Wikipedia talk:Article wizard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page. WikiProject icon
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Feedback on WP:Article Wizard[edit]

Hello everyone,

Unlike many RFCs, this RFC does not have a particular conflict. Instead, through this RFC, I would like users to answer the following questions:

  1. Do you like this article wizard? Please give any suggestions/feedback/comments you may have on this article wizard.
  2. How do you think it can be standardized/integrated into Wikipedia's AfC and article-writing WikiProjects? --JustBerry (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question 1[edit]

Support[edit]

  • The Article Wizard is better than not having one at all. I haven't looked at it recently enough to say what I would change though
  • I feel that the Article Wizard is a user-friendly tool for new users. However I have a suggestion, which is to allow users to categorize their articles, so that new page patrollers do not have to do so for them. Also, if the article is submitted as a draft, it can help AFC per this proposal, to allow potential reviewers who only want to review articles of a certain topic do so easily. This can also allow other WikiProjects to collaborate with AfC (eg. WikiProject Science members reviewing Science related AfC articles). Darylgolden(talk) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    Submitters can already categorize their articles by adding escaped categories (e.g. Category:People) to the bottom of the page, which are detected when the article is being created. Some reviewers also place a notice on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject to ask for a specialized reviewer (example). However, I agree that a better way of marking submissions as under the scope of a specific WikiProject would be nice. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The article wizard is a long-overdue tool. It has its kinks to work out, but it's already in a very useful form. Given the huge success of the file upload wizard in heading off many of the most common file issues, we have good reason to expect that the article wizard can do the same for editors creating their first articles. Swpbtalk 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment[edit]

  • One thing I would like to see is a question about what language the article is in. If they select English, allow them to continue. If they select another language, forward them to the appropriate wikipedia. I see lots of articles on New Page Patrol that are foreign-language versions of existing English Wikipedia articles. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I support this idea. Swpbtalk 17:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • I find the current system atrocious and confusing to new editors. I strongly believe that it is the number one cause of the majority of the issues that arise for WPAFC and all of the questions scattered all over the wiki in multiple various forums. I would like to see the UI completely overhauled and redesigned from the ground up and the current system thrown away. I think that "majority" of the things to help reviewers and established editors are good, but the interface that is suppose to help new editors in creating a draft article which will easily make it into mainspace fails in just about every aspect. I do believe that the fixes for this will require a fairly large scale project to be undertaken by individuals with more time than I currently have available to be able to do it myself. It will have to be a collaborative effort, and although I can usually trudge my way through something, I don't have the basics and the background to be able to do something this size on my own. "/rant off" TL;DR version: No, the UI for new editors sucks and needs to be redesigned in a way that interacts with the editor to make a feasible draft or draft topic. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Burn it and start over. Atrocious is too kind, and it isn't just the Wizard. This is Wikipedia's process for new articles for new editors:
    1. Tell new editors "everyone can edit"
    2. Allow new editors to start writing articles immediately, without describing, in a manner they can understand, what that article will need to avoid being deleted.
    3. New editors then spend a *great* deal of time, writing an article. If they've been around for a while, they might add a reference.
    4. The new editor's new work is deleted. Almost always, it gets deleted. Maybe sooner, maybe after a couple rounds at AfC, whatever.
    5. New editor takes their marbles and heads home, aggravated.
    6. People freak out about why new editors are leaving.
I've described this as "passing out hand grenades to schoolchildren." It has to stop.
Moreover, we need to stop being so stuck on some historical specifics. I've worked at AfC, the vast majority of new drafts that come in have no references, or very improper references. Many of these drafts will wait days before getting any feedback. This is (adjectives I would like to use here redacted). We need to bend whatever we request at this place "anyone can submit a new article to", bend it enough that we can tell if the article is blank, that we can tell if the article has no references, that we can tell if the article has a reference to IMDB or Answers.com or another Wikipedia article or Facebook or IMDB or Twitter... and then give some automated and immediate feedback. I hear all sorts of complaints whenever I suggest this about how hard this is going to be because of CITEVAR. (redacted interjection). We're talking about new editors here, they don't know about our citation formats, they certainly don't live and die by CITEVAR. Make an interface that guides the referencing process and produces some format, ANY format. And live with it for the Wizard. And trout (or better yet, site ban) anyone who cares more about CITEVAR than tossing away a good fraction of new editors. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Automated responses would be a big step to giving immediate feedback for editors creating new articles. There must be general cases that can be detected (even in a half assed way) and then a template popping up saying something like "Hey, it looks like you might not be using any sources, have you read this general fact sheet about sourcing and why it's important? Click here for help."
More generally, being an editor that has never worked at AfC, and with my minutes of expertise with the creation wizard, I think we need big flashing lights as to why something isn't passable. For example, when I told the creation wizard that I didn't have any sources (yet), the first think I see is a general message saying "Thank you for using the Article Wizard!" What the hell does that mean? I didn't create anything yet.
Clicking on a box, it should give an immediate answer to that action. So I click "Write an article now" and it should say something like "Ok, great." in big letters, then ask the next series of "But wait..." questions. I feel like the wizard is trying to cover every case scenario, rather than just giving the newbie editors the bare information they need to understand why it is/is not ok to proceed. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with Technical 13. The UX for the wizard is a hot mess. Let's say I want to make a new article. I head over to Wikipedia:Article wizard (let's forget for the moment how I got there or why I need to go to a project page like this). I'm now faced with roughly 6 options, 3 of which are big blue boxes (web speak for "clicking this will do something). I click on "Write an Article now" because that's what I want to do! But...I'm not writing an article now. I'm directed to search all of wikipedia to see if my topic already exists. If I search for anything I now need to use my browser's back button to return to the wizard. If I don't I have two options: submit a redirect (WTF is a redirect?!) or "continue with the wizard". What happened to writing an article now? Undeterred I continue with the wizard. Now I'm taken to another section on the page where I have 9 options. One is to create a redirect, which I've already said I don't want to do (also what is a redirect?). The remainder take me either to a page on notability or a page on COI. Let's say I want to write about a website. Now I'm at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Website notability where I have 3 options (all of which are below the fold on my 1440x900 screen!). My website isn't notable, my article may be advertising (does anyone click on that?) or my website is notable and my article isn't advertising. Leaving aside the notion that basically nobody considers the articles they write advertising even when they plainly are, I still kinda wanted to write an article, so I'll click on the one that looks like it might let me do that. JUMPING JEHOSHAPHAT, I'm still not writing an article! Now I'm on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Sources with some info about sources and 2 options. Since my article doesn't exist yet I'm not sure how I could say it has good sources, so I'll click on "My proposed article does not have good sources (yet)". Now I'm at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet (still not writing an article lol). Every previous page has at least had big giant blue boxes helping me along the way. Now I'm on a page which says "Although your proposed article might not be ready now, it could possibly be improved with some work." How the fuck do they know? I haven't even written it yet! Next I'm told I should maybe go through the wizard again (?!?!) or create a draft. Wait, I thought that's what I was doing (remember, the semantic distinction between "draft" and "article" can be blurry)? Then I've got a text box which I think will let me make an article except when I do that (seriously, try it out) I get a giant ass edit notice which takes up everything above the fold and looks like another wizard page. It's got a bunch of pretty confusing warnings and a bunch of instructions (some of which I've already received more than once). If I scroll down I get to the edit window where I can finally start making my article.
  • So, between landing on the article wizard and starting to edit I've clicked 5 things in a row, choosing between 18 options (just the big blue boxes) along the way and reading hundreds of lines of information on sourcing, notability and some other stuff (sometimes repeated). I've been asked some bizarre questions and I've had a few times where my next action wasn't immediately apparent to me.
  • A few things:
    • Wikipedia isn't likely to build a single page javascript application for the wizard (which is what this desperately needs), so some navigation problems are unavoidable.
    • Why on earth are we promoting Requested Articles on the first page? For one, navigate over to Wikipedia:Requested articles and pretend you're a new user. What on that page is a call to action? There's some inside baseball stuff about what redirects where, some admonitions on which articles to request and a link back to AFC. Below that there's a big listing of categories. It's also a process with a backlog. Why make that backlog longer?
    • Why are we asking new users to create redirects? Redirects are meant to be invisible to readers and are largely maintenance projects used to deal with moves, search terms or other stuff. Take all that out of the article wizard. Not only do we ask on the second step, we ask again on the third.
    • I'd prefer that the second step not immediately yank the user out of the flow of the wizard, but that may be out of bounds, technically. Either way, it's a pisser that the second step in the process could flummox someone so easily.
    • I appreciate that we want to inform new editors about COI, NOTNEWS, etc. But the third step has waaaaay too many choices.
    • Again, how many people announce that their new article is advertising?
    • There are too many places where the call to action is unclear or the path forward is buried under a lot of language about policies and guidelines.
    • After confirming that I'm writing about something notable (helpfully defined as having sources which cover it) I'm asked again about sources. Why not combine the two?
    • I didn't notice this on the first run through but if I say my article is notable and has good sources I'm directed to Wikipedia:Article wizard/Content where I'm asked again if it is notable. Third time's the charm, I guess.
    • Strangely, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission is actually pretty direct, although the distinction between Draft and new article is somewhat unclear.
    • Why do we point people to userspace drafts for Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet and Draft for Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission? Shouldn't we be pushing for Draft namespace for both?
  • In general the wizard is too long, repeats itself a number of times and could be confusing to new editors. It presents too many choices, many of which don't seem to matter as they are either offered again or don't lead to creating a new article. Each section of the wizard could benefit by being ruthlessly edited to contain only the information it needs to help someone make a decision about writing a new article and the wizard as a whole could benefit from losing about 50% of the content and probably 75% of the options presented to a new user. If our intent is to steer new editors away from creating new articles (and let's be honest, that's probably some portion of it), we've done our job. If our intent is to help people create new articles simply and directly, the wizard is a total failure. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There are too many issues with the article wizard for me to give my support, at least how it currently is. My biggest issue is that if the submitter says their topic is non-notable, the wizard just gives an option for them to create a draft. Of course, there is almost no chance this article will pass AfC review. We should just tell them to try another topic. I see discussion about creating a new wizard, so maybe this can be included in there. Darylgolden(talk) 00:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Question 2[edit]

  • Of course in principle it can be integrated into other projects. I assume you are asking if I think it's feasible and desirable. I don't know enough about the other article-writing WikiProjects to even guess. As for AFC, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Rewrite and ask the opinions of the AFC participants who are good at coding if they think it's feasible. If it can be integrated into the AFC process with little or no effort, I would say it is desirable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How do I think it can be done? A few - six months ago I would have said that it would require a new extension specific to "collaborative new topic development", but now I'm leaning towards the idea that it can very likely be done using the existing Extension:GuidedTour extension. This is basically a JavaScript wrapper extension that makes it possible to guide the new user through the process of creating a new article or even just submitting an idea for an article (that another new or established editor can find and develop at a later time). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Once the kinks are worked out, the wizard should be made the default starting place for all non-autoconfirmed editors. Despite our wide array of content guidelines, intro pages, and draft spaces, it's too easy for enthusiastic new editors to breeze past all that, click "create", then get discouraged when their page is speedied. If new editors have to affirmatively assert that their new article is (1) in English, (2) on a plausibly notable topic, (3) not covered by an existing article, and (4) not copied from somewhere else, before the article finds its way into mainspace, it will significantly cut down on discouragement of new editors, with the secondary benefit of easing the workload at new pages patrol. Swpbtalk 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • I've added {{Rfc}} and put it at WP:CENT, due to the number of editors who commented on the last Article Wizard RfC. APerson (talk!) 22:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Some actionable suggestions (which may duplicate a few of my comments above):
    • Remove the link to Requested Articles, or at least move it to where it isn't on the very first page.
    • Remove links to create redirects. They're largely an insider concern, difficult to actually create (I've been here years and I still look it up when I do) and not related to the core concept of creating an article.
    • Pick a format to deliver information or ask users for action and stick with it. e.g. On the first page we have two blue boxes, two sort of blue boxes (which take you out of the wizard) and a tiny link at the bottom to just go ahead and create an article. The same page has a big box on the right with the same links as our sort of blue boxes. This redundancy appears in nearly every step of the wizard. Did we put something in a big ox summarizing its content and linking to resources? Awesome, now don't waste my time by repeating that in paragraph form.
    • Remove the sections on Wikipedia:Article wizard/Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Article wizard/Neologism and Wikipedia:Article wizard/News. These are endpoints for editors, not steps in the wizard. An editor only lands on the COI section if they've (presumably) read the admonition to not write about themselves but still click "I'm writing about myself". I don't think the Neologism case matches enough use cases for the article wizard to merit a ramp off and the section on news is inaccurate. We have plenty of articles on news events, often written within minutes of the event transpiring. The problem with an editor writing about News via the article wizard isn't that we don't accept such articles but that by clicking through the wizard they'll probably not be the first to make one. :)
    • Remove verbiage that isn't germane to the article wizard. For example, the Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Sources section talks about outlandish claims requiring strong sourcing. Great, but that's more of content guidance than getting an article started. The same section also includes the phrase (paraphrasing because it's in a bulleted list) "Good sources have a reputation for reliability: they are reliable sources" ... no.
    • Wikipedia:Article wizard/Content seems mostly redundant. the copyright part is important, but the notability section has been covered twice and the neutrality section (which repeats itself with a section on puffery, to an extent) has been covered once before. People are either going to read this stuff or they won't. They're not going to refuse to read it the first time but decided to do so on the second.
    • make sure calls to action go above the fold. Always.
    • Send people to the draft namespace in Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet. that's what it is there for.
  • Less actionable suggestions and more things which should be guiding principles:
    • Don't waste my time.
    • Don't assume that a wizard should cover all cases or pathological cases. this is perhaps one of the biggest UX sins committed by the wizard. We want to get people from "I want to create an article" to creating an article. It may be tempting to provide information on pitfalls which, if not avoided, could lead them to have a bad experience, but let's not give everyone a slightly crappier experience in order to accomplish that.
    • Don't be afraid to summarise policies and guidelines into words for human beings.
    • Say what you mean. Looking at Sources are (nearly) everything in Wikipedia:Article wizard/Not quite yet we see that sources are probably not even close to everything because 4 of the 5 bullet points in that section are about something other than sourcing. And by the time we've reached "not quite yet" we've presumably read all of those statements in one form or another.
    • Consider throwing out 90% of the links to policy we have in there. Send people to article tutorials or projects where people can help. Don't presume that our policy pages are so awesome that someone is going to want to read "More about the neutral point of view" at the end of an article wizard. They're not awesome. They're a necessary evil.
  • More to come, maybe. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What if we reversed the thinking, and assumed that the person attempting to create an article actually has a legitimate article subject, and all the associated content to make it go. Then the wizard is just a checklist rather than a large scary warning about all the reasons not to make an article. After reading all of your well founded criticisms, I am thinking that we should call this version 1.0 and work on a version 2.0 with other editors over at AfC. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a good way to look at it. As I see it, people are always going to write shit articles, just like some will always right great ones. We can nudge people to avoid the most obvious things, but we have to accept that a wizard like this isn't responsible for forewarning people about every major concern they'll run into. It's a laudable goal--we don't want people using the wizard to get bitten by an overzealous editor. But we seem to have traded that for making the whole experience a slog and in doing so gotten neither (paraphrasing Franklin, badly). Protonk (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014[edit]

Please undo these edits that prevents experienced editors from using the submit button when in edit mode. There was no consensus for this change and I object. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please undo this edit which was made without consensus and of which I oppose this change that prevents experienced users from using the submit button while viewing the edit window of the draft. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 13:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Multiple users showed agreement that this change was a good thing at WT:WPAFC. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
First, you are involved and are disallowed from closing this. Second, you made a bold change and my inability to revert the change itself is the only thing preventing me from doing it, and this is known as abusing the userright to further your cause and is grounds for Padlock-pink.svg Template editor dismissal. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, it wasn't a WP:BOLD change. It was a change as a result of discussion. Whoever does end up closing this, please see discussion that led to the change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Those blank submissions are our fault. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: I have reviewed the discussion. I find there is consensus that there was a problem, but not necessarily consensus that this is the best way of achieving it. Discussion after the event seems broadly to support the change, so I will not revert, but please continue to discuss there to avoid fragmenting the discussion. Jackmcbarn, closing this edit request to revert your own changes was extremely unwise. Please avoid this in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem, and this template needs to be reverted until the discussion has concluded as the change introduced here is disruptive. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment – Unrelated to the actual request, but T13's first reply above is remarkably similar to a reply to my "not done" closing of a different edit request. Is there any rule/guideline that forbids involved users from answering an edit request? I couldn't find one, though there is a criterion that edit requests should not be controversial, which they often are in case of a previous dispute on the issue between the requester and the answerer (which is not the case here, but certainly was there). SiBr4 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • SiBr4 Ideally, you're not supposed to be the one closing a request where the request is related to your edits per WP:INVOLVED. In some cases the involved status of the editor closing the request has resulted in the request being reopened and closed directly opposite to the original close, warnings to the involved closer, and up to removal of the template editor permission. You have to be very careful when closing a request you are involved in as it opens the doorway for calls of Abuse and Grade-A drama threads at WP:AN. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing Hasteur's point, not everything that is allowed is good: Even if there is no specific rule against and "involved" person closing a request that requires tools that the requester doesn't have or (due to COI or other reasons, chooses not to use) in a particular case, it's sometimes a good idea to abstain just to avoid creating a whole new controversy. When in doubt, ask yourself "is my closing this discussion better or worse for the project than waiting for someone else to close it?" Sometimes, such as when the request is a non-brainer "of course we should honor it" or "of course that's a bad idea" it's perfectly fine for an involved editor to close a discussion when there is no established rule that says otherwise. Likewise, it's probably okay to make a decision on an requested edit that goes against your stated opinion (e.g. "I don't like this, but I will honor the request then open a discussion" or "I do like this, but it's controversial enough to require discussion first, so I will reject it") unless an existing guideline or policy says otherwise. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014[edit]

The Contents don't seem to have any relation with the title or its back links. Suniljacob (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as it is not clear what you are asking - what "contents"? and what "back links"?
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014[edit]

Haidenstiles (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fraud and Intellectual Dishonesty at Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia is not an old or established human institution. And it has fallen pray to a common fraud tactic.

Your "NOTAILITY" criteria sounds so reasonable at first glance. Multiple publications from sources other than the author. (two should suffice)

But then you say things like "non trivial" and suddenly your reasonable criteria is nothing. Some bathrobed wikipeidan can just push a button and it's marked insignificant. Because some high school graduate from east suburbia though so, over a piece of toast. Suzzie felt triviality. The world must stop.

You would need a 'reasonable' criteria. And "non trivial" is not reasonable or explained.

Oh but what if 'google' says its ok? They rank everyone so just check their hate list. (Remember they are down listing those with lower rank --that's a hate list, who to attack and who to give bad service to) Yea check the hate list then you know exactly who to add.

But what "Ranking" number?

Again it's not specified so it's again a lie and just an abusive way to sound reasonable.

Suppose you are ranked 9.. they can just say 10 would be better. A scam setup. No criteria is given.

Admit it. You were just riffing.

And why ask google? Why not ask my company or the department of interior or maybe ask a postal clerk? How about just getting three bartenders to say you're notable? I mean, non-trivial bar tenders --with significance.

Wikipedia suggests things like "Significant" (undefined) Oh darn, Your publication is ok except it is not significant. What should it signify?

What should it Signify? An end to global hunger? Or do you mean herald? Is it heralding?

Just ask Suzzie and her cup of tea. Yea.

Then the real purpose. You ask companies to give up their trade mark.

You ask companies be so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

SUFFERED. Ok if we already pirate you and steal your stuff then sure I guess you can be mentioned now. That criteria is a lie. Numerous companies are listed who's trademark is nonexistent or unknown.

It's a common human sickness. Ignorance.

The wiki business model is CRIMINAL. It's fraud. And it rests on a desire to dominate and cheat whoever you please. A riot.

You exclude important companies and admit randome things of little or nor importantce.

A guy can invent a preventative cure for cancer and you would just way that 20 thousand lives per year is insignificant. One could pioneere safer technologies and you would say well 'google' (a 'sock pupett' for individuals who program it) --google doesn't like you.. aw.. gee. why not ask the talaban? Or son of sam? There's always suzzie who will do the actual deleting.


If Wikipedia is to function in society it will need something that great men have already crafted. Equality, freedom and justice. There is none here. Even our courts have been slow to adopt hypertext or format.

For those unfamilure with the giants of history. These things are more important than shill voting accounts and little closed door hate-fests.

You violate the fundamental principles that made this service possible in the first place. The multi author web page came out of the great society The American revolution and the brilliance of one man. (not mentioned on Wikipedia cause Suzzie hadn't hear of it from any of her friends at the laundrymat).

I know it's hard. The multi-author problem cannot be solved by anyone else. But you could be more open to businesses that invent ground breaking technologies.

Wikipedia has formed a hate group. They maintain hate lists. They have their own inquisitions.

And I am on your 'secret' hate list --Insiders just program the machine to attack my account. Not because I am a guilty of anything. (other than introducing a preventative cure for cancer which saves tens of thousands of lives per year world wide) Oh but suzzie never hear of it. Darn.

I am on your fraudulent and secret hate list because the pedantic tyrants here do not like to be wrong. My US patent was not important for you. A technology that humanity had 10 thousand years to invent. But didn't. Maybe it heralds something after all. Something about you and not about me.

If only there were some news or story there. If only it were significant or even well known. I mean slightly more well known. than a Bavarian beerhall or a gaffer on a b movie. Or if not well know then maybe like-google or just suzzie. Why not admit your are controlled by monopolists and racial hate groups? And try to improve it?

You are supposed to be a repositiory of knowledge. And you have learned nothing.

You have simply hated and attacked me.

Signed by ipaddress because Wikipedia attacks me unfairly. 72.94.242.140 (talk) Ab Min.

If I mention my name this letter will not even publish. They are cowards and frauds here. They wont even list me in the hate list. They just secretly program the computors to cheat YOU the public. I have written numerous usefull articles and been thwarted, erased, my browser hacked, and my writing pirated by people who decorate themselves after the fact. I have mentioned things that are important and newsworthy, and the throng of stalkers.. Yes they electronically stalk on Wikipedia.. simply chase me around. In fact they monitor the entire ip address block. In hopes of deleting someone of high achievement.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.242.140 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)