Wikipedia talk:About

Please do not post your requests or questions on this page. You can ask all kinds of questions about using Wikipedia at the Help desk or the Teahouse. At the Reference Desk you can ask questions about any topic. Volunteers will respond to your questions as soon as possible.

Editing by new and anonymous editors has been disabled on this page. Comments by those editors can be left on a sub-page by following the link below: Click here to go to the sub-page for new and anonymous users

Simple.

Simple thing about Wikipedia.

It is a great wiki/site. Its a wiki/site where people can share their knowledge with other people.

content of cookies

Now that Wikimedia uses cookies, and since the Wall Street Journal months ago tested some leading websites for privacy issues and found that Wikipedia was not using cookies, we probably should explain what our cookies do, so that it's clear what they don't do, such as (I assume) remembering a reader's search for cancer treatments, information that affects privacy if third parties can buy the information from firms who read the cookies without Wikimedeia's or the reader's consent or knowing cooperation. We already discuss a little of this. Would someone who knows the subject of what Wikimedia stores on cookies please edit this section? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by adding the subject/title to this section, intended as new: 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Hey about the 3 British soldier were killed by a US Jet fight planes in August 23, 2007?

The reason i tried to take it out on the "list of post-1945 of British victims by the United States military" is because i don't want people to think it's a US-on-UK friendly fire. It was clearly a Brit-on-Brit Friendly Fire. It was well-documented that the British Foward Air-Controller will face Manslaughter charges so the US was not to blame for this. I mean some one look it it and just blame on the US. Especially when Brits(even today) are very quick to blame this on the US despite the fact it was proven it was the fault of the British FAC giving the bad coordinates to the US pilot. That's why i'm trying to take it out many times and yet someone still post it in there. I do not want people(mostly foreigners) to continue to believe it was the Americans fault for this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1038781/British-soldier-faces-manslaughter-charges-Afghanistan-friendly-deaths.html

if u get my message thank u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 09:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ten Simple Rules

I came across Ten Simple Links for Editing Wikipedia while reviewing library resource collections, and thought it might be worth adding to External links, alongside The Missing Manual. I don't want to add it myself, as I do't know if it's already been discussed, is unknown, or is in any conflict with any guidelines. So here it is. If you want to add it, fine. If not, also fine. Flatterworld (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Notation

The use of NPOV and Consensus to arrive at the contents of an article can lead to the problem of leading to the inability of any discussion of less agreed on alternative such as was often the subject of discussion in the earlier editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and other scientific publications. This makes for a unbalance in the tone of discussion of the topic.WFPM (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For instance, I can detect a considerable bias within Wilipedia against the Janet Periodic table, which only recently has been imported from Europe, and which has a considerably less degree of coverage as to its potential utility, both in Chemistry and in Physics considerations. And I find it hard to make any headway against the predominant preference of the editors in favor of the standard Periodic table. And maybe this is all for the best, And I hope so.WFPM (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC) See Charles Janet.WFPM (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Constant corrections

Wikipedia is a great idea a way of tapping the worlds knowledge on countless subjects. But it is spoilt by too many vandals, busy bodies and no-it-alls. I am relatively inexperienced when it comes to writing these articles and it takes me an age to do so. I don't mind my English or formatting of articles being corrected so they conform to 'Wiki' standards. But I have lost the will for further contributions, as I have neither the time nor inclination to constantly correct factual errors, or argue about references with people who 'think' they know what they are talking about.

There was a long debate over the reliability of Ancestry sources, which I was asked to contribute, sorry I have a life, the debate was long winded, petty and trivial, there were too many people passing comments on things they don't understand. Yes there are errors in census returns, the 1841-1901 were filled in by an enumerator, however the 1911 census [primary source] was filled in by the head of the household [how many of our ancestors were fully literate?] and so it too contains mistakes. Just like there are in BMD certificates, how many illegitimate brides and grooms gained fathers, or married when they were supposedly single or widows [but were still married], names spelt wrong or swapped around and even wrong/conflicting dates, birth certificate says one date, death certificate another! BUT these are just as reliable as newspaper articles or books and biographies, its not like they don't make mistakes or offer conflicting information or go on to repeat the same mistakes in new articles. To prove relationships a family tree is the only thing we can reference sometimes. The GRO [a secondary source] offers a reference in order to obtain the certificates which you couldn't upload to WIKI as they would be copyrighted. I am a keen and experienced family historian and have a few 'notable' distant cousins in my tree for which I have provided facts/information to their biographies on WIKI. However facts keep getting changed and/or references removed, by people who haven't got a clue, especially on working out what is a bad or good family tree [more than one primary source to support the information] Suggest otherwise how you can prove family links/knowledge without the aid of these sources? OR how for example the family-tree for the Royal family on Wiki is acceptable but others aren't.

The article on Dennis HIRD is a case in point. Yes he is a distant cousin to me [1st cousin 3 x removed to be precise] he died 50 years before I was born, he was not known to me, my family or my grandmother [they were 1st cousins once removed]. I have been accused of expressing a bias [I wrote the article based on the facts I found and I referenced them]. I came by my knowledge after extensively researching HIRD for 10 + years. I have looked at countless newspaper articles, books, biographies, letters on him and by him and backed up these facts with census returns and BMD certificates. So I think I am a 'bit' of an expert on his life, yet the facts keep getting changed or references to his family discounted. He is also included in a chapter of a book I had published on his family [freely available on the internet and royalty free] This was written using the exact references/information as I had used for the WIKI article, BUT the book [a secondary source] is OK for reference purposes BUT some of the primary reference material isn't!

I would have liked to have added more facts, information and photographs to the numerous articles on here, to which I could have contributed further. However life is too short to waste it constantly correcting the same things, or spent on petty arguments.

MBorrill (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A misspelled word

This: "non-specialists" is misspelled. The word is "nonspecialists". Please correct this spelling.
In common nouns and common adjectives, the prefix "non" is never hyphenated onto anything, and we can find 100 correct examples. Here are a few: nonbeliever, nonconductor, nonfunctional, nongermaine, nonhuman, nonliving, nonmaterial, nonmetal, nonoptimal, nonparticipant, nonrural, nonsense, and nonverbal. 98.67.111.72 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done - WP:HYPHEN seems to indicate that for this usage, this is correct, also wikt:nonspecialist. It doesn't seem to be one of the exceptions listed at WP:HYPHEN. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 02:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

for reference: - see also Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors#A misspelled word.

Reader feedback: Make the left hand side link...

70.74.163.6 posted this comment on 10 July 2013 (view all feedback).

Make the left hand side links more eye catching. Or maybe run a little banner some time saying that this info is available, maybe saying something like "Interested in how wiki works? links on the left provide in depth explanations/information". I've always wondered and never even thought to look at the left hand side to read what was listed there because it never caught my attention and I just assumed it was for editors or someone other than me. I'm always using wiki focusing on the info I want so my line of vision is on the center of the page not browsing around the site but I would have read this a lot sooner if it was brought to my attention that this information is available. It's embarrassing to me that I didn't know this information was available and that I never even looked for it. I even commented on the fundraiser feedback page that it "should" be on wiki. Maybe it should be part of the wording of the fundraiser so people can assess the value of the information they receive but this page does brings attention to potential vandalism and false info so maybe it would hurt the fundraiser for those who believe the information is totally reliable.

Any thoughts?

BV ^talk 23:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)