Hi, you protected your talk page, so I can't leave a message there. Saw your msg on talk:latex, if you look at the Latex article you will see there is now stuff about clothing as well. by the way are you on Wipipedia? --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
If you've never used a particular template before, or have not used it recently, read it (e.g., with preview) to ensure it actually says what you want to say. If you are new to user warning templates, please read the usage and layout page first. If you want to design a new template, please read the guidelines found on the design guidelines page first.
Fomitopsis quercina is a species of mushroom in the order Polyporales. Commonly known as the oak mazegill, among other names, its specific epithet refers to the oak genus Quercus, upon which it frequently grows, causing a brown rot. It is found in most of Europe, following the pattern of oak distribution, and has also been reported in northern Africa, North America, Asia and Australia. The mushroom features pores which form a maze-like appearance. Though inedible, it can be used as a natural comb and has been the subject of chemical research. This F. quercina mushroom was photographed growing on a tree branch at De Famberhorst, a nature reserve in the town of Joure in Friesland, Netherlands. The photograph was focus-stacked from 21 separate images.Photograph credit: Dominicus Johannes Bergsma
The following are mirrored from User:BlankVerse's page, who's sentiments here I agree with. I have not personally had any problems with admins, but I do see it as a problem that the system is so open to abuse currently. The user base is so large, there are always people who will act differently once they feel they have power over people.
Once a user becomes an admin, they are free to do anything they wish
Why is this page black?
Because I am mourning the loss of civility and and the loss of too many good editors from the Wikipedia.
Because the Wikipedia has become a victim of its own success and its internal mechanisms for helping maintain civility have not scaled well.
Finally there is Requests for arbitration, which takes forever to make decisions, and seemingly refuses to take on the bad behavior of some administrators unless the admin's behavior is so egregious that it can't ignore it.
I will not even attempt to enumerate the other dysfunctional areas of the Wikipedia, such as Articles for deletion.
Just one part of the solution: There are some editors who don't necessarily need to be banned, but just need a time out, which is why the Wikipedia has a temporary blocking process. Well admins are editors too, and they also occasionally step over the bounds of appropriate behavior for editors. What is worse is that they can use their admin tools to do their misbehavior.
Right now there is no quick and effective way to punish a misbehaving administrator or even stop their misbehavior. If another admin blocks them, they can unblock themself. If an article is protected, they can edit it anyway. If they are in a revert war, they can continually use their rollback tool. And they can do all of this basically with impunity.
Because admins are trusted members of the Wikipedia community I feel that their misbehavior must be taken more seriously than those actions of other editors. There needs to be a small group of trusted supervisor administrators who have the ability to temporarily block misbehaving admins from doing any editing for periods of time up to a week and removal of admin powers for at least a month based upon the severity of the misbehavior. Any further misbehavior would be grounds for permanent removal as an administrator and they would have to reapply at Requests for adminship.
(Also, the number of admins is growing so large, and the Wikipedia is growing so complex, that it would be a very good idea to have volunteer "mentor" admins to help show the newbie admins the lay of the land.)
Look at the Requests for adminship page. It says, "Admins...are held to high standards, as they are perceived by some users as the "official face" of Wikipedia." Unfortunately the first part of that statement is not true. Instead, because they are admins, they can do practically anything they want without facing any consequences in almost all cases of admin misbehavior. Because they are admins they are given much more slack than other Wikipedia editors for any of their misbehavior. This needs to be changed.
This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chaosfeary.
_30-11-2022._(d.j.b).jpg)