User talk:Anonymous

From DreamHost
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm sorry, but the article renaming is really dumb. Image linking means something completely different. I'm changing it back -- Scjessey 18:20, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

Oh for goodness sake! What Anonymous just said is a load of crap, to be perfectly frank. It has nothing to do with my personal views - it is about providing information to DreamHost customers. I used my "protect" powers (I don't have "admin" powers) to protect the article because Anonymous repeatedly tried to change its fundamental meaning. If he wishes to create a separate article on the meaning of hotlinking, and related issues, there is nothing to stop him from doing so; however, this particular article should not be used as a graffiti wall for his ill-informed views. -- Scjessey 13:55, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Thank you for wasting my time some more. I had not had a chance to review your changes before Sabrejack edited and unprotected the article. Your changes were inappropriate, so I made additional changes and then protected the article. As to all the nasty, rude, and personal comments you have made about me, I have nothing to say except this: the focus of the article will remain as it is, regardless of your behavior. If you continue to call people liars/stupid/control freaks/anal and the like, I will be forced to exercise another of my sysop powers. -- Scjessey 05:30, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

You are the only one who disagrees. You are the only one has an issue with the term hotlinking. You are the one causing trouble, making ridiculous accusations, and lashing out with personal attacks. You are the one who is spoiling the quality of the wiki. -- Scjessey 09:46, 27 May 2006 (PDT)


User (Anonymous) is blocked From DreamHost

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Scjessey. The reason given is this: Personal attacks

You may contact Scjessey or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. Your IP address is x.x.x.x. Please include this address in any queries you make.

Inline linking article

What you don't seem to understand is this: The wiki belongs to DreamHost and its customers. If you write an article for the wiki, that article becomes subject to the rules and guidelines employed by the wiki. As such, the article will be improved upon by everyone (including myself) when the need arises. You cannot revert changes just to suit your personal whim. If you continue to behave in this way, I will be forced to restore both article protection and username blocking. -- Scjessey 08:08, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Oh, I understand, which is why I filed a complaint with DreamHost.

That is, of course, your right; however, I believe your complaint will fall of deaf ears. You want the article to reflect your point of view, to contain your factual inaccuracies, and to feature your grammatical errors, yet still be a public DH wiki article. You (and only you) seem to disagree with the well-documented and understood subject of hotlinking, so you are trying to use this wiki as a way of spreading your own POV. That is not what this wiki is for. Articles should always be in a neutral point of view, and follow the guidelines as best as possible. Our goal is to improve the quality of the work for all concerned. -- Scjessey 10:17, 30 May 2006 (PDT)


Jessey, Weren't you the person who demanded no changes to your comments? Why don't you respect the same rights for others?

"We are not wikipedia and there is no obligation to present a neutral point of view..."

-- I know Sabrejack said this, but a NPOV is nevertheless far more desirable than POV, otherwise you end up with arguments like this one.

So now you take it upon yourself to over-ride DreamHost staff. Yep, it's your wiki.

"We created a new page"

-- "We" didn't do anything. That was you.

You and Sabrejack "suggested" that a new page should be created if other perspectives were to be included. 3 makes we.

"without changing it to YOUR opinion AGAIN."

-- I am not changing it to my opinion. I am removing opinion.

Your article on your website is an opinion piece. You are not a lawyer, but you provide legal interpretations. Where is your reference to such legal findings? You keep pushing both articles towards YOUR opinion.

"The message is: If you don't agree with ScJessey, and do everything how he wants it, unless you're one of the N "higher" Sysops, you're not welcome here. If that's what DreamHost wants, then that's what they'll get."

-- That is a ridiculous statement. You have let your bewildering personal dislike for me get in the way of sound judgment and reasonable behavior.

You seem focused on this article, and every change I make, like a laser beam. With SO many other articles FILLED with old information, you could easily leave this alone and work elsewhere. Why don't you?

"The list of guidelines is very short, or I missed it"

-- As you well know, those guidelines are currently under development; however, it seems reasonable to follow the general principles that have worked so well on the Wikipedia. I attempted to "cherry pick" these principles and outline them in Category:Cleanup to try and get the ball rolling.

Under development should mean optional. Guidelines should mean optional.

Answers to Answers to your comments

"So now you take it upon yourself to over-ride DreamHost staff. Yep, it's your wiki."

I am not trying to doing anything of the kind. As a veteran of the wiki (and by FAR the biggest contributor), I am doing my best to make sure that it meets the highest possible standards of quality. My contributions and efforts were rewarded with a Sysop status, and I have tried my best to live up to it.
" I know Sabrejack said this, but a NPOV is nevertheless far more desirable than POV, otherwise you end up with arguments like this one."
If you can't acknowledge this is over-riding DreamHost staff, then I'm speechless. I think they gave you Sysop to encourage your efforts, but not to push people around, enforce particular views, or stir up trouble by being over-attentive to this at the expense of other things you could fix instead. I'd be thrilled to give you kudos if you weren't going out of your way to cause me headaches.

"Your article on your website is an opinion piece. You are not a lawyer, but you provide legal interpretations. Where is your reference to such legal findings?"

It is not an opinion piece. It only states facts. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever of "legal" stuff, which is a fantasy you have invented.
"Hotlinking is a form of bandwidth theft" is a legal interpretation. It may seem obvious to you and many others, but that does not make it "fact."

"You seem focused on this article, and every change I make, like a laser beam."

When I access the wiki, I do so using this page as my portal. Over the last few days, almost everything that has needed my attention has revolved around this pair of articles. Nevertheless, it has not stopped me from doing other housecleaning, article improvement, and forum assistance.
We agree that's a useful entry page. It also confirms nobody needs to put discussions onto your user page. "Needed your attention" we don't agree. BTW, I noticed you didn't jump on deleting those WoW pages the other day until after someone pointed them out to you... :-)

"Under development should mean optional. Guidelines should mean optional."

They are indeed optional, but certainly the wiki is better served by following them as closely as possible.
Certainly many contributors, by example, don't think those particular guidelines are as important as you do.

Sabrejack's thoughts

Sabrejack has said the following regarding this issue:

No offense intended to anybody present on either side of this little disagreement, but this is how I would prefer things be.

I said that they were welcome to start an article on the opposing viewpoint, and I meant it. We do not need to enforce NPOV on their page, although I would prefer if we did try our best to make sure the article was factually, technically, and grammatically correct. Even linking it from the hotlinking prevention page will be okay, since this will not significantly diminish the usefulness of the prevention page to DreamHost customers, and could even potentially educate some of the more curious people.

We need to stop this little skirmish or we won't make any progress. On the whole, it's not useful to discourage the customer-contributed nature of the wiki, and on other side of the same coin, us admins have a responsibility to make sure the wiki is actually useful to the customers. In this case, I don't mind if there's an extra, potentially less useful article as long as the prevention article remains intact. (Since our systems start out foreign-linkable to begin with, nobody actually comes looking for information on how to ALLOW this linking.)

Everyone involved needs to settle down and reach a balance -- This means every time someone edits your contributions, you need to learn how not to take it personally and review the changes for true improvements. Humility does not come easy, but it's what's needed (I'm referring to everybody here.)

-- Sabrejack 15:09, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Scjessey's Thoughts

"Your" article is in pretty good shape as it stands at the moment; however, Sabrejack is basically giving you the okay to put your point of view into it if you wish. I feel that doing so will spoil what is otherwise a useful contribution, but I am going to restrict any changes I make to matters of technical accuracy and grammar. I will, however, take a very dim view of changes you make that are just plain wrong - we do not want to mislead DreamHost customers with things like "Hotlinking" is a judgmental term that denotes "theft", which is not true at all.

So let us put an end to this argument, and exercise some common sense. Go ahead and put your (sensible) POV stuff into your article if you wish, but restrain yourself from the more controversial stuff that you were putting in before. -- Scjessey 16:04, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Anonymous' Thoughts

Sabrejack is asking US to quit arguing about it. I'm for that too. He's asking you to back off from "my" article; I've already backed off from "yours." Frankly, IMO "my" article still sucks as it stands, because I haven't even started to include additional things I wanted to add, and barely started to weed out the "excess" that could already be found in "your" article. I've almost lost interest before hardly getting started.

I don't agree with the generality and simplicity of the statement, but that said, You say: “Hotlinking” is a form of bandwidth theft.

i.e. Hotlinking == bandwidth theft.

Judgement is rendered. Case is closed. If you hotlinked, it's theft, of bandwidth.

Therefore, hotlinking is a judgmental term. It equals (denotes) theft (of bandwidth).

Thus, "Hotlinking" is a judgmental term that denotes "theft."

Tell me where the logic breaks down, and I'll listen.

Regardless, at this point, and for a while, I'll settle for nothing less than your agreement to essentially stay away completely, and to limit your involvement to brief comments on the article talk page. As I've said, there's plenty of other stuff to improve, and Sabrejack has confirmed you don't need to worry about this page so much.
I'm sick and tired of having to try to convince you at every turn, instead of researching/learning and writing about something I find somewhat interesting and multi-faceted (more so than "your" article portrayed).
I don't really object to your capitalization type changes, or minor wording changes, but I do think it's premature to spend time on that when significant changes are still likely. The problem is you just can't seem to avoid changing the intended meaning while you're at it. I know you think you're "right," but I'm asking you to agree to back off and give it some time.

I say let's exercise restraint, and let's leave each other's articles alone for a while. Let's tolerate different views, even if they're "wrong" for a while. If enough people come along with strong cases for that, then we can adjust.

I don't care (I do, but I'll tolerate) if there's a statement at the top that says Scjessey thinks the article is complete trash, and should be ignored. Or maybe you could rationalize it's the virtual equivalent of a Pink Floyd page. Isn't every user entitled to one or two?

-- Anonymous 19:15, 30 May 2006 (PDT)


"I'm asking you to agree to back off and give it some time." -- Okay. I'll leave it alone for a bit. -- Scjessey 19:40, 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Directory Access Troubleshooting

Regarding Directory Access Troubleshooting: Please don't tell newbies to ignore my comments about following the guidelines. We are trying to create the very best information repository we can, and encouraging people to put POV stuff in is going to make this far more difficult. -- Scjessey 09:39, 14 Sep 2006 (PDT)

Please start writing and improving things yourself, instead of telling people how NOT to do things and, in essence, throwing out their attempts to help. Show them HOW, not how not. You are NOT the authority here. -- Me, 2006/14/09

You just love to stir up trouble, don't you? The comment "Thanks for your contribution, and don't worry about "the details" above." is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of making useful contributions, you limit yourself to causing trouble. You go out of your way to get under my skin. Nate asked me to be a sysop so that I could help in the day to day administration of the wiki. I have done my best to write useful articles, help fight spammers, and guide contributors to make the wiki the best it can be. My efforts have been well received by the DH team, and so I continue to follow the same path. The only person who seems to be in disagreement is you. You are correct in saying that I am "NOT the authority here", but I do have some authority - including, I might add, the ability to block your username or IP address. If you continue to make personal attacks on me, or misguide contributors as a way of attacking me "by proxy", than I shall have no choice but to exercise the authority that has been granted to me. Use your talents constructively, or don't use them at all. -- Scjessey 19:23, 14 Sep 2006 (PDT)


Thanks for your contribution, and don't worry about "the details" above.