Loading AI tools
Explanatory essay about WP:List of policies From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User subpage Osomite/Stuff Created
Osomite hablemos 23:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The current date and time is 16 September 2024 T 21:45 UTC.
Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Link to Time User Boxes page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Time
The time is currently 21:45:42 UTC. |
Today is 16 September 2024 |
It is 21:45:42 on September 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
14:45 | This user's time zone is Pacific Standard Time. This user uses the 24-hour clock. |
UTC-08:00
|
WP:UBX link to "User Box" page
Userboxes making my page look disorganized
How do you make your userboxes cluster into a neat pile on your page? I have about five on the top of my user page and they are messing the top part of my bio: it is squashing my small little bio on the top and I don't know where else to put them. Do they have to be at the top or can you put them in the bottom? Need help! SarahTHunter (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiFauna#WikiBear
🎅 - Merry Xmas - old man with a beard and red hat.
🎄 - another Xmas type emoji
🐻 - This one is a bear
Wikipedia:Imminent death of Wikipedia predicted
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/magazine/wikipedia-ai-chatgpt.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page_design_guide
For help with creating custom Signature go to the Help Search Page and enter "signature" to find sources.
From that I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signature_tutorial
some of the colors for a signature recommended at MOS:ONWHITE
(talk to me!) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This special signature works :
here is the new four tilde signature
Osomite (hablemos) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
🐻
Here is new 4 tilda signature on May 26 2022 with a bear
An interesting signature format
Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!
Hmmmm Tribe of Tigerhablemos!
This is current signature being used:
With Gray Shadowing
For help with creating custom Signature go to the Help Search Page and enter "signature" to find sources.
From that I found
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signature_tutorial
some of the colors for a signature recommended at MOS:ONWHITE
An interesting signature format
Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!
x x x x x x x x x x
This formatted signature works
Test to see if the new signature will work with system preference
rol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here to the NPP newsletter]] that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
From The Signpost: 28 June 2020
Interesting - about renaming the media wiki to Wikimedia.
Here I am, or am not at media-wiki
Reacting to the WMF's rebranding proposal. (continued→) [ ~1.5 MB 📥︎ ]
Wiki rebranding plan
Wiki branding survey - lots of info about wiki areas and such
The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five pillars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Talk_page_search
bear emoji unicode U+1F43B
You can use the Special:Search box below to locate Talk pages.
See Help:Searching for more information.
Thank You Very Much | |
Thanks for your help |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you for looking into my problem about not being able to edit individual sections on my talk page and for fixing it. I would have never found the "NO EDIT SECTION" that was causing my problem. Thank you very much. Osomite (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
It was good what you done Osomite (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thank you, thank you, thank you Osomite (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
words after a page break of 3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Line-break_handling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Obamagate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obamagate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shinealittlelight#What_do_you_mean_by_%22civil%22
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=sustainable%20energy,clean%20energy,green%20energy
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/July-August_2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Circa
Test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
The missing Wikipedia User's Manual at Google Books
Rules? Rules? I don't need any stinking rules.
A page with links to other "ignore all rules" stuff
Noteability (it is actually spelled Notability)
Notability defined by Wikipedia
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list).
The list is at Template:Contentious topics/table
Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-based environment--at least that is the theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting
https://en.wWP:CITOGENESISikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/How_to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone
???Remuss?? is Remuss a multiple personality??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RemusSandersRegretsEverything#Musings
DYK - DID YOU KNOW?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics#Good_and_Featured_DYKs
An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
Should the Vector 2022 skin be deployed as the default to English Wikipedia on desktop at this time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deployment_of_Vector_(2022)
Lots of discussion about wcws here and an explanation that whitespace is beneficial
Here is some info about WCAG
This is good knowledge--how do people find out about these things?
This method can be used to search for a specific character string in any URL.
Using Google (and probably other search engines), to find a specific character string on a site (URL), use the Google site: operator to search through a specific site (a site such as the English Wikipedia). You can use this to search for a specific character string by putting it in quotes. This will also search through Wikipedia page text including citations.
For example, plug the following into Google's search window:
Make sure to use the quotes around the character string.
For this search, the first page it returns is the Wikipedia article World Heritage Site. Within the article, there is a reference to a journal article with that name
If you're interested in where a specific URL is used, you can use Wikipedia's Special:LinkSearch.
ə - ah sound
Wikipedia has Five pillars which underlie its content and social norms
The fifth of Wikipedia's five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules"
One of the pillars is Civility--- Wikipedia:Civility ---- however a lot of the "editors" ignore it and are very unkind.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.
About being bold and publishing and how peer review is important
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Cooper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Darryl_Cooper
on the article for deletion page provides guidance concerning criteria for an article to be deleted.
Atlantic Article cited in Darryl Cooper page: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2024/09/what-tucker-carlsons-spin-on-world-war-ii-really-says/679713/
A quote from the Atlantic article:
Tucker claims Cooper is a historian, but Cooper fails the Historian Test:
I posted on the delete article discussion page:
Do you need credentials to be a historian? He publishes his work for all to see. Most popular historians do not have PhD. 136.242.8.20 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
add the following reference to Dog-hole Ports page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Moss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dyslexia
edit Nelson Point article to display photo from UC archives of Pauly's Hotel in 1922
https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/19245?ln=en&v=uv#?xywh=-126%2C0%2C1750%2C1136
an article from the plumasnews website
https://www.plumasnews.com/historic-nelson-point-suffers-second-major-fire-in-a-century/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_the_American_Indian#Reception
Link to article critiquing the NMAI is a broken link. Needs to be linked to JSTOR article. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4138981
Gym Shoes, Maps, and Passports, Oh My! Creating Community or Creating Chaos at the NMAI? Elizabeth Archuleta American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3/4, Special Issue: The National Museum of the American Indian (Summer - Autumn, 2005), pp. 426-449 (24 pages)
A copy of the "Gym Shoe, Maps, etc" is on the D driect in the DocumentsD folder with the filename:
"American Indian Museum - Critique of the National Museum of the American Indian.pdf"
And on JStor at the following URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4138981
Enigmatology
Add to The End of History and the Last Man page
the look back by Fukuyama from his 1995 Article: "book revisited" and the reason he wrote the book and why he wrote this 1995 article about his book.
The article can be found on the D drive folder DocumentsD The End of History book revisited 5 years later Fukuyama-ReflectionsEndHistory-1995.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/movies/oppenheimer-imax-christopher-nolan.html
add this reference:
Jstor article
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20615343
check correctness of the York article
Both the Donohue article and the Hansge article is probably incorrect about their connection and relationship.
From Donohue article:
From Hansgen article:
The American Exceptionalism article is not good. Need to be completely rewritten.
It references this article: AMERICAN MORAL EXCEPTIONALISM
https://www.socialjudgments.com/docs/AME%20CHAPTER.POSTING.pdf
Book at Cal about the "Protestant Promise": Tri-Faith America: How Catholics and Jews Held Postwar America to Its Protestant Promise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_culture
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/03/american-exceptionalism-ignore-slavery
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/uc-berkeley-unnames-building-honored-white-17772087.php
https://www.dailycal.org/2022/02/10/only-the-first-step-campus-considers-unnaming-moses-hall
https://www.dailycal.org/2023/02/08/moses-hall-unnamed-following-allegations-of-racist-namesake
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/opinion/native-americans-crazy-horse.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/us/mount-rushmore.html - How Mount Rushmore Became Mount Rushmore
found two more reference about Maya Lin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/11/16/vietnam-memorial-legacy/
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/24/magazine/monument-maker.html
references about Maya Lin for Wikipedia article
Revise words in Lord chamberlain
should say "broke staff and placed in on the coffin".
Also change words in Lord Parker of Minsmere
From https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/19/world/queen-elizabeth-funeral
From the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/19/world/queen-elizabeth-funeral
From WashPost https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/19/how-many-people-watched-queen-funeral/
From BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62952004
From The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/19/what-is-the-wand-of-office-that-will-be-broken-at-the-queens-funeral
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/advanced-mammals/warren-mastodon
American Museum of Natural History
https://archive.org/stream/general53amer/general53amer_djvu.txt
Here is a lot of information about the Pelican Building
A Summary Of Doug's work
Mike Christie reviewed good article nomination for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buchanan_(locomotive_designer) and passed it.
William Buchanan (locomotive designer)
Good Articles Nominations Page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations
NPR article about Acrocanthosaurus tracks appearing in dried-up river
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119331502/dinosaur-tracks-texas-drought
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/science/dinosaur-tracks-texas-drought.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/us/dinosaur-tracks-discovered-texas-park/index.html
March 2 2022
Tropes from the movie The Court Jester
An editor added a "back story" to the story that did not appear in the film.
A plot summary is a retelling, a summary, or an abridged or shortened précis of the events that occur within a work of fiction. The purpose of a plot summary is to help the reader understand the important events within a work of fiction, be they of the work as a whole or of an individual character.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Length
Maintenance over time
How to streamline a plot summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Contextual_presentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary
The three basic elements of a story are plot, character and theme. Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of these three elements, or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included in the story.
WP:PLOTSUM WP:PERFECT WP:PERFECTION
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works
Use of fictional tenses
Examples:
Later somehow an editor can vote on suggested improvements
http://contentbureau.com/blog/techy-designer/skeuomorphism-gone-bad-when-visual-metaphors-fail
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/us/susanville-california-prison-closing.html#commentsContainer
Originally call Smith Neck and later renamed to Loyalton because it was a "loyal town" to the Union.
Validate history of the B&L
On August 22 some gatekeeper editors deleted the Bob Wise entry for Notable People in the Portola, California article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Directory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability
WP:Essays in a nutshell/Notability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Insignificant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_notability_is_not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability
Notability is not "a level playing field". In some areas, notability requirements are lower than others. ( from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essays_in_a_nutshell/Notability ) WP:PLAYINGFIELD
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_notability_is_not
From the Manual of Style subparagraph "Adding individual items to a list" WP:SOURCELIST
Lists of Peope WP:LISTBIO
Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
Stand-alone lists
Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
Wikipedia - simplified rule set
This is an explanatory essay about WP:List of policies. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
A possible article - Tom's song "homecoming"
"This song is biographical. I would come home and try to explain to my father in his later years what I was doing. I didn't know what I was doing, so how could I explain it to him? Nobody had ever done it before the way I was doing it."
I guess I should have written Dad to let you know that I was coming home I've been gone so many years I didn't realize you had a phone I saw your cattle comin' in boy they're looking mighty fat and sleek I saw Fred at the service station he told me that his wife was awfuly sick.
You heard my record on the radio oh well it's just another song But I've got a hit recorded it'll be out on the market 'fore too long I got this ring in Mexico you know it didn't cost me quite a bunch When you're in the business that I'm in the people call it puttin' up a front.
I know I've lost a little weight and I guess I am looking kinda pale If you didn't know me better Dad you'd think that I've just gotten out of jail No we don't ever call 'em beer joints night clubs are the places where I work You meet a lotta people there but no there ain't much chance of gettin' hurt.
I'm sorry that I couldn't be here with you all when Mama passed away I was on the road and when they came and told me it was just too late I drove by the grave to see her boy that really is a pretty stone I'm glad that Fred and Jan are here it's better than you being here alone.
Well, I knew you's gonna ask me who the lady is that's sleepin' in the car That's just the girl that works for me and man she plays a pretty mean guitar We worked in San Antone last night she didn't even have the time to dress She drove me down from Nashville and to tell the truth I guess she needs the rest.
Well Dad I gotta go we got a dance to work in Cartersville tonight Let me take your number down I'll call you and I promise you I'll write Now you be good and don't be chasin' all those pretty women that you know And by the way if you see Barbara Walker tell her that I said hello...
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/tom-t-hall-best-songs-1215056/
http://www.cmt.com/news/1506920/in-the-words-of-tom-t-hall/ Tom talks about Homecoming
https://www.allmusic.com/album/homecoming-mw0000978796?1629584747674
The lyrics ---- https://mojim.com/usy103826x10x8.htm
https://www.billboard.com/music/tom-t-hall/chart-history/CLP/song/831743
and maybe the ballad of 40 dollars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Goldberg
"another tedious spasm of feigned outrage" from her Wikipedia page - She had grit
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/books/review/shining-a-light-on-campus-rape.html
For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC
Check article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport_America Virgin Atlantic did a suborbital flight on May 22, 2021
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/01/richard-branson-virgin-galactic-test-book/
Historical revisionism Interesting how the victors write history, or something
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/The_politics_of_sourcing
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergow&diff=prev&oldid=1021284208 Can others than the "User" edit on the User's User Page?
Sergow indeffed for persistent personal attacks related to the article Oradour-sur-Glane massacre
In Chapter 1, Tail Risk. John McWilliams is introduced. He was the DOE’s “chief risk officer”. He had compiled a list of the 138 most dire risks that the Department of Energy alone faced. At the time, I didn’t even know what the Department of Energy did, so that there were 138 risks inside of it worth counting was interesting.
The DOE is a powerful tool for dealing with the most alarming risks facing humanity. . . .the tool was being badly mishandled and at risk of being busted [evidently by the Trump administration)
The top five risks facing the DOE:
1. An accident with a nuclear weapon
2. North Korea
3. Iran
4. the US electrical grid
5. Project Management
Managing risks is an act of the imagination. And the human imagination is a poor tool for judging risk (page 67)
John McWilliams identified five risks; "The Fifth Risk" is "Project Management". When Lewis asked him what the fifth risk was, McWilliams replied, "project management". That was all he said. (from the book on page 69). McWilliams provided details about the first four (they were risks that the DOE faced every day).
From the NYT Book Review:
(I don't think this was a particularly insightful review as the writer MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY)[3]
Lewis "is horrified by the practical effects of the president’s [Trump] ignorance." "The Fifth Risk raises the most important question of the moment: Have we grown too lazy and silly and poorly educated to sustain a working democracy? We live in a moment when tribal bumper stickers — both left and right — pass for politics, when ignorance and grievance drive policy. The federal government exists at a level of complexity most people just can’t be bothered to understand. We have little idea what it does, only the vague sense that it doesn’t do anything very well. Michael Lewis has taken on the task of rectifying that misconception, and he has done so with refreshing clarity — and a measured sense of outrage — which makes this his most ambitious and important book."
many of us are aware of at least some of the risks government manages. Right now, for instance, we are all fixated on pandemic risk — and there are other obvious risks like climate change or nuclear war. But in the book you talk about a set of risks that gets talked about a lot less. What is “the fifth risk”?
Miceal Lewis characterizes the "fifth risk" as he understood it from McWilliam's concerns"
Michael Lewis
Title of Vox article "Michael Lewis explains how the Trump administration puts us all at risk of catastrophe" IMPORTANT QUOTE: “The United States government manages the biggest portfolio of [catastrophic] risks ever managed by a single institution in the history of the world.” And that means the US president is, above all, the risk-manager-in-chief. “Some of the things any incoming president should worry about are fast moving: pandemics, hurricanes, terrorist attacks,” writes Lewis. “But most are not. Most are like bombs with very long fuses that, in the distant future, when the fuse reaches the bomb, might or might not explode.” the Trump administration puts us all at risk of catastrophe. [4]
From NPR Article [5]
From a book review by Rubrick Biegon and Tom Watts [6]
also saved as [C:/Users/t_dod/Downloads/LSELewisbookreviewBiegonandWatts.pdf]
From a book review blog [7]
I am not convinced by this 12 minute blog book review.
3875 Reviews from Good Reads [8]
Can I make this edit ? The editor who objected to it has been indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Check for correct title to reference book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Stalin:_Parallel_Lives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Free_resources
https://news.lib.berkeley.edu/COVID
https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/information/alumni
Check out Talk page guidance --- WP:TPG#Layout, WP:TP#Indentation, and WP:INDENT
BMK cognitive dissonance refuses to let the argument go if it disagrees with its interpretation of the "rules"
Nuclear Weapon article dif that is strange and needs to be clarified. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_weapon&type=revision&diff=1020033736&oldid=1016675176
Similar to Nuclear Weapon article dif, this dif is also strange in the same way and needs clarification. Seems he BMK doesn't like to have "Bibliography" as an entry in the article "Contents" box. ?????
Hmmm BMK doesn't like an entry on his talk page
Find out who besides Stanford and Hewes were dignitaries at the driving of the golden spike at Promontory Point Utah
Trump is a liar, but not according to Kellyanne Conway’s Orwellian phrase, “alternative facts.”
In a Swirl of ‘Untruths’ and ‘Falsehoods,’ Calling a Lie a Lie
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/business/media/donald-trump-lie-media.html?searchResultPosition=1
The words needed to be exactly right. “And the language has a rich vocabulary for describing statements that fall short of the truth,” said Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Information. “They’re ‘baseless,’ they’re ‘bogus,’ they’re ‘lies,’ they’re ‘untruths.’”
Rarely are these words, each with its own nuance, applied directly to something said by a president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starship_from_Earth Possible issue on talk page. Read the book and resolve.
SF Time Travel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_travel_works_of_fiction#Time_travel_in_science_fiction_television_series
Check out this page occasionally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
Get a better reference for the naming of Portola - not actually named for the explorer Portola
This article and particularly the section about his book Co Aytch (as in H) needs a rewrite It is a bit of a hagiography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_R._Watkins#%22Co._Aytch%22
Some references https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/private-watkins-war/?searchResultPosition=1 http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/13202/pg13202.html - this is the book Co Aytch http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13202 https://books.google.com/books?id=HyhCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttps://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/244270/samuel-r-watkins/ http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/13202/pg13202.html http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13202/13202.txt
Harcourt, Edward John. “‘Would to God I Could Tear the Page from These Memoirs and from My Own Memory’: Co. Aytch and the Confederate Sensibility of Loss.” Southern Cultures, vol. 23, no. 4, 2017, pp. 7–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26391716. Accessed 3 Jan. 2021.
https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Samuel_R._Watkins http://www.tennessee-scv.org/camp29/srwbio.htm - a brief bio https://www.fold3.com/page/636681303/samuel-rush-watkins https://www.jstor.org/stable/26391716?seq=1
http://tennessee-scv.org/camp29/ - Sons of Confederate Veterans named camp in Watkins honor - The Samuel R. Watkins Camp’s main purpose is to maintain and defend Confederate Heritage and perpetuate the memory of the Southern Confederate soldier who fought during the American Civil War (War Between the States [1861-1865]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol
About the invaders, Robert pape did a study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/06/capitol-insurrection-arrests-cpost-analysis/
Index for all of Wikipedia Stuff
There is a help search at the Teahouse https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/3e14959a196db0f7b0c32a35c99dc0fc/w/index.php/Project:Teahouse
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Talk_pages_project/Notifications
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_who_built_the_house/Convenient_Discussions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_recent_changes_patrollers
Requests for comment WP:RFC or WP:WPRFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
Request for a Third Opinion WP:THIRD WP:3O Wikipedia:3O https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phaedriel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RexxS#Phaedriel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RexxS - Exactly why was RexxS ousted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS - an inquisition RfA
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=RexxS&sid=7295fa56b920dd5c41af071b6161a2c5
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slate_Star_Codex&diff=1007744116&oldid=1007741305
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_Star_Codex
This Looks Like the home page for Slate Star Codex
Why psychiatrists do not share personal information with patients
[https://stuartgeiger.com/papers/abs-rise-and-decline-wikipedia.pdf The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah - admin who blocked Fuaacena indefinitely
Evidently, RBI was the reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert,_block,_ignore
And article Oshwah wrote about identifying test edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_test_edits
Here is what Admin Oshwah posted on the Admin Notice Board Incident
Fuaacena edits - check to see pattern of vandalism: Special:Contributions/Fuaacena
Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted.
Seeing what the "od" does here. There should be an arrow to undent.
Osomite hablemos 22:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
NJZombie put the following on Fuaacena's talk page, and Fuaacena deleted it.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Carly Colón, you may be blocked from editing. Removing these warnings does not negate them. NJZombie (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For things to help on:
Read Wikipedia:FRAMBAN to understand what happened. In one of the comments was a wikilink to the essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. The following paragraph drew my undivided attention:
Should it happen that a cabal of admins, operating on the talk page of an article or the lion's den of AN/I, manage to block you on an invented charge, the world will continue to turn. The grass will grow, the birds will lay eggs, the number of Pokémon-related articles will still double every 1.7 weeks, and articles on weathermen will be brought to AfD. Sure, it won't be done as smoothly and as elegantly as when you did it, but it will be done. This encyclopedic project will continue to turn. Sad, but true.
https://blueoceanthinking.substack.com/p/wikipedia-the-overlooked-monopoly
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1015
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tenebrae-wikipedia-peppermint/
Using this source to prove he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist amounts to original research: "conspiracy" is never mentioned in the source. The rule on original research states: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Wikipedia:No_original_research
Shortcuts:
Wikipedia's credo is to present only the information which is supported by reliable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship WP:SCHOLARSHIP
About scholarship
Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia%3F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community
Nearly All of Wikipedia Is Written By Just 1 Percent of Its Editors https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-editors-elite-diversity-foundation
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/who-edits-the-wikipedia-editors/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention
A false Wikipedia 'biography' By John Seigenthaler https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Seigenthaler_biography_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community#Criticism Seigenthaler incident is discussed
Essjay was an imposter who edited for two years claiming to be Phd of Religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy
The Decline of Wikipedia
Is Wikipedia safe from libel liability?
https://www.cnet.com/news/is-wikipedia-safe-from-libel-liability/
Wikipedia_Review is an Internet forum and blog for the discussion of Wikimedia Foundation projects, in particular the content and conflicts of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Review
Review aggregators are websites that collect film reviews and reflect overviews of critical reception by providing a score for a film based on the reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Review_aggregators
Wikipedia to Limit Changes to Articles on People https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?_r=1
Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Criticism_of_content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
The Many Voices of Wikipedia, Heard in One Place https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/technology/07wiki.html?_r=1&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediocracy Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia. https://wikipediocracy.com/
On this page http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1912 In the article "Ken you believe it?" from March 20, 2013 (7 years ago) BMK commented to someone:
I wonder if calling someone's view "ignorant" is considered a personal attack? Need to look into that.
and the band played on. . .
The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
https://www.legalmorning.com/ Legalmorning is a full-service online marketing agency. We offer content writing, Wikipedia editing, media outreach services, and more. Founded by Mike Wood in 2011
https://wikieditors.net/ another site selling Wikipedia gunslingers
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-Wikipedia-editors-that-get-paid-to-edit-Wikipedia
You've been discussed on this board countless times because of edit-warring you engaged in because you don't like the manual of style. Please, let's not pretend that this is a new problem. Your antipathy to the MOS (shortcut to MOS - WP:MOS is legendary but you've gotten a pass because yes, most of your contributions are excellent. Anyway, guidelines have consensus. They wouldn't be guidelines otherwise. They're not mandatory, no, but they generally should be followed. It does not follow that because they are not mandatory, editors are free to ignore them whenever they like, for no reason whatsoever other than they don't like them. You don't have to edit in accordance with them either, but if someone comes along and does, the right response is not to mass-revert, yell at them, then revert them on your talk page when they tried to answer a question that you asked! Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I had no idea I was legendary!
I will take your remarks with all the weight that they deserve given your clear lack of understanding of why a guideline is not a policy and cannot be treated as one, and your obvious personal prejudice against me, which I am very sorry to learn about. As for stopping, I stopped as soon as this unwarranted report was filed, so, again, I have no idea where your animus is coming from. Do think on this, though: if MOS must be treated in the fashion you suggest, than how in heaven's name can guidelines ever be be truly descriptive of what Wikipedia editors do, when there's no wiggle room for them to deviate from the strict letter of the law, and they are forced to toe the line. That would make them prescriptive, and we know that's not supposed to be the case. Do recall that WP:IAR is still one of the pillars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a significant flaw in your reasoning. Of course guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive, always have been. If a guideline does not describe present practice, then it should be changed to match that practice. Guidelines also represent best practices; while not ironclad, they should be followed unless there is a good reason not to do so. That the guidelines do not describe your editing does not mean that the guidelines are wrong. It does mean that every time you edit in a contrary fashion, you're undertaking a special burden to justify why your edit is better and why we should depart from the guideline in this case. I would expect that to be article- and context-specific, and wouldn't seem to apply to a mass reversion. If the guideline is in fact wrong in this case (either wrong on its face or no longer describing present practice), then it should be changed. If not, then the original edits should stand. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You keep trying to make it personal, but it's not. In any case, I'm wasting my time and energy here, I can see that. Someone should give me a buzz if I'm needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: WP:IAR says that if a rule prevents an improvement being made, then it can be ignored. Moving the template that displays the GA icon from the top of an article to the bottom of an article is not an improvement, as it has absolutely zero effect on the display of the GA icon. Therefore IAR cannot be invoked for that edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing. What kind of people have nothing better to do than edit war over something as silly and petty as the MOS? Utterly pointless. If the problem's with the bot, that needs to be said to the bot operators. Though really MOS:ORDER seems like CREEP and I see way too many purely cosmetic edits by bots and regular editors alike because of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#NOT WP:UPNOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion
Slatersteven, you made this post accusing me of doing a promotion of a company.
"And can you explain this. . ." Interesting you start your post with the conjunction "And" which implies "in addition to other things". Is this a logical, continuing part of the BMK incident? Why is this "can you explain" posted there? I don't mean to be glib, but if you think this accusation that I am "promoting of a company" is part and parcel of that incident, you are beating a WP:DEADHORSE, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK on that incident.
I am curious as to why I have to provide an explanation about what this "seems" to you? Are you stalking me to see if I will do something to criticize and perhaps claim an incident? Seriously, why are you doing this?
Here's the short answer: It is not what you seem to think it is. I am in no way promoting a company.
Here's the long answer:
In holding stuff in a place that undoubtedly does not receive much traffic, in a "backstage" area, am actually I promoting a company? It isn't covert advertising.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia page Subpages with special attention to "Disallowed uses" and the Wikipedia page Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. I don't see a violation concerning my saved stuff.
If doing this innocuous save of stuff (at least it is to me) is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, please specify what that policy is, and I will make my saved stuff comply.
If this explanation is not adequate, please clarify what is needed.
And again, why are you doing this?
When finding a "fact" that requires a reference citation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed
Here is an example of how the "citation needed template" works:
the code is: {{citation needed span|date=November 2022|text=Passage(s) to be sourced}} "
and it looks like this"
Passage(s) to be sourced[citation needed]
Another example:
A squadron of B-17s from this force detached to the Middle East to join the First Provisional Bombardment Group, thus becoming the first American B-17 squadron to go to war against the Germans.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bots_with_administrative_rights
WP:PEREN is a list of things that have frequently been proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tip_of_the_day
For contributors, it can be a valuable learning experience to work on Wikipedia article cleanup. In addition, providing articles with missing information does improve the quality of these existing articles.
There are articles tagged with content issues which can be resolved to insure accuracy as the articles are developing. Remember to discuss major additions, changes, and controversial topics on the article's talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/why-trump-cant-afford-to-lose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game
Tiger, Tiger burning bright. . .Beware of Tigers burning bright. . .editors who have strong opinions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation
WP:BLOCK Block Policy
WP:VERIFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
WP:ORIGINAL No original research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
WP:PETARD aka "don't shot your self in the foot: aka "boomerang"
A list of recent changes can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism WP:VANDAL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol WP:RCP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_test_edits WP:IDTEST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup WP:CLEANUPTAG
The film "The Big Country" was nominated for an Academy Award for the musical score by Jerome Moross.
From the article World War II Chronology
The war in Europe is generally considered to have started on 1 September 1939,[9][10] beginning with the German invasion of Poland; the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany two days later.
From the article World War II
On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the invasion.[11]
On 27 September, the Warsaw garrison surrendered to the Germans, and the last large operational unit of the Polish Army surrendered on 6 October. Despite the military defeat, Poland never surrendered;
From the article Invasion_of_Poland
The invasion of Poland, also known as September campaign (Polish: Kampania wrześniowa), 1939 defensive war (Polish: Wojna obronna 1939 roku) and Poland campaign (German: Überfall auf Polen, Polenfeldzug), was an attack on the Second Polish Republic by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union which marked the beginning of World War II. The German invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, and one day after the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had approved the pact.[12] The Soviets invaded Poland on 17 September. The campaign ended on 6 October with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland under the terms of the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty.
The Third Reich at War, by Evans, Richard J. at CCC Lib need to hold it
The third volume, The Third Reich at War, was published by Penguin in the UK in October 2008 (ISBN 978-0-7139-9742-2, 912 pages), and in the US in March 2009 (ISBN 978-1-59420-206-3, 944 pages). It describes the entire wartime period of the Third Reich, beginning with the invasion of Poland in 1939 and completing the timeline with the end of the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945.
From Opertion Sea Lion
In September 1939, the successful[13] German invasion of Poland infringed on both a French and a British alliance with Poland and both countries declared war on Germany.
Note Keegan page 76 is not correct.
U.S. States visited: | |||||||||
Countries visited: | ||||||||||||
When asked a question you don't want to answer, reply by asking a question that is not on the point of the question.
In an extraordinary one-hour arm twisting phone call, Trump Pressures Georgia Sec of State to recalculate vote in his favor.
Trump says, "Look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state". We won the election, and it's not fair to take it away from us like this. And it's going to be very costly in many ways.
Trump claims, "the people of Georgia are angry, the in the country are angry" and there is nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you've recalculated."
Brad Raffensperger, GeorgiaSecretary of State responded, "Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. was asked, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong"
Later in the conversation, Trump asks, "Now, do you think it's possible that shredded ballots in Fulton County? Cause, that's what the rumor is. And Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that's illegal.
Ryan Germany, General Counsel of Georgia's Secretary of State replied, No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.
Trump asked, "Are you sure Ryan" Ryan replied, "I'm sure". Trump replies, "You want to have an accurate election"
Raffensperger replied, "We believe that we do have an accurate election."
Trump denies, "No no you don't. No, no you don't. You don't have. You don't have. Not even close. You're off by hundreds of thousands of votes". You know what they did and you are not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. They are removing machinery and they moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen."
There is a little bit of legal peril for the President in this conversation by claiming public officials being guilty or liable for criminal behavior. . .prosecutorial discretion. . .this comes right up to the line of threatening criminal liability.
This user was born in the United States of America. |
en-us | This user is a native speaker of American English. |
This user currently lives in the U.S. State of California. |
This user lives in Northern California. |
Wikipedia:Babel | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Search user languages |
This user lives in or hails from the U.S. State of California. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries
Here is a good user box example page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes
Wikitext | userbox | where used | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
{{User:JustinMal1/film}} |
|
linked pages | ||
OMG. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and did not realize that there was documentation for the Wikipedia markup language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1
And today I found the Cheatsheet Osomite (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
adding a typically remembered text string for "nowiki" which is "no wiki" to make it easier to find
Here is an example of a nowiki Wiki-Markup formatting that creates the word "ORANGE" magic marker highlighted in the color orange: ORANGE.
It was done with this wiki-markup:
And another example
Here is an example of Wiki-Markup formatting of {{color|green|GREEN}}
which creates the word "GREEN" presented in the color green: GREEN - note if you have blue/green color blindness, it might not look too green.
To create a reference with only a number, place the reference's pathname;
within the square brackets "[ ]"
How to make hidden comments,
With the use of "nowiki", the meta will not execute but show
For example <!-- An example of hidden comments -->
This would not be visible except in "edit" mode
How to present a quotation
{{Blockquote}} adds a block quotation to an article page.
This is easier to type and is more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags, and has additional pre-formatted attribution parameters for author and source (though these are not usually used in articles;
±
(click edit to see the code).How to do a "line out" of text:
put the text to be "lined out" within "del" parameters.
Like this prophylactic (click edit to see the code).
or like this it's like when someone has a prophylactic Anabaptist anaphylactic reaction
<s>...</s>
.Which looks like this Which looks like this
<u>...</u>
.<del>...</del>
.<ins>...</ins>
.Note: <s></s>
and <u></u>
(speced in HTML 3 & 4) are considerably more popular than <del></del>
and <ins></ins>
(speced in HTML 5) on Wikipedia.
What you type
You can <del>strike out deleted material</del> and <ins>underline new material</ins>.
What it looks like
This is also possible with the {{strike}}
} template.
What you type | What you get |
---|---|
This is {{strike|a misplaced bit of text}} for comparison | This is |
User Guide for Visual Editor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Adding_a_new_reference
wikEd is a full-featured edit page text editor for regular to advanced users on Wikipedia and other MediaWikis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#toc
WP:MOS - shortcut to the Manual of Style page
Index for all of Wikipedia Sharia Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch WP:WORDS
A list of websites that editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia. Some of these are currently accepted, some are currently opposed, and some depend on the circumstances as consensus can change.
Statements likely to become outdated - MOS:DATED OR MOS:CURRENT
The "See Also" Section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#%22See_also%22_section
About how the plot section for a film or tv show should be written, see MOS:TVPLOT or WP:FILMPLOT
An essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary
Another essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plot-only_description_of_fictional_works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_streamline_a_plot_summary
About how to write a Lead Sentence, see WP:FILMLEAD, MOS:LEADSENTENCE
About what Wikipedia is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
About writing so that a statement will not become "out of date"
About citation overkill -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill
Dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence: in pairs (parenthetical dashes, instead of parentheses or pairs of commas); or singly (perhaps instead of a colon). They may also indicate an abrupt stop or interruption, in reporting quoted speech. In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article:
Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line (markup: the {{spaced ndash}}
or {{snd}}
templates, or use the HTML character entity
):
Another "planet" was detected{{snd}}but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
But do not insert a non-breaking or other space where the en dash should be unspaced
.Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
WP:TPO - Editing others' comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#REPLIED
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#POLEMIC WP:POLEMIC
Dispute Resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution WP:DISPUTE
Index for all of Wikipedia Sharia Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_shoot_yourself_in_the_foot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring
use either
or
or
. . .and beware of Advocacy Ducks
. . .and remember to ignore all rules
Problem creating a link to a "commons" page - can't figure out the page's name
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mosbatho Mosbatho marked several of Mini4WD images for delete
Is Jtbobwaysf doing tendentious editing on the Squaw Valley page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required
It is not good to cast aspersions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_images_with_Wiki_Markup/2
Yep, there is such a thing on Wikipedia as "The Typo Team". This sounds at little *******
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Typo_Team
Yep, there is such a thing on Wikipedia as "Special Pages". This sounds special.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SpecialPages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Books
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#Caveat_lector
https://blueoceanthinking.substack.com/p/wikipedia-the-overlooked-monopoly
Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project in which people from all over the world are editing at all times of the day. So, sometimes when you're WP:BOLD and make an edit to an article, another editor comes along later on (sometimes even a long time later) and WP:REVERTs the changes you made (either partially or entirely) because they don't think it was an improvement. When this happens, the next thing to do it to follow WP:BRD and try and WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk and seek clarification.
Ideally, an editor who reverts another should leave an edit summary explaining why. If you check the page history of Off-track betting in New York, you find that is exactly what the editor who reverted you did here. Now, if you want clarification about that, you can start a discussion about it at Talk:Off-track betting in New York. My personal assessment is that the content you added was done in good faith, but it probably wasn't something really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:Namechecking; so, it's encyclopedic relevance to the general reader seems a bit questionable. If you disagree with that assessment, you're free once again to discuss why on the article's talk page.
Although it can be a bit of a shock to have an edit reverted, it's really quite commonplace as it is part of the process on articles are improved or unimproved over time.
The "policy" concerning "Newspaper and magazine blogs" WP:NEWSBLOG is vague to the point of uselessness.
The policy is as follows:
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
The concern with this policy is that it does not define "blog" with any precision. Simply saying a "blog" is an "online column" isn't much of a definition. Yes, it refers to the Wikipedia article Blog, but that is whatever Wikipedia editors decide it might be with having the stricture of writing a Wikipedia policy.
This policy was not at all helpful when I encounter an editor claiming a Washington Post article was not creditable because it was from a "blog".
The article is promoted by the Washington Post on a page called Morning Mix - Stories from all over. It explains itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world."
The Washington Post calls a collection of links to some of its newspaper articles a "blog". It is an unfortunate selection of a name to define its genre.
Here is the article:
I am involved with editor @Usename: PackMecEng, who claims that because its source was called a "blog" it was not a creditable article. The editor continues to argue this position using only his opinion as support. He particularly dislikes the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" that I wanted to use in the article's Lead. He has posed various arguments, but in the end, his argument is that the article is from a "blog" and is not creditable.
I disagreed and a long, long argument ensued about the news article's creditable. This discussion can be found at [Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Sentence_%22Donald_Trump_has_been_a_prodigious_spreader_of_misinformation%22_in_Lead_is_an_issue_for_Editor_PackMecEng].
It would be very useful for The policy to define "blog" more clearly.
It seems that such a definition would include the key elements of a blog, such as:
How would one go about improving this policy so that sources that are clearly not a "blog" can more easily be identified?
Reply to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PackMecEng jackass move of putting a DS Alert on my talk page
Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying
I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. You are acting like a bully.
Based only upon you opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body."
Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the WP:MOSLEAD.
You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem?
Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable?
You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it.
Here is the article, check it out:
Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.)
And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements.
And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here.
It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alertr on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on WP:TRUTH & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." Gee, you left out WP:TENDENTIOUS.
And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth.
About WP:TRUTH, a "rule" is "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability.
About WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick.
About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally WP:MOSLEAD, WP:TRUTH & WP:RGW. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Wikipedia guidance.
I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made [undo of my edit].
Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary?
PS For the record I will put this on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump talk page
Osomite hablemos 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
What followings is the "guts" of a DS Alert
Not saying anything is wrong, just a standard awareness note for WP:ACDS topic areas.
Osomite hablemos 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I was really looking forward to all of us enjoying a fresh start on day 1 of the new year, and stopped by to spread a bit of WikiLove and well wishes when I couldn't help but notice the rather dyspeptic screed above, and the wrongful issuance of a DS alert by Osomite. My first thought was that it was a newbie editor, which is incorrect. Osomite is a 13 yr. veteran editor who should have known better than to violate DS alert policy which clearly states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying */. You obviously issued the alert to get even, which is a violation of ArbCom's DS alert procedures. Had you done what is expected of all editors prior to issuing a DS alert, you would have known that PME had already received an alert within the past 12 months, and that she is also well aware of the DS process in the AP2 topic area as evidenced by (1) the alert on her UTP, (2) her issuance of a DS alert on your UTP, and (3) her participation at AE. You not only failed to do what was expected of you relative to issuing a DS alert, you laid the groundwork for further disruption with your WP:PAs against PME above. Encouraging colleagial discourse would have been a much better approach than the behavior you've demonstrated above, and I do hope that you will heed my friendly advice and amend your behavior when approaching editors you consider opposition. I also invite you to read/participate in the open discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV-problems on Wikipedia. WP does have a NPOV problem, particularly in the AP2 topic area that many of us are/have been trying to resolve. A good start for 2021 would be to approach our differences in a more collegial manner. Happy editing in 2021!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You thanked me for my post on PackMecEng's talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PackMecEng&oldid=prev&diff=997697002
I am curious why you did.
I find PackMecEng to a very disagreeable editor. I did an edit on the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump involving one sentence: "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation." He undid (did an undo?) it. I put it back with an edit summary explaining my edit. He undid it again. At this point, because he wasn't getting his way and I was resisting his undos (seems there is a lot of arrogance and ego involved), without any comment on my talk page, PackMecEng put a DS Alert on my talk page clearly as an unnecessary offensive (operative word here is offensive) move because PackMecEng disagreed with my edit. So I made the edit on PackMecEng's talk page and for "good measure" applied a DS Alert on his talk page. It seems I violated the DS Alert ritual as PackMecEng already had a DS Alert in the past 12 months (Atsme took umbrage with my violation and lectured me. Atsme seemed to be very concerned with assuring the correct enacting of the DS Alert process protocol. A process that I had never heard of before). So that's my story and I am sticking to it.
What were your experiences with PacMecEng?
Here is BRD in a nutshell by BMK: "Per WP:BRD you made a Bold edit, I disagreed and Rerted to the status quo ante, now, if you feel your edit was justified, you have to start a Discussion on the talk page. You do not revert back."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is_not
I fundamentally disagree based on WP:BRD-NOT:
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
soibangla (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Testing the markup language for presenting quotes, two ways, one using the Quote Template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quote
Now is the time for all good men blau blau blau.
and one using the blockquote method
Four Score and Seven Years Ago, well you get the idea
.
And here is a blockquote with "br"s added to break lines appropriately:
BUILD THE NEWS UPON
THE ROCK OF TRUTH
AND RIGHTEOUSNESS
CONDUCT IT ALWAYS
UPON THE LINES OF
FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY
ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO GET
FROM THE NEWSPAPER
BOTH SIDES OF EVERY
IMPORTANT QUESTION
G. B. DEALEY
And then there is "poem quotes" which add the "br" (line breaks automatically):
In Birmingham, they love the governor (boo boo boo)
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?
Tell the truth
...
Sweet home Alabama, oh, sweet home baby
Where the skies are so blue and the governor's true
Uses the following wikicode:
{{quotebox |quote='Two B or not Two B' |author=—'Shakespeare' |source=First Folio |align=left |width=50% |style=padding:8px; |fontsize = 105% |bgcolor = #CCDDFF }}
which creates the following quote box on the left using 50% of the text column:
'Two B or not Two B'
—'Shakespeare', First Folio
And here is another quote box on the left side of the text column
'Two X or not Two X'
—'Shakespeare', First Folio
Fake header uses this wikicode {{fake header|level=3|Faked Header - a fake one}} which looks like this:
You can only use a "ping" with a new signed post.
Information about ping. There are several ways that you can mention an editor that will result in that editor getting a notification:
To set italics, use <em>...</em>
or {{em|...}}
Here is Wikicode for how to italicize the word "not":
The vaccine is <em>not</em> a cure.
The vaccine is not a cure.
And another Wikicode for how to italicize the "not"
The vaccine is {{em|not}} a cure.
The vaccine is not a cure.>
The following "Italicized name - how create italic" is "problematic" as it apparently utilizes a xt template somehow that creates an error:
Here is an issue I posted to the TeaHouse on September 21 2020 at about 3PM
I have a concern that needs some other editor's perspective.
I make good faith edits and get reverted or edited over with the justification that "The Manual of Style" says so and so.
It seems that some parts of the MoS is good policy and reflects a necessary "rule" to follow.
It seems that some part of the MoS is good guidance.
It seems that some editors strongly believe that every word of the MoS is Wikipedia dogma and must be followed without question.
In the Squaw Valley Ski Resort article, editor Jtbobwaysf was adamant that the led must have only 4 paragraphs rather than 5. The edit was justified with the "excessive paragraphs in the Lead Paragraph". The edit to make the 5 paragraphs into 4 paragraphs just deleted a line feed so it added the "fifth" paragraph to the end of the preceding paragraph without consideration of the importance of the paragraph.
Jamming two paragraphs together is not supportive of information presentation. With the "forbidden fifth paragraph" obscured, a reader could easily miss something that might be the key to continue reading the article.
In this case, the offending paragraph was about Squaw hosting 1960 Olympics, which was without a doubt, is the seminal event in the history of Squaw Valley. Here is the "dif" for that edit:
Dogmatic following of the MoS potentially diminishes the quality of content and content presentation.
Reasons for doing unnecessary edits because "The Manual of Style says "X" so you are wrong" is not necessarily good Wikipedianship.
What is a reasonable approach with regard to some of the more benign "violations" of the MoS?
Use this to see the contribution a user has made
Osomite's contributions
Mini4WD has mental problems about the Mini 4WD thing -- it's some sort of fixation
Take a look at Mini4WD's contributions, over 12 yeas Mini4WD has only edited the Mini 4WD page
The following is for USER "Wikimeedian":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markworthen who is a psychologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones#Useful_links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mandruss
A thought to ponder and examine - is Zoozaz1 a Wikipedia Philosopher or Wiseman?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoozaz1#Teahouse
BMK's succinct Wikipedia Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drovethrughosts is a TV series maven.
Steven Pruitt is Ser Amantio di Nicolao's secret identity. Steven Pruitt has a FB page
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
OCD Editors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CorbieVreccan
WFS! "Binksternet" is a manic obsessive (it sure seems like that) editor, he did more edits this morning than I did in a month. He edited the plot section for the Movie "The Devil All The Time" to the MoS standard of 700 words which makes the plot ununderstandable. I don't think he saw the movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_August
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot
Cullen328 reverted my revert of Binksternet's badly done plot revision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328
Osomite hablemos 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
A thing to do --- compare versions of The Devil All The Time for September 21, mine and Bink's to see just how much blot was actually removed.
12:40, September 21, 2020 Cullen328 talk contribs 15,967 bytes -4,632 Let's stick with the Manual of Style. That summary is way too long. Undid revision 979619373 by Osomite (talk) undothank Tag: Undo
curprev 12:34, September 21, 2020 Osomite talk contribs 20,599 bytes +4,632 Undid revision 979602367 by Binksternet (talk)I appreciate that the Manual of Style says a film plot should be 700 words; however, Binksternet's edit culled many plot points and failed to introduce key characters. That revised plot does no service to the film. I appreciate Binksternet's efforts, but I must revert as anyone interested in the actual plot would prefer the plot with more than 700 words. See my comment on talk page. undo Tags: Undo Reverted curprev 10:35, September 21, 2020 Binksternet talk contribs 15,967 bytes -4,632 →Plot: rolling back plot bloat per WP:FILMPLOT which caps the size of this section at 700 words
Here is some boilerplate from User:Beyond My Ken that he applied to Singin' in the Rain chiding User: EEBuchanan - I guess he uses it a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atsme has done a lot of stuff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Levivich funny stuff here
Erik
I appreciate your counsel pointing out the long term view. It is the way of Wiki.
I do see change happening, usually a word or phrase at a time. This evolution process is bearable. What annoyed me was that Bink, who edits movie plots without having seen the movies (he actually makes this claim proudly), is a compulsive editor (he made over 200 edits that day), dropped in, mucked up what was a clear plot (though I agree somewhat too much for the 700 word limit--700 word limit, that sounds like the requirement for a high school book report, HAHA) and produced a hack job. Since he had not seen the movie, had no first-hand knowledge of the story, he had no idea what nonsense he created with his edits to remove "bloat".
It was Bink's arrogance in what he did that annoyed me. He slopply performed just one of very numerous edits (apparently he has a compulsion) and just moved on. When apprehended by my complaint, he just shrugged it off, with what he thought was a Jedi Mind Trick (. . .theses are not the droids you are look for. . .move on. . .). And that annoyed again. He wasn't interested in working to compromise, he did not care. In his most recent reply to my complaint, he did acknowledge that I was angry; I did appreciate that slight nod.
This was another Wiki learning experience for me. There is so much Wikipedia documentation, rules and such that are just hidden. The Manual of Style (which is admirable) is a document that is hard to get a comprehensive understanding of (short of reading and reading and reading). 700 word limits, only 4 paragraphs in the led, on and on, stuff I stumble on often.
So in penance for my sins, I have rewritten the plot into a tight terse narrative of 665 words. It tells the film's story accurately enough so that a reader will see the story sort of (adequate for Wikipedian purposes). I left out anything that could be left out (it was a lot) although sorely tempted to include some explanatory detail.
So now others will edit. I wonder what enhancements or detractions it will bring.
Wikipedia editing, a blessing and a curse. Oh well, may we live in interesting times.
Thank you.
Stay Safe.
PS I will send you 35 cents for the psychiatric counseling (it used to 25 cents in the Peanuts cartoon, but with inflation and such, the session fee has increased)
Osomite hablemos 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RfC found consensus to add an introductory page for new editors, but asked for further discussion on the details.
Previously discussed options: Help:Introduction (5 !votes), Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (1 !vote), and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure (1 !vote)
We think that help pages are better when they have a fewer number of links and options -- too many can be overwhelming. In that vein, I think that WP:Contributing to Wikipedia would likely overwhelm, and Help:Introduction would be better.As for the traffic stats, most people come to the page looking for help doing a specific thing and then click on the page relevant to that. Since there are 13 pages linked, of course none individually will be getting as much traffic as the portal. There's also the general 1% rule of the internet to consider. Even the custom-designed newcomer tasks feature only results in 9% of newcomers coming back after 3 days (compared to a baseline 4-5%), so keeping them around is a huge challenge. The stats for the Wikipedia Adventure are similar, and while we don't know how many people who visit WP:Contributing to Wikipedia actually read to the bottom of the page, my guess is that it's shockingly low.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
I tried TWA recently and had high hopes for it, since the graphics are definitely nice and the interactivity is a plus. But I came away from it concluding that there are just too many problems, and those problems are too hard to address given how rigidly it's built. To list them out:
Welcome to Wikipedia! Would you like to read a short, accessible introduction to editing Wikipedia, or learn interactively how to edit Wikipedia by taking a tour of the site?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed label options: "Tutorial" and "Editing tutorial". Previously discussed tooltip option: "Learn how to edit Wikipedia".
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previously discussed option: Contribute section, just below Help.
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.