Talk:Theming

Theming and content management systems

What do we do with theming in the context of content management systems? Theming is more than the design, but very much also defining the user experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgifford (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 May 2008

Not a dictionary

How is this any different from an ordinary dictionary definition of the simple word "theme", with a few examples? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page apparently contains no encyclopedic content. —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-citation

I have attempted to correct the missing citation for theming. The administrator will not allow these changes to take place, the reason being that I authored one of the books cited on theming. I do not see this as self-promotion or profit. I have reviewed Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." And I disagree with the administrator's decisions. There have been only two books written on the subject of theming. One is Gottdiener's, which I cited, the other (unnamed one) is edited by me. One might think that academic, peer-reviewed work would be welcomed on Wikipedia. But I am beginning to feel that the point of Wikipedia is not accuracy but the control of information. I believe that Wikipedia faces a serious credibility issue. The administrator in question in unwilling to have a healthy discussion on the topic. Instead, the person keeps denying these changes and posts the same statements about conflict of interest. I have considered doing a more lengthy rewrite of the 'theming' entry, because it is short and somewhat inaccurate in places, but I fear that my edits would be instantly deleted. Again, expertise in a subject area is not tolerated in some cases. Xrhetor (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Xrhetor, this is not about "censorship", "tolerance", "politics" or any of the other false claims you're making about my actions. Simply put, a substantial percentage of your edits have involved anonymously posting links, text and other references to your own published work. You may well disagree with the decision to remove your self-references per the conflict of interest and other guidelines, as is your right. You're also certainly entitled to seek other opinions. However, I must object to your chosen methodology, which to date has involved the misrepresentation of both my actions and your own edits. If you want to have a fair, balanced discussion about this, by all means do so in a centralized location rather than on a series of unconnected talk pages, and be clear about what has really occurred. Making false claims, and spreading those claims to multiple pages, does not strike me as "fair" under any definition of the term. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)