User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 3
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 2||Archive 3||Archive 4|
- 1 Articles for deletion/List of largest empires
- 2 Yes i agree with you
- 3 Sorry!
- 4 School Computer
- 5 Need advice re: linking and editing
- 6 Thanks
- 7 Hi There
- 8 Your explanation - thanks!
- 9 File:Dog Meat.jpg
- 10 Tulip32 Complants
- 11 Unwanted edits
- 12 Real Time Gross Settlement
- 13 User:22.214.171.124
- 14 Changing dates
- 15 i did no such thing
- 16 Excuse me?
- 17 you should have warned me about 4 edits instead of reporting those edits were done in good faith
- 18 Usertalk: Explicit
- 19 Sin
- 20 Nomination of China National Highway 110 traffic jam for deletion
- 21 re:VicSRC article
- 22 Question
- 23 re:One of your userboxes
- 24 Random agreement
- 25 Megaproject-related editing problems
- 26 THANK YOU
- 27 RFA
- 28 Thankyou
- 29 Michèle Dionne
- 30 Reidsville NC
- 31 Koji Okada
- 32 Renaming of category
- 33 Succession boxes
- 34 Vandalism
- 35 Thank you
- 36 Bill O'Reilly
- 37 Indio Bandida
- 38 Thank you for your advice
- 39 "Good contributors don't make new articles"
Articles for deletion/List of largest empires
- Done. I wasn't aware that that was normal procedure, but after reading WP:Canvass it seems to make sense in some cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes i agree with you
I'm trying to edit that section to make it more presentable... Please help me do it... :)
- My apologies, but I have neither the time, nor the interest, not the knowledge to help with said topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the editing mess I caused Sunday - I'm new to Wiki editing and didn't know the ground rules. Also, as I was unfamiliar with how my talk page works, your warnings and re-warnings didn't even register with me until after I finally got blocked. Now I get it. Sorry again. User:126.96.36.199 (Mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this is a school computer and there are many who use this page to find information. Please do not bock us. Sincerly, Svensedammen School Teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back. I run an information blog dealing with Samaria, a section of the historic Land of Israel and probably better known to you as the upper portion of the "West Bank" in Israel. I have found that misinformation abounds regarding this topic, which I address at length in my blog. I am looking for a way to link up with Wikipedia because I believe that a link to my blog will add a lot of value to the discussion. My blog contains no inaccuracies, as far as I know, and is nicely formatted. Yet, because it's a blog (xxx.blogspot.com URL), it gets rejected. Is there a way to circumvent the system or somehow override it? Can I set up a non-blog pass-thru website link which would redirect to my blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated! TIA. User:220.127.116.11 (Mike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I think you need to read WP:External Links and WP:Reliable sources. For references, we only allow reliable sources--i.e., those with editorial oversight, like newspapers, magazines, academic journals, some books, etc. For external links, we only allow a limited number of "high quality" links; blogs are never acceptable. Ultimately, though you claim your blog "contains no inaccuracies," that is impossible for us to verify. As such, your blog cannot be linked. The only time we ever link to self-published sites like blogs are when they are by independently verified experts on a subject. For example, if you can show that you are a college professor who is well known in the historical subject of Samaria (if you are, let me know and provide me some links and I can show you to how to handle that), you may (if consensus at the article agrees) link to your blog. In all other cases, you cannot. Again, I recommend you read those two links above which explain our policies in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing your reversal and letting me know it was a mistake. I'm glad I was wrong about you and Wikipedia, having mistaken it for censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Sometimes those of us who patrol for vandalism get caught up and aren't careful enough. I'll do my best to watch out more carefully in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I placed a link there as it would have been been helpful but I guess not. Anyhow, I would like to place a link where Orbitz has located their link. This it okay right?
Also, I would like to create an "article page" and would like your help on where to start.
- Hi! Thanks for responding. There's basically two different issues here, so let me tackle them separately:
- Adding a direct link to the reservemyhome isn't possible because of the policy on links. In a certain sense, you may be correct that it may be "helpful," but Wikipedia is a lot stricter with links than many other sites. Our measurement isn't whether or not it's "helpful," but whether or not it is a highly representative link, without which the article quality is lower. So, for example, on a company's article page (like on the Orbitz page), there will be a link to that company's home page. We also include links to a very limited number of other sites; details can be found on the policy page. One thing we don't do is link to corporate/commercial sites just because they provide a service described on a page. The link to Orbitz is not a link to their site, but a link to the Wikipedia article about Orbitz. So that basically means the only reason we would have a link to that site is if it had it's own article, thus bringing us to...
- Having its own article. In order for a company to have an article, it must meet or notability guidelines for companies. You can read them in detail, but the basic idea is that the company must have received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources (magazines, journals, books, etc.). I took a quick look at the site, and my guess is that they won't meet that criteria; I also did a search in Google News and didn't find any hits. If the company is not already notable (by Wikipedia's definition of "notability"), then the company shouldn't have an article. As an encyclopedia, our purpose is to provide information on things in the world that other, reliable sources have already identified as important, not to be a source for creating notability. If you believe that the company may meet the notability guidelines, let me know and I'll tell you how to start such an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation - thanks!
I noticed the way you explained the ANI about the India article to User:Amartya ray2001. I just wanted to say thank you for explaining it in the manner you did. It is a much better way rather than just slapping trigger-happy warnings on uninformed newcomers talk pages which can scare them away. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm a big fan of templating clear vandals (I Huggle), but in cases where there does seem to be a sincere misunderstanding, I like leaving a personalized message when I can. I wasn't sure if it was "right" for me to jump into the middle of that discussion, but I was hoping that it would stop the drama from escalating and keep Amartya ray's misunderstanding from causing a problem for him/her. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for uploading the file File:Dog Meat.jpg. Sadly you only uploaded the file to the english wikipedia. It would be great if you could upload the file to Wikimedia Commons (Wikimedia Commons). That way it could be used on other language Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects. Thank you.
See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons for more information.
How come you don't erase the music on User:WikiJJ42 Page because I put on the same music that is on his page,so your not being fare because you let him keep the music that you erased from my page REPLY TO ME AS FAST AS POSIBLE! --Tulip32 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was simply unaware of the links on his page. Wikipedia has over 13 million users, many but not all of whom have user pages. To be honest, it was sheer chance that I saw your page in the first place--I was patrolling "Recent Changes," and happened to see yours and come to take a look. Now, your userpage is on my watchlist, which means that it shows up on a list whenever changes are made to it.
- In any event, I have erased the music links from WikiJJ42. You are certainly welcome and encouraged to do the same any time you encounter copyright violations on Wikipedia, either on user pages or in articles.
- Which brings me to my final point. Let me go look at your contributions...As I thought, I noticed that you have never once made an edit to the encyclopedia. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this website. We are not here to provide personal pages for people--there are thousands of other sites, many of them free, where you can make your own blog or home page. Wikipedia exists to create an encyclopedia. Technically speaking, I could argue that your entire page is a violation of our userpage policies--people are really not supposed to have much on their page that isn't directly related to Wikipedia. I'm actually being kind by not recommending that your main page be deleted.
- However, after looking at your contributions I am going to have to recommend the page User:Tulip 32 Sandbox page be deleted. You are using that page to try to get around the removal of your copyright info, but you essentially created a new user page (as if there was a person named "Tulip 32 Sandbox"). Please do not try to game the system. No matter where you put those links on Wikipedia, they must be removed. There are no exceptions to the policy on linking to copyright violations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear wikipedia user. Please post to the talk page before reverting edits to *existing lists* on the Music_OCR page. It was useful material used to "flesh out" the fact that the links pointed to non-existent wiki pages, and should probably stay. If you disagree please post to the talk page there. Thanks. Rogerdpack (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised by this edit to the above-captioned article. Are you suggesting, by your deletion, that it is advisable to confuse the subject with "Real Time Goat Settlements"? At very least, you could have created a dab page and added a hatnote! Bongomatic 05:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I should have been more dilligent. Well, once the article "Real Time Goat Settlements" exists (or, perhaps I should say, once the concept exists), I shall be happy to add such a link and note. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see. Well, that does meet the criteria, then. I didn't immediately recognize the articles as being primarily UK in nature. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
i did no such thing
hello i would like you to take your comment back i did not attack the ip editor on User_talk:126.96.36.199
i was merely implying that his edits are irrelevant and that his opinions dont matter on that certain wiki article and asked him not to state biased opinions if by this i did something wrong please forgive me
but as you may know THAT certain article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Goldberg is the ONLY article he seems interested in i would assume that its a personal attack on bill goldberg himself and i am not a xenophobist i was only implying that he was ignorant and malaysian when he keeps insisting on proving his point when his point has been rendered irrelevant i recommend you watch that article i would also like you to coach me on how to comment on wiki pages and the formatting and if its not too much since you are experienced i also wud like you to teach me how to request semi protection for vandalism prone articles :D
- You said "your malaysian ignorance is wearing thin." That is an indisputable racist attack, and as such is absolutely unacceptable. Never refer to another editor's race (especially since you have no idea what it is), and never call someone else "ignorant." As for him only editing one article, there is nothing wrong with that. We call that a WP:SPA:single-purpose account; while it can be a sign of possible danger, it's only really a problem if the edits are a policy violation. I know nothing almost nothing about wrestling, and so have no way to distinguish between kayfabe and "real" wins (my understanding was that there was no such thing as a "real" win, but again, I know almost nothing). More importantly, it doesn't matter what you, I, or the IP thinks. What matters is what the source says. Is his/her source valid? Does it state that the wins are partially kayfabe? Then the statement should remain. If not, revert the edits and explain why you did so on the talk page (although don't become guilty of WP:Edit warring). Finally, semi-protection doesn't look helpful or necessary to me--there've been only 10 edits by IPs in the last week, and most of them seem to still be in the article. Semi-protection is only acceptable when the article is being vandalized by anonymous editors, not when there is a content dispute. However, I will watch the article; if the dispute becomes heated, then we can request full-protection, at which point you will both be forced to discuss the issue on the talk page (which is really what you should be doing anyways, not just reverting each other). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah thats not racial what do you constitute as racism? for example why would calling someone malaysian or american or british matter? in my understanding racism only applies if he or she gets treated differently coz of race or if its an actual insult i wasnt insulting calling someone ignorant is not an insult it simply means they are ignoring or not knowing all the facts and still insisting they are right
ill correct you goldberg won 173 matches almost half of them werent aired there is a source for this he was honored by a sports award there is a link in the talk page please refer to it coz i hate to drag you in this "edit war" or whatever it is you call but know this this ip user isnt interested in talking ive talked to him there are plenty things written on that page besides your "alleged racist malaysian comment"
i want you to take back that im a racist this isnt the type of thing you should accuse people of it wasnt a personal attack had i known how to comment using templates or something like the other guys do i would have used em
it would seem that you are being ignorant too by "not knowing what a racist insult is but still telling me not to do what i didnt do"
your little link is a dead link stop making stuff up get to the point and if you dont mind please teach me how to request semi protection not as an editor but as a fellow wikipedian it is your duty to teach the young
your statement here is a chore to read please consider leaving spaces and not a huge bundle of words remember i dont consider you an enemy and even if you consider me an enemy remember "respect your enemy" like if you wanna insult or threaten someone you gotta write it at least in a way they can read it right? TraviaNightmare (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll use bullet points since you didn't like my block response before.
- Combining the use of a negative term, "ignorance," with a racial identifier, "Malaysian," is racism.
- Even if it's not racism, it's still a personal attack. The key rule to follow is "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people."
- You don't even have any way of knowing the IP editor's ethnicity. At best, you could identify where s/he is editing from, but that tells you nothing about the editor. There is no reason for you ever to refer to another editor's ethnicity in any situation.
- I never called you a racist. I said your statement was a racist attack. I stand by that statement. I apologize if it sounds harsh, and it may well be that you did not intend it to be a racist attack, but, nonetheless, it is one.
- I don't see any evidence that you've talked to that user other than your one comment on his/her talkpage and in 2 edit summaries on Bill Goldberg. That was after you called the person out on their "ignorance." That's not a good way to get someone to talk to you and work with you on the article. Why would you think s/he would listen to you after that attack?
- However, looking at the history, I see that you removed the IPs comments on the talk page. This is not allowed (as you requested, I'm teaching you wikipedia policy). See WP:Talk for details. The only time things should be removed from talk pages are:
- Blatant vandalism
- Blatant advertising
- Using the talk page as a forum
- When you are archiving the comments to an archive page.
- None of those apply to your removal of the IPs comments, which were directly about the article and the content. Your removal of the comments, in fact, stops a conversation from happening about the article
- I don't consider you an enemy. I don't know what I said that makes you think that. I actually don't consider anyone on WP other than vandalism only accounts to be "enemies," and you do not fall into that category.
- You said my link didn't work; I think you meant the one on single purpose accounts. Apologies, I mistyped it. You may note that that link is to an essay, not a policy--this is because there actually is no policy forbidding someone from editing only a single article.
- If you want to request semi-protection, you need to go to WP:RPP. Instructions are listed there. I recommend that you do not do so, however, as it will look badly for you. Semi-protection may ONLY be used to stop vandalism, and the IP editor isn't vandalizing--s/he's disagreeing with you about content. You may want to first read up on WP:Vandalism, which explains what is and is not vandalism.
- I have the Goldberg article on my watchlist now; if things seem to get bad, I will follow policy and act appropriately.
- In short, I think you want to back-up, slow-down, and think about what you're doing. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. The natural consequence of that is that people sometimes disagree. When that happens, we talk it out on the talk pages. Sometimes the process takes weeks or months. We do not go around attacking other editors. No one person determines what goes on a page or what does not--that comes through consensus-building discussions. Please review your own actions, and think about whether or not you were really acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
how duu yuu yooze bullet points (sorry for typo my one hand is dirty so im using only one hand for typing)
ill use spaces then since i dunno how to use sophisticated "bullets" like yuu
eat this and your own words "Ignorance is a state of being uninformed" this is from wiki itself read it if u wanna butchu aint gunna win if yuu think its an insult its not an insult its used as an insult but it can also be used for its original meaning kinda like "motherfucker" i know its a very rude example but its a damn good one and i do have a point over 90% ppl use this as an insult butt dont mean it but believe it or not calling a real person who had sex with his mom a "motherfucker" is not an insult with words its mostly what you mean by it not the intended social norm i may be just a 12 year old kid(13 in november) but im not as dumb as you wud expect i read wiki and the dictionary regularly and many variants of the dictionary just so i can learn the cure for the world. and also "motherfucker" cant compare with ignorance or ignoramus(which i didnt call him) it simply means he is misinformed/uninformed or choosing to hold his side of the story even though he was proven wrong so there ignorance is not an insult and my girlfriend uses "fuck" all the time sometimes she means it but the other times she refers to sleeping with her which is not an insult but ignorance is an even lighter word than this its not an insult its not a negative term if anything its a neutral term like "boob" which can be used in 2 ways
and calling someone australian american british canadian utopian is not racism please tell me who taught you your "racism" coz really its just stupid. racism means like hating someone or liking someone just coz of his or her race you have to believe that that race person is biased by racial stuff in order to call them a racist and besides malaysians are not a race they are a subfamily of a subrace. in order to be a racist u have to like or hate that particular race for example its possible to like one black person but not the other black person thats not racism but liking or hating both just coz they are black makes you a racist im not offended im simply schooling you on insults wiki is a place of love and trust you are supposed to educate each other regardless of age,sex,experience,ethnicity. i believe in the next world wikipedia is the place people will come to learn from and not actual schools me saying this in this time period only makes me half right but just you watch in 200 years time real schools and universities will be irrelevant itll be free knowledge for everybodeeeee :D
i hope you learned from this now onto point 2
its not a personal attack i wouldnt be able to call someone ignorant if i hadnt read his "content" now would i? once again its not an insult or an attack of any sort and IIRC i also said that it was "wearing thin" on the article which meant the article was being disrespected vandalism doesnt only mean gibberish spam or blanking it also means stating extreme bias and irrelevant stuff if you read the previous edit of his it was EXTRMELY biased im serious read this edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Goldberg&diff=next&oldid=386528001 it says "In their efforts to push Goldberg to the moon, however, WCW made some critical mistakes. Ever since the announcers had mentioned that he was 60-0, fans with way too much spare time begun to keep track of his winning streak. These fans were so hardcore that they even kept track of his untelevised house show wins. ... One week, announcer Schiavone's number didn't jive with the number the hardcores had. Then, the next week, it was even further off. As it turned out, in a lame effort to make his streak appear more meaningful, the company had started to add imaginary numbers to the total"
as yuu can see im the victime here if thats not absolute bias i dunno what it is i have provided "indisputable" evidence and a link proving im innocent so take back what youu sed about me :(
regardless malaysia is not like the US here where we allow immigrants on a daily basis its safe to assume from my calcualtions that he is at least half malaysian or full if yuu like and he is a guy as no sweet woman would dare to bother with stating their bias on a wikipage unless its something in popculture or their own personal taste or if they were mentally ill(which is unlikely) and yes they are editing from malaysia and the very fact that he was offended by me "classifying" him as malaysian proves it as if he wasnt he would have denied it instead of insulting me like that in a very unconventional way (in an edit summary) if i may add. also there is a reason: stating a persons ethnicity does some serious damage to their anonimity factor which scares them i highly assume that he didnt actually mean that insult as an act of hate but it was rather motivated by fear coz his cover was blown its proven if you state that you know where someone lives and if you are even half right there is a natural fear that comes with it and if you are not someone they know that fear goes double so finding out where ppl are editing from is neccesary for counter vandalism as if we didnt have ip identifyers and stuff we wouldnt be able to even comment to ips or initiate an ip block if anything my point is that identification is neccesary to do pretty much anything to someone regardless of what it is or if it is real life or internet based what i did was state his ethnicity if thats a crime then arrest me :(
stating ethnicity though not neccesary is an effective way of demotivating vandalism if its from a local place that is...
no only racists racially attack dont stand by that statement take it back :(
it is not one ive schooled you on it look above for info dont apologize for it "sounding" harsh it is harsh and not true you should be apologizing for wrongfully accusing me nonethe MORE it is not racially or ethnically insulting at all now take it back :(
aha! so you do admit i "called him out" in essence proving im right coz he was clearly offended also there as no communication in the edit summary other than reverting vandalism or etc only one way communication was going on in an edit and that was his "xeno racist" insult i havent responded to him and never will as ive deleted traces of his edits for a good reason : he is simply adding irrelevant stuff so even if its only a byte or two a waste of space is still a waste nobody wants to go to a page where they have to scroll for eternity and so thats why irrelevant words must be weeded out.
lets get this clear of course its not a good way to work with someone what do you think a iam a dummy? why would you even remotely suggest that i wanted to work with him or talk to him all i want for wiki to be rid of him on that particular article ONLY sure he can add unbiased relevant info on that article if he wants to but for now he only seems interested in that certain paragragh also youll be happy to know that i found he was a dynamic ip meaning at least one of the related ip's also only edited that certain paragraph in that certain article trust me he is at least mildly obsessed with it to know your enemy you have to think like he does and he simply wants to diss it plain and simple id like to work with him/her especially if its a "her" but im afraid if he is allowed to edit that article any further he'll just keep reverting and saying that my words are irrelevant to him does that sound fair to you? no it doesnt does it?
he didnt listen to someone else either go to the talk page and go the the NOT KAYFABE part theres a link a source yet he rambled on about how its irrelevant and reverted some other guys relevant edit i was simply reverting it so that it made sense and didnt involve "pushing GOLDBERG to the moon" why do you think he would have listened to me even before the "assault" you accuse me of?
once again say you're sorry :(
yes i did its obvious isnt it? its not allowed? there should be another one there its called removing stuff that has nothing to do with the article namely irrelevence theres a source for gods sake and realize that he only seems interested in this simple section ONLY not the good parts like how he was a hero and how great he was in real life and his championships if you want some entertainment my wiki sibling watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIf_4x9tTq0 you will not be dissapointed watch the vid not as a wikipedian but a fellow lifeform to satisfy your need for curiousity and entertainment
thats a nearly 500 pound 7ft man hes lifting if you know anything about him or want to go look paul wight right here on wiki hes lighter now since hes old and has lost a lot of weight but youll be AMAZED
also heres something good from the talk page its how he looked in his youth it doesnt matter if your a guy or a chick theres no denying thats one of the most handsomest looking people and that goes double since he was never advertised as never advertised for some beauty contest and since he was an athlete when its not you job to look pretty heres the pic: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/f/football/goldberg.jpg
heres a confession from a good person:
it filled me with tears of joy sure there is a great amount of ppl who hate him but that just bias mostly from fans from other wrestlers but the point is most of them are people who want closure like where is he hows he doing is he ever gonna be back to be the next best thing since superman and sliced bread ive shown u a link to his vid ive shown you the luv ive shown you that he isnt an ugly person on the inside or the outside and i think if you watch him you will love him and treasure him for the real human being he really is always have an open heart on everything thats the only way to succeed in lyfe if you read his wiki article you will find that he played a dangerous sport it may be the one of the most dangerous sports ever but he got injured his whole life was passing him by and he found a sliver of hope in wrestling this is what is not in the article but if you read between the lines you will find it to sum up i havent seen a better human being then him heck when i say this i mean it if the whole world was filled with goldbergs we wud have world peace he was a man who didnt use steroids he works out even when he isnt employed in the athletic department i read a confession from him that said that he encourages ppl to live like he does and by that he means live healthy and work out like him in the confession i read that he works out even though he only does tv shows now and even though he isnt required to work out by his career or anything he still does anyway. look up ppl like bret hart who are retired ppl nearly 50 look how fat they are you will find that by the end of the day goldbergs advice is an advice you can live by youve done right by me bill goldberg you are the only true hero on this earth :)
as for the comments ah yes... i mean no you are not educating me you are taking up my time and energy and my gf is mad at me now sayin im always at the computer watching naughty stuff and playin games instead of helping her around her house... but thats another story though the point is this is too long and you should just admit your mistake btw how did you know about me or him's comments on each other? were you stalking us? (just curious)
i may have to undo your undo of my comment erasing or you could just do me a favor and remove your undododo coz the comments are irrelevant to the subject and it states the same thing twice admit your mistake and just do it and besides i dont think that malaysian will be back
its vandalism in the fact that its not really about a subject but he still wants to assert that he thinks that what he thinks is the truth and he states it TWICCE and also no amount of evidence will satisfy a biased person just go look at ps3 vs xbox 360 ppl never want to admit their flaws and most people also want to exxagerate A LOT if they have any valid point
its not advertising
ok now thats good it IS being used as a forum you didnt count on that when you copy pasted all this take page guidance stuff did you?
what is an archive archive comment wutwut now? really stop being so complicated im not on your wikipedian skill level yet k?
actually technically 2 out of 4 apply. it wasnt about the article it was about the content in it this particular one ONLY in fact he went so far in reverting it im not sure how many times now the point is stop this madness i have proven that hes full of bias so why should a biased persons comments be on the wikipage its just a waste of space im only cleaning after all remember you also thanked someone for them cleaning vandalism off your page so why am i the crime commiter here :(
theres no conversation it was never gonna be a conversation it was over before he ever started the reason that particular section was created was coz he kept adding that it was fake look up the history books of the wikipage if you like coz i just cant bother but you will find that he or someone else kept adding the fake part but then the section was created and it gave a LINK a link for godsake and he commented on how he found the link unbelievable but i tell you he was honored into a hall of fame how is that not believable you yourself go to that page and check it out i found it completely believable as it doesnt just mention his wrestling career like why wud someone post irrelevant info on purpose and keep it uncorrected (if they didnt do it on purpose) just tell me that huh?
go to that page check it out its reliable hes just rambling i tell you the conversation ended before it even started coz he was the reason that section even started and it provided a link giving indisputable proof
stop with all the lies if you dont like me as an enemy you dont like me as a friend lies all lies i tell you
at best you consider me some edit warring meathead(which im not) oh boy i dont fall into your "catergories" how great that must be. what makes me think im an enemy in your eyes is coz you dont give a crap about what im trying to tell you you try so hard to be unbiased that you are actually giving the malaysian undue credit you should be taking my side because i never insulted anyone yet and you keep insisting me of ill will that makes me sad this isnt just some corny stuff im writing here i dont mind saying how i feel if people even mildly listened to me and i speak truth no doubt
yeah the link didnt work thank you it does now that you corrected it :) seriously though how hard is it to type all these links correctly and stuff makes me think you guys are bots or something im only 12 so i may not get the full picture here but seriously is there something i dont know about adult life? do you get faster fingers? instant messaging in your brain? always online on wiki? anything?
but still at least you mistyping the link is at least partial evidence that you are human after all i guess :P
anyway WT??? im reading single purpose here and it states narrow or limited NOT single paragragh in a single article and certainly not obsession. if anything IM the one who applies to this narrow account thing sure i intend to take it to the next level with mrs wikipedia but for now im just sticking with the upper parts and articles that i think are not maintained and poorly cared for by you ppl after all to give love is to have love thats what my relationship with my gf taught me and im sure it applies to friendship and everything else in life as well
thanks but... you're are a wet blanket now. hmm why dont u do it for me i mean i read it but it sounds too complex in my opinion it should be indefinitely semi protected i mean the article looks good on its own it has a B rating at best which is cool and if ip helpers wanna edit they might register and that helps wiki by giving more hardworking editors overall the damage is worse than the good done here i mean this malaysian guy is stalking the article its not healthy to him of the article this isnt a democracy sure if you want to i can take votes and create polls but win or lose it doesnt matter read my links its bias even as we speak he has made another edit this hurts me man if only you trust me as much as im putting faith in you but i guess you wont listen to reason if you dont read my links remember watch ALL the links its time consuming but its worth it
also if you feel that its just not worth it and wanna revitalize with a sense of coolness watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJEvpwDBXY
FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART THANK YOU you have made this a bit more popular it was 92 watches before now its 93 one is still a difference and im hoping to enhance this article to a level where it becomes featured how cool is that? i need your help to do that promise me you wont give up on me
follow policy and please revert his edit or do you want me to do it?
are you even watching the article or are you just waiting for an edit war? if you wanna help now is the time revert his edit please
ok this last part is stupid and irrelevant yes i am acting in the best for the encyclopedia and i will win this if this turns out to be an edit war with that malaysian troll i need you to help me otherwise youll just be a third party in this has he contacted you? is he as nice as i am? does he even care? if the answers are no then what are you waiting for?
i checked protection policy and youll be happy to know what most of the semi protection requirements are filled which makes this article semi protection worthy i just cant be bothered to copy paste it coz i need to go to bed but seriously do your job fellow wikipedian TraviaNightmare (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bullet points are done by starting your paragraph with an asterisk (*).
- You yet again made a personal attack above, calling him a "malaysian troll." Stop immediately--the rule is very simple: discuss people's edits, not the people themselves.
- I will look at the edits on the article later today.
- I honestly couldn't care less about Goldberg, I promise you. I have no stake in this disagreement, only in making the overall Wiki work right and be at its highest quality.
- You completely misunderstand what vandalism is. Read WP:Vandalism. Do not call an edit vandalism until you understand that definition. The IP is disagreeing with you about content. It may well be that xe is wrong, and that the information should not be included. But that will be based on consensus--a consensus which you attempted to prevent being built, because you erased his/her comments on the talk page.
- On that--his talk page comments aren't vandalism either. Quoting the policy, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. " He was attempting to add information and then discuss it with others. If you don't understand how to use conversation on the talk page, then you either need to read more about our process first, or consider whether or not you're ready to handle collaborative editing.
- Even if we consider your comment to not be racist, it is still a personal attack, and thus not allowed. End of story.
- I looked at what xe wants to add to the article. It's a quote from a book. Please discuss on the talk page with him/her whether or not the quotation belongs in the article. Do so in a civil fashion. Assume good faith. etc.
- You are 100% wrong on semi-protection. 1) Articles are never good enough--they always need improvement. 2) After a quick glance, I see IP editors adding useful content. They are not vandalizing (at least, not all of them), and the amount of vandalism is too low to deserve protection. I'm not making an SP request when I don't believe the article is semi-protective.
- To repeat--you need to learn what editing policies are and follow them. You need to learn to edit collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
stop nitpicking will you these arent personal attacks these arent attacks at all it was merely a suggestion to what that person in malaysia truly is mind you i assumed good faith and reverted his edits but then he started caps typing on my page and reverting my changes to make it more difficult
good for you feel free to take his side over me anyday :(
i dont care what promises you make all you do is take the malaysians side malaysian malaysian malaysian happy now? :P at least check the only three links i gave you on your talk page these are indisputable proof to how great he is i dont care if you're a boring person this will light up your day hide behind that wiki mask if you like if i know how to cite sources i would do a lot better im going to throw his real book out the window and add a better source then i wont be using his source will i? i used his source by mistake but that only coz i made a minor edit i think but still i think he removed a source too coz i checked to see if it was legit and it was
im not preventing anything he is just irrelevant go to the talk page and visit the NOT KAYFABE section for more info there is a link clik it
on that whos talk page?
no reopening of story it wasnt an attack neither was it personal it was only implying that he was ignorant coz of the reverts he kept adding and he was malaysian (which has been proven) and theres also proof he uses dynamic ip so there
it seems every good thing i do goes from bad to worse like the man on the moon story now you claim its legit? a clear proof of bias i say and also goldberg didnt just attain the highest streak in wcw he attained the UNBEATEN UNDEFEATED WINNING STREAK IN SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT HISTORY i presume u will add this yourself or do i have to?
im not 100% wrong you are 100% wrong on insisting im 100% wrong k? first off i was implying that that article was good enough to read it doesnt mean that its perfect like you are trying to say im implying
yeah but we can do without them especially the malaysian one
i DID i did assume faith but he kept reverting it that convinced me to revert him and his comments ultimately i was right coz he was shouting on my talk page not long after
fine dont help me i can find other ppl to help me take the malaysians side then
- I believe I've outlined the policies on personal attacks and civil editing sufficiently at this point. Just as we all are, you are now responsible for following the policies as they're written, as I think you have been adequately informed of them by myself and others. You are, of course, more than welcome to continue discussing and editing the Goldberg (or any other) article, providing you follow policies and guidelines when you do so. You'll probably notice that I made some edits to the Goldberg page, and I would be happy to hear your input about them on the article's talk page--let's keep the content discussions over there, so that everyone can be involved/informed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I did not noticed the above. You now say to the other editor that his comment to me was "an indisputable racist attack" but when I pointed that out myself, you slap me with a warning? --188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
And if you're going to have the article on your watchlist, please pay attention to the fact that I'm the one who is supplying a reliable source - a book, no less - as support to the text while the other editor has done nothing of the kind. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- His/her statement was a personal attack--on that we definitely agree. However, the correct way for you to respond was to do what I did--tell him he made a personal attack, and cite policy (WP:NPA) and, if you want, request that he take back the sentence. Don't attack back. Again, the basic principle of "comment on the edits, not the editor" applies, even when responding to bad behavior.
- I will be watching the article. I recommend that, rather than fighting to include the info, please comment on the talk page and discuss it with other editors. I will not allow him/her to remove your comments anymore (assuming you don't violate policy, of course). Ideally, other editors will join in the discussion; if not, there are ways we can proceed--I, myself, will help try mediating where I can. It is true that your addition appear to be sourced, although just being sourced isn't enough info to guarantee that something should be included. I have no opinion, yet, about whether your edits should be included. I may form one over the course of watching the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
you should have warned me about 4 edits instead of reporting those edits were done in good faith
the last edit were done in good faith if i knew how to cite sources i would revert your actions i changed nothing big and yes i removed the source but only coz its biased it clearly states that its the best professional wrestling record stop harrasing me ill report you to the admins whichever way...
- Pardon me for interrupting, but your antics have been (dis)gracing the Recent Changes feed for a while now and I feel I must interject here: THERE IS NO WAR HERE. This is an encyclopedia, not a battlefield. Please be WP:CIVIL. Otherwise you will face consequences for your actions. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have no comment on the sockpuppetry accusations, as that is not an issue I deal with on Wikipedia. However, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that "two wrongs don't make a right." You can see this embedded in WP:Edit warring, WP:NPA, and WP:V. If you believe that you are not sockpuppeting, then present your case appropriately. But when you make actions in direct contravention of guidelines (here, it's WP:Talk page guidlines) it will make others less likely to listen to your defense. If you're not socking, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok I understand. I didn't see the harm in this given that the comment made by NorthernCounties was completely irrelevant and also offensive.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AO_Fenian&action=historysubmit&diff=384975490&oldid=384966890. Can you also give NorthernCounties a similar warning then given that he did the exact same thing that I received a warning for. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your are correct that he shouldn't have done that. However, as a general rule, we don't warn users for behavior that's over a week past, unless the behavior was especially egregious. Also, I'm not sure what your deleted comment meant (perhaps its non-US slang? or something related to a prior discussion); if it is potentially offensive (as Northerncounties implies) then xe could technically claim xe was reverting vandalism...I still think he ought not have done it, but, again, warning him at this late date would generally be frowned upon. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of China National Highway 110 traffic jam for deletion
Hi. I have nominated China National Highway 110 traffic jam for deletion. This is a courtesy notice to inform you of the discussion as you originally nominated this article for deletion last month. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well then, thank you for every instruction. I will see that i follow them all. Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I tend to watch some of the Pro-Wrestling articles. I left the project because of too many headaches, but I look out for general vandalism. Regarding user:TraviaNightmare, he acknowledged on my talkpage when I had added Bill Goldberg to my watchlist. Later on I removed it, and he responded that he had seen that as well. I've looked all through the help pages on watch listing and don't see how he accomplished this. Do you have any ideas? I'm simply curious. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I read this, and planned to look into it, then forgot. As far as I know, this can't actually be done. You can see how many people watch a page, so if you started becoming interested then he saw the number increase by one, then he may just infer that was you. Similarly if you said something like "I wash my hands of this" and then the number went down by one. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Anyway, I thought there might be something like you said, seeing how many watch the page (never found it, but I figured it was a third-party tool). But I never told him that I was watching it or that I unwatched it. And when I did unwatch it, without telling anyone, he came to my page and posted a new section with the header "so you unwatched the article". It was a bit concerning. I was curious if there were some shenanigans afoot. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I just checked Help:Watching pages, and it explicitly states "Ordinary users or administrators cannot tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. Developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database could obtain this kind of information." You can tell how many people watch a page by going to  and entering the page name in; I have no idea how that information is created. I have to believe that TraviaNightmare is not a developer or someone with access to developer level tools; my guess is that he, for some reason, is obsessively checking the # of watchers, and making educated guesses which happened to be accurate in your case and mine. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Anyway, I thought there might be something like you said, seeing how many watch the page (never found it, but I figured it was a third-party tool). But I never told him that I was watching it or that I unwatched it. And when I did unwatch it, without telling anyone, he came to my page and posted a new section with the header "so you unwatched the article". It was a bit concerning. I was curious if there were some shenanigans afoot. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
re:One of your userboxes
I saw this statement by you: I think that, now that we have a core encyclopedia covering a very wide range of topics, odds are greater than any given new topic is non-notable than notable (precisely because the vast majority of things, people, companies, bands, concepts, etc., are, by our standards, non-notable).. Indeed! Cheers. I am watching this page, so please reply here. — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I actually think that this is something that relatively new users (like myself) sometimes see, and see the implications of, more than those who've been with the project for many years. There was a time, as far as I can tell and imagine, probably just a few years ago, when the opposite would likely have been true. And it's still true (that there are many things to add), particularly from places outside of the U.S. and western Europe--India, in particular, seems to have a lot of growth potential on English Wikipedia (unlike, say, China or Brazil, where finding reliable English sources is much harder for local issues). So much has already been written, and I think we need to recognize that in the way we interpret our policies, or possibly even write new ones. WP:N and WP:RS/WP:V, as they stand now, place extreme limitations on what types of articles we can have. While I personally agree with those limitations for the most part, they does mean that we should expect a good many new articles to not meet those limitations. In the past, I think it actually was probably true much of the time that a new article could be created that doesn't meet the standards, but could reasonably be expected to meet them in the future. And I think some (although certainly not all) older users essentially haven't made the shift from what Wikipedia was just 5 years ago to what it is now. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you left some messages to Tuduser (talk · contribs)  . Tuduser's editing appears to be part of a larger problem which is being discussed here, in case you're interested in contributing. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I chose WikiProject Spam for the report because I knew I could get help there in sizing up the problem. You're right that it's not really a spamming problem primarily. At this point I'm just trying to get help figuring how the size and severity of the problem. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a long shot but I'm not going to close it. I still want to know what people are going to say that I need to improve (besides my edit count). Thanks for the advice anyways. Nations United (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's fine to keep it open--it will be closed as a snow close anyway--I don't think you're actually going to get any feedback other than "keep editing." Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right that she's probably not independently notable; if you view the edit history, you'll note that it's been bouncing back and forth between a redirect and a new version of the same article for a couple of months now, and I'll redirect it back again in a few minutes. But nonetheless, I thought I should let you know that a stub template doesn't replace other categorization on an article — it can be placed alongside other categories, but every article still has to be filed in all the applicable content categories regardless of whether it's feature-quality or a stub, and an article is considered to be uncategorized — which no article is ever supposed to be — if it has only a stub template and no primary content categories. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that's true. I don't know what I was thinking, as I learned this specific point a few months ago. I should have just added the stub rather than remove the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I completly disagree with you removing the extra links which you did this morning. I reread WP:EL and most of not all the links which were removed should not have. By your standards you need to go to any major city's page and remove tons of links. I quickly went and looked at NYC and Boston and I would say that other then Reidsville being a small town the links that you removed fit better then the ones on those pages. Unless you can back up your reasons I plan to undo your changes. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- First, the fact that other pages have bad links is irrelevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). But I'll go back to the article and check those specific links again, then leave a comment on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's on my watchlist; I should be on for at least another 20-30 minutes or so if he reverts again. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Renaming of category
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell if you actually prefer to have succession boxes for #1 songs or not when you reverted my removal of them on You're Beautiful, or if you just feel that because they are on so many articles, it's just accepted now. Anyhow, there has been a discussion ongoing at WT:CHARTS regarding their removal. I have removed the boxes from a number of articles, referring editors to the talk page if reverted. If you are against the removal, I hope you will add your reasons to the discussion, and I will leave this article alone. If you don't care either way but are just trying to follow community consensus, I hope you will allow me to continue with this project, as consensus appears to be changing. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I had no idea of that mini-consensus. To be honest, I think I agree with the removal reasons given, as I don't like clutter, and I can't actually imagine that there are too many people who want to navigate using them--I mean, if you want to look at all of the number one songs/albums in a year, it makes more sense to me to navigate from that table/list page. I'll go back and remove the boxes myself. One suggestion--you may want to say in your edit summaries something like "Removing succession chart per discussion at WT:CHARTS," as that might help point others to the issue. Thanks for following up and explaining! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, It doesn't seem there's any edit warring on merely content dispute. I've made a few reverts on the articles and about two of my reverts were reverted by other editors who stated that I made a mistake by canceling their efforts on improving the article, but they never said that the cancellation of vanadlism was wrong. In response to it, I've spent some time on figuring out what they've done and those new reverts aims at keeping all recent changes while removing vandalism. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so if I understand you, you're saying that in the middle of the content dispute, someone also vandalized the article, and thus one of your reverts doesn't count. Well, if that's the case, then you've got the policy correct. Do still know, however that edit warring can occur regardless of the exact number of edits you make--3 reverts in 24 hours is an absolute maximum, not an entitlement. I was just worried that you were misinterpreting policy, which would be an unfortunate reason to be blocked. I've watchlisted the article, but I won't have time to look at it in detail for probably a few days at best. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. The name ordering in this article has caused many troubles for a long time and probably gets more attention after Japanese arrested Chinese fishermen. What administrators have done so far is to see those changes as vandalism and revert all those changes, no matter it's pro-Japan or pro-China. I'm disappointed that John Smith's who spend tremendous efforts in reading Wikipedia guidelines ignores the discussion and other adminstrators' actions and keep pushing forward his unconsensus change on name ordering.
- As I told John Smith's, ScorchingPhoenix or Phoenix777 (I don't remember who is who, they look the same to me in terms of tones, use of grammar, writing and editing styles), when there was a pro-China changes on name ordering, I was in fact the first one to revert. When the pro-China change happened again, I was also the first one to ask administrators to revert. If John Smith's see the revert on his futile changes are not "pro-China" or breaking the consensus (with who?), he simply overlooks what has happened in this article in the whole month. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for your contributions to the article misogyny. I would also like to thank you for noticing that all my edits are being reverted by Sugar-Baby-Love/Cybermud no matter how legitimate they are and for stepping in. Randygeorge (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just doing what I think best matches policy...on that last revert, it wasn't the information content itself, it was the claim "easily sourced." I'm a really big believer in WP:BURDEN. If an editor wants to include a certain piece of information, in my opinion, it's up to them to prove it's legitimate via a reliable source. Sometimes, if I know a source, maybe I might add one. Or, if a new user doesn't understand sourcing, I'll help find them or at least explain in detail. But an experienced editor should know better. If xe thinks the info can be easily sourced, then great--xe can find a source and then re-add the sentence with the reference, and then we'll all be happy. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest, I haven't even looked at it. It's still in my queue of projects I want to work on, but I keep pushing it down due to other more pressing things, and due to the fact that it's not exactly going to be pleasant work...some day...Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice
"Good contributors don't make new articles"
(Posted here in response to your comments at the PUMP because second-class netizens can't post there.)
I've been watching RFA for a while now because I am curious about the kind of person the community accepts as an administrator. One thing I have noticed is that, quite frankly, if you don't have a substantial number of new articles under your belt (and preferably articles that went on to become GAs or features), you will inevitably face a lot of opposition purely on that basis.
Now, I agree with you: this seems illogical. Eventually, WP will have an article on every notable subject in the universe. Even if that is not true, we will asymptotically approach precisely that point and it will become exponentially harder to produce new articles as we get closer to it--so having "new article creation" as something of a measuring stick for a valued contributor is silly, in the long run.
...But we're fallible, and we don't know any better, and we do use that as a measuring stick, and because we do people will always feel driven to create new articles. They will do so on inappropriate topics and with questionable skill levels and with the best and the worst of intentions and the one thing we can count on is that, in all fairness, they are expected to. Just as the FBI is a gun culture, WP is a content culture, and you can't get ahead here without writing something. Contributors of new content may not be our most valuable contributors, but they are our most valued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. First a question--did you want me to copy-paste this over there, or was this intended just for me? Second, I think you are correct on many counts. I've only started watching RfA in about the last two months, although I did go back and look at some of the archives. I think you're definitely right that content is considered one of the key required things for many successful RfAs. There are even a number of editors who will almost always oppose any candidate without "significant content contributions." I have, however, usually found that measured in GA/FA (and sometimes DYK) levels--that is, I think that even those people who consider significant content creation to be mandatory recognize the transforming a stub into a GA is just as important/valuable as creating a dozen new stubs. Nonetheless, you are correct that there are editors who will oppose based strictly on the rationale that (paraphrasing) "Until you've driven to another town to get a rare book to complete an article, you'll never understand the difficulty of content creation enough to be trusted with the mop." This extreme stance is the one that makes me saddest, as to me it fails to recognize that much of being an admin has nothing to do with content creation. Plus, I feel like it hides a problematic ownership problem, as if an admin should give deference to someone, even if they break one policy or another, just because they have done a lot of hard work. However, I feel like I have been seeing more and more RfAs turn on policy rather than just content; I was particularly pleased to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman pass--an editor who works almost exclusively behind the scenes, with very little content creation experience, but who needed the mop to make their very useful work be performed more easily.
- As to the issue of asymptotically approaching a maximum number of articles, I think you are correct, although, as I said at the pump, we're definitely far from that in some very obvious areas, like India and Africa. But I think that now is the time for Wikipedia to stop worrying about the idea of content creation as much as content improvement. Certainly, some content areas will always languish, because either there literally are no reliable sources to move an article past a stub, or the topic is so obscure that very few people are interested in improving it. But I think that now is the time for Wikipedia to say "We've got this awesome foundation, and some of what we have is truly outstanding. Let's bring up as much of the base level stuff up to good or outstanding levels, and not worry about adding more foundation." This is why the idea at the pump seems so backwards to me. I think we want to encourage people to do content a fair amount of content editing before they create new articles.
- On a related note, one thing I've been thinking about lately is the issue of immediatist vs. eventualism. I think that while, as a collaborative project, we will always be inherently incremental, it's time to start being a lot stricter on our core policies (the 5 pillars), and making sure that what information we do have meets reasonable standards. I'm contemplating writing an essay on the subject, although doing that at the moment would take away from other tasks (here and in real life). But my basic thought is that, when we look at the outside world, and, in particular, the academic world, Wikipedia doesn't get criticized for not having enough information--it gets criticized when the information it does have is wrong and/or uncited. Teachers, in particular, tell their students that they can't rely on Wikipedia, because there's no reason to believe any of it is "right". This is the challenge we need to meet--to create articles that can be accepted as serious, accurate, and useful. We do this not just by driving for more and more content, but by exercising good editorial judgment. It's no longer appropriate, I believe, to leave unsourced information floating around articles based on the idea that "someone will source that and improve it later...it's all about the step-by-step process." It gladdens me that we've at least moved past that on BLP articles, but I think we could stand to move towards more focus on WP:V on all of our articles. The problem is that our "content culture", especially from editors who were around since the beginning, makes some think that we have to preserve all of the so-called information we have here at all costs, and only remove it when we can persuade ourselves through hard, exhaustive work that no sourcing can be found. My hope is that, in part, longevity itself will shift the overall atmosphere on Wikipedia towards more immediatism and less eventualism--I have no doubt that my immediatism arises in part simply because I wasn't around at the beginning.
- In any event, sorry for the wall of text. Let me know if you want your comments transferred to the Pump, and I definitely like your idea of us as a "content culture"--it's a quick easy way to encapsulate a lot of what goes on in a variety of different places on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)