User talk:0-0

Attributions: Scjessey below refers to Scjessey

Outages Wiki
This discussion remains here to clarify the history of why this is a User page instead of a regular page, which was deleted by insistent users, Rlparker and  Mjsfl, who otherwise contributed absolutely nothing, and a non-DreamHost Admin, Scjessey. -- 0-0 04:16, 23 Nov 2006 (PST)
 * If that's what you'd like, that's fair enough and fine with me. Thanks for leaving my first "Edit" in place as I just want it to be clear I have *no* issue with your site being linked from your user page ;-). Good luck with your wiki! --rlparker

- ''EDIT: My previous comments in this space were made on a *different page* than this one, and were suggesting *that* page be deleted - as that page was deleted these comments are no longer relevant. I think this content is completely appropriate for a user page, and wish the author success with his wiki. --rlparker ''

This should be deleted. After double-posting on the DH Discussion Forum the announcement of his "outages wiki", and engaging in considerable discussion about the usefulness or wisdom of such a site(36 posts at last count), now the original author of this page wants us to engage in even *more* discussion about whether or not he should be able to spam for his site on the DH Wiki itself. For all the discussion anyo9ne should need, pop over to the Dreamhost discussion forum and search for "Outages@Dreamhost". To make it even worse, to start the article with "Dreamhost now sports its own...", implies to many that Dreamhost in some way is affiliated with this site (though he does disclaim that later in his text). I'm not opposed to his wiki; but I don't think it should be given a page *here*! --rlparker


 * If volume of discussion (number of posts, or words) were a factor, then you would have been evicted from, or made king of, the Forum long ago. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Is not enough for you to simply say you don't think it's a good idea and leave it alone to fail on its own? The lengths to which some people will go to suppress things is beyond belief. This page and the new wiki is as related to DreamHost as the unofficial Kbase, the unofficial chat, the semi-unofficial-IRC, etc. Having a page and some links here does not seem unreasonable.


 * If nothing else, it prompted you to finally make an appearance in this Wiki for some reason. Alas, it was not for constructive purposes. If DreamHost so prefers, I will be happy to move this page to a User page, or have it deleted entirely. -- 0-0 12:04, 22 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * I'm sorry if my level of participation on Forums is distressing to you; I'm sure there are those that are irritated by my posts there, as I am also sure there are those that have benefited from the help I've offered. It's interesting to me that you feel there is a similarity between an IRC channel and a wiki as a communication mechanism, and that you fail to recognize the difference betwen the "archival" nature of the two as it relates to being linked from the Dreamhost Wiki - though it is obvious we feel differently about which vehicles are best for different types of communications anyway.  Fair enough.


 * It would be enough for me to express my opinion of your wiki and "leave it alone", if you had done the same - but you didn't, choosing instead to insert links to your site here *as well as* all over the Forum. My entry here was at *your* request - *you* invited the discussion, so I participated.  If you didn't want that, you should not have suggested it. My concern is not with "suppressing" your wiki; it *is* about combating your spamming of links to it on existing Dreamhost communications channels.


 * Your comment about my "finally make(making) and appearance in this wiki" is typical of those who feel others should participate in a particular way or another. I happen to prefer participating in "discussions" above participating in "refactoring" - I like Forums for such things more than wikis for interactive communications. As for the ultimate disposition of your wiki page, you know as well as I do that the wiki will moderate itself - that's what wikis do (though some do it with greater style and efficiency than others).  Ok, you got your comment from me on the wiki, you had your counterpoint, and you got a response to that.  I choose to use the Forum for "discussions", so if you want to keep picking at it with *me*, the only place I'll consider responding to *you* is the forum.  Rock On! -rlparker


 * Thanks for giving me equal time (last word) here. That's more gracious than our friend Mjsfl. I had no concern about your participation, except to point out the unfairness (IMHO) of your using discussion quantity as complaint; if that was only to point out it had already been discussed, then I can only say that was a different discussion topic, imho. I believe we nearly agree that this page is not of the same character of those pages we frequently summarily delete as not even DreamHost related spam. I believe it is appropriate to have some discussion, and probably weighing in by a DreamHost staffer, before summarily erasing this page here. I only invited discussion here for that purpose - whether this page meets spam deletion criteria for this wiki and should be deleted. As I said already, it is DreamHost's call, in my opinion.


 * On the Forum, I apologize for etiquette violation of double post. It is an obvious "sore point" for some people, and was sort of an inside joke/jab, but a poor one. Your restraint before complaining was remarkable, I must say. If you check the other threads, however, you will find others raised the connection to the new wiki before I did. It is only fair to respond to comments until views are fully exchanged. It is only fair to have a signature link of one's choosing, whether promo code, referral, etc. The "discussion" in the Forum got to the "shout and insult" phase, so *we* probably won't be picking at it there for a while; at least an hour or so. :-)   -- 0-0 14:25, 22 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Judges?

Mjsfl Section
-

Your wiki is zero-content trash that has no potential. You are a spammer here and on the forum--you need to be banned in both places.

The fact that you totally ignore all input from Dreamhost users further shows that you aren't qualified to run an "unofficial" anything that has to do with Dreamhost.

Want to build a crap site and promote it? Go ahead, but promote it on your own. Your spam is not welcome here, at the forum, or anywhere else.


 * Of course it is zero-content trash - It started 2 days ago, and wikis don't "go" with only one person. Who are you, a zero contributor, to decide what is welcome anywhere?! -- 0-0 12:40, 22 Nov 2006 (PST)

-

Make all the excuses you want, but trash is still trash. Your page has no value, so putting it here is spam. Have you seriously not noticed that this wiki is only for useful information--not blank person pages? Just because you're too stupid to understand that doesn't change the fact.

Will you still not get it once you're banned here?

Where do you want to deface today. --0-0 06:15, 26 Nov 2006 (PST)

Defacing again?
Please see where Sabrejack a DreamHost Employee and Wiki Admin says such links as you just deleted are OK. -- 0-0 19:40, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * I see where he said there's not an official policy YET. I don't see him say that it's okay to spam pages that have no content, which yours doesn't.  Until then, your spam is getting deleted.


 * Now, give up on the spamming and go thank sabrejack for lifting your ban without doing any research on your history here and on the forum--or you'd still be banned. --Mjsfl 19:48, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You should see he said "No problem" to links on lists versus "own" pages. Sabrejack is well aware of the history. -- 0-0 20:06, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Where does he say to create lists of other empty sites, then slip yours into the list. You're still just a deceptive spammer.  I think sabrejack is going to realize that unbanning you was a mistake.  --Mjsfl 20:27, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)

(To Sabrejack)

I'd like to request that you do a more thorough review of 0-0's history here, and his spamming history at the forum (user name blabidator90210), and consider re-instating his ban.

He already took your last post to mean that he could go around creating lists of empty websites, then add his sites to those very lists. He spammed the forum and now he's spamming and drastically lowering the value of the wiki. --Mjsfl 20:16, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)

Great idea. Let's waste more time on Mjsfl's crusade. Enjoy. Re: "go around creating lists of empty websites", let's count the links added, shall we? Ready. One for WikiMedia. Two for WikiMedia (on the same article). One for phpBB. Nothing different than Scjessey did, except fewer links this time. Do you seriously think, Mjsfl, I've tried to keep my activities hidden from DreamHost? Would that be prudent? Sheesh! FYI, Rhetorical question = don't bother answering. -- 0-0 20:46, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Are you trying to say that those spam emails I get aren't really spam, because the spammer puts "This is not spam" at the top? You ARE creating fake link lists for the purpose of spamming your site.  Period.  The sites you linked, like yours, are blank without content and have absolutely no reason to be on the DH wiki.  Keep hoping that sabrejack doesn't reevaluate his decision to lift you ban.


 * Compare what you do to scjessey when you have contributed the time and information that he has to this Wiki. Everything you have done here and at the forum is spam--without exception.  --Mjsfl 21:02, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Nice trick - Try to broaden the discussion to emails. No thanks. Hey, look! There goes another one. But User:Mike_Seiler Mjsfl says startup/blank sites are bad, and established sites are good, so that's ok.


 * At least we agree Scjessey deserves credit for his efforts; however, that does not justify being arbitrary and capricious. Also, just like you don't know-all whose sites are whose, you don't know-all who has done what in this wiki (nor do I). Clearly | these two | guys don't account for much yet. I could match my (overall) efforts with those, but I don't care to; not for your entertainment. -- 0-0 04:42, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)

Deleted
The article was unsuitable for this wiki, and it has been deleted. The owner of the "outages wiki" may, of course, link to his site on his user page. Any attempt to recreate the article may result in a user ban. -- Scjessey 15:17, 22 Nov 2006 (PST)

You may link to your website from your own user page only. -- Scjessey 15:25, 22 Nov 2006 (PST)

Editing the user pages of others
(Below copied here from User_talk:Mjsfl to collect relevant and contradictory comments. -- 0-0 07:05, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)

Unless there is a breach of copyright or TOS, I think users should be able to do anything they like with their user pages - even if what they are writing is complete bollocks. I know if anyone edited my user page I'd be really pissed, and almost certainly wield The Sword of Bannery LOL -- Scjessey 07:19, 26 Nov 2006 (PST)

User page categories
You may not categorize your user page in the Support category, or any similar category. You may not, in fact, promote your "unofficial status" site in a way that makes it seem "official". -- Scjessey 05:44, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You, in fact, are arbitrarily, unfairly discriminating against this particular effort at alternative communications between customers. Only a dim bulb could pass by the page and interpret it as anything other than UNofficial, so any insinuation of confusion is silly. Plus, there are other "unofficial" sites linked to from several pages in this wiki, and nobody sees any problem with them or goes out of their way to unlink them like you have here. This one was singled out only because a couple people took a personal interest against it. -- 0-0 06:29, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. You have used (and continue to use) the wiki system to try to elevate the importance of your personal site. Furthermore, you have used the category system to misrepresent your personal site, giving it the appearance of something more official than it really is. Your personal site, whatever you decide to call it, is actually a DreamHost-bashing site. I have been as even-handed as I can over this issue, but further attempts to promote your site beyond the basic link on your user page may result in your username being banned, and your site being blacklisted (classified as spam). -- Scjessey 06:50, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You are not being objective, and you don't answer the important point - other Unofficial sites have similar links (more pages), but you are allowing them. I would have given you the nod for being relatively even-handed with your changes up to this one, but now you've tilted towards your personal preference again. --0-0 07:05, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * What "other Unofficial sites", specifically, are you referring to? It is impossible for me to continuously check every page for problem links, so if you feel I have not been fair, I would appreciate it if you would point to some other examples. -- Scjessey 07:09, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * What? Make it easier for you to delete them too? You check for changes frequently. When those links were added, you saw no problem with them, nor did I. Unofficial DH Blog, old Kbase (now also in this wiki), unofficial IRC channel, unofficial chat. Look at the pages and categories you deleted this page from. -- 0-0 07:22, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * None of the things you are mentioning are DreamHost-bashing sites. The "unofficial chat" was setup by DreamHost itself, BTW, as was the KBase. Your site is designed to provide negative performance information about DreamHost servers - how can that possibly be a good thing on this official DreamHost wiki? -- Scjessey 07:59, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * The dreamhoststatus.com is an official "Dreamhost-bashing" site with "negative performance information." I'm deleting links to your personal advertisement page from my personal talk page.


 * This has been thoroughly discussed. No more comments from you are welcome here. -- 0-0 09:15, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Actually, dreamhoststatus.com is there to inform customers of ongoing issues, forthcoming maintainence, etc. If DreamHost wish to publish that data, that is entirely up to them. -- Scjessey 09:56, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * If you make another change to this page, I will file a formal complaint with DreamHost. This is my user talk page, and you are being unreasonable to insist on every last thing being the way you want it. I will not explain to you why the copied comment is relevant to this user. -- 0-0 10:19, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You may file a formal complaint if you wish, but I cannot see how it will do you any good at all. Although this is your user talk page, it exists as a tool so that other users may leave you messages. You do not have the right to take the comments of others, from other pages, and move them here (or anywhere else, for that matter). Although this wiki enjoys a particular level or editorial freedom, the contributors have always tried to model it on the excellent Wikipedia - including adopting many of the Wikipedia's editorial rules and guidelines. Incidentally, comment left on user talk pages are supposed to be signed by their authors, including on user talk pages. Comments written by me should be attributed to me, and you should not edit my comments. The same goes for the comments of others. Since you have utterly failed to grasp how to behave sensibly, I have decided to put a temporary ban on your username. I have tried to be reasonable, but you have completely ignored all warnings from me and other regular contributors. You can choose to wait for the ban to expire, or make a request from an administrator for the ban to be lifted, although you will almost certainly have to give a legitimate reason for it. -- Scjessey 10:40, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Done. You've made a mountain out of an indenting format issue on a user talk page. Your comments are attributed to you, just not linked to your Advert' User page, which is half the point of the discussion. No other "regular" contributors have said a thing - only you and 2 non-contributors, one of whom was cordial about the whole thing. -- User 0-0, 12:18, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You subtly or accidentally deleted a sentence last time. If the link at top isn't satisfying, and you'd like to add back all your sig' links, without deleting content, you may. -- 0-0 13:52, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Actually, I'm past caring. I'm too busy laughing at how petty you are. -- Scjessey 14:02, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * And yet, here you are again, passing non-cordial comments past your colons, and going on about puppetry. After taking up arms and bannery over a few links and your colons. LOL. -- 0-0 14:12, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)

Hesitant to comment
...but here it is:

With my apologies to 0-0, I do not believe an outages wiki will provide any significant value to our customers (though they are by all means welcome to participate.) Dreamhoststatus.com is an established site that is owned and operated by DreamHost, and our admins post our outage information there directly with a high degree of open honesty. The fast-moving nature of outages also creates an ill fit for a wiki (which people tend to edit and then not un-edit.) As our wiki generally does not allow advertising of customer websites with a few notable exceptions (the unofficial KBase mirror is still highly useful to many of our customers, for example), I appreciate this having been moved to a user page. In all fairness, I will be reviewing the wiki for other unofficial material to make sure it is clearly labeled, etc.

Additionally, I have unbanned this user -- banning is not the best method of conflict resolution when it involves a living and responding user.

As a last note, everybody involved in this wiki should be careful to retain attribution on all comments and to use the tiered reply system commonly found on Wikipedia (using colons to indent sections.) A cordial tone of voice is also expected.

--Sabrejack 13:00, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * Thanks, but no apologies. After seeing the groundswell of support the outages wiki received in the Forum (Not!), I am confident it will eventually be re-used, re-cycled, or reduced and discarded, as the case may be. That it's doomed to fail is not the point, however. The point is: it is a legitimate attempt by a customer to create a potentially useful, cooperative site, and it was arbitrarily subjected to special treatment by an Admin, by another customer, rlparker, and by another sock puppet or customer, Mjsfl.


 * I'll give 2 specific, similar but contrasting, examples. This shows where in June Scjessey deleted several links to customers' sites using Typo. After his deletion was reverted, he let the links stay, for reasons only he knows. In this example from August, Scjessey was apparently the creator of an article having the sole purpose of linking to external sites using Drupal. Make it 3 examples (just saw a better one): Again, Scjessey created this Category having the purpose to list "pages that list DreamHost-hosted example websites using web applications partially or wholly supported by DreamHost." So, now, a few months later, to forbid similar articles or links is quite a change in policy.


 * In conclusion, the primary or only reason my site is not being allowed to similarly appear on the MediaWiki article, in the above described Category, or in the Support or communication channels lists or category, or on its own Article/Description page, is because a couple or few people took personal interest in nothing more than giving it arbitrary special treatment (due to a double-post and dislike of the "outages" concept). This is not fair; other sites appearing in lists are not given "worthiness" tests, except for DHSOTM lists.


 * One more last thing: Thanks for the unbanning, and reminders all around about cordial tone.


 * -- 0-0 18:25, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * No problem. I believe the difference that caused special attention in this case is that the other sites were in lists, and not own their own page.  We don't yet have any official policy regarding linking customer sites from the wiki, though I will encourage the support manager or other decision maker to create one so it can be applied fairly.  --Sabrejack 19:03, 27 Nov 2006 (PST)

Change of policy accusations et al
I just wanted to clarify something for you, with regards to Typo, Drupal, Third-party Applications, etc. At first, the "policy" was to keep the wiki clean of external links that added no value. In general, I believe that is best for the wiki. What was happening is that people began listing their external sites on important articles (see this example so I was forced to move these lists to separate pages. My reasoning was that a separate page of sites was better than having them infesting the articles themselves.

Your site is a completely different case, however, because it is designed to report only on failures of the DreamHost network. The site has no chance of accurately reporting the real situation, and it is certain to put an unfairly negative light on DreamHost. Publicizing that site on this wiki (or in the DreamHost Discussion Forum, for that matter) is wholly unacceptable. It is basically akin to publicizing the "dreamhostsucks" site that popped-up a few months ago.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to censor negative commentary on DreamHost. I am simply trying to ensure that the company isn't misrepresented by what appears to be an official-looking site such as yours. Incidentally, the reason it is "official-looking" is that it is using the dreamhosters.com domain, which is confusingly similar to dreamhost.com and dreamhoststatus.com don't you think?

For the record, I was the one that unprotected this page and lifted your ban. I felt that Sabrejack's comment above had resolved the issue (although that is now in doubt) so I acted accordingly. -- Scjessey 05:10, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * For the record, the record is the record. Arbitrary and capricious, it appears, without documented policies, in the "Documentation Wiki" no less. -- 0-0 05:31, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)

Moving comments
Please refrain from moving the comments made by other people to this talk page from their original location unless you receive express permission. Please edit out the comments you have moved here. -- Scjessey 06:47, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)

Suggestion
I've been watching this interesting little argument for a few days now and I'd like to make a suggestion. Spend more time working on your wiki and less of it arguing here. You only have 3 servers listed with information that's basically worthless. It hasn't even been updated since the 22nd. Basically, this talk page has more content than that entire wiki. What's the point if you're willing to spend more time arguing here than actually working on your project?

Just a thought... --PrezKennedy 08:28, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * The point of that wiki was an experiment to offer up somewhere for customers to share and compare their own observations of outages. It wasn't, and won't be, for me alone to add content. The 3 servers were only a quick demo example. The result of the experiment is: A few DreamHost customers will go out of their way to stop someone from spreading the word in logical locations. The few other DreamHost customers that noticed aren't interested enough to get involved.


 * FWIW, The point of wiki2 and discussion2 are similar but more broad. All these were more or less in response to comments I'd seen from others who seemed like they'd be interested.


 * Thanks for the thought. Live and learn. -- 0-0 16:23, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * You're fighting an uphill battle. Really, it's a lot better if you retreat, build up valuable resources on your wiki, and then return when you can say "look, it has stuff on it that is useful to DreamHost customers". I've worked on large projects before, and I never advertise them until after I have something to show off. People will take notice on their own then.


 * Make it good, and you can come back and prove them all wrong. Waste time arguing here and the project won't ever get off the ground. It works; I've done it elsewhere. --PrezKennedy 20:04, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)

Conclusion?
I am in fact aware of the history but I felt it appropriate for the official DH staff to extend a last opportunity. 0-0, I said "No problem" in reply to your thanks for the unban (which actually Scjessey did, even though I said I was going to.) I would hope that clears things up, but I'm concerned you may be purposefully misconstruing my statements. --Sabrejack 11:10, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * I assume you don't object to moving your comment here; please let me know if otherwise.


 * No, I'm not intentionally misconstruing anything, and now things are as clear as mud. You said,
 * "No problem. I believe the difference that caused special attention in this case is that the other sites were in lists, and not own their own page.  We don't yet have any official policy regarding linking customer sites from the wiki, though I will encourage the support manager or other decision maker to create one so it can be applied fairly."
 * I interpreted that as: let's keep on doing what we've done previously until management says otherwise. IMO, What we've done previously is allow similar descriptive articles (Unofficial IRC) and other links in other lists (unofficial blog, etc.). Yes, I see the difference between an IRC "pointer" article and an article with a "link", but in essence it's the same function - pointing people there if they want to go.


 * By having this article and link only on a User page, it is excluded from most searches, I believe, and is not on the path of any relevant browsing, which is obviously worthless.


 * Are you saying if I get rid of the content of this User page, then it is OK to add my links back onto relevant articles with lists, such as communication channels, Mediawiki, etc.? What about starting a new phpBB list?

-- 0-0 16:23, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)


 * "Are you saying if I get rid of the content of this User page, then it is OK to add my links back onto relevant articles with lists, such as communication channels, Mediawiki, etc.?"
 * No. Adding links to your outage wiki as you describe will not be acceptable. Sabrejack has already said that the site will be of no value to the DH customers. -- Scjessey 16:41, 28 Nov 2006 (PST)

Drupal Examples
Just to let you know - Drupal Examples is now a Candidate for Speedy Deletion, so there isn't much point in developing it further. -- Scjessey 17:38, 11 Dec 2006 (PST)

Numerous other DreamHost customers thought adding the links to Drupal was useful; only you think moving them to Drupal Examples and deleting them makes sense. People go looking for examples of things done at DreamHost. Providing organized, categorized lists makes finding them easy. -- 0-0 19:24, 11 Dec 2006 (PST)


 * It appears to me (and I concede I may be drawing the wrong conclusion) that your main interest in maintaining these "example" listings for various technologies (such as phpBB) is to justify places to include one or more of your own sites. Delving deeply into my personal Wikipedia history (see hidden comments) to find examples of my perceived hypocrisy is not going to help you with this, because the Wikipedia is an independent site with its own set of rules (and both of those links add value to the articles). I will wait and see what others have to say about Drupal Examples, but if nobody else disagrees with the CSD rating in the next couple of days, I will be deleting it. -- Scjessey 04:55, 12 Dec 2006 (PST)


 * This is a wiki to help people manage their services with DreamHost. If a link doesn't serve that goal, it doesn't belong here.  If a page is nothing but such links, then it doesn't belong here either.  This wiki is not a directory listing of sites, outside of the DHSOTM.


 * Numerous other DreamHost customers thought adding links to Drupal was useful for bringing in traffic to their sites. None of those customers have said anything at all here.  --Emufarmers 19:36, 12 Dec 2006 (PST)


 * Are you aware there was once an unofficial DreamHost customer directory, hosted on a dreamhost.com subdomain, and run by a customer with thanks from DreamHost? Even Scjessey, at one time in a land not far away and not long ago, seemed to somewhat support the idea of lists of customer sites.
 * "This wiki is basically the DreamHost Web Hosting manual, but contains a lot of non DreamHost-specific web hosting information as well."..."working to create a magnificent tower of Web Hosting Learning,"
 * I don't particularly see anything wrong with bringing traffic to customers' sites, and clearly most people don't spend much time watching every little thing that happens here in this lightly visited wiki. -- 0-0 17:25, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)


 * While I also don't see anything particularly wrong with bringing traffic to customers' sites, I can see it getting unmanageable. As just one example of what I'm mean(and I hate to even mention this as I generally deplore censorship and I know you feel the same way), the need to keep the Dreamhost wiki "suitable for work" (if it is to be an informational resource for users), or for visit by minors, places something of a subjective burden on us to avoid links to certain sites whose content is prurient in nature.  I sure don't want to have to get in a whole series of arguments over that.


 * There are plenty of link directories about, and I don't see any reason why this wiki needs to be another. If there is an information aspect to the link related to the subject of the article, I say it's appropriate - but to say it is "informational" only by virtue of using the software involved seem to me to be a "stretch".


 * I also agree that "most people don't spend much time watching every little thing that happens" here, but I don't think it is accurate to describe this wiki as "lightly visited". The traffic on the Discussion Forums alone, with all the links to this wiki in posts, drives significant traffic here, and links form other "off Dreamhost" sources (forums, blogs, etc) and search engines also drive traffic here. I haven't sen the traffic stats, but I suspect they are not accurately characterized as "light".  Rlparker 17:44, 13 Dec 2006 (PST)

Thumbnails
I am not aware of any specific restrictions to thumbnails. If there are any, I suspect it is because of the age of this MediaWiki version, rather than any specific setting. -- Scjessey 07:24, 19 Dec 2006 (PST)

GPL Violations
I've had to delete the two PHP update scripts you created recently because they were in clear violation of Sam Bauer's document rights. I know you well enough to understand that you didn't do this intentionally, but I would ask you to be more mindful of potential copyright restrictions in future. -- Scjessey 04:53, 22 Jan 2007 (PST)


 * It looks to me like you have done the right thing regarding the GPL issue. I'll ask Sam to discuss the matter with you directly if he has any further objection. -- Scjessey 08:07, 22 Jan 2007 (PST)


 * This wiki is under the GDFL. Those scripts are under the GPL.  I don't know how compatible those two licenses are, but since pages on this wiki can be edited, I don't think we can copy over pages that are under another license, even with notice of that license.


 * Any copyright issues aside, why exactly does this need to be on the wiki? Anything we link to could be unavailable at some point in the future, but that doesn't mean we go and transcribe anything that might be useful.  We have external links exist for multiple reasons: While I don't know whether Sam actually minds, having our own copy of his script does mean less traffic and visibility of the URL for his site. --Emufarmers 15:16, 22 Jan 2007 (PST)


 * As far as I can tell, the GNU FDL and GPLv2 are compatible, the distinguishing point is that the GNU FDL is not a software license. You can refer to my reply under User_talk:Scjessey for my feelings on that. As for having a copy of the scripts in-line in the wiki, I don't think it's particularly helpful, but that's just my opinion here as a single user/contributor on a wiki. Finally, you clearly have never been to my site - it doesn't exactly scream "monetization". -- Sambauers 16:15, 22 Jan 2007 (PST)


 * I have deleted the pages in question, as noted on Sambauers's talk page. --Emufarmers 21:46, 22 Jan 2007 (PST)

Editing the user pages of others
In regard to your recent edit to someone else's user page (whether or not it was a revert), please cease from doing so or risk being temporarily blocked from editing. The category did not exist, so I removed it. Furthermore, special rules apply to sysops and admins - we can do things that regular users cannot. This should be obvious. -- Scjessey 06:23, 16 August 2007 (PDT)