Wikipedia talk:About: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Them Mc Girls xo - "→Kaylin Courtney Griffin: new section" |
←Replaced content with '''' == Bold text == WHY BE A JEBEND??'''' |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''' |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
== Bold text == |
|||
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|[[User:Aamikumar|Dstyles222]] ([[User talk:Dstyles222|talk]])|Requested by [[User:Cyclonenim|Cyclonenim]] as per comment below.}} |
|||
WHY BE A JEBEND??''' |
|||
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} |
|||
== Wikitrivia == |
|||
I have noticed a number of entries recently sprouting a section called "in popular culture" and containing the most banal information about movies, non-ebrities, TV (mainly US specific), etc. Perhaps someone could create a Wikitrivia site and we could move all that stuff over there and keep Wikipedia for information. |
|||
I am not saying that all such trivia should be banned, but when you get famous people and places having minimal factual information about them and maximal trivia and references about them, references to references, etc. then something has gone haywire! |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/78.147.148.26|78.147.148.26]] ([[User talk:78.147.148.26|talk]]) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Church Related Entries --- SuperEditors Please Note == |
|||
I am someone who is interested in comparative religion and particularly interested in Protestant denominationalism. As such I frequently view entries on new and small churches. I myself am not a member of any small church, I am an Anglican. But as an observer I've noted that some entries for small churches are soon deleted while others remain unscathed. Following the discussions it seems that some "editors" rigidly apply Wiki standards so as to delete some entries while the very same standards are not applied. |
|||
HELLLLLO |
|||
For example, the "Church of Christian Mysticism" and the "Free Faith Fellowship" are both new small churches. Both had entries fairly similar in tone and approach yet the first remains on Wikipedia and the second was bounced off. |
|||
It is not a clearcut policy of NPOV or verifiability, it is a very wobbly standard in actual practice. I urge that the SuperEditors over and above the volunteer editors give this more consideration. Churches should be treated the same, and deleted, or retained on the same set of standards. |
|||
I read another entry about a small church which has an entry written from a point of view which is clearly that of a partisan. It remains on Wikipedia. In exploring the talk session I learned that this particular church is litigious in nature so the editors are afraid of editing or deleting the entry. So if a church has a lawyer on retainer it can command a self-serving entry in Wikipedia? Doesn't appear appropriate for a reference resource. |
|||
[[User:LAWinans|LAWinans]] ([[User talk:LAWinans|talk]]) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
PHARMAVY COOOL\ <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.78.64.102|129.78.64.102]] ([[User talk:129.78.64.102|talk]]) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Hello fellow Anglican. The issue on including articles or not generally turns around [[WP:NOTABILITY]] rather than NPOV or verifiability. However I would also concede that more recent additions get far more scrutiny than some of the long standing articles when policy was looser. Are you prepared to give examples? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BozMo|BozMo]] ([[User talk:BozMo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BozMo|contribs]]) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Wikipedia vs. paper encyclopedias == |
|||
To maintain NPOV, it would seem that this section should have a sentence or two on pros for paper encyclopedias. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 01:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Censorship? == |
|||
In a couple of discussions I have seen people saying that certain info is classified so they removed it. In one case, an editor was asked to remove something by a branch of the US governemnt/military because it was classified (he did remove it). I was certain that wikipedia could not be censored by any government of any nation, but I'd just like to double check: should classified stuff (even if NPOV, reliably referenced and relevant) be censored? If so, which governemnts? My view was that if a goverment wished to censor some info, they could filter either the specific page or all wikipedia, but they couldn't censor the content itself as it is an international encyclopedia, not specifically bound to the jurisdiction of any one governemnt. If this issue is dealt with elsewhere, sorry but I spent an hour looking for it and couldn't find it. I may have just overlooked it. [[Special:Contributions/78.105.191.12|78.105.191.12]] ([[User talk:78.105.191.12|talk]]) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, Wikipedia's servers are in Florida. So we must abide by the US law and Florida's law, otherwise we could be shut down.<br />But if the content is legal, and sourced, I see no reason to remove it. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I expected that to be the case but I thought it was possible the servers had been relocated to a place with loose(er) censorship laws. However, as they do come under US jurisdiction, I would like to know the extent of legally permissible censorship under US law (I am a student of law in the UK but know little about the US legal process) so that I am aware of this in the future. A specific example: If the US government deems something to be 'classified', to what extent can it legfally censor that information without infringing freedom of speech? Could it force you to remove classified content? (I assume it would first use a sock-uppet to remove info, but if the article was fully protected, could they do something about it?)[[Special:Contributions/78.105.191.12|78.105.191.12]] ([[User talk:78.105.191.12|talk]]) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Under wikipedia policy we only contain claims that are verifiable to published reliable sources so anything that is truly a secret is not in a published reliable source and can be deleted on that basis. There is no need or purpose in claiming something is "classified" and should be deleted on that basis. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 04:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "Anyone can edit" == |
|||
I have begun to notice the seemingly countless times that the above phrase is mentioned in a trolling manner to support to try to say that Wikipedia is a cabal for not letting banned editors continue to edit. I propose a brief addition to the text to clarify that anyone can edit - unless they've been blocked and/or banned. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 07:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, seeing as it appears no one else is much watching this page, I'm going to make the change myself. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm watching this page :P. I don't mind you adding that clarification though. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Even someone blocked or banned can edit. How do you propose to stop someone from going to a library and editing; or getting a new internet service provider and editing? We can block IP numbers and we can ban identifiable ''personalities''. We have no means of blocking or banning individual humans who are sane enough to edit constructively and peacefully. We can and do block IPs used by children who have no financial means of buying a different IP. We can and do ban crazy people who are incapable of disguising their insanity. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 04:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Children also have means of using a different IP; such as using a school computer, going to an Internet café (they aren't that expensive, at least where I live), using their mobile phone connection, or using a friend's computer. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Archiving == |
|||
This talk page has 52 KB. This could cause a lot of [[Wikipedia:SIZE#Technical issues|technical issues]] so I think we should [[WP:Archive]] this talk page. I'd use the subpage method, cut-and-paste procedure. I'd leave the threads started in March 2008 still here, because they might still be active. What do you think? <small>''Note: If there are no objections by Wednesday, I will perform the archiving.''</small> [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
wikepdia alway gimme a load of rubbish when i was doing research.i m reseaching about marco polo now.when i saw tat long long long composition i m gona faint! i wish wikipedia can make a short composition of all thing (marco polo,stamford raffles etc.)pls~ |
|||
:Sounds good, Puchiko. Thanks. [[User:WalterGR|WalterGR]] ([[User talk:WalterGR|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/WalterGR|contributions]]) 07:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::{{done}} Sorry for the delay. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 14:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Active Wikipedians == |
|||
In the introduction of Wikipedia: about you come across the following statment. "''There are more than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm 75,000 active contributors]''" However, that is data from Sep 2006, it's pretty out of date... Anyone know where we might find a statistic that reflects data at least up to the beginning of 2008--[[User:Sparkygravity|Sparkygravity]] ([[User talk:Sparkygravity|talk]]) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Non profit status in trouble == |
|||
Based on the obvious political bias of Clinton, Obama and McCain, I don't see how the IRS can allow this organization to be considered a non-profit. |
|||
Wikipedia should not be a place to show biased information (or somehow forget to add "all" information) about somehow who is running of office. |
|||
Please keep all politics OUT of wikipedia. |
|||
[[User:Tomstewa|Tomstewa]] ([[User talk:Tomstewa|talk]]) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with you, and [[WP:NPOV]] does too. There should never be biased information on Wikipedia. <br /> However, from the information I've gathered at [[Non-profit organization]], even politically biased organisations can be non-profit. See [[National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws]] for an example of a political yet non-profit organisation. [[User:Puchiko|Puchiko]] ([[User Talk:Puchiko|Talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/Puchiko|email]]) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Footnote 11 Dead == |
|||
Sorry in advance for not fixing the problem myself. I am brand new to editing Wikipedia, and I am just beginning to learn all the editing rules. The dead link is: |
|||
11^ Bergstein, Brian. "Felon Became COO of Wikipedia Foundation", 2007-12-21. Retrieved on 2007-12-27. |
|||
Could someone replace it or make a note that it's dead? |
|||
Smed ([[Special:Contributions/76.26.151.95|76.26.151.95]] ([[User talk:76.26.151.95|talk]]) 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
== Spelling == |
|||
recognised = recognized |
|||
organisation = organization |
|||
[[User:Rkinci|Rkinci]] ([[User talk:Rkinci|talk]]) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
i likve it. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/168.11.40.254|168.11.40.254]] ([[User talk:168.11.40.254|talk]]) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Sadeesh Kumar Viswanathan == |
|||
hi, |
|||
this is sadeesh <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sadathiru|Sadathiru]] ([[User talk:Sadathiru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sadathiru|contribs]]) 09:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== New word PussyitusTM == |
|||
Whena guy complains about an injury and/or fakes an injury or any kind of sickness |
|||
-Brennan Osborne <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Brennan64tiger|Brennan64tiger]] ([[User talk:Brennan64tiger|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Brennan64tiger|contribs]]) 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Kaylin Courtney Griffin == |
|||
Kaylin Courtney Griffin was born on July 25, 1981. She dislikes Mrs. Linton. Someday we will finish this....but the bell is ringin as we speak....bye hoes!! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Them Mc Girls xo|Them Mc Girls xo]] ([[User talk:Them Mc Girls xo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Them Mc Girls xo|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Revision as of 00:08, 19 April 2008
Bold text
WHY BE A JEBEND??