Page semi-protected

Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer

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

This is not the page to ask for help.
Emblem-important.svg This page is for discussion of the General disclaimer page itself, and its subpages. You may be looking for one of the following pages:

See also:

Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject iconWikipedia:General disclaimer is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see General disclaimer at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wiki-links

The disclaimer contains 2 links to article-space. One is "personality rights", which seems quite reasonable. The other is "United States of America". What is the purpose of linking such a broad topic here? I don't know if something like "WP:OVERLINK applies outside of article-space, but in any case, I fail to see how linking this redirect to "United States" does anything to help clarify the subject for the reader. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see no good reason at all for the link to United States of America, and in nearly seven months nobody has suggested that there is a good reason, so I have removed the link. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 March 2015

Just a minor grammatical fix (add necessary comma):

If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area. Esquivalience t 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok Mohd.Meraj Ahmad (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 April 2015

wikipidia is not trusted

110.174.40.102 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2015

Add {{pp-protected}} or something similar. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done although it's curious that the prot log is completely empty. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting. It's possible the page was fully protected before the protection log became a part of the MediaWiki software. Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Page views

Wikipedia Self Defeating

Wikimedia:General disclaimer [1]

"Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information".

Yet Wikipedia, "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources", [2] disallows those of us with the Formal Schooling, Formal Training and Firsthand Experience from actually providing that complete, accurate or reliable information. While Wikipedia allows those with opinionated blogs (no Firsthand Experience easily detected by those with actual Firsthand Experience, Formal Training, Formal Schooling, etc.) being able to use their Opinionated Blogs as a Reference according to the Rules of Wikipedia.

The Results, Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source of Information, according to Wikipedia's own Disclaimers.

Irony other internet sites that used Wikipedia are only propagating the misinformation that was originally from Wikipedia, then others use those very same sites as sources to edit Wikipedia after those with the actual facts edited Wikipedia to provide "complete, accurate or reliable information."


"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience." George Santayana [3] and those of us that actually read George Santayana's entire The Life of Reason, with the Wikipedia Article George Santayana then misquoting George Santayana's critism of Progressives as "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [4] and completely deleting the previous in context full quote.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talkcontribs) 20:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

To change 'much of the time' to 'most of the time' ("That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will"). 'Much of the time' reads as if Wikipedia's information is less than 50% accurate, while of course the percentage is very much higher. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see "much of the time" as necessarily implying "less than half of the time". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America..."

Not entirely true. It should say "The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Republic of Singapore, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under the laws of these countries. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution..." lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@KATMAKROFAN: while the non-USA centers have caching clusters for HTML and for file/thumbnails, the databases are only located in the US. The codfw and eqiad (aka the application clusters) are the only clusters that can run the entire website, and the clusters that almost all requests for all logged in users will end up at. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

New Wiki Page

How long does it take for my Wiki page to appear when people search for my company? Bossproperty (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bossproperty: Please see the box at the top, the one that says "This is not the page to ask for help." in big letters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)