User talk:Jimbo Wales

Help sir

{Unblock|1=Hey sir Im John from florida sir why my account has been blocked..and Your admin saying that is your account virajmishra but that is not my account, and again to again blocking me..Why have I been blocked, tell me what I have done wrong. I have corrected the articles correctly and I have not done any wrong editing. Closing my account again and again. I have taken mobile just two days ago and the new SIM just wants to run Wikipedia to play Wikipedia, so I did not have an account before that in Wikipedia, And this is virajmishra who is shutting down the account of my account, I can not even login to my account, Once more speaking, this is not my account. I have just created an account, my IP address is coming to this account, so what can I do in this account now? My account is no more, my account is blocked, what is this sockpuppet? I do not have any other account except in Wikipedia I bought a new mobile just 2 days ago , Please unblock me from my account and delete it from my IP address virajmishra,this is not my account. Please unlock my account and remove my account from Sockpuppet..virajmishra is not my account god promise this is not my account.And if I ask someone for help then my writing is being removed, no one is helping me, and your administrator knows only to block them, if they ask for help, then block them apart from helping them, Do not listen to anyone, just know to block and help someone do not help me, please remove my account from sockpuppet this account virajmishra because this is not my account. I just made an account for him to block me and so many people run six accounts, they are not blocking them like in the example this account please unblock my account.}

• Unblock request disabled - that template is only supposed to be used on the talk page of the blocked account itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, this appears to be User:JohnRoman (see similar appeal there from same IP), and the IP address making this appeal geolocates to Madhya Pradesh in India, not Florida. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My current location in Madhya Pradesh India but I'm also from florida. Madhya Pradesh is my home town..

Thank you very very much sir..Please help me This is not my Account god promise sir No one has done so much as much as I did because I have a dream to run Wikipedia and I love Wikipedia. but I'm doing wrong with you, your administrator has not blocked me even if I have not created an account. Misusing the post.please unblock my account only one chance I will not make any mistake again and sometimes I will make another account. Trust me only once and remove this account JohnRoman from Sockpuppet.I will be grateful to you.

You have the exact same IP address that was used to make an unblock appeal at User talk:Virajmishra. I've now blocked the IPv6 /64 range. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sir Boing! said Zebedee Jimbo Wales not bhopal my hometown is Shahdol Madhya Pradesh..but I'm also from florida.but my current location in shahdol Madhya Pradesh. Please unblock my account only one chance I will not make any mistake and do not give me a chance to say anything wrong. Give me only one chance. The person who dies is given a chance, but you are a human being or you give me a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:e600:ad1a:eeef:4aa0:f6be:5b47 (talk • contribs)

Which account? You seem to be using more than one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my Account JohnRoman not virajmishra. I will not make any mistake and do not give me a chance to say anything wrong. Give me only one chance. The person who dies is given a chance, but you are a human being or you give me a chance. You are the best person sir but im not best.I want to be like you, I have not made any mistake, I am being blocked again and again, only to ask for help, I am blocking the account of Virajmishra Tell me now, what would I do if I had done some mistake, I did not speak anything but I did not make any mistake. I did not know the rules of Wikipedia earlier but now all I know is now it will not be a mistake 2405:204:E600:AD1A:EEEF:4AA0:F6BE:5B47 (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You have used the exact same IP address to appeal the blocks on User:JohnRoman and User:Virajmishra. How stupid do you think we are? Your User:JohnRoman sock account will not be unblocked. (And in any case, a block on an account would not be lifted based on an appeal from an IP address.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear sir Jimbo Wales See, Sir, I am asking for help. I am being blocked again and again. What mistake have I made? I have requested help from you to unblock your account, no help is left to help me. When the IP address of my IP address and Virajmisha is showing beans, what can I do, it remains from the server, no one understands my point. So I am now seeking help from you. If you ask for help then you give me a helping hand, so you can help me. I am not mine virajmishra This is not my account. My account is just JohnRoman Please unblock me.Now my IP address will also be blocked if I asked for help from this IP address. Not helping just blocking.Just give a chance 2405:204:E10F:CA5D:DF6A:33F6:99DA:4370 (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

service

Hi Mr jimbo, i'm proud that i'm talking with the maker of wikipedia. I'm asking you for help, in arabic wikipedia I'm koussayou003 I'm blocked because i try to entre with an admistator account two times -it's joke- then the admistrator avertiss me . i dosen't try to doing it after that and i said sorry but the admistrator chek me and blocked me for a mounth, It's a long time and really i'v got so much things to do i'v got a bot for creating , two article to traduction in my two sandbox and so much athoer things to do. I realy would to improve wikipedia but the others hate me because I'm different , I always do admistrator things I dosen't now how to traduct them in english . So can you please unblock me.thanks

Now I'm asking for unblocking me so the admistrator blocked me for three mouth, please i need your help

Correcting storm news as Hurricane Ophelia heads to Europe

As Hurricane Ophelia (2017) heads north-east across the Atlantic towards Europe, another aspect of misleading news could be the forecast times of the storm path, if the forward motion changes speed. With the prior Hurricane Nate (2017), a major issue of incorrect news was the expected landfall time as local "5 a.m." based on old speed data. Meanwhile, the forward motion of Nate had actually increased 50%, but the time calculation (distance ÷ speed) seemed to use the old, slower speed, to report a projected later landfall near dawn on Sunday (8 Oct 2017), while the faster rate put landfall near midnight in Mississippi. The projected landfall map was illustrated by computer-model video maps, but news reporters were likely unaware how the computer storm models were using the old, outdated speed data. The 50% speed increase had begun 2 days earlier, but news reports were still claiming a dawn landfall after the final day of last-minute preparations, as if people could drive cars safely across the coastline that evening or sleep until dawn, while the reality was howling winds, flying branches, and high waves flooding the shorelines all night long at the coastal region. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. In your view, was there a reliable source closer to the primary source models that was more accurate than media reports that we could and should look at going forward so that we aren't repeating errors of general news media when better scientific sourcing is available?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: This is (likely) one reason why WP:WPTC strictly adheres to NHC products (or Regional Specialized Meteorological Center products in general) when it comes to meteorological information about a tropical cyclone.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps use sanity checks of NHC forecast map & motion rules: Typically, the U.S. NHC forecast map for Hurr. Ophelia: [1] (updated every few hours) could be checked to see if different from fancy animated computer-model videos, even when a hurricane is in other nations (outside U.S.). Also, some hurricane experts predict faster forward speed when turning northward at higher latitudes; see table of Atlantic average forward speed, in NOAA.gov page: "Subject: G16) What is the average forward speed of a hurricane?". By asking the news video-graphics department to run sanity checks against the U.S. NHC forecast map or average-speed table, then such landfall video-map errors could be reduced.

  One woman had a (weak) tree trunk fall into her house during Hurricane Nate (2017), when she should have been in an overnight shelter or such, but also Nate was bizarre as the fastest-moving Atlantic hurricane on record, zooming across Gulf of Mexico in like 2 days, rather than 4 days, as another reason why forecast landfall was 5 hours late, and why people couldn't get the typical "4-day warning" when actual 2-day rapid landfall. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Related [Nate was the fastest moving storm ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico], see also this fairly new article Tropical cyclones and climate change prokaryotes (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Faster movement on Saturday morning: With the expected landfall in Ireland less than 2 days away, the forward movement of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) has increased to ENE 24 mph (39 km/h), per NHC Advisory 21 (0900 UTC, current: [2]), which notes to consult Met Eireann or the UK Met Office. The NHC map of the forecast cone has shown an Ireland landfall before midday on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, but check the movement speed again on Sunday, to compare forecasts. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:40/12:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sunday storm movement: As expected, on Sunday, Hurricane Ophelia (2017) steadily increased forward speed and turned NNE by 2100 UTC, per NHC Advisory 27 ([3]), moving 58% faster at 38 mph (61 km/h), which was even 25% faster than the storm average for latitude 46&degree N. That motion would make landfall near Mizen Head, Ireland on Monday morning near 1000 UTC. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why we couldn't use the most recent NHC forecast rather than media reports based on possibly outdated forecasts? Someone might argue that NHC is a primary source, but that seems a bit silly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. weather news shows these whole-region, radar-in-motion forecasts, such as hurricane bands whirling ashore (across entire coastline), not just the "forecast cone" of the center, but the wide span of spinning rain bands, as a regional map of how landfall will occur. Such whole-region video models can become hours too late when forward motion doubles as expected with Hurricane Ophelia (2017) by 16 Oct 2017. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Really any reliable source that you consider to be accurate should do. Is it really the case that all the usual reliable sources are out-to-lunch? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A related issue has been some "weather-TV" channels which repeat regional forecasts on 1-hour repeat cycles for several hours, as one forecast segment says hurricane winds are now 180 km/h (110 mph), but nearby region forecast repeats old speed as 145 km/h (90 mph), as 2 alternate speeds repeated for hours. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Wikid77: Your assumption seems to be that weather models use the formula distance/speed = time. This is simply not true; that formula is not valid unless the speed is constant, which it is almost never for weather systems. Also, despite the known limitations of the NHC forecast cone, it is not our job to correct what the most reliable source is saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Ophelia predicted 5x larger on 16 Oct 2017

Now we're back to the issue of a huge size increase of storm radius, as with Hurricane Maria at Puerto Rico but much wider, where the NHC Forecast/Advisory 24 (current: [4]) predicts the width of Hurricane Ophelia (2017) to span a 5x times larger hurricane-force area "SE 90" on Monday, 16 Oct 2017, widening 40–90 nmi (74–167 km; 46–104 mi) at south+east of eye. Why does this matter? Well, it could seem like fake news to predict landfall at just "western Ireland" but high storm tide would span the entire southern coast, and hurricane-force winds could reach to south-east 90 nautical miles (167 km; 104 mi), if the NHC prediction for huge storm size on Monday morning is correct. I guess this is an issue where viewers (or readers) want news to tell them the "big facts" in a timely manner, and Wikipedia articles should note hurricane storm area became "5x larger" (or such) on the day of landfall, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Giving information about the expected future evolution of a storm begins to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, especially when it's that quantitative. We limit our coverage of that to statements of the form "Such and such storm is a tropical cyclone impacting such and such country". The disclaimer at the top of the article is there for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Really?

This discussion seems odd given Wikipedia's purpose. The choice shouldn't be between choosing between reliable sources and primary source related to future weather prediction (we're "not news" and certainly not future news). It would be a grave disservice if we calculate incorrectly and it turns out that Wikipedia used outdated information and original reearch for an incorrect conclusion. Our storm coverage should be historical, not predictive. The way the NHC presents data in forecasts is not the same as how they review it for historical preservation. For example, we know the formula they use for ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy). We calculate it on the fly. It is not provided by NHC, however, until after the storm and they revise wind history. Their forecasts, especially regarding current wind speed and projected wind speed is conservative in the interest of preserving life. After the storm they generally review all storm data from hindsight and correct the historical record and then publish ACE numbers. They aren't finalized until after the hurricane season with all data reported as "preliminary." We have very good Atlantic cyclone coverage but the choice should be whether to report or not report rather than attempting to correct a reliable source. If we have doubts about veracity, we should leave it out, not try to divine its truthiness. Never should we attempt to inject facts derived from our own original research especially when people are making decision regarding life and death. --DHeyward (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And hence the prudent advice: always obey the word of the NHC and official government forecasts. TV meteorologists are wrong more often than one would think, and should take a backseat in any potential life-or-death situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• The news shapes Wikipedia content: What we find with WP pages is a form of "recentism is coverage" so that a focus on news is a focus on what WP pages will mention about the related topics. For example, back in February 1861, the news reports in the U.S. could have noted: "The 7 lower South Cotton States formed the Confederacy, this month, as former U.S. slave states, but the majority of slave states remained with the U.S. as voting to soon make slavery permanent in the Union". Instead, in the absense of period news, the Confederacy is slanted in the fake views of the secession of slave states which fought against the Union of free states, as partially true, but a huge distortion from the reality that most slave states remained in the Union when the Confederacy first formed. With hurricanes, the focus on current news helps to provide broader details as the page is written so that a summarized distortion can be avoided later, but then the next news topic will distract attention from a prior hurricane as WP editors try to describe the next topic when readers want more information. Hence, the focus is not to predict weather for readers, but rather, to prepare to expand WP text to cover the whole picture about the hurricane. For Hurricane Ophelia (2017) expect to document storm surge damage along the south coast of Ireland, and the related coastal wind damage, even if the news reports shift to another trendy topic as the storm makes landfall. In a sense, the current news predicts what WP articles should mention, but editors often try to avoid news in vain hopes of later sources to document a fuller picture, which seems unlikely in reality. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wikid77: But we already do document damage by storms almost as soon as it occurs. If you don't believe me, comb through the history of Hurricane Maria. The rest of what you're saying makes little sense. The general consensus of WP:WPTC is that giving explicit information about the forecast for an active tropical cyclone runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL so what you mentioned above about the storm expected to expand 5x in size is not going to be in the article. Our duty is to cover the material as reported by reliable sources and to give appropriate weight and I believe the wikiproject does that pretty well. Otherwise your comment is too hand-waving for me to infer any specific call to action from it. If you have a specific suggestion, you are free to raise it at WT:WPTC - but don't expect to get very far with what you have written so far. There's also {{sofixit}}. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Science and math articles

Michael Byrne, a science writer at Motherboard has an article Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist, subtitled "Maybe Wikipedia readers shouldn’t need science degrees to digest articles about basic topics. Just an idea." I agree with much of what he says, though my experience is more with math/stats articles. Even though I really haven't kept up very well with the subject, I almost certainly have taken more math and stats courses (mostly stats) than 90% of the US population. But unless I specifically remember a topic from way back when, I can't even start understanding the 1st paragraph of 80% of our math and stats articles. Thus, I conclude that for a very large majority of our readers, most of our math articles might as well not even exist. Apparently it's the same for our science articles as well.

I'd love to see more academics writing and editing Wikipedia articles, but not if the articles are merely aimed for other academics. Any ideas how we fix this problem? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this 1,000%. Our math and statistics articles do a remarkable job of making the simplest concepts nearly impenetrable. And I make my living by solving nonlinear partial differential equations. I can't imagine what it must be like for the average reader. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very hard to address blanket statements - part of the FA process is making articles as accessible as possible, which we try and do without sacrificing accuracy. Many experts aren't particularly good at this though some indeed are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no suggestion to address this, but this gave me a chuckle, so to perhaps lighten your Wikipedia day, from the link: "I have no idea who the article exists for because I'm not sure that person actually exists: someone with enough knowledge to comprehend dense physics formulations that doesn't also already understand the electroweak interaction or that doesn't already have, like, access to a textbook about it." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I do have a suggestion, for the math articles at least: in these articles it is kind of habitual to cite little or no sources (per a WP:BLUE reasoning if I understand correctly). I'd have these sources nonetheless in these articles, and preferably sources that explain the concepts in a more generally understandable language, which would (hopefully) still be more or less understandable without a degree in mathematics when summarized. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Very good idea, and also often an issue with physics articles. prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestion: in the top right of an article we can have a sidebar, which is usually a navbox to articles on similar topics. For mathematics and similar high-tech articles, I'd propose another type of sidebar, one with "concepts used but not explained in this article", e.g. containing links to Boolean algebra and differential equation if that are concepts one needs to be acquainted with for a good understanding of the article you are reading; not too much detail: the "useful concepts" boxes on the articles referred to can in turn contain links to articles with the building blocs for that concept (e.g. "infinity (mathematics)" would be one that could figure in the box in the differential equation article).

This way one would always have a step down to something a bit more easily understandable, and a guide "where to start" if the article is too indigestible for the reader's level in math. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that a math/science article should be written for readers who would be looking for information on the subject of the article, which may naturally limit the readership to those who have a relevant technical background for understanding the subject. However, sometimes an article is written with language that is needlessly abstruse that makes it difficult for even a reader with a relevant technical background to follow. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And that's already difficult enough, as you need to simplify things so that people who don't already know the stuff will find it a useful read. It means that you need to use sources other than the best sources (e.g. you can use books instead of scientific articles, but often the books will assume the reader has some background that you don't assume the readers of the wiki article have). Gong further than this is without violating Wiki policies regarding sourcing, can only be done for popular science topics. So, topics like black holes, particle physics, string theory are more easy to write articles for that are accessible to lay people because there are a large number of popular science books on these topics. But there are many more subjects that can be explained even more easily to lay people, but we're not allowed to do that here. What's also a factor here is that even when there exist sources that are accessible to lay people, the wiki community will prefer basing the article on more rigorous scientific sources.

This problem has persisted here on Wikipedia for quite long time and what we're seeing now s that other websites such as StackExchange are filling the hole. E.g. how to derive $E=mc^{2}$, Wikipedia doesn't explain it well, that's why people ask this question on other websites and the answer ends up there instead of here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Martin Scorsese has drawn attention to the crappiness of this website as a determinant of anything whatsoever about a film. Wikipedia would be better served to cease treating this idiotic thumbs up/down metric as meaningful data, included in a virtually automatic way (because it's so easy) on almost all film pages. It is meaningless data that does not need free promotion on thousands of Wikipedia pages. Here's the Scorsese article: Scorsese on Rotten Tomatoes. This has been brought up before, responded to with ridicule by users who seemed to somehow assume it was sour grapes on the part of some film industry person: hardly. I write this as someone who cares both about Wikipedia and about culture in general, as should all Wikipedia users. 49.194.0.243 (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I know a lot of Wikipedians aren't fans of Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not a great fan either, but an outright ban on saying "Film X has a score of Y on Rotten Tomatoes" would be difficult. This should be raised at WP:RSN or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ever since the movies became big business over a hundred years ago, there have been directors, producers, stars and screenwriters who despise film critics. The ticket buying public actually reads movie critics, in their never ending quest to avoid wasting hard earned money on big screen turkeys. Rotten Tomatoes raises special ire from those disposed to hate film criticism, because, somewhat like Wikipedia, it summarizes what the full range of professional movie critics (AKA reliable sources) say about a movie. The funny thing is that Scorsese is also defending mother!, a film that enjoys a generally positive 68% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps he could not find an indisputably great film with a really bad Rotten Tomatoes rating to use as a rhetorical device. IP editor 49.194.0.243, you are as entitled as Martin Scorsese (a great director) to despise Rotten Tomatoes, but do not expect the rest of us to ride along with the two of you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Space Jam is an example of a movie with genuine critical acclaim (getting positive reviews from Siskel, Ebert and Maltin) but a wretched RT rating. I very much doubt Scorsese is a fan, but Rad is probably the canonical example of a movie that was universally loathed by critics but which was hugely popular with audiences (0% rating on RT, 91% audience appreciation rating); Scorsese would probably find Rise of the Footsoldier (14% RT rating, 83% audience rating, successful enough to spawn two sequels) more to his liking. ‑ Iridescent 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Every database of 10,000 items will have some statistical outliers. As for Rad in particular, its self selected audience almost self evidently differs "rad"ically in personal taste from professional film critics. That is part of the reason why we do not rely solely on Rotten Tomatoes when discussing the critical reaction to movies. Are those three examples enough to ban references to Rotten Tomatoes from Wikipedia, Iridescent, or are they just interesting anecdotes? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Geez. It has nothing to do with directors, producers or stars despising film criticism (and Scorsese does not despise film criticism either, so it's really totally beside the point). The discussion I attempted to start had nothing to do with removing criticism from Wikipedia. The question is not that at all, but whether Rotten Tomatoes has anything to do with film criticism and whether it counts as meaningful and relevant information deserving of inclusion in thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia articles. The moronic thumbs up/thumbs down metric is the question here, and it is what I discussed. Providing examples, whether mother! or Space Jam, simply makes no difference. In my view, there is no justification for doing so, and the same applies whether it is "all critics" or "top critics": whether a film gets a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and counting them up, is simply a completely useless and mindless way of evaluating works of art or entertainment (one simply cannot imagine such a formula being used for great works of painting or literature or any other form of art). If users can find critical opinions that a consensus tends to find worthwhile and just, then that should be included (as is currently the case), but it would simply be beneficial in all respects for Wikipedians to agree that, as I said, almost completely automatic inclusion of this non-data and non-knowledge does not benefit Wikipedia, cinema or culture in general. One can only hope that Wikipedians are capable of thinking about those kinds of questions, rather than simply being preoccupied with defending their castle. 49.194.0.243 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your question about whether Rotten Tomatoes has anything to do with film criticism is, "Yes, it does". It aggregates professional film criticism. I consider that meaningful and relevant, and check Rotten Tomatoes every time I am considering whether to spend hard earned money on a movie ticket. Obviously, you disagree, which is your right. But I submit that you will need to marshall far more compelling arguments if you hope to end the use of Rotten Tomatoes here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In the August 2, 2017 issue of the Hollywood Reporter, Paul Dergarabedian of ComScore offered this sage assessment: "The best way for studios to combat the 'Rotten Tomatoes Effect' is to make better movies, plain and simple." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you, Cullen328, are someone determined to talk about something other than the issue raised, and about an issue not relevant to this encyclopedia, so no further discussion with you need be entered into at this point. I would simply say that your response provides an example of the kind of approach taken by users that has the effect of driving others away. Best. 49.194.0.243 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

All Critics vs Top Critics

We should only use top critics score. Example for the new Star Trek. The top critics RT value in this case is close to the user value at IMDB. prokaryotes (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkey block

Tomb of the Kings, Dalyan

Hello. Attached is a picture I took on our September holiday in Turkey. Despite my moaning about Wikipedia from time to time, it is a valuable resource. Bristol stool scale is useful for foreign food attacks, and I wanted to look up Kaunos while I was there. But Wikipedia is blocked, as I found out. It is quite subtle. When you try to access Wikipedia, there is a long wait, and the server gives up, so you think it is the internet connection, which is not brilliant in most hotels. I only found out when I Googled 'Wikipedia block'. Google returns articles like 2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey which you can see, but cannot access of course. So many people in Turkey will not realise there is a block at all.

I understand the block was following an article dispute. Is there any prospect of resolving it? As I say, it is a valuable resource, and it seems wrong that access to nearly 80m people is denied. Is the WMF still working on this? Best wishes Peter Damian (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we make ref behind content a requirement for other WPs?

Especially when surfing through foreign language Wikipedia articles, many just list references at the end of the article, instead as done at the english Wikipedia behind the content. Because this can be very time consuming, and confusing, therefore it should be made a requirement for other Wikipedia's to use the english way of citing. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 arguments against this

1. We at EnWiki simply don't have the power to do this. Each Wikipedia community makes its own rules, within broad limits. Would we accept rules for EnWiki being made, say by the Arab language or Hebrew language Wikipedias?

2. Some Wikipedia language versions don't have a history of locally produced books, newspapers, libraries, or even online sources. where they can draw on available resources to document each line or paragraph. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)