User talk:WCFrancis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Visitors[edit]

Stern and pompous looking self portrait taken at work.
Note time - I hadn't had enough coffee yet. "Obviously", added a minor vandal.

Hi, all. Welcome to my User talk page.


Since it's mine, I'll make some requests. (no, I did not say "rules", but it is up to me, within limitations.)

  • Please sign your input with 4 tildes (~~~~).
  • Please register and login before you leave me a note.
  • I will not edit your entries with any intent to deceive but I may correct minor errors, such as grammar and spelling. I may also highlight them, depending on your attitude and my mood.
  • If there is any doubt about your meaning, I'll ask for clarification on your User talk.
  • If you have any doubt about my meaning, please feel free to ask.
  • You may note I like to keep both sides of exchanges here. I realize not everybody does this, but I like having the continuity of a discussion right in front of me.
  • I may also use this space for commentary.
  • I may put some old (signed) messages in linked archives at my discretion. Some will be history.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? Updated 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)




And remember:


Facts are never subject to consensus. [2].


Got something to say? Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives[edit]

Go here to see Archive menu.

My Standard Disclaimer:

Archives may not be in actual date order and may not include all entries, just those I consider notable significant.
First items to be removed became history as of this post. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 06:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages[edit]

  1. Notes
  2. My own Box o' Sand
  3. And of course archives as referenced above.↑
  4. Connection Log (2006-2008) intended to keep track of my logins as a recovering Wikipediaholic.

Facts and Opinions[edit]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."

Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan, quoted in spite of grammar.

Stalking the Wild Vandal[edit]

I do not have any statistics, but I occasionally look at the Recent Changes made by individuals with only IP addresses. Some are vandalizing. This quasi-random sampling of vandalism shows that almost all cases are reverted within five minutes and many are reverted in seconds. Once I discovered that I was trying to revert simultaneously with another user.

The vandals must not realize that they can't even get 15 minutes of notoriety out of their defacing of entries. I can't understand what the payoff is for these people. What is the fracking point? Unfortunately, I also can't get the disgusting image out of my head of a drooling moron in soiled adult diapers sitting in front of a computer giggling uncontrollably at his cleverness and wit.

WCFrancis 17:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The negative "creativity" could be put to such better uses. I am reminded of the frustration of young and confused Holden Caulfield in J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye who was discouraged by all the "F---You" graffiti he found and the hopelessness felt that although he worked fervently at eradicating it, undoubtedly even more was being "created" faster than he could get rid of it. Fortunately, WP seems blessed with the opposite ratio, or at least a balance. I also scan all changes to my 1400 watched pages for IP addresses, and I find a large proportion are vandalization entries. BTW, if you are not a WP admin, you should become one, as there are better tools available for helping in this effort. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:23, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Mark - Thanks - I think. I don't know whether I'm ready for being an Admin. I still think of myself as a newbie. After all, I only started in early March 2005. WCFrancis 05:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
That's all good. Just pass along any notice you take of "significant vandals", which I define as those with multiple edits and/or particularily malicious or pornographic edits. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 05:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Jeez. I was going to copy my response to your talk page after switching computers (so my wife could use the Velocity) and you beat me to the punch. WCFrancis 05:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Things not to do Urgent[edit]

This includes a number of things that should inspire instant nominations for AfD.

List of Blues songs that don't include that phrase might be shorter.
  • Double-talk Generator (Star Trek)
Original Research
  • List of Lists on Wikipedia
Don't use wikipedia to make a point

Water[edit]

Okay. Topic articles include Water, Drinking water, Tap water and Bottled water. Is this getting out of hand? May be necessary to do merge & redirect -- WCFrancis 06:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, note the definition that leads off the wastewater article is: "Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by any anthropogenic influence." which is true but an awfully high-falutin' was of saying "used water". --WCFrancis 06:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

On further thought, that description includes stormwater/runoff that has been affected by what it carryies from man-made impervious surfaces, so is not strictly a definition of wastewater. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Glynn County/Brunswick Stuff[edit]

-WCFrancis 23:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To Bubba73 on his talk page:

  • Just did some research and made some minor edits to Battle of Bloody Marsh including removing siesta reference you questioned. Still a stub but better, I think. -WCFrancis 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Coastal Georgia project[edit]

Feel free to come over and comment on, add suggestions to, and/or discuss the WikiProject Colonial Coast proposal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Times They Are a'Changin'[edit]

Today at logon, I noticed the login success page has something added to it:

Immediately after this:
You have successfully signed in to Wikipedia as "username goes here".
You see this:
If you have not already, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

<sarcasm>Yeah, right. That should work. </sarcasm>.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Afd for Jan 15, 2006 (yesterday) and Jan 16, 2006, (today) both have over 150 articles nominated. I am not sure whether this is meaningful or not, and I have made not attempt to determine how many are hoaxes. This also does not reflect corrections of false information in other articles. Is that even trackable?
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you attempt to edit without being logged in, this message appears: "You are not logged in. You are free to edit pages; be aware that your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history."

oooooh, that shoud keep the vandals under control...

NOT.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)



Facts are never subject to consensus.




Dropping by...[edit]

Hi,

I'm here to return greetings (on my way out the door for vacation, actually.) I note with sadness your discontent with Wikipedia, and infer from the Ellison letter its cause. The only mitigating thought I have to offer is this: Bear in mind that an article is improved the more it is seen; long-enduring flaws in articles typically only survive because the articles go unread. A silent lie buried deep in dusty text is a wrong, but a minimal one, thankfully. Beyond that, this place does have room for improvement. We need editors of your caliber to help make sure that happens.

As for Mr. Ellison, we Trekkies remember "City on the Edge of Forever," and his long-simmering argument with Gene. How any man could argue with Gene Roddenberry I don't understand -- I have a quasi-religious devotion to him. :) (Women, on the other hand, have many reasons to argue with him, by his own admission!) Anyway,...

We need you. I have adminship now, you know, and will happily chide any vandal you point out to me; Wikipedia would be a happier place if you were an admin with me! Best wishes, Xoloz 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, my dear friend:
Congratulations on adminship. May you use it with the responsibility that I would expect from one of your high standards.
In the hope that we can continue to consider each other friends, I would request that you read The City on the Edge of Forever - the Original Teleplay that Became the Classic Star Trek Episode ISBN 1-800-325-02-0. If you read only the screenplay, I hope you can see it as I do. My opinion is that it is highly superior to the aired version. If you worship Roddenberry, you may have trouble seeing that he was consistently distorting reality (as I put it politely when I mean "lying like a fucking rug"), while my friend Harlan was "telling it like it is" which HE has never failed to do. Read with an open mind, my dear Xoloz, and you may find your opinions altered. If not, I certainly hope our friendship can survive.


Facts and Opinions[edit]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts."

Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan, quoted in spite of grammar.

Accountability[edit]

Is there some reason you can not support accountability for editors on Wikipedia? I can see no reason to keep Wikipedia from being sued if you do not have a way to make sure editors are responsible for their entries. Attempts to avoid responsibilty for entries by claiming anyone can correct the entries are hopeless at best. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean; I do support accountability for editors.--Jimbo Wales 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say "require" accountability. As long as people can edit anonymously there will be a problem. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Requiring identification before editing would not appear to solve any actual problems that we have. Anonymity is not especially problematic, and if you look at the deep irresponsibility in the mainstream media, you can see that removing anonymity has very little to do with accountability.--Jimbo Wales 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Arguing that "someone else does it" does not make it any more excusable. You used a distraction instead of an actual argument. --wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: a year later, and there is scandal regarding Wikipedia vandalism traced back to Fox News. Still in denial, Jimbo?
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Important to Wikipedia's Future[edit]

I just posted the following on Talk:Wikipedia Scanner

Shouldn't there be a link to this story on the Main page? It would reduce the potential for perception that Wikipedia is hiding this or not taking it seriously.
This is a great tool for seeking out bias, but I still have serious misgivings about allowing "anonymous" editing. (See above for comments from a year ago.)
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Burned by Wikipedia again[edit]

From my Current Login entries on my user page:

  • 21:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Curious about fourth degree burns, which I had not previously heard of, I searched Google. First hit was Wikipedia. I bypassed and referred to several other more reliable sites. I came back to discover someone, either vandal, moron or very confused person or persons had invented fifth and sixth degree burns for benefit of this self-deluded-styled enclyclopedia. I chose not to waste my time or to upset myself by checking how long this bad info/stealth vandalism had been floating around.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?
My comments on Burn talk page:
  • Has Be Bold been removed from Wikipedia culture? Unsupported by any citation at all, 5th and 6th degree burn inclusion sure looked like stealth vandalism to me. I removed, and I recommend that they not be restored without verification and confirmed citations. wcf Facts are stubborn.Comments? 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears that fifth and sixth degree burns were used in the TV series ""The X Files"" and someone may believe that they are real. This does not appear to be the case, folks. I can still find no references to 5/6th degree that does not either refer back to this article or to X Files. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:53, 31 December 2008 restored the fantasy burn levels. Corrected wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 08:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Competent Writers and Editors add value to Wikipedia[edit]

...and what do they receive in return other than egoboo?

  • Real writers and editors should not work for free. Ever. At best, there needs to be in-kind donation documentation with fair market value for writing and editing services.
wcf Facts are stubborn.Comments? 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the middle, writers and editors get satisfaction from volunteering their skills and getting experience in improving those skills.
  • At worst, writers and editors are being ripped off by being scammed into working for free.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Those who hurt Wikipedia[edit]

The vandals, the editors lacking competence, the editors having agendas, the idiots, the "writers" who are clueless about such things as grammar and punctuation and who can not write a coherent sentence and their ilk remove value from Wikipedia. These types are not included in the value-added group. They reduce the value of Wikipedia every minute. And they are allowed access to Wikipedia as anonymous editors. These types who register get themselves banned and have the inconvenience of opening a new unconfirmed account or having to edit anonymously. These are not being ripped off - they are ripping off the productive members of Wikipedia. Stealth vandals often also rip off students and users who get fooled by their incorrect entries. </rant>
For my speculation about what these morons might get out of their behavior, see these old comments.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Idea[edit]

That edit to What the Wikipedian Saw was great! It's given me a new idea. I now hail you as the almighty Ideagiver!! Thanks!!!Darkside2000 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a reference to the Great Underground Empire. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 14:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I just got Return to Zork at my local charity shop recently. Boy did they ruin it there. It also crashes and freezes a lot even if the disk is scratchless.Darkside2000 (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I had no problem with the game all those years ago; however, it may not play nice with your current operating system. It was a DOS based game, so it might help to tweak the DOS settings if you are using Windows. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Nope I tried that but it still crashes trying to locate the same file. I found a solution thugh. This would make the game take a very long time to finish but it still works. I save on every screen I visit, alough this may lead me to die a bit too many times or make the game uncompleteable. Darkside2000 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Satire and Irony[edit]

In the Talk(?) section about Harlan Ellison appears this line:

Satire, obviously, is becoming harder and harder for people to recognize. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I pushed the Comments? button.

I would like to see the question asked what has happened to these people, that, for them, makes "recognizing" satire harder? Is there any idea of what "recognizes" satire, or irony? What other functionality is operative in any surprizing way? The way, perhaps physicians look for symptoms.

First time I've done this, Thanks,

MWade

Mwadewik (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)