User talk:Heather (WMF): Difference between revisions

So here's the confusing part (and why this doesn't seem like it was written by you, Heather Walls). I would think you would leave a comment more like this: "Hey. Thanks for cleaning up my shitty code. I was hired as a contractor to do some Web design work, but as you've seen, I'm clearly much more of a designer than a coder. I appreciate you donating/volunteering your time, and sorry about Jorm, he was out of line." Instead, you've given me a rambling mini-essay about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and how it's appropriate for you, as an outside contractor, to come into this place and take (prideful!) ownership of bad code. One could safely say I'm a little lost why you're acting like this.

Inline replies below.

{{quote|1=Hi MZ. This is a heads-up that "Work with us" is going to change. I have waited to respond to your previous changes because 1. The page was in a temporary state, and 2. I am very busy and not interested in arguing.}}

Well, yes. I can certainly see how you'd be busy: you've been contracted to do Web design work and you quite clearly only have a very limited grasp of HTML (much less CSS). I'm sure you'll be very busy in the days and weeks ahead. :-)

{{quote|1=The Foundation wiki is not like a normal wiki.  It's controlled, restricted access, and it's not intended to be freely open to the world to edit.  There's a reason for that.  The Foundation has a specific goal and purpose with it, and sometimes (unlike on Wikipedia) pages DO have an owner.  This is one of those cases.}}

Err, thanks. I was here before you and I'll be here after your contract expires, but it's always nice to have a refresher... I guess. Again, I find it odd (though admittedly also fascinating) that you take such prideful—nearly boastful—ownership of what you've created. You're the cat; [[Work with us]] is the dead bird.

{{quote|1=A Talk page discussion for this type of thing can mitigate a lot of hard feelings, and that's true here as it is on Wikipedia.  In both cases, the standard is to gather consensus for changes.  The cycle is "BRD", "Bold, Revert, Discuss".  You are okay to have "BOLDly" made changes (though it isn't ideal on this particular wiki), but the minute you were reverted, the next correct action is to DISCUSS, not to get into a revert war. I apologize if I did not take up the discuss aspect promptly.}}

What changes, exactly? With the exception of a few typo fixes and very minor aesthetic adjustments (hyphens to en dashes), all of my edits were to the code, not to the substance of the page (though the substance of the page most certainly needs work!). And who started multiple discussions about this page? Oh... right. God forbid someone remove the pointless and meaningless quotes from the page. (One day I'll come to understand what the hell "I don't have a nine to five job, I have a 24-7-365 lifestyle." means.)

{{quote|1=I appreciate your help and advice, but please do not make visual changes to my work without discussing them; changes on these pages created for the Foundation will be reverted.}}

You have a very strange way of expressing your appreciation. I made an effort to ''not'' make visual changes to your work, though your work undoubtedly needs them. You're free to revert as you see fit, but I'd recommend not doing so as [[User:Jorm|Jorm]] does. Reactionary, chest-thumping reverts are poor form on any wiki.

If you had simply coded the page properly the first time, there would have been no need for further edits by others. Wikimedia is an educational project (some might even say a knowledge project). The code that it uses should demonstrate best practices for standards and accessibility. No page or project should encourage contractors to thump their chests beside their mediocre work.

Good luck in redesigning the page. I'll continue to fix blatant errors as I see them. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 07:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)