User:Steptrip/Userspace Header

Small craft advisory. (Low to moderate level of vandalism) 3.27 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot20:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC) change[reply]

User talk:Steptrip/Header2

Template:Usertalk footer

How was my edit on above page considered vandalism? I was merely shaving the plot summary down, since it was labeled as having an overly long plot. - DamnCartoonGuy

Please see the thumbnailed screenshot. (The screen resolution on my second monitor is 1024x768, if that matters.)

-- Jouster  (whisper) 07:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use Firefox 2.0.0.3 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/2007030919 Firefox/2.0.0.3). I have a number of Web-browsing extensions installed, such as Nuke Anything, DOM Inspector, and Firebug, but none of those affect layout unless explicitly invoked. Jouster  (whisper) 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a portion of your userspace is rendered illegible or unnavigable by errors. I have selected the section of your userpage that links to your Barnstars, at right. Note that it effectively disables navigation to four of the six links that surround it.

Your userpage and Talk page are a slew of {{includes}}, CSS, and raw HTML. Wikipedia is designed to abstract all of the low-level details of page display so that we don't have to deal with them when creating pages (and dance around them when editing). Your excessive usage of formatting directives cause rendering problems, navigability problems, accessibility problems, and makes it basically impossible to edit your pages without an extensive knowledge of CSS [1]. It also frankly looks unprofessional; a 12-year-old girl's MySpace is expected to overflow with multi-hued versions of her name and cute icons of her favorite animals; a Wikipedia page is not.

Yes, this is the User namespace. Yes, we tend to let our hair down a little more here, allowing self-expression that could be seen as very disruptive were it in other parts of the Project, and giving much more latitude in page formatting (after all, your User page also doubles as a navigation aid to you, and that's a not-insignificant portion of its purpose). However, you seem to insist on making every last part of your User space new, different, and unusual. To me, at least, this violates least astonishment in the sense that people have become accustomed to certain user interface paradigms in Wikipedia, and your page deviates from those. As a person working his way down the path towards administrator status, willful disregard of precedent does not bode well for you.

I realize this comes off as a bit harsh, but having spent a great deal of time working with people who use screen readers and other accessibility software and hardware to access the Internet, I've seen the devolution of information from the days of Gopher, which was seemingly designed for accessibility, to the modern-day Flash-studded XHTML/Flex/PDF monstrosities that contribute nothing for those without full physical capabilities and a fast Internet connection, let alone contribute to the searchable content that is the saving grace propping up this otherwise-completely-unmanageable firehose of information that is the World Wide Web. Wikipedia has always been a stalwart supporter of accessibility; I know more than a few Wikieditors who are able to read and contribute by means of a custom Monobook.js and Monobook.css. Similarly, the consistent user interface has always been strongly supported in the Wikimedia software by providing us with extensive formatting tools such as tables and inline, auto-thumbnailed images, complete with captions. Please respect that history and those reading your page, and consider removal of everything extraneous, everything surprising, and everything not accomplished primarily or exclusively through the use of plain, simple, and direct WikiMarkup.

Yours,
Jouster  (whisper) 18:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to ensure that you've seen the above, as I haven't gotten a response. Jouster  (whisper) 00:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I then conclude that you consider it inappropriate? Ill-advised? Overstepping my bounds? Inconvenient to implement? It is hard to tell from your response if you are upset with my placement of it—would you rather I move it elsewhere, perhaps to a subpage of my user space? I don't feel we're communicating effectively at the moment. Jouster  (whisper) 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you remove that frequently vandalized page, recep t. erdogan, completely?

If you do so, everything will be OK.

Thanx,

Stay grymm og frostbitten

Ave!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my page--AdamJWC 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's contrib history showed only one contribution when you warned them. I think it would have been best in that case to issue a uw-1, and not jump the gun to 3. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]