbers from GWW), but I don't remember. I also like your idea of moving Everlasts to other (I think I stuck with whatever grouping had been used original &mdash; yours makes more sense to me).


 * I left a note on the article talk about using imputed rather than empirical drop rates. (a) I don't feel strongly about it and (b) if you do, you should respond there (rather than here).


 * And, again, I appreciate your taking the time to keep me posted. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you!
Update your information at User:Gigathrash/D&D IRC RP. Why? Because I'm going to host the (hopefully) final session sooner rather then later. I am hoping to schedule it before the 20th, so update your information soon, so I can get the word out soon, so we can have it soon.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With the current information given to me, I have chosen two times on Wednesday the 18th, 13:30 CST, and 20:00 CST. AKA, 11:30 pst, and 6:00 p.m. pst.  For mendel, it would be Thursday already, so we don't get that little confusion again.  Please reply to whichever is better for you.  Also, I have created a steam group that can be found under GD&DIRCRP, it's currently set to private so I will be sending out invites, make sure to join, it's just so I have an easier way of contactin people to let them know when a game is happening.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ  15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What year? In my calendar, the 18th falls on a Tuesday. ;-)


 * I will let you know by my Friday if I can make either time. Thanks for your patience. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Damnit, I messed up anyway, it's the 19th, wendsday.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, your friday came and went... So...--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ  23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Since you were really the only person who gave me feedback on the new item infobox, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Template:LocationInfo when you have time. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The wiki is dying
And what the fuck are we supposed to do about it? We aren't GWW, we don't have the manpower to remain current on everything instantly. We aren't GW@W and thus still take an encyclopedic approach. We can't force people to join us. We can't force people to edit. We can't force people to keep everything up to date. A wiki is dependent on its community, but the community is not the main focus of this wiki. We are all unpaid overworked interns that are doing this out of the goodness of our hearts/boredom. How would you not editing help this situation in any way? I know I don't edit here a lot because I don't play GW a lot anymore. We have no new blood, and even though we are very friendly and accepting of all members, we aren't getting anyone new to join and contribute. So yes, you are right, the wiki is dying, some would say it was already dead, but they make stupid jokes all the time on IRC anyway and think they are funny, which they aren't. If you choose not to help where you could help, why do you expect other people to make the different choice?--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ  19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was helping where I could help... and it exhausted me. I'm not suggesting my not editing is any help at all (just the opposite, in fact). I'm saying the same as you: the wiki depends on the community and it's the community that's losing critical mass.


 * To be fair, we have some new blood (notably Scythe, Ariyen, and Cleo have stepped up participation) and newly motivated ppls (notably Yamagawa, Jimbo321, and I'm sure I'm missing some folks). And we have some serious old blood (notably Ish, who's doing tremendous work that GWW can only dream of). But that's not enough to maintain the wiki as it once was. It is, however, enough to turn the wiki into something else.


 * Several times — before, during, and after the move — I've suggested that we revisit our goals...and no one wanted to discuss the idea. Several times, I've started projects...but outside of Ish, I was the only one contributing regularly. Several times I've suggested/created methods to make things easier for readers; most of them have been shot down or stalled for various reasons. That exhausts me even more.


 * There are a lot of things that have brought GWiki to this place: divided loyalties (it's impossible to devote to two wikis unless you're unemployed and write more than you play); major arguments about marginal issues; normal attrition; and frustration with progress.


 * So, I don't expect people to make a different choice than I do. I'm trying to explain why I (and perhaps others) might be making that choice. If I were intensely motivated, I'd turn this into a rallying cry to attempt to rouse the troops do do something different.


 * I'm open to ideas. And I'm open to proselytizing and other methods to changing my mind. I just want to believe that it's a community effort, not a couple of us individually trying to keep things afloat. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fact: Of the 266 editors listed on Special:ActiveUsers, 20 had 100 or more edits in the past 91 days; and over 100 had more than 5. This is not a dead wiki just because some people have a bad feeling. If you want to find out what makes them come and contribute, ask them. We're different, that doesn't mean we're dead. --◄mendel► 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a very useful metric. Some of those 20 are bots. Some of those 100 edits (of those 20) are failing to use preview. Very few of those edits are in Main. And in any case, I'm talking about a trend, not a moment in time. That requires comparing this January with last January. Also, if we want to see what most people are doing, we need to ignore some of the outliers. A better measure of activity would be how many non-vandal bytes were changed in Main; a better measure of vibrancy would be how many community discussions there were that involved 4 or more people.


 * None of that would matter much if the game weren't constantly evolving, if we had already caught up with recent changes, or if we didn't have any number of articles that needed work. This wiki is unlikely to die b/c it occupies a niche that GWW cannot and it has some exceptional and dedicated members. But, honestly, is not dead something we should aspire to?


 * I don't need to ask people why they contribute to notice that the community as a whole is less active. I don't need to have a plan for addressing the wiki's future to be worried about it.


 * And just to be clear, I'm ultimately not making any particular claims: I'm talking about how I feel about my participation and why I might not be interested in the status quo. Ariyen has absolutely the right idea about how to respond to any of this, which is: okay, let's stop talking about what's not being done and start doing some of it. It's easier to change direction if we're already moving and filling in the gaps left by (what's now) old content is as good as any place to begin. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Moratorium
I read your take on the present situation with interest, especially [ compared with] your previous expectations. Since I have in the past had the role of being the "mover and shaker" for this wiki, I guess I should reply.

My personal answer is that right now, Guildwars at Wikia is more fun. It is a wiki that reinvents itself, that attracts new editors, embarks on new projects, and gets rid of hundreds of pages worth of ballast. I don't dare do this here. Mind you, the directions we're taking there don't rival GuildWiki.

Here, the wiki is run by curse.com on a shared server that locks the database each time a page is created or something else computing-intensive happens. Editing is a chore, editingmultiple pages takes far more time and effort than it should be worth, and comments regarding this remain unanswered. Wikia have their act together much better right now, concerning propagation of page updates and general responsiveness. WoWwiki leaving must've freed up a lot of resources, and maybe Monaco had been in fact bad for them.

Guildwiki is presently operated largely by Dr Ishmael, who avoids conflicts with me (and possibly others?) by disangaging from any discussion that could lead to a disagreement, and simply does what he thinks best. While it may be best for the wiki, this approach doesn't look inclusive to me. (Not seeing much support for my views, I step softly around Dr Ishmael, so the present situation is kept in its state by us both mutually).

I differ from you in that I witness new projects on GuildWiki, e.g. Yamagawa and his drop rate statistics initiative; there are widgets whose potential has not been plumbed (I was expecting more people to want to try to do interesting things with them, though). There may be more projects that need exposure.

Get us better servers. Get me a community that doesn't feel personally attacked over a difference of opinion, and that is open for change, and there might be ways to move and shake things here. Right now, I don't see a way for me to do it. --◄mendel► 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a strong reaction to a lot of what you have posted, but let me skip to the punchline: you have completely misunderstood my central point. If no one is discussing, "where do we go from here" then there is no community. You also have misunderstood my other comments: I'm not claiming to be alone in starting projects. I'm claiming that those who start projects are almost entirely alone in completing them. (Yamagawa's efforts are a good example of this; he's doing interesting work...by himself.)


 * I'm glad you have found a more rewarding place to spend your time. I am sad that (for whatever reasons, real or perceived) that it couldn't have been here. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmmmh, I took your diagnosis of there not being an environment to power projects to mean that there were no projects, when in fact you meant that they're struggling. Point taken.
 * I'm glad you have found a more rewarding place to spend your time. -- You make it seem as if I've left here. This is not true at all (I have 102 contribs here this year, as opposed to your 128), and that's not what I meant by my second paragraph. I have started familiarising myself with widgets, though as you diagnose, initiatives happen either by myself, or not at all. --◄mendel► 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that you have this year 900 edits on gww as opposed to my 750 on Wikia (though that's not counting the log activity and the bot). I'm glad you have found a more rewarding place to spend your time. I am sad that (for whatever reasons, real or perceived) that it couldn't have been here. --◄mendel► 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have left here...in the same way that I have left here; most of our edits are somewhere else. One cannot reasonably devote themselves to two wikis unless unemployed and otherwise uninvolved.


 * For me the question hasn't been, why have I left, but why haven't I fully returned. I have tried to answer that above. tl;dr I don't have an interest in being the only one working on a project; it's too much like managing my own website (been there; done that).


 * In your case, my question is why didn't you move in the first place. The answer, which neither surprises me nor distresses me, is that you are devoting your attention to GW@W. (and to good effect: I think the combination KB/not-fan-fict/repository/community is exactly the type of thing Wikia was trying to produce by adding Social Networking tools to wikis.) I wish you have felt inspired to spend that time with GWiki...but that's not usually how creativity works.


 * But this brings me back to my original point:
 * "...we appeared to have missed a critical window. This wiki moved...and then ceased to be ...vibrant, ... Outside of 2-3 people dedicated to particular pet projects, there are very few updates to this site, even though it is still missing content [from 6 months ago]."


 * Whatever the reasons are, today is the first day that anyone seems interested in seriously discussing, so now what? (Although mostly we've been discussing the ways in which no one is discussing that.) I would be happy to spend time on so now what? instead of kvetching about what might have been or what once was. In the meantime, I'm sad that I have found a more rewarding place to spend my time. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WiK & HoTN
What all do we lack? I have done both and I am willing to help. Ariyen 04:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool! I appreciate the offer.


 * I started the WiK items project to track items, but I don't know if anyone did this for WiK NPCs. We have all the quests and I think we have sufficient walkthroughs for each (although: lots of people have trouble with 'em, so mebbe we can do better there).
 * Most of what's left in WiK items is fleshing out the details of each article and then updating the various consolidation articles accordingly (e.g. unique mesmer items...). Tedious.
 * We are probably missing dialogue, since I know GWW only recently got the last details into place.
 * It would also help if you can think of what might be missing. I keep thinking of the same things (mostly items), but people who are interested in lore, in NPC interactions, and the like might see other omissions. tl;dr the more people thinking about what might be missing, the better.
 * There's no similar project for HotN and maybe we should start one. (I was hoping we would have finished WiK items first before HotN was released...but eh...)
 * There aren't as many items (mostly things like Keiran's various bows), so we don't need a separate project just for that.
 * We should evaluate the quests/missions and make sure it's easy to follow the story/walkthroughs.
 * There are new NPCs and new locations mentioned in the dialogues, some of whom/which need articles.
 * We should double check that Gwen and Keiran's articles are updated to reflect their relationship.
 * We should double check the other NPCs involved.
 * I don't pay as much attention to images, maps, and the like, but it wouldn't surprise me if we could use more of those in both WiK and HotN.


 * There's probably more things to take a look at, but these are good places to start. Let me know which appeals to you most, so we can focus attention on that. Thanks again for offering to help/take point on some of this. It makes a huge difference. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat criteria
Here's the criteria I am considering for supporting a (potential) nominee:
 * ... a willingness to change their mind after listening to other opinions.
 * ... an ability to separate their own opinion from what is best for the wiki.
 * ... an ability to explain their point of view so that others understand it.
 * ... a passion for this wiki and its community... including some strong sense of what makes this place worth preserving.
 * ... an ability to both resolve existing conflict and to act in such a way as to prevent conflict.

Ideally, I'd also like to see folks who are able to catalyze the evolution of this wiki so that it can thrive in the future. By which I mean helping to create an environment where more people want to contribute more often (not that the nominee themselves necessarily has to do more). Ideally, I'd also like see b'crats that will lead us in engaging our new service providers to step up their degree of support. But those last two are extras that can theoretically be done by anyone, including sysops, named contributors, and anons (well, a lot harder for anons, but not impossible).

And a final caveat (which, alas, probably does not go without saying): these are my personal views...and I don't expect that anyone else will share them exactly. I post them here so that folks have some insight into my decision making if/when I decide to nominate and/or support candidates. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * These are good criteria to evaluate 'crats by. Just don't expect a perfect score in every department. ;-P --◄mendel► 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(This section is a digression from the main topic.) I didn't post this discussion in Forum:Bureaucrats and ask that it not be copied or moved there. I do not wish the public discussion and/or nomination of potential candidates to be at all confused with my personal opinions about relevant criteria; in my view, they are distinct topics (with, of course, critical overlaps). The first is of grave concern to the wiki community; the latter is not (even if it might be of interest to some/all).

If there were more people actively participating in the F:B convo, I might feel differently, but I feel that I have already distracted the page enough for now. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) (End digression)


 * There was a reason I posted it there. I didn't delete it here, and your content is generally free to be copied. I thought that your criteria were relevant to the discussion there, and did not feel the discussion should be split up across that forum page and possibly several user pages. To weigh every post on the Forum page by the standard that it be of "grave concern" pretty much ensures that there won't be participation there. But hey, let's imagine these are totally separate topics that have no bearing on each other, so it's perfectly logical to discuss them apart and not together. Please do restore my post on the "F:B". --◄mendel► 07:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't actively participated in the discussion, simply because I don't see anything "active" to discuss. I've been checking everything new on there to see if I should respond though I think there are a lot more people seeing it than actively discussing, and who more or less share my stance. I also think that those criteria here are excellent, and that they really should be put on the forum. --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 08:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Stress des Königs
He wrote "(how I am here atm is how I want to be everywhere but GuildMag and the Test Krewe tbh)", and you replied "sad to hear that TK is part of that stress; I hoped it would have been fun". I think you are reading him wrong; he wants to be more involved with GuildMag and the Test Krewe than with GuildWiki, presumably because it is, in fact, fun. I understand that there are other areas that he wants to cut down his involvement with. --◄mendel► 10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You could be right. I read it as anywhere but .... I'm sure that Konig will let us know. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TK, Stress, and Nominations
No where did I state what the source of the stress is... because it really doesn't have any source. I'm just pulling myself into too many directions, so I'm trying to keep myself in as few directions as possible until I'm not longer needed in those directions (for instance, I stepped down as a mod of guru1&2 because now there are other moderators of the lore forum and I agreed to become one because there were no active mods - for the wiki's, I'm going to become a lot less active once I feel that the lore parts of articles are as filled as possible, only become active again when new content comes out - GuildMag and the Test Krewe are the only things I intend to remain active in, as they're the least time occupying, and in turn stress inducing). -- Konig / talk 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I misread your phrasing. This all misses my main point: I think you'd make a good moderator at GWW or GWiki, but I respect your wanting to keep things balanced. (And, I'm glad that TK is one of the things that you will be keeping.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Question for you
Perhaps there's someone better to ask but meh. I've looked around and cannot find if there's any policy/guideline/rule/general formatting setup-whatchamajigger for category trees. Wanting to know if there is (and where it is) because I'd like to organize Category:Lore a bit. -- Konig / talk 21:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No "general rule", but here's what comes to my mind re: categories:
 * [ Special:CategoryTree] is helpful to browse the existing categories. Generally, pages should be sorted into the tree as "far down" (i.e. into the most specific category) as possible; there is no set policy for category sizes, except that they shouldn't be too small (don't create it, use a "bucket" category higher up) or too large/diverse (make subcategories); personally, I'd aim for at least 7 items minimum unless there's a good reason.
 * Category pages should have text to explain the purpose of the category (it's principle, if you wish), and ideally mention any templates that autocat it, so that if I find a category on a page without it being explicitly set, I know whence it came (and what template I can add if I want to use the category myself).
 * A category should not be generally informative; once it starts to resemble an article, the article should be created in mainspace, and the category should link to it. Pages should also link to categories (usally "see also" section) where appropriate. --◄mendel► 22:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

lockpick for key ideas
You wrote: ''So, I'm asking, until you can more easily see why GWiki and GWW have done it this way for so long, to assume good faith and to leave things as they were. Later, when you see why so many veterans think this works better, you can re-open the debate if you still think manual categorization would be better. Thanks.'' The key idea, to me, is you playing the "veteran card", i.e. saying "trust us, we know better than you". I applaud your determination to explain, and that is precisely what I think ought to be done. I also told Ariyen privately that when she attempts far-reaching changes, to discuss them first on the Community Portal, which she has now started (and hopefully knows to do in the future). (Her CP post was 4 minutes before your quote above, so you probably weren't aware of it yet). AGF means there may be reason why things are as they are; it doesn't mean to refrain from asking to have it explained or to challenge it; but it does mean to hold off from far-reaching changes before you know. Small changes are always encouraged by Be Bold, as are example changes for edits that may be far-reaching to gauge a reaction or provide a basis for discussion.

''Mendel: once again, you are attributing ideas to me that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Or nitpicking poor phrasing on my part and ignoring the key idea. '' -- The idea that somebody on GuildWiki should be made to leave a debate because they're not "veteran" enough sits badly with me, and I feel your key point was that Ariyen should leave the debate because she did not understand the issues. If this wasn't the point of that paragraph, then I haven't understood what it was about at all. --◄mendel► 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't understood. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So why did you want Ariyen to step away from the debate then? Or didn't you? --◄mendel► 22:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Step away from challenging the status quo? No. Stop changing articles until there was a consensus? Yes. Take time to investigate further? Yes. I never said Ariyen wasn't veteran enough; I said that many veterans had good reason for creating the system. I meant to encourage her to experiment with autocats so that she would see why others thought they worked better than manual cats. Obviously, I did that poorly.


 * I have always argued that it's never sufficient to argue, because we've always done it this way. I have always argued that because a veteran says so is never a valid argument. At the same time, I have also argued that we should understand why things are done the way they are, even if we need to change them. Obviously, my text elsewhere gave a different impression and I'm sorry for that.


 * The thing is, Mendel, your above condemnation of me assumed bad faith on my part, but that no longer surprises me. I rarely seem to be able to meet your standard for discourse.


 * I'm very sorry that I wrote anything that made Ariyen feel unwelcome, as it was far from my mind. I care very much that she should feel comfortable here and I will do my best to make amends. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "because we've always done it this way ... because a veteran says so" Oh, I see.  Ishy fails at argument.  Fine, I'll just give up on trying to talk to anyone.  If mendel needed any more ammunition against me as bureaucrat, I guess I just committed suicide today.  Good thing I didn't want the position anyway.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 04:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Gurgh... once again I post something spontaneously and regret it half an hour later. When will I ever learn... &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(emphasis added). The second quote... well, it's rude the way I wrote it. What I meant to write was, "because a veteran says so is never, by itself, a compelling argument". Experience, tradition, consistency &mdash; these are strong and valid reasons, but they aren't the only ones.
 * Sigh. I should never post when angry; I'm completely unable to proof my own comments. The first bit is taken out of context; it begins, "it is never sufficient to argue"


 * On the other hand, it's also equally insufficient to argue that we should change things because experience, tradition, consistent aren't enough. There need to be compelling reasons to change practices that are long established, delicately engineered, or thoughtfully discussed and agreed upon.


 * Veterans should be careful to listen to young turks and why they are agitating for change. Likewise, relative newcomers (to a place or an idea) should pay attention to the veterans and why they believe the status quo is worth preserving.


 * That's all I was trying to say in the first place. And it's consistent with my position(s) in the past. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "your above condemnation of me assumed bad faith on my part" -- there was no condemnation of you intended. I am concerned with the words you wrote, and you explained you didn't mean them that way. You explained that you meant "Step away from challenging the status quo? No" when you wrote "[later] re-open the debate" (which logically implies "close the debate now"). You explained that you meant "to encourage her to experiment with autocats" when you wrote "leave things as they were". You explained that you wanted Ariyen to "feel comfortable here" when you repeated your previous point ("trust us that there's a very good reason why we've done it that way for so long") in stronger language (with the "v-word"), while not following up on Ariyen's reply: "What doesn't make sense to me is having templates that could do the categories - not do them".
 * None of this condemns "you" as a person; it is a critique of your choice of words, and I hope I've made it obvious that it doesn't require bad faith to misinterpret them. Because I have faith in you, I accept your statement of your intentions over my initial understanding, and apologize for any anguish I may have caused. I have had trouble making myself understood at times myself (still do), and I try to do my best to clear up such misunderstandings when I am fortunate enough to have somebody point them out to me, so I can obviously empathise with you. --◄mendel► 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)