Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Edit request on 23rd September 2013

I'm here, so don't really understand all the short codes etc. so forgive me in that respect. In light of recent technology articles entitled "The Decline of Wikipedia" I think it'd be sensible to include a sub-section in the main article about Wikipedia highlighting this. According to Technology Review there has been a decline in the amount of editors since 2007 until now. Aaron Halfaker, who has worked at the Wikimedia Foundation as a contractor has said that "I categorize from 2007 until now as the decline phase of Wikipedia" - supported by his detailed analysis containing several key results published by the Wikimedia Foundation that highlights the decline of the amount of active editors in Wikipedia. This analysis also hypothesizes that newcomers are more likely to have their edits removed GigaPlop (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I added the source to Wikipedia community article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WHY CANT WE HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES ON US????

hELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.171.55 (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Without your specifying who "us" is, it is impossible to answer your question. Nominations of notable topics are accepted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you post there, please turn off your caps-lock first. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"edit source"?

what are talking about? who are you talking to? Yourselves? Why are people expected to know html to use wikipedia? Why not use a wyswyg? Ordinary people cannot contribute to this website! I have never been able to add a picture or add content without the formatting getting messed up. Knowing and feeling at home amongst html has NOTHING to do with wikipedia's aims! Wikipedia is an exclusive club for seasoned computer nerds only. I don't feel welcome here. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss this, but you could just use the VisualEditor... DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't HTML (to the best of my knowledge). But, you get to know how to use it if you start editing. And as for calling everyone 'seasoned computer nerds', Wikipedia has 19,604,012 accounts, people from all aspects of life edit Wikipedia. And, as DarkToonLink says, why not use Visual Editor? Matty.007 14:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is called 'Wiki markup. Matty.007 14:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• As noted above, it's not HTML, it's Wiki markup. As a user of Wikipedia and a web designer, I can tell you that Wiki markup is nothing like HTML, and significantly simpler. Some HTML does appear, but usually in signatures for users, not in articles, and these are not designed to be edited by passer-bys.  drewmunn  talk  14:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 September 2013

In the vandalism section prior to the quote from McHenry the word simile should be changed to metaphor. His quote does not use like or as but rather uses "is" which makes it a metaphor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile 72.225.199.201 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. The phrase "rather in the position of" functions much in the way that "like" or "as" would in the context. In other words, the sentence isn't saying the Wikipedia reader is a visitor to a public restroom, which is how it would have to read for it to qualify as a metaphor. (To be fair, the sentence could be rewritten to avoid using either term.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on 8 October 2013

The vandalism section of the article mentions Wales. This is the first time Wales is mentioned in the article, recommend clearifying who Wales is. For example, I suggest the change which appears in bold below:

"Obvious vandalism is generally easy to remove from wiki articles; in practice, the median time to detect and fix vandalism is a few minutes.[20][21] However, in one high-profile incident in 2005, false information was introduced into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler and remained undetected for four months.[49] John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia Creator, JimmyWales, and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales replied that he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[50][51] This incident led to policy changes on the site, specifically targeted at tightening up the verifiability of all biographical articles of living people.[52]"

08:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)~ A.L.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.1.59 (talk)

It's not the first time he's mentioned; his name appears in the second paragraph of the lede. Still, there's a fair amount of text in between the mentions, so I've added "Wikipedia co-founder" before "Wales" in the vandalism section. Hope that fixes it for you. If not, please say so. Rivertorch (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you. 00:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC) A.L.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.149.2.6 (talk)

Quality Article: Introduction must be change

Hello,

I'm old here. I make a good introction for this article in French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia

Please have a nice introduction : wikipedia is a project...

Petrusbarbygere (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Yankovic

I prefer that article content referred to in image captions be duplicated in the article itself. Mr Yankovic's video has an image, but no corresponding sentence in the "satire" section where it is placed. I would add a sentence, but thought since this must be a highly edited page, i would bring it up first here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. Try the talk page of the article.  drewmunn  talk  16:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Website Ranking

The introductory section lists Wikipedia as the sixth largest website. However, the header ads the Wikipedia has, where they are asking for donations, lists it as the fifth largest in the world. Should that not be updated now that it has moved up to 5th? Timeoin (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Overview of system architecture" image

In this section there is an image describing the system architecture of Wikipedia. In the Databases bubble, there are seven groups of servers. The last two groups are both labeled s7 while the first five are labeled from s1 to s5. I suppose one of the s7 should actually be s6. Martinkunev (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake-Chopra Wikipedia conspiracy theory

A source has been added[1] to the article which promotes a conspiracy theory that Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra have been spreading about "militant skeptics"[2]. There is currently no counterbalance. The issue has been debunked in The New Republic by Jerry Coyne.[3] In short, Sheldrake and Chopra don't seem to be aware of policies like WP:PSCI; they appear to believe that unflattering (but well-sourced) statements in their respective articles are due to mean people rather than policy requirements.

In Coyne's article there is a link to a BBC World Service segment in which Sheldrake promotes the conspiracy,[4] however the audio is no longer available. Among other statements in the broadcast, Sheldrake claimed that "guerrilla skeptics" have "got about five people banned so far", which may be verified as untrue by looking at Wikipedia histories. (One ban did occur, however, which was done with the consent of six administrators.[5]) I mention this for context only; original research can't go in the article, of course, even presumably straightforward facts of Wikipedia history pages.

Coyne mentioned there is an upcoming BBC broadcast covering the issue further.

Recently Chopra himself was tied to a frivolous conflict-of-interest complaint against a contributor to the Chopra Wikipedia page. Ironically, the person who brought the complaint is a researcher and copyeditor for Chopra, with the connection being revealed by an open letter Chopra published on his site (which was quickly taken down).[6]

I don't think I should edit the Wikipedia article because I am involved with the Sheldrake article; The New Republic even links to my response to Sheldrake.

The person who added the Chopra source is also involved with the Sheldrake article. vzaak (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be me. I added the material because it was notable criticism from a notable source. He may be wrong. But he said it and it's getting more and more press coverage. We look silly if there's a clamor about wikipedia in reliable sources and they're not reflected in our article about wikipedia. So far, there are (at the very least) a Chopra piece on HuffPo, a BBC piece quoting Sheldrake, and a refutation of Chopra and Sheldrake in The New Republic, written by a University of Chicago biology prof. There are some others listed on the Sheldrake talk page. David in DC (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Revenue Model of Wikipedia

Would you please add some information about revenue model of Wikipedia? I.yeckehzaare (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. If you're just making a general inquiry, you don't need to use the edit request template. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikimedia Foundation#Finances. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Coyne in New Republic

I believe it's not quite accurate to say that Coyne published his opinion about the Sheldrake issue in The New Republic, since it appears to only have been published in a New Republic blog. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Please feel free to correct. Collaboration is good. David in DC (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2013

I want to edit the Wikipedia page. 108.206.61.40 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no shortage of reliable sources

As of 2012, the majority of Wikipedia's most viewed media files were explicitly pornographic.[7] As of 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat pornographic content on Wikipedia because its board members were not able to reach a consensus.[8]

The sources are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2010, it was reported that images of naked children were on Wikipedia.[9]

The edit did not match the edit summary. The edit summary was "Reverted. That's exactly what a decent encyclopaedia SHOULD contain". QuackGuru (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As of June, 2012, pornographic pictures and videos are the most popular content on Wikipedia.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/

Here is another source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/10/wikipedia-slow-to-filter-graphic-imagery-from-site/

Here is another source. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia contains explicit content, and content that's not really a problem to most people but that some still find offensive. That's the nature of the project. It's no secret. There is no point adding little line after line to this article highlighting the bits that you don't like. The present content was achieved by consensus of many, after extensive discussion. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the wording of the article, constructively, not just repetitively, please make it clear what words you would like to add, and why, and await the thoughts of others on whether it should be added. (Simply being sourced is not enough.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"As of 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Wikipedia because its board members were not able to reach a consensus.[11]"

This is a new source that you deleted for no reason. Please show me where this specific content was previously discussed about the Wikimedia Foundation has abandoned efforts to combat explicit pornographic content on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is already in the article:

Wikipedia contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic because Wikipedia is not censored. The policy has sometimes proved controversial: in 2008, Wikipedia rejected an online petition against the inclusion of images of Muhammad in the English edition of its Muhammad article, citing this policy. The presence of politically, religiously, and pornographically sensitive materials in Wikipedia has led to the censorship of Wikipedia by national authorities in China,[181] Pakistan,[182] and the United Kingdom,[183] among other countries.

Wikipedia is not censored. It's acknowledged. No additional sources are needed stating there's material that could be deemed pornographic. It seems what's at issue here is that it seemed like something might have been done to filter sexually explicit material but it didn't happen? Again, no additional sources are needed for "Wikipedia still is not censored." But maybe I'm misunderstanding... --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is dated material from 2008. We have a new source to update the article as of 2013 that was deleted for no reason. QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not "dated material" that needs a new source. The big story you're proposing is a new source that says "no change, still not censored" in the most sensationalist way possible. You'd have more luck at Criticism of Wikipedia but it would still need more than FOX News and derivatives like IndiaTimes. --Rhododendrites (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion. Where does it say in this article about Wikimedia Foundation's stance on sexually explicit material. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Not censored" means "Not censored". It does not mean "Not censored, except for some things that QuackGuru doesn't approve of". HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer the question: Where does it say in this article about Wikimedia Foundation's stance on sexually explicit material?

"Not censored", according to who? I think RS shows Wikipedia is not censored because of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there a reason you want to censor this from the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material = the Wikipedia stance on offensive material. The article you posted is not the WMF stance, it's a sensationalized analysis of the non-developments of a story that's already covered. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know, though, so please link me to an internal page (i.e. on the Meta-Wiki) in which the WMF has documented a "new stance" without the help of Fox. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's official stance on this in not in the article. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material are not linked in the article and those links are not RS. If you don't like the source that is not a reason to delete the source. Your personal opinion about the source should not prevent you from improving this page. According to this page it looks like WMF has "no documented stance". This page is notcensored? The text according to RS is being censored. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

...Still ignoring the substance of the argument in favor of "you don't like it so you're censoring good information." So I guess this thread has gone as far as it can. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Still ignoring the substance of the argument? You did not provide any argument based on policy. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:Offensive material are not RS. We don't use primary sources to replace reliable sources. The article I posted is the WMF position according to RS.

You still did not explain where in this article is Wikimedia Foundation's official stance. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it "Wikipedia is not censored." HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think Wikipedia is not censored because of the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution:Controversial content -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Resolution:Controversial content link is not RS. This is not about if Wikipedia is not censored or censured. This is about the position of the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The big story I'm proposing is to include the WMF position. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How are we to address this curricular question of what is WMF position when their own words is not a reliable source to you? You seem not to understand that sexually explicit material falls under our censorship policies as does violent and religions content. If your asking what is WMF on child porn - we follow the law of the land - if you see a problem image please let us know. But you must understand that content as seen at Sex position is considered educational in our eyes.

So to quote the law of the land or the status quo as it were.....

The Wikimedia Foundation is a foundation under the law of the US federal state of Florida.(see Commons:General disclaimer). As such, its must comply with the laws of Florida, US. Additionally, Wikimedia's servers are physically located in Florida and Amsterdam

Since we are committed to complying with all laws and regulations, there are many classes of content which not permitted on Wikimedia servers.

For example, Commons does not host:

• Photographs that would be illegal to host because they constitute 'child pornography' as defined by relevant law.
• Photographs that would be illegal to host because they contain individuals under the age of majority.
• Photographs that would be illegal to host because the individual did not (or could not) give the necessary consent as required by law.
• Images that would be illegal to host because of the work's copyright status.

• Don't upload 'private' photographs of identifiable people without their consent

Main Policy: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people

Hope this helps-- Moxy (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC).

This is not about what is the WMF's position. This is about why is the WMF's position not allowed to be in the article. You are not proposing to include any of those sources in the article. I am proposing to include WMF's position in this article according to RS.

"Wales had earlier made a call for the foundation to implement a personal image filter in May 2011 and the Board of Trustees unanimously voted 10-0 in favor of the filter. However, the board cancelled plans for the image filter following protests against the decision, leaving pornography freely available to all site visitors."[12] QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article very clearly to me - that said its clear not all get it and so we should dumb it down a bit for all to understand. As for this one proposal your mentioning we simply dont mention failed proposal often because they dont represent the communities position. I am guessing you believe that an image filter system would have been a good idea...but as you can see it was outright rejected. You seen to be trying to insert that Wikipedia does not care about the topic....when in fact there has been many talks and proposals about the topic. Would be best to simply talk about what is over what was never to be. -- Moxy (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You claim "When in fact there has been many talks and proposals about the topic." I don't see this in the article.

It is in the article very clearly to you? Please point where in this article it states WMF's position. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Grambling State University

Grambling State University is in Grambling, Louisiana. Please correct your info you handout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.63.105 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What info needs to be corrected? The article on Grambling State University places the institution in Grambling, Louisiana. This page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia's article about itself, which contains no mention of the university. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not responsible for use others may make of the material e.g. on handouts.--Auric talk 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

MIT paragraph

I think we have to talk about this MIT paragraph

The 22 October 2013 essay by Tom Simonite in MIT's Technology Review titled "The Decline of Wikipedia" was accurate in describing Sue Gardner, the departing executive director of the foundation, and her progress while at the foundation. "On Gardner's watch, the funds the Wikimedia Foundation has raised each year to support the site have grown from $4 million to $45 million."[152] Simonite also identified the report on the decreasing number of editors at Wikipedia by Aaron Halfaker, a grad student at the University of Minnesota (also a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation), where it was stated that, "It looks like Wikipedia is strangling itself for this resource of new editors." Within the essay, Simonite further cited the two attempts at amelioration of the attrition of editors by creating a largely under-used "Visual Editor" and promoting the novelty of largely unused "Thank" tabs as substantially ill-fated projects at Wikipedia.[153] Simonite then quoted Oliver Moran, an Irish software engineer and a top administrator at Wikipedia as referring to the negative aspects of the "bureaucratic culture that has formed around the rules and guidelines on contributing, which have become labyrinthine over the years." In Moran's words, "That is the real barrier: policy creep."[154]

There is nothing wrong with this per se. It's just away too long. A countless number of pieces have been written on Wikipedia. Giving this much attention to just a single piece is "undue weight". -- Taku (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There are 3 short sentences in the edit from the MIT article: (1) Report of Sue Gardner getting more money for Wikipedia (certainly you are not objecting to this being included); (2) Quote from Halfaker report which was supported by Wikimedia, paid by Wikimedia; and (3) Quote from senior Admin at Wikipedia being quoted on his experience with possible yellow flags. If you have an objection to one or the other then indicate which one is objectionable or offer to shorten it. I shall repost with url to make the review easier. BillMoyers (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved November 30, 2013. If the text was too long it can be shortened. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue here. Can you at least respond to some of my questions/concerns? For example, you can put it to History of Wikipedia, where a use of several quotes makes more sense. -- Taku (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, yet consensus does not seem to be with you on this and the new edit by User:QG is reposted. In response to your question, the quotes are both current and timely, not "historical". If any one of the 3 quotes needs to be shorter then try to edit it or add your own quote. BillMoyers (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again. @BillMoyers:, please see WP:BRD. You were bold in adding a big block of text. Someone else didn't think it was appropriate and reverted. That's when you go to the talk page to discuss it before adding it back. At this point you're edit warring and do not seem to understand the term "WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]" as it is used here. Also, the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia -- that is, timeless, not news -- so "timely" is not a good argument for inclusion. I think the article is worthy of mention, but Taku might be right that it's a little too much. I don't think anybody is saying it's not a good and relevant article. @TakuyaMurata: - do you have an idea how to better integrate it into the article? That does seem to be preferable to cutting it altogether. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rhododendrites. No edit warring here, and your entering the discussion changes agreement with User:QuackGuru status. In the above text I have already offered to shorten the text on the basis of either of the quotes (i), (ii), or (iii), as designated above. Which one is objectionable? Offer a suggestion to discuss. Same offer to you as for Takuya, if you have an edit then try it or add your own preferred quote from the linked M.I.T. article. Everyone seems to agree that the M.I.T. article itself is current and well-researched. BillMoyers (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the MIT piece is already mentioned at the end of the paragraph before the newly put paragraph. The question is if we want to expand the covergage. As I said, the length and use of the quotes are problematic; this article is much more about the history of Wikipedia after all. Also, the piece itself, while well-written, is not particularly interesting: it just repeats known-stuff. I'm not against the addition per se, but so far I failed to see a strong argument for it. -- Taku (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The MIT piece is notable and there is a major shift downward in editors. This makes it notable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? -- Taku (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I also rewrote the text. It is only one sentence now. QuackGuru (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also issues with the way the contribution is phrased. It makes it seem that a journalist claiming something makes it the truth. There's not a lot of research in this area. The idea that there's been a 30% reduction in editor contributions is I think reasonably well sourced, but the extra claim that this means that Wikipedia is dying in some sense is a very big jump. It's not enough to repeat people's claims for this, you have to find hard evidence, but it's not there; there are no secondary sources for Wikipedia dying, or that it's, in particular, creeping regulations that are turning people away. Wikipedia is based on academic analysis, and there doesn't seem to be agreement on this. The simplest explanation for this is that there were a whole bunch of obvious, missing articles in Wikipedia in 2007, and people jumped in and helped out; even a bad new article is better than no article. Right now, there's few new major articles to be created, and people are finding it harder to contribute; that's to be completely expected. It's always harder to write complete, very good articles than simple, short articles that miss out half the information, and not everyone can be bothered, or have the knowledge, skills or time.Teapeat (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to stated. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

" As of October 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation has struggled to find new editors as a resource.[152]

This sentence was deleted. It may be too complicated to explain with one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia is dying or not. The traffic to Wikipedia has not decreased, unlike the number of the editors; so, it's hard to conclude Wikipedia will be gone anytime soon. In any case, that's not relevant to us when writing this article. It is relevant, however, that for some time by now there have been several journalistic pieces written on the decline of the number of the editors. This is beyond disputes and has to be clearly mentioned. But I thought the current coverage is a good enough. As said, the MIT piece doesn't give something that we didn't know before. I deleted the sentence of QuackGuru, since again this is already mentioned in the article. It is of course "notable", but we already have a link to it both in the main text as well as in the "further reading" section. -- Taku (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration committee has been accused of bias, arbitrary bannings, and failure to follow its own policies

This is notable. Why isn't it in the section on the Arbitration committee? Let. Me. Guess. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/24/chelsea-manning-name-row-wikipedia-editors-banned-from-trans-pages http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/10/wikipedia-goes-all-in-on-transphobia.html?spref=tw http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/11/fuller-statement-on-my-wikipedia-banning.html

I think it would be advisable to have a proper discussion of the reports of bias and abuse in Wikipedia administration, because they're getting more and more and more and more and more common. Anyone want to do a good writeup of it? I think it's quite obvious that this is related to the decline in the number of editors, but that's original research. The evidence of bias among the arbitration committee isn't OR, though. 24.59.149.223 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Use The Guardian article but I don't know if the philipsandifer links are okay because sourcing doesn't come from self-published websites. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea_Manning already notes the Guardian article as one of the media organization articles that mentions the Chelsea Manning article. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

The page should have a criticism section. There is plenty to criticize about wikipedia, and I would like to add to the outpouring. Of course, additions would have to adhere to WIKI:BDE (biography of a dying encyclopedia :) but policing the page would be pretty straighforward. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• You may want to read Talk:Barack Obama. It says: "A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay." - It applies to this one too. Remember that Encarta and other paid encyclopedias went under because of Wikipedia. I agree the decline in user participation is a huge problem, but until the day someone invents an online encyclopedia better than Wikipedia... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a pro usa / anti everybody else website dedicated to spreading a perverted view of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.141.29 (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing is called systemic bias. It's already mentioned in the Coverage of topics and systemic bias section of the article. The bias is more towards English-speaking countries generally rather than just the US, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Harvard caution

Freeranging intellect (talk · contribs) added this sentence to the lead of the article in this edit (ref escaped for simplicity):

For these and other reasons, academic institutions such as Harvard University have recommended that Wikipedia be used with "extreme caution" <ref name="What's Wrong with Wikipedia?">"What's wrong with wikipedia?".</ref>.

I reverted this addition, because I believe a) that it was redundant to the previous sentence ("The open nature of Wikipedia has caused concerns about its writing […]"), especially with regard to due weight and NPOV and b) that it overgeneralized from the reference to increase its impact. The reference in question is from a Harvard sourcing guide; a quick look establishes that it's not some official pronouncement from Harvard, which is the impression that I got from the phrasing of the sentence. Freeranging intellect re-added the sentence and was reverted a second time (by Johnuniq (talk · contribs)), so I figure it's worth addressing the issue so that it can be settled without raising the three revert rule. I invite interested people to support or oppose this sentence's inclusion in the article, or to propose alternative solutions. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of the sentence. As stated, it is redundant, has undue weight, and isn't an official statement from Harvard. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose addition as well and agree it's clearly WP:UNDUE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction to "Internal quality control and assessment of importance" paragraph.

Sorry, if I am doing this wrong, but I don't seem to have the rights to change it and I don't see any other place to comment on it.

In the section titled, "Internal quality control and assessment of importance" the article says:

...assessments begin with "Start" class and "Stub" class assessments, which then are refined and improved to "A" class, "B" class, and "C" class, respectively, until the highest quality ...

It should say:

...assessments begin with "Start" class and "Stub" class assessments, which then are refined and improved to "C" class, "B" class, and "A" class, respectively, until the highest quality ...

As respectively means in the same order already mentioned.

Normally, I'd sign not anonymously, but I don't have that computer any more and don't remember my username or password. 12.229.13.226 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are of course absolutely right. I've just corrected it. Freeranging intellect (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In the midwest, a lot of us pronounce the first two syllables of Wikipedia WIkI whilst pronouncing wiki WIki. I don't know if this should replace the first pronunciation (with a slashed i) in this article, be a third accepted pronunciation, or if it is considered either incorrect or much too trivial to bother with. but its ok, yolo!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.6.138 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 September 2012

COI?

When I saw this edit, I was shocked to see no discussion on this page for it, so now here it is. While i'm sure that staff members of the Wikimedia Foundation have surely contributed to this article, a lot of this article's editing has been done by Wikipedians. I personally do not agree with the COI tag. Any thoughts? bojo1498 talk 17:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• While, it was actually removed a few minutes before your post, I would say that its pointless since every editor would have a connection to this site.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Editor participation info

Where would this go?

• Simonite, Tom. "The Decline of Wikipedia." MIT Technology Review. October 22, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello WhisperToMe, see the talkpage section above from 29 November, on this page.  :-)   I believe that info currently lives in the History of Wikipedia. It prolly also should be mentioned in Criticism of Wikipedia methinks. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, does any one have a suggestion for a good Louis L'amour book for younger readers? Johnny Collero 19:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Collero (talk • contribs)

I would like to request that Wikipedia allow users to talk among themselves without it having to concern only Wikipedia matters. Johnny Collero 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Collero (talk • contribs) I want to wikipedia allow to student to ask question for any matter any conclusion—≥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.145.180 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

I think that there should be more on Larry Sanger why he left and maybe why he has such animosity towards Wikipedia.Lesabre35 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Five Pillars

There is hardly any information on the five pillars. I understand that there is a hyperlink to the official page for the pillars but I think there should be more information on the pillars. Where they came from? Who made them? Possibly more information on the "policies and guidelines". Open to any thoughts.Lesabre35 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Positive Renforcement

Consider changing barnstars to Wikipedia:Barnstars 75.68.0.225 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism paragraph: preview vs saved page

For some reason, some footnotes do not align properly with the text. I tried to modify the spacing three times. In preview mode it is ok, but when the page is saved, the mistake reappears. --Sever Juan (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitting an article to Wikipedia

How does one go about submitting an article to Wikipedia?

R.Savage ronsavage42@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.194.204 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Ron, anyone can edit almost any article. You do not have to submit an article, in the sense of submitting it for approval. You can just write an article and press SAVE. Other volunteers will then edit the article . The worst that could happen is the article might be deleted, but even if this happens, you can try to improve the article before it is deleted. Good luck!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External audio...

...link does not work! CBC requires that you have Flash installed. 87.78.31.252 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - WP:PROD

This article should be deleted - WP:COI violation. 149.254.183.195 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice one, anon! 123chess456 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Gender identification by editors

How accurate are the statistics on gender? When I signed up for an account, it was an optional question, and I didn't commit. I am therefore gender neutral. Has anyone identified the proportion of editors in this category? Pkeets (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Too long?

I'm the only one who feels the article is too long? Sure, it's important to cite statistics, but this feels overdone here; like a chart of articles rated by class: is it so important to cite the number of B-class article in "English Wikipedia"? I think some materials can go to sub-articles. Maybe we should start something like assessment of Wikipedia articles. -- Taku (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Commercial

Since today, we all know it never came true, Id like to add to the text Originally, Bomis intended to make Wikipedia a business for profit. with a reference, namely Jimmy Wales statement on UseMod Wikipedia the 9th of November 2001. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice Job Wikipedia

Wikipedia has done a great job in establishing an authentic source of information of encyclopedia in all languages that is really un paralleled I have ever seen on the web. Wikipedia no doubt deserves the congratulations from all" readers on reaching around the covered topics. Wikipedia has taken utmost care about the linguistic values that could be thought possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan1320 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No description of readership

I think that this article misses a major section: who reads Wikipedia? We could write a decent section base don 2011 Readership Survey. I can take a stab at that, unless anyone points out that I am being blind and missed the part this is described in? (If there are any replies, please WP:ECHO me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Location of servers

The Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior section says that the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida. If I understand this [13], the primary data centre has been shifted to Ashburn, Virginia.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Contributors

Under the contributors section it states that Wales held a study and then states several statistics. The study was held in 2006 and gives a very poor representation of the current Wikipedia eight years later.Lesabre35 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to say this is a good point. -- Taku (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a para that cites more recent stats regarding contributions; I'm going to merge that to Wales para. -- Taku (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I found an image in the Wikicommons that pretty clearly shows who all has been contributing and what kind of growth the site has undergone. I'd like to move the image of all of those pie charts right by where the study is discussed farther down by the statistics about the different languages that are being posted on, which would make more sense anyways, and replacing it with this image that goes right along with Wales' point.Lesabre35 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

2006 valuation

The impact section states that the value of WP if it ran ads was estimated at about $580 million. It would be nice to have a 2014 estimated valuation, if one exists.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any stats, but yes that one has to be updated. -- Taku (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found a pretty reliable source with an estimation I'd like to add.Lesabre35 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and put the estimate. -- Taku (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

"A 2008 study compared the accuracy of Wikipedia articles vs. similar articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History, and American National Biography Online: Wikipedia is ~80% accurate, 95-96% accurate." In the criticism section. 192.12.88.142 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting edit to the lede

There is a link to an admin's user page. The change did not summary the body. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be due to this edit by User:Bigbaby23. It's a strange edit, to say the least. I've rolled it back, and left a note on their talk page. -- Impsswoon (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a still a whole paragraph that was replaced in the lede with this diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've now wound that change back to the previous version as well. -- Impsswoon (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit again. I can't understand why he'd source the lede to DP's user page. Ishdarian 11:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Spelling mistake of methodology as "methology"

I don't have permission to edit this since it is semi-protected so could somebody else do so please? It is in the fourth paragraph: "Britannica replied that the study's methology and conclusions were flawed."

Finnhambly (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing

Under Analysis of content: Accuracy of content there is a statement that, looking at the sources, seems to be very misleading regarding the factuality of the what is being said. The sentence is structured in such a fashion that it implies fact, not opinion. However, if one looks at both of the sources for this, the first is an article written in a magazine publication, and is meant to explain what wikipedia is, not provide a reliable analysis of the issues it contains. It is far from a factual source, containing no references or research, leading me to believe that it is written based on the authors current perceptions of Wikipedia. The second source is a little better, but still only written using the authors current opinions and ideas, being supported by facts from his head (mostly reliable given who he is, but still based only on his view, not research or academic work). ″Wikipedia's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and those with an agenda to push" should be reworded to something along the lines of: Critics of Wikipedia have stated that it's open structure inherently makes it an easy target for Internet trolls, spammers, and those with an agenda to push. The former implies that there is reliable (and since it is on a Wikipedia page, hopefully cited) data to support the statement, while the latter implies merely an opinion, currently lacking any cited data to support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.170.168 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

Wikipedia is the best website ever !

GenuineManiac (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but we can't put it in. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 23:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

I'd like to submit a wholesale copyedit of the fourth paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:

The open nature of Wikipedia has led to various concerns, such as the quality of writing,[18] vandalism[19][20] and the accuracy of information. Some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[21] though a 2005 investigation in Nature showed that the 42 science articles they compared came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[22] Britannica replied that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed.[23] With Wikipedia approaching five million edited articles in 2014, the last edition of Britannica contained approximately forty thousand articles by comparison, which is over one hundred times smaller than the current number of articles edited on Wikipedia.[24] The policies of Wikipedia combine verifiability and a neutral point of view.

Suggested copyedit:

Wikipedia's open nature has led to various concerns, such as the quality of its writing,[18] the accuracy of its information, and vandalism.[19][20] However, while some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[21] a 2005 investigation in Nature found that 42 Wikipedia science articles approached the Encyclopædia Britannica's level of accuracy and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[22] (The Britannica replied that the study's methodology and conclusions were flawed.[23]) As of 2014, Wikipedia contains nearly five million edited articles, more than 100 times the Britannica's article count of 40,000.[24] Wikipedia's policies champion verifiability and a neutral point of view.

NYC Editorial (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Done  NQ  talk 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

I'd like to submit a copyedit of the first paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:

Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia that is supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers worldwide collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages, including over 4.5 million in the English Wikipedia. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, which on the Internet comprise[4] the largest and most popular general reference work.[5][6][7][8][9] In February 2014, The New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites stating, "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month..., Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."

Suggested copyedit:

Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia that is supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Volunteers worldwide collaboratively write Wikipedia's 30 million articles in 287 languages, including more than 4.5 million articles in the English Wikipedia. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, which collectively make up[4] the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[5][6][7][8][9] In February 2014, the New York Times reported that Wikipedia is ranked fifth globally among all websites, declaring: "With 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors a month..., Wikipedia trails just Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, the largest with 1.2 billion unique visitors."

NOTE: The most important edit is "make up" for the improper "comprise" (since the whole comprises the parts, not the other way around). I ignored other possible minor errors and inconsistencies (such as the hyphenated "non-profit" and "over 4.5 million" rather than Merriam-Webster's "nonprofit" and "more than 4.5 million," since these may be style issues that have already been addressed by British and/or American editors.

NYC Editorial (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Partly done:  NQ  talk 18:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

I'd like to submit a copyedit of the third paragraph of the article "Wikipedia," reproduced here:

Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia-building and the presence of much unacademic content have received extensive attention in print media. In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people around the world, in addition to YouTube, reddit, MySpace, and Facebook.[14] Wikipedia has also become known as a news source because of the rapid update of articles related to breaking news.[15][16][17]

Suggested copyedit:

Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven approach to encyclopedia-building and the presence of much unacademic content have received extensive media attention. In 2006, Time magazine recognized Wikipedia's participation (along with YouTube, reddit, MySpace, and Facebook[14]) in the rapid growth of online collaboration and interaction by millions of people worldwide. Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news.[15][16][17]

NYC Editorial (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Done  NQ  talk 18:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I edit the article part? There is no edit tab over there, only here on the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesVegas (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is Semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. You can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them here, on the article's talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. Thank you. NQ  talk 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an advertisement

I know all of you guys love Wikipedia but you can't be so biased. This article sounds like an advertisement. The article tries to make Wikipedia seem like a great website (I'm not saying it's not), but this article is supposed to be informational and not persuasive. I think that the tone of the article could be changed a bit. I could imagine a line at the end saying "So go join Wikipedia today!" --GTAVmaster (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Way too long

I think the article is way too long. If there is no disagreement, in a next few days, I'm going to move some materials to subarticles. -- Taku (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's fairly long. There seems to be a lot of charts and graphs that don't really add much to the article and clutter the page up. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting observation. It seems that much of the article looks at Wikipedia in the first ten years rather than the second ten years of Wikipedia. It would be nice if the up to date material could be retained, and maybe the older material moved to the history of Wikipedia page. Same for charts and graphs, keep the new ones and possibly move the older ones to the History page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, most is outdated and could be moved to Wikipedia-History, graphs could be moved to a Wikipedia-Statistics article. Editing section could be shorter too. Soerfm (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We need new bit about Banning Users

Where in this article is about banning users? I want people to put this stuff in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyxp2000 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-08T03:39:13

The section Wikipedia#Arbitration Committee briefly mentions banning users. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Kyoko Chichibu Jefferson(kyoko Nishimura Makifuji; Japanese; French Japanese American:Kyoko Chichibu Jefferson [kyoko Janette] ; 1April 13, 1949 – present) was a French Japanese American-born as a thumb princess to Price Chichibu of Japan who was the only son between Meiji Emperor and Empress at Duluth, Minnesota, in the United States of America. Dr. K who is an almighty doctor of Medicine who has earned several PH.Ds at her age of 2 in different fields 7 in total; they were biology, chemistory, economics, mathematics, physics, physiology, psycology has been called Doctor K who has been working a super doctor at University of Tokyo since 1950, at her age of 1

She has been called Doctor K, Miracle K and seven star there mainly because of her IQ was used to be (introduced )120 the same as Doctor Albert Einstein [1]who was born in Germany; however,her IQ was actually, that of 200 the highest in the world at her age of 1 that was not open in public because of her being so called “the Victim". To tell the truth, Dr. Einstein was one of her pen names who had been a physicist. His most famous theory was that; actually, I myself had prepared and had developed the general theory of relativity; as follow; one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics).[2][3] He is best known in popular culture for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2 (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation").[4] He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to theoretical physics, and for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect".[5] The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory. To conclude this, I was not revealed the fact in my whole life; however, there were so many cheaters; actually all of them to start with Dr. Yukawa till Dr. Yamanaka who have been announced as Nobel Award Winners in Japan except late primeNear the beginning of his career, Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics was minister of Japan, Shinsuke Kishi who has declined it by saying Eisaku Sato was one of them who had been entried as one of the candidates og the Awards and received the Ribbon(trophy)before he was introduced as a true receiver of Nobel Peace Awards. longer enough to reconcile the laws of classical mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. the newly discovered nuclear fission as a weapon. Later, with the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, Einstein(Kyoko herself) signed the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, which highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons. In addition, an atomic bomb (nuclear weapons) had been carried out to the world was actually prepared by a British American whose parents were born in Japan between a German schotish father and a British Japanese mother and he has been educated at Nebraska University whose dangerous invention at his memorial of graduation of Nebraska University was unfortunatelly descended by his fellow Americans to his mother land Japan at the end of World War II. His family including himself and his only daughter who has invented hydrogen so called an H bomb. §

There was someone who was the owner of this tragidy between two nations for a lon time was Late Showa Emperor, Hirohito, an abandoned baby who was found in a barn of Inperial Palace in Japan was killing time during his meeting with Millitaries all mornig and he was so suden swingged his flag; then, his behavior caught attention of one of his officers and all of them said that we would join to the War in the Pacific Ocean while my father was in the USA as a major who had beeen join US Army in the South where he had heard the news on the radio regarding Attack on Pearl Harbor in the morning. To conclud this, I, myself was published more than 300 scientific papers along with over 150 non-scientific works by a penname of mine, Einstein and His great intellectual achievements and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius; however, it was myself whose IQ was 200 and it was so called not Era of Genius but that of Elites when Jhon F Kennedy became the president of the USA in the middle of 20th century.

Not done: This is the talk page for discussing changes to the article about Wikipedia. It looks to me like you're trying to make changes to a different article, or else create a new article. To submit a new article for creation, go to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why I added in grading scheme

I added the grading scheme because I wanted to show readers how Wikipedia sorts its grading of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyxp2000 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-08T00:07:09

I see that you added {{grading scheme}} to the page. I think that you are giving too much detail about something which is not very important for a reader of this page. See WP:IINFO. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an important piece of information, but it's probably too much for a general article on Wikipedia. I think we should start some subarticle that includes this sort of information (in order to keep the main article in a reasonable length.) How should we call it? -- Taku (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The scheme was removed in [14] by User:LawrencePrincipe, apparently inadvertently. I nevertheless oppose to restoring the scheme. We need to maintain higher relevance, the article is already too long. --Chealer (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

controversy

so, can we get a controversy section for this page? caught a US army communications officer (media dept) editing wiki material. surely, this is considered controversial. if not, then what is? first rule of wikipedia: never criticize wikipedia? 64.229.137.56 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already a section titled "Criticism" that includes a link to a large article at Criticism of Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is not followed in this article

The article on Wikipedia should be a benchmark on applying its own rules on itself otherwise it becomes evidently hypocritical and double standard. There is a huge Criticism section and according to WP:LEAD "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies,".

At a bare minimum - 3 Major and Notable educational sources have critiqued Wikipedia with mostly the same conclusions:

"Articles in the Times Higher Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized wikipedias Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that the first undermines the freedom of thought and the second; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[23][24][25][26]" see here this paragraph in the lead: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=619129265

Their criticism should be left as is in the lead and not sugar coated or swept under the carpet. In Wikipedia's language: have due weight over Wikipedia. Bigbaby23 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bigbaby, your Bold edit has been Reverted following BRD policy. You must establish consensus on the Talk page here prior to making any further edits of the material. Let the BRD process run its normal course. This is a Talk page with many reliable participants who usually respond within a short period of time. The normal course for the BRD is to follow the consensus once it is made clear. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit is legitimate and in fact Wikipedia states it should be there. you are misusing BRD. Explain why you think this paragraph should not be there - that is the proper way, not reverting because you don't like Criticism. Bigbaby23 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that the information needs to be in the lede. You think it does but you don't have consensus. If you don't have consensus then your application of those guidelines doesn't happen here. Ask for a request for comment to get more input on your recommendation. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your edit is that it shoehorns in far too much detailed material into the lede. The lede is intended to be a summary of what is to follow, not a substitute for it. This is not an attempt at censorship: I, and other editors here, have no problem with adding cited criticisms of Wikipedia, nor with referencing them in the lede. As I hope you can see, other criticisms are already mentioned and linked in the lede, and later addressed in detail further down the article, without anyone attempting to remove them. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Impsswoon the "criticism" lede paragraph is a wash. A hodgepodge of unrelated references somehow concocted to "but everything is ok" :

"Wikipedia's high openness has led to various concerns, such as the quality of its writing,[17] vandalism and the accuracy of its information.[18][19] However, while some articles contain unverified or inconsistent information,[20] a 2005 survey of Wikipedia published in Nature based on a comparison of 42 science articles with Encyclopædia Britannica found that Wikipedia's level of accuracy approached Encyclopædia Britannica's and both had a similar low rate of "serious errors".[21] As of 2014, the English Wikipedia contains nearly five million articles, more than one hundred times Britannica's 40,000.[22] As of July 2014, Wikipedia's policies include verifiability and a growing body of over fifty policies for quality assurance.[23]"

I mean even the last quoted reference is so cynical. the referenced article is a very criticizing piece on wikipedia , but the editors made it positive info. ludicrous.

There is an Immense Criticism section of Wikipedia with very biting Criticism. I have chosen a minute but general example and the most distinguished. And they criticize wikipedia in a very forward way. In any other article the current presentation of the criticism section would be regarded as POV nonsense and distortion of the article material. Bigbaby23 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. There are 3 editors who have now explained the status of your edit. Note also that your next edit puts you over three reverts for this edit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

LawrencePrincipe, no explanation has been made why this paragraph that is supposed to reflect the criticism of Wikipedia; violates WP:NPOV by using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT to completely nullify the Criticism section. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." WP:LEAD. Every other article on wikipedia follows this. why is the Wikipedia article handled differently? Bigbaby23 (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

History of possible relation between User:Chealer and User:Pundit

Approximately three weeks ago, a new book on Wikipedia appeared in the mainstream press written by User:Pundit who is an administrator at Wikipedia, along with his article for Slate[15] currently cited in the last sentence of the Lead section here. User:Chealer appeared to be displeased with these edits, and this appears to be the event which started his/her long course of over 100 edits here in the last few days. Is anyone aware of a possible history between these two editors to help explain the otherwise unexplained editing by User:Chealer. Both Chealer and Pundit have been at Wikipedia for several years and perhaps someone who has been here long enough may have some information about them. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever interacting with this user (and I've been alerted to the issue by LawrencePrincipe at my talk page). Pundit|utter 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reposting dialogue concerning personal attacks related to this page in order to keep everything in one place

Hello. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia -- I know how much effort goes into improving the encyclopedia. Based on some of your recent edits and exchanges with other editors concerning the Wikipedia article I came across while serving at WP:RFPP, I'd like to encourage you to review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and to utilize the resources there to address any questions or suggestions you have. Ignoring guidelines and essays just because they are not "policies" is unproductive and disruptive. —Eustress 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Eustress,

I must confess I'm far from knowing all policies and guidelines by heart, but I'm not exactly a newcomer here, so I'm not quite ignorant about them neither :-P

I assume your nudge mainly comes from some replies I made to LawrencePrincipe about WP:BRD and WP:Lede. I understand your intervention, but I did not ignore guidelines and essays just because they are not policies. I did not know LawrencePrincipe before getting involved in Wikipedia and originally considered him confused but in good faith, so I did point out both that what he called policies were not policies, and that the essays or guidelines he invoked would not have excused his actions even if they had actually been policies. However, with his latest 3RR violation and its aftermath, it has become clear that LawrencePrincipe is in bad faith, so lately, I have chosen to spend less time trying to teach him. He has now portrayed non-policies as policies at least 10 times just in edits related to Wikipedia, even though I rectified him multiple times, so if he remains merely confused on some things, mere confusion no longer suffices to explain his behavior. I now simply prove him wrong with the shortest route. That may indeed not be really productive, but it's certainly more productive than spending more time arguing with someone who willfully ignores what he's been told :-(

--Chealer (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I can understand your frustration. Given the circumstances, might be wise to more fully explain your edit rationales and be less hasty to revert. On the surface your conduct appears to have been somewhat disruptive, which based on your response above is not your intention. Cheers —Eustress 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a lot of changes to Wikipedia recently, and there's no doubt I could have spent more time explaining some. While I unfortunately cannot retroactively change my edit summaries, I can always elaborate on a change on request.

As for the hastiness to revert, I'm not sure what you mean. --Chealer (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eustress: After looking at the history again, I realize you may have been misled by what LawrencePrincipe wrote in edit summaries and on Talk:Wikipedia. After Lawrence claimed I had disagreed with part of WP:Lede, I asked him where. He then changed the subject and I pointed out he hadn't answered the question. He tried to change the subject 4 more times. So far, he did not reply to my fifth reminder of his failure to answer, which might be considered a passive admission that he was lying.

I recommend to verify anything he states about those he disagrees with. --Chealer (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC) (reposted to keep everything related on one Page)

Hello User:Eustress, Thank you for starting the discussion, and this is the answer I have provided User:Chealer several times. @User:Chealer, Once again, WP:Lede requires that only material developed in the main body of the article may be placed in the Lead section. Your material on "common nouns" and "proper nouns" is not in the main body of the article and therefore it is against Wikipedia policy WP:Lede to put it in the Lead section. This is one of the 100 edits you are being asked to account for in the above section opened for your explanation of your numerous edits. Please stop your personal attacks. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Would be best to simply narrow down the edits you have concerns with. In no way does any editor have to explain ever edit to anyone (Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and WP:Bold). So what can be done to move forward - first what are the contested edits all 100? About the lead.. why not move the info to the main body of the article over full deletion...is there more to the problem then just insertions in the lead? -- Moxy (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Third party:Those details look better suited in Criticism of Wikipedia. A passing mention in the relevant section can be considered.Forbidden User (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To both editors. @User:Forbidden User, During the content dispute and edit warring by User:Chealer against User:Pudit's new book, one type of edit warring used by User:Chealer has been to offset User:Pundit's material to child articles such as the Criticism page without discussion. (1) When I inquired about this on Talk:Chealer (on or about July 6), h/she seemed to make somewhat dismissive one-line answers which you can review there. This was before the 100 edit sequence of edit warring against the content of User:Pundit's new book which User:Chealer then undertook without any further Talk page discussion despite requests for Talk discussion. (2) Regarding the comment about singling out just one of the 100 edit sequence of edit warring by User:Chealer against the book by User:Pundit, there is the closing sentence of the current lead section as currently protected by User:Eustress which gives a url for User:Pundit's writings and which User:Chealer has reverted more than 3 times alone. User:Chealer may be contacted to clarify the reason for the high number of reverts to this one sentence at the end of the Lead section for an answer since User:Chealer has provided no Talk page discussion despite many requests to explain it on Talk. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and dissent against BRD policy by User:Chealer discussion

Recently an issue of content dispute and edit warring has become apparent. User:Chealer is apparently edit warring against a new book by User:Pundit (an administrator) who has written a 2014 published book about Wikipedia whose contents are disputed by User:Chealer. However, User:Pundit has asserted that COI does not allow him to ethically intervene. Requesting 10-14 day "Admin only" page protection in order to start BRD and/or RFC to determine if User:Chealer's edits over the last 3-4 days should be reverted for bias and edit warring.

User:Chealer appears to believe that his/her dissent against Wikipedia BRD policy is an excuse for allowing User:Chealer to ignore Wikipedia BRD policy (Chealer's dissent quotes are in the two previous sections directly above). Any Wikipedia editor is required to make consensus on Talk page prior to posting a consensus edit when requested to following BRD policy. During the last 3 days User:Chealer has established no consensus for his/her edits to the Lede section which were reverted according to BRD policy. Any Wikipedia editor is required to establish consensus first, according to BRD, and prior to re-posting edits in the Lead section. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

He means WP:EDITCONSENSUS (section in WP:Consensus), not only WP:BRD.Forbidden User (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Also WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Still no answer from Chealer on WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:EDITCONSENSUS (section in WP:Consensus), not only WP:BRD. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible discussion of four days of editing by User:Chealer

There have been seemingly over 100 edits by User:Chealer over the last few days and does anyone know if they are a response to some special project at Wikipedia. Having gone through over 70% of them, they seem difficult to readily summarize. Much of it seems to want to anchor citation templates into the text in many places. At one point, User:Chealer appeared to want a citation template to explain what BraketBot does. Since User:Chealer is an experienced editor, this question of providing some reason for all the edits might be clarified by anyone who knows. For example, do we really need to discuss in this article what WP:Lede contains, or what WP:Bot policy contains? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tiptoe has indicated that consensus should be formed on this Talk page concerning whether the Lead section should include material which is not covered in the main body of the article. WP:Lede appears to state plainly that only material developed in the main body of the article may be used in the Lead section. As stated on the policy page: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...". User:Chealer has disagreed with this. User:Chealer's addition of the discussion of "common nouns" and "proper nouns" in the current version of the Lead section does not appear in the main body of the article. Is there a general interpretation of this rule which should apply to maintaining the "Wikipedia" page? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As previously indicated, WP:Lede is not a policy, but where would I have disagreed with the statement you quoted? --Chealer (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Both MOS and WP:Lede indicate that only material which is developed in the main body of the article can be summarized in the Lead section. Your material on "Common nouns" and "proper nouns" as you have introduced it into the Lead section remains undeveloped in the main body of the article. I have asked above for other editors to comment here on both this MOS issue and WP:Lede which indicates clearly that your material does not appear to belong in the Lead section because it is undeveloped in the main body of the article.

Similarly, your discussion of the linguistics of English Wikipedia being "a wiki...," in the Lead paragraph, is also not discussed in the main body of the article. It appears to be a bold edit representing your personal concerns. You also have not spoken about the source of the nearly 100 edits you have done on this page for Wikipedia over that last few days (with almost no Talk interaction) to describe the reason for these multiple citation requests being reverted into the text over and over again; especially your repeat requests for an explanation of how bracket bot works. Your report to User:Tiptoety appears to have left much of this material out. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition isn't a summary. You asking whoever about whatever is not an indication that any material does not appear to belong in the Lead section. I fail to see what "discussion of the linguistics of English Wikipedia being "a wiki...,"" you allude to. Same for my so-called "repeat requests for an explanation of how bracket bot works". --Chealer (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that fails to answer my question. --Chealer (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your material (User:Chealer) about "Proper nouns" and "Common nouns" appears in the second paragraph of the Lead section. According to Wikipedia Policy for WP:Lede it states: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...". Your material on "nouns" is not covered in the main body of the article and is therefore subject to deletion by any editor at Wikipedia because of the policy covered in WP:Lede. WP:Lede should be followed. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but as previously indicated, WP:Lede is not a policy.

And that still doesn't answer my question. --Chealer (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit history log clearly shows that you were/are re-inserting a template citation asking for explanation about how BraketBot works, and you appear to be adding numerous other citation templates throughout the article without representing your concerns on Talk. Wikipedia Policy for WP:Lede is clearly stated and you can link to it directly with the link I have just provided. If you are involved is dissent towards WP:Lede then I suggest that this is not the place for you to take up your grievance by posting multiple citation templates throughout this article as if that is your way of working out your grievances. Here is the link, WP:Lede, and you can read it the same as any other editor at Wikipedia. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Where would the history clearly show that?

There is no need to tell me what you think I need to read until you have read and answered the question you were supposed to be answering. --Chealer (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You have had three days to establish consensus for your changes to the Lead. WP:Lede requires that material in the Lead be supported by text in the main body of the article. You need to establish consensus for your edits here on Talk prior to further edits. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but WP:Lede does not require that.

You didn't answer any of my questions. --Chealer (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

See discussion and answer in new section below. Please stop edit warring. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, but I already read the sections below, and you addressed neither my original question, nor the second one. --Chealer (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chealer, Once again, WP:Lede requires that only material developed in the main body of the article may be placed in the Lead section. Your material on "common nouns" and "proper nouns" is not in the main body of the article and therefore it is against Wikipedia policy WP:Lede to put it in the Lead section. This is one of the 100 edits you are being asked to account for in the above section opened for your explanation of your numerous edits. Please stop your personal attacks. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk page to get further involved, but I feel it best that I do not. Bearian (talk)

Removal of/from definitions (lead)

Apologies to other editors, User:LawrencePrincipe has asked me to discuss his editing of this article here.
@LawrencePrincipe: Edit warring is not just violating the 3RR. It is also persistently trying to push through a change without discussion and without support. You need to explain why you are removing all of this.
I am reverting your removals from the lead for the last time; should you push this again without a proper justification, I will report you again for continued edit warring, even if your edit does not violate the 3RR, and rest assured the report will mention how you escaped the previous report. --Chealer (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm... edit-revert-discussion cycle is included in WP:EDITCONSENSUS, so if someone revert your edit then it's more desirable to talk at the talk page instead of reverting again. By the way, you may add your information in Criticism of Wikipedia. One or two sentences could be appropriate at the criticism section. However, it's only my opinion, you two may request for comments or seek third opinion at DR.Forbidden User (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Forbidden User: I'm afraid there's confusion here. He's not trying to add any information, or dealing with any criticism. He's simply trying to remove the second definition and the second sentence from the original definition. --Chealer (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin Eustress has provided you with a window of 7 days to provide an explanation of the 100 edits you have made in your edit warring with the contents of the book of User:Pundit referred to above. You appear to have ignored the section opened for you directly above this one. Your making threats to Users that you intend to file negative admin reports appears to miss the point that multiple editors do not know what you are doing with your unsolicited and unexplained large block of 100 edits. Please stop your personal attacks and explain your edit warring (multiple edit reverts, multiple template reverts...) over the last few days and weeks dating back to July 7 (when you started your edit warring with material related to User:Pundit's new book), in the section provided for you above. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what you're talking about, but I do know you're going off-topic again. If you have justification for your removals, you are welcome to add them here. If not, please find a section where your comments are relevant, and start one if none exists. --Chealer (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When you are approached by Admin to explain your understanding of WP:BRD and WP:Lede, then you immediately recognize everything being discussed (see section with User:Eustress directly below). However, whenever any regular editor on this Talk page have asked you about WP:BRD or WP:Lede, then you immediately state, "I do not know what you're talking about...", as you have just done in your statement here. Clarify which one it is, either you do understand WP:BRD and WP:Lede, or, you do not understand them? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "your edit warring with the contents of the book of User:Pundit referred to above", to "the section provided for you above", or to "your personal attacks", for example. In any case, this section not about my understanding of essays. If you can justify your removals, this is the place; if not, please find an appropriate place to discuss your concerns. --Chealer (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chealer, Once again, WP:Lede requires that only material developed in the main body of the article may be placed in the Lead section. Your material on "common nouns" and "proper nouns" is not in the main body of the article and therefore it is against Wikipedia policy WP:Lede to put it in the Lead section. This is one of the 100 edits you are being asked to account for in the above section opened for your explanation of your numerous edits. Please stop your personal attacks. In your personal attacks you have stated your belief in "bad faith" and your assessment of others as "someone who willfully ignores what he's been told" on 6 August to User:Eustress published in the section below and on your Talk page. Your personal attacks must stop, and several editors have now asked you to respond to your dissent against WP:Lede and your dissent against participation in BRD discussions.@Forbidden User:@Chris troutman: LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not my edit, this is your edit. As you were told multiple times before:

• Stick to the topic.
• WP:Lede is not a policy.
• WP:Lede does not "require" such a thing anyway. --Chealer (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you think the critism you added to the lead is more prominent than others that it has the WP:Due weight to go on the lead. After dealing with your disputed edit, proceed to his. We need to treat one dispute at a time.Forbidden User (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify WP:LEAD somehow: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.; it is really not a policy but a guideline.Forbidden User (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to "treat" a single dispute at a time. What we do need is to handle disputes intelligently, not all together. I do not know what "critism" you are referring to, but if you want to discuss it, please do that in a different section. --Chealer (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated bot coverage on Wikipedia

You added a sentence covering a bot's usage to Wikipedia. As this topic was covered, I reverted your edit. You reverted that revert commenting "Duplication not identified. This is a new reference from the WSJ previously unmentioned in this section.". Your so-called "new reference" is in the same subsection as our existing instance of that same reference (about 5 lines above), which follows our existing coverage, so I am re-reverting your addition.

Should you fail to understand edit summaries in the future, ask before undoing. --Chealer (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) (repost of Chealer material about Wikipedia page on Wikipedia Talk page.)

The current narrative of the Seigenthaler incident is not in chronological sequence and does not give Wikipedia the due note for strengthening BLP policy after the incident ran its course. The final sentence of the section should read: "In response to the Seigenthaler incident, Wikipedia strengthened its policies concerning the Biographies of Living Persons." You appear to object to adding this to the end of the section on Seigenthaler. The other reference you make to the WSJ reference is out of time sequence and belongs at the end of the section on Seigenthaler. Please note that you are not supposed to "re-revert" something (your word) under BRD policy as you have just done, but you are normally expected to discuss it first to reach consensus before posting the consensus version once it is established. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is no such thing as a "BRD policy".

You are confusing 2 sections, this discussion is about the coverage of bot usage which you duplicated. --Chealer (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This section was created by LawrencePrincipe, by copying a section I created on his talk page. --Chealer (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your comments (User:Chealer) about the Wikipedia page here in one place so that all editors can see what you are doing. At present you have stated that (1) you do not know the Wikipedia Policy for WP:Lede, and you have just stated above that (2) you are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia Policy for WP:BRD. Previously, you were telling us that (3) you were claiming not to know how BracketBot works in the section dealing with automation on this Wikipedia page and were using citation templates asking for clarification on how BracketBot works. Can you clarify any of this? If you are unable to respond to the Seigenthaler material above, or any of these 3 items, then they can be edited/corrected by any editor at Wikipedia if you are not discussing them on the Talk page here. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change the subject, you will have to do that alone. Things are already as confusing as they stand, and I am not going to discuss anything other than this section's topic here. --Chealer (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are expected by Wikipedia policy to participate in Talk concerning your edits. If you fail to participate in Talk concerning your edits then under normal policy they may be reverted by any editor at Wikipedia editing in good faith. There does not appear to be anyone supporting your new discussion of "proper nouns" and "common nouns" in the Lead section. The material is also not supported by anything in the main body of the article which is required by Wikipedia policy for WP:Lede, and it may be deleted by any editor at Wikipedia if you are unable to defend your edit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are hard enough to follow already, I am not going to encourage you to stay off-topic. This section is about one of your edits, you'll stay alone if you want to turn the topic to mine. --Chealer (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You have had three days to establish consensus for your changes to the Lead. WP:Lede requires that material in the Lead be supported by text in the main body of the article. You need to establish consensus here on Talk prior to making further edits. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You may repeat what you have claimed above. Unfortunately, you may not make it true, nor relevant to this section. --Chealer (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an essay while WP:LEAD is a guideline, being part of the MoS. Lawrence were mistaken on the article status. However, Chealer, you need to look at WP:Keeping cool when the editing gets hot, and it is fact that you don't have the WP:Consensus to make your edit. P.S. In WP:LEAD it is stated that anything in the lead has to be mentioned in the context below, and it should not be over-detailed. I've met too many editors who think their memory on policies and guidelines serves, so perhaps you guys can quote the statements you are refering to. Good day.Forbidden User (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forbidden User, and thanks for your comment. As stated on the page for WP:Lede here is the quote: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...". User:Chealer has disagreed with this. Please see further discussion below regarding edit warring by User:Chealer. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Forbidden User,

I always try to stay "cool", so I'd certainly appreciate any concrete suggestions you'd have if you think I could have reacted better here.

As for the edit having no consensus, we don't normally expect "consensus" to revert a change, but you're free to re-apply the change if you think this repetition adds value to the article. --Chealer (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You appear not to accept that WP:BRD is for your benefit, and that discussion allows you to discuss edits rather than to re-apply your own version of your own changes repetitively without Talk. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you think I can act differently in a specific case, you're welcome to point that out. Unless that's related to bot coverage duplication though, please do that outside this discussion. --Chealer (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 August 2014

I am good at Wikipedia Ukle Defker (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Known bias of wikipedia. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insane hussein (talk • contribs) 11:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Extension of Page protection for Wikipedia page due to content dispute and edit warring by User:Chealer (expires August 13)

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.

---

Recently an issue of content dispute and edit warring has become apparent. User:Chealer is apparently edit warring against a new book by User:Pundit (an administrator) who has written a 2014 published book about Wikipedia whose contents are disputed by User:Chealer. However, User:Pundit has asserted that COI does not allow him to ethically intervene. "Admin only" page protection expires in 5 days and this RFC is to determine if User:Chealer's edit warring over the last month (documented in hatted section below) should be reverted for bias and edit warring, and the Page protection extended into the future.

User:Chealer appears to believe that his/her dissent against Wikipedia BRD policy is an excuse for allowing User:Chealer to ignore Wikipedia BRD policy (Chealer's dissent quotes are in the two previous sections directly above). Any Wikipedia editor is required to make consensus on Talk page prior to posting a consensus edit when requested to following BRD policy. During the last 3 days User:Chealer has established no consensus for his/her edits to the Lede section which were reverted according to BRD policy. Any Wikipedia editor is required to establish consensus first, according to BRD, and prior to re-posting edits in the Lead section. User:Chealer has resorted to making threats to file Admin reports against users opposed to h/her edits and expressing anger against Admin Tiptoety for not following h/her instructions. User:Chealer has not withdrawn h/her dissent against following WP:BRD policy, and resorted to multiple personal attacks in the sections above this RFC.

Persistent edit warring and dissent against BRD policy by User:Chealer has resulted in this RFC to determine if "Admin only" page protection for the Wikipedia page should be supported and extended for a period of 30-, 60- or 90-days; or, if consideration should be given to protecting the page from edits by User:Chealer who has been involved in persistent content dispute and edit warring against contents from a new book about Wikipedia by User:Pundit, for a protection period of 30-, 60-, or 90-days. User:Pundit is unable to defend the content of his new book due to COI which does not allow him to ethically intervene.

Extensive list of content dispute and edit warring by User:Chealer against content material from User:Pundit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(cur | prev) 01:35, 6 August 2014‎ Eustress (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (214,963 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Wikipedia: Edit warring / content dispute: as reported at RFPP ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 01:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) (cur | prev) 12:42, 5 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,213 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (Undid revision 619916164 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) As explained many times before, WP:Lede does not require such a thing) (cur | prev) 02:53, 5 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,277 bytes) (+54)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: restore request to specify the kind of regulations alluded to) (cur | prev) 04:39, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,610 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Dispute resolution and arbitration: Dispute resolution != Arbitration Committee) (cur | prev) 04:30, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,580 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Nature: move Community and Dispute resolution sections out of Nature) (cur | prev) 04:00, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,586 bytes) (-108)‎ . . (→‎Administrators: the number or new administrators and the selection process's selectivity are not directly proportional) (cur | prev) 03:40, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,694 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (→‎Community: split paragraph on administrators to a subsection) (cur | prev) 03:01, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,669 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: balance media layout moving User - demography.svg left) (cur | prev) 02:58, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,664 bytes) (-125)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: remove Largest Wikipedias/graph (unclear, redundant).) (cur | prev) 00:28, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,772 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Hardware operations and support: request reference about ZFS) (cur | prev) 00:23, 4 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,764 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Hardware operations and support: data server -> data center) (cur | prev) 07:03, 3 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,764 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 619282485 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) see your Talk page) (cur | prev) 00:50, 3 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,022 bytes) (-328)‎ . . (Undid revision 619226216 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) the sequence was *already* "Seigenthaler incident first", then BLP improved) (cur | prev) 00:04, 3 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (-207)‎ . . (lead: restore content lost in 619455014 (per WP:AN3/LawrencePrincipe). fix typo) (cur | prev) 12:05, 1 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,944 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Fix Selfref) (cur | prev) 00:43, 1 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,367 bytes) (-561)‎ . . (Undid revision 619225504 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) WP:Lede is no policy and does not require such a thing) (cur | prev) 00:40, 1 August 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,928 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Undid revision 619286714 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) ban enforcement != bot policy. this is a request for a *citation*) (cur | prev) 12:58, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,804 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (lead: challenge "fifty policies for quality assurance") (cur | prev) 12:48, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,695 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior: Dispute resolution is neither a rule nor a law) (cur | prev) 12:29, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,439 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: request reference and partially fix) (cur | prev) 12:27, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,431 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (lead: collaboration and expertise are not exclusive. shorten) (cur | prev) 12:21, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,485 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 619228137 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) duplication) (cur | prev) 01:56, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,266 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (→‎Review of changes) (cur | prev) 00:16, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,287 bytes) (-561)‎ . . (lead: restore definitions of "Wikipedia". the lead's content doesn't have to be repeated in the body.) (cur | prev) 00:05, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,848 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 619068822 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) the opposite of expert-driven is certainly not "consensus-driven") (cur | prev) 23:03, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,879 bytes) (-93)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: structure) (cur | prev) 19:58, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,045 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (→‎Automation: restore request for reference for bots blocking accounts or IPs) (cur | prev) 19:52, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,017 bytes) (-328)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: remove duplicate mention of year. remove duplicate mention of BLP.) (cur | prev) 02:26, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,126 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (lead: flag unreadable sentence) (cur | prev) 04:32, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,617 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (→‎Editing: split subsection "Review of changes") (cur | prev) 04:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,647 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Arbitration Committee: these statistics are old, and rates surely didn't stay precisely that way for long) (cur | prev) 02:42, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,644 bytes) (-442)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove poorly sourced part on inexperienced editors) (cur | prev) 02:33, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,086 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (move (and adapt) Talk page coverage from Editing to Community) (cur | prev) 02:05, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,046 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: remove paragraph on WikiWarMonitor (off-topic, content-less, poor writing. possibly fits in See also)) (cur | prev) 01:36, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,256 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (lead: fix sentence comparing article count with "Britannica") (cur | prev) 01:27, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,270 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (lead: move size comparison back where "Britannica" has been introduced) (cur | prev) 01:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,077 bytes) (-1,364)‎ . . (remove lead's last sentence (unreadable)) (cur | prev) 01:08, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,441 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request clarification of "the majority “weight” of viewpoints") (cur | prev) 04:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,030 bytes) (-167)‎ . . (→‎Nature) (cur | prev) 03:58, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,197 bytes) (-712)‎ . . (merge paragraph on Signpost from "Open collaboration" section to "Internal news publications") (cur | prev) 03:36, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,909 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (merge "Organization of article pages" section into "Analysis of content" and "Internal quality control and assessment of importance") (cur | prev) 03:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,948 bytes) (-121)‎ . . (→‎Organization of article pages: split in 2 paragraphs) (cur | prev) 02:59, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,069 bytes) (+165)‎ . . (move paragraph on wikiprojects from "Organization of article pages" to Operation) (cur | prev) 02:42, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,904 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (specify that Wikipedia is a wiki in lead) (cur | prev) 02:32, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,960 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (lead: remove reference to Alexa (broken)) (cur | prev) 02:28, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,985 bytes) (-945)‎ . . (remove poorly sourced parts on Google fueling growth. remove redundant and poorly sourced sentence on popularity) (cur | prev) 02:16, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,930 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (remove broken AlexaTop500. move anyone reference where it seems to belong) (cur | prev) 02:04, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,184 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (move sentence about Time magazine from lead to "Cultural significance". not sure this deserves any treatment here) (cur | prev) 02:02, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (217,183 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (update URL for Time2006) (cur | prev) 22:24, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,547 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Open collaboration) (cur | prev) 22:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,554 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Nature: User-generated content is not specific to Wikipedia. move "Language editions" section out of Nature (whatever "Nature" means)) (cur | prev) 21:31, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,522 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (mark num_users reference as failing verification and request new one) (cur | prev) 21:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,491 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (lead: give example of usage as common noun. shorten first sentence) (cur | prev) 20:58, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move first paragraph from Cultural significance to Readership) (cur | prev) 20:56, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move Cultural significance just below Readership) (cur | prev) 20:45, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag broken reference (freedom of panorama)) (cur | prev) 20:38, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,414 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag BBC reference as broken) (cur | prev) 17:30, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,315 bytes) (-232)‎ . . (→‎History: avoid misleading phrasing about February 2014 traffic) (cur | prev) 00:26, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,547 bytes) (-415)‎ . . (refactor references to Wikipedia vs the small screen) (cur | prev) 23:14, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,962 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (lead: attempt to clear up "Wikipedia"'s ambiguity) (cur | prev) 22:25, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,689 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (avoid contradiction on language count in lead, opting for vaguer language. request reference on contradictory language count) (cur | prev) 22:20, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,671 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (remove outdated and misleading article count from lead. acknowledge existence of bans) (cur | prev) 22:07, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,691 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: clarify the kind of ranking in question) (cur | prev) 22:05, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,701 bytes) (-134)‎ . . (shorten lead on popularity and avoid contradiction with the template on rank) (cur | prev) 18:11, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,820 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: ) (cur | prev) 16:17, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,740 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Internal quality control and assessment of importance: language. shorten) (cur | prev) 02:50, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,749 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Citing Wikipedia inside Accuracy of content. is a subsection warranted?) (cur | prev) 02:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,782 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Medical information from Quality of writing to Accuracy of content. surely a better fit, if not a good one) (cur | prev) 02:15, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,707 bytes) (-89)‎ . . (request reference for historical hardware and update) (cur | prev) 01:56, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,796 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request to specify regulations. more encyclopedic tone) (cur | prev) 01:48, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,799 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: oops) (cur | prev) 01:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,794 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: there is more than one Goldman. request reference about edit-a-thons. request clarification of "top 2%-10%") (cur | prev) 02:36, 25 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,693 bytes) (+49)‎ . . (disambiguate "Wales". flag broken reference. flag reference failing verification and request new one) (cur | prev) 04:04, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,499 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (Undid revision 616859409 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) discussion of "weight" is not necessarily discussion of a "majority “weight” of viewpoints") (cur | prev) 03:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,353 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (lead: remove reference contradicting its statement) (cur | prev) 03:55, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,398 bytes) (+76)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism) (cur | prev) 02:57, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,277 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request to clarify "enumerative approach") (cur | prev) 02:41, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,263 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (lead: restore request to specify standards for quality assurance) (cur | prev) 02:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,191 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: clarify. assistant and assassination are not exclusive.) (cur | prev) 02:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,252 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler) (cur | prev) 02:15, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,240 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid redirect to Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. simplify) (cur | prev) 02:05, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,255 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Dispute resolution and arbitration: Dispute resolution != Arbitration Committee) (cur | prev) 01:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,238 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Readership: remove confusing "however") (cur | prev) 01:53, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,249 bytes) (-913)‎ . . (→‎Automation: request reference about bots blocking edits. shorten by replacing poor and lengthy coverage of so-called incident with expanded description of bot roles) (cur | prev) 01:46, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,162 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎Automation: fix WP edit warning bots 1) (cur | prev) 01:35, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,098 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Automation: oops) (cur | prev) 00:37, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,092 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (→‎Automation: shorten (Lih)) (cur | prev) 00:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,318 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Editing: structure) (cur | prev) 00:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,283 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Editing: fix caption) (cur | prev) 00:24, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,266 bytes) (-194)‎ . . (→‎Editing: compact) (cur | prev) 00:18, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,460 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Editing: miscellaneous reverts/further improvements) (cur | prev) 01:58, 14 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,664 bytes) (+74)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: change image caption to describe image) (cur | prev) 23:25, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,590 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark references as failing verification) (cur | prev) 23:23, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,444 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark "Wikipedia experience sparks national debate" reference as dead) (cur | prev) 18:54, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (214,372 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (avoid redundant "large body of rules and regulations for editing") (cur | prev) 18:51, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,392 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (request to specify vague addition to lead on body of standards for quality assurance) (cur | prev) 18:48, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,319 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request reference about ""All of the above" approach") (cur | prev) 18:38, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,289 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Undid revision 615902054 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) restore "similar rate of "serious errors"" instead of merely "comparable") (cur | prev) 20:34, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,154 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: challenge definition of "majority “weight” of viewpoints") (cur | prev) 20:25, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,131 bytes) (-612)‎ . . (Undid revision 615838303 by TakuyaMurata (talk) broken reference, missing context) (cur | prev) 20:20, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,743 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (lead: simplify "edited articles". language) (cur | prev) 20:17, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,746 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (lead: don't treat NPOV, already covered in body. everyone claims to be "neutral" anyway) (cur | prev) 20:12, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+1)‎ (cur | prev) 20:09, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,809 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (fix parenthesis missing parent sentence) (cur | prev) 20:06, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (lead: clarify comparison with Britannica) (cur | prev) 18:32, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,760 bytes) (0)‎ . . (typo) (cur | prev) 02:49, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,834 bytes) (-800)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: move paragraph on Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia) (cur | prev) 02:43, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,634 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten further) (cur | prev) 02:38, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,656 bytes) (-198)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten new paragraph - few organizations have a size limit on rules, particularly when they're being told to implement one)

Please indicate your SUPPORT or OPPOSE based on the three options for Page protection and indicate the level of protection you are SUPPORTING or OPPOSING (for example "SUPPORT for 90 days Admin only page protection", or, "SUPPORT for 90 days page protection limiting User:Chealer edit warring", or, "OPPOSE further page protection for any time period.")

Support page protection for Admin only access for xxx days. (sample) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Support page protection (topic ban) limiting User:Chealer for xxx days. (sample) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose indicating no further Admin only page protection. (sample) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

All editors please make note that current page protection expires in 5 days, next Tuesday, on or about August 13. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support full protection for 14 days, so that there is enough time for both sides to resolve the dspute.Forbidden User (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support full protection for up to 90 days. There has to be a better way to resolve this content dispute. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support full protection for up to 90 days. Five or six editors have now tried to initiate discussion with User:Chealer but were refused due to User:Chealer's dissent against BRD and h/her hold out against participating in discussion. Since all editors taking part in this discussion, except for Chealer, believe that constructive BRD discussion by Chealer is needed in order to compensate for User:Chealer's content disputes in this article, it is for Chealer to move closer to the consensus. In the absence of Chealer moving closer to consensus, the full protection should be extended. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why aren't you seeking a topic ban at AN/I??? That would be the common way to deal with disruptive editing about one specific page. Present a set of diffs there, including the disruption and various warnings to Chealer to knock it off... Locking things down to everybody isn't the way to do this. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any full page protection in the absence of more solid evidence of edit-warring that cannot be addressed by ordinary means. A case has not been made that I can see that full page protection was necessary in the first place. As User:Carrite says, if one user is being disruptive, a topic ban is in order. A book is mentioned, but there is apparently no article about the book. I don't even see what the issue is. A

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

to User:LawrencePrincipe for the extreme idea of 90 days full protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support page protection, though I'm not sure it should Admin only. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Script Error

There are several Script Errors that I noticed today in this article, whatever they are. Shocking Blue (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shocking Blue: If you mean JavaScript errors, the problem is not in the article. The errors may be caused by a MediaWiki bug, but the errors will be necessary to determine. --Chealer (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the same issue on the Naruto article as well. In that case the script errors prevented all but one reference from working, and prevented the displaying of the infobox or any of the templates. That issue seemed to fix itself so hopefully It's bern resolved.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Community

The Community section of this article has a lot of commented-out text, visible only during edit mode. It doesn't look like something that actually belongs in the article. Is there some reason why this material had not been deleted? Folklore1 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I supposed the editors who disabled the content were hesitant or thought the content could be salvaged. In any case, the only interesting recyclable part I noticed must already be covered much better in History of Wikipedia. I thought there would be more, but I removed the few sentences I saw. --Chealer (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth

User:Michael0156, this may interest you. I got reverted for no specific policy reason. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the reply, he should be quoting WP:POINT and WP:IINFO. By the way, it's a good idea to have a talk page.Forbidden User (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't given a valid reason for deleting information about Wikipedia' most notable policy. Wikipedia runs on WP:CON or is it the loudest voices? This is a violation of WP:SUMMARY to delete it anyhow. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I need to gain WP:Con to add information about WP:Con?[16] I am still waiting for a rationale reason not to include information about Wikipedia's consensus. There is no Wikipedia policy more known than consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Community section scope

Shouldn't the level 2 sections "Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior" and "Dispute resolution" be included under "Community" since they are functions that spin out from community self-governance? If we were following summary style, it would appear that Community sits a level above the community's rules and the community's dispute resolution and that the community's self-governance should also appear within the Wikipedia community article. czar ♔ 17:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus but not the truth

See diff that shows if you are loud enough you can delete text about the most notable policy on Wikipedia for no good reason. Is this the truth?

The skeptics thing seems not notable. User:TheRedPenOfDoom deleted this information from the Criticism article. See Wikipedia#Systemic bias. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is neither a policy nor a guideline. Talk in the talk page of the article concerned. WP:FORUMSHOPPING is strictly prohibited. You are quite far from it, but prolonged behaviour alike may constitute WP:Edit warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, WP:IINFO says that we are not going to include everything verifiable. Please click into those policies and guidelines' links for more information. I personally hate shortcuts being written in capital letters (like WP:WTF) which sounds really like shouting. However, we have to adapt and understand that it is not shouting.Forbidden User (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is the most notable policy. QuackGuru is arguing with QuackGuru at this point. This is not about WP:IINFO. This is about WP:Con. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I know from the beginning that your information is about WP:Consensus. However, I'm citing WP:IINFO to tell you that when we decide whether an info should be included, we think more than WP:Verifiability. Isn't your content sitting well and all in the sub-article? Why are you raising this again?Forbidden User (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Content about consensus is not at all about random WP:IINFO. Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarise the content of the sub-article in the summary section here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I know about it. However, we already have criticism on WP:Consensus in the lead. If we repeat the much-the-same opinion it could be both redundant and POV. I do think others think so, given the repeated reverting. Perhaps you can wait for another person's opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If we repeat the same text here it would be both redundant and a summary style per WP:SYNC. A summary is supposed to be redundant text that is a summary of the criticism lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that we don't repeat criticism on WP:Consensus which is much the same twice. You should really wait for a third opinion.Forbidden User (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely BLP is not merely more notable and fundamnetal as a policy than consensus but it overrides consensus every time. otherwise BLP would be dead in the watewr as a group of editors could violate BLP, claiming consensus but there can be no consensus to override the rights of the living subjects we write about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to misrepresent Wikipedia's notability guidelines

Within the Content policies section of this article, notability in Wikipedia is presented as a policy, but this is not strictly true, since it is actually a guideline. Can this part of the article be paraphrased in a less confusing way? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clearly presented as a policy, although the section's title may suggest it is. That being said, I don't think we should cover obvious guidelines, so I would probably simply remove that part. --Chealer (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blatant deletion of important, relevant and reference-backed content (without any discussion) by User:Chealer.

Recently, Chealer has, without any discussion and consensus, deleted a lot of content that is important and relevant for this article, and is backed by valid references. As seen in this difference between revisions, in the section on assessment of articles by quality and importance, he had deleted both the table and bar-chart showing distribution of articles by quality and importance, and also the pie-chart showing importance-wise distribution of articles. As seen here, he has deleted this content in the English Wikipedia article too. Also, as seen in this difference, he had deleted the logarithmic bar-chart showing numbers of articles in the 20 largest language editions, with the comment "unclear, redundant" (though it was very much clear and relevant for the Wikipedia article). All this is clearly inappropriate, and a straight insult to the (lot of) effort, patience and time involved in the work of other editors. I have restored what I think is appropriate (and it all took a few hours, as simply undoing those edits was not possible due to "conflicting intermediate edits"), but User:Chealer may again attempt to carry out such activities. His contributions log shows that he has been deleting content on various articles. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived talk-page sections (of the Wikipedia article) concerning User:Chealer

• Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21#History of possible relation between User:Chealer and User:Pundit
• Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21#Persistent edit warring and dissent against BRD policy by User:Chealer discussion
• Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21#Possible discussion of four days of editing by User:Chealer
• Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21#RFC: Extension of Page protection for Wikipedia page due to content dispute and edit warring by User:Chealer (expires August 13)

Archived ANI regarding User:Chealer

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Prolonged edit warring and content dispute on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#Persistent vandalism by User:Chealer for month of July, month of August, month of September.

@LawrencePrincipe, Forbidden User, Carrite, Ɱ, and EvergreenFir: are some users appearing in the above.

--EngineeringGuy (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've pinged Chealer so he can have his say. For the record, I've only closed the reassessment on this article, based on the consensus reached by the reviewers involved. By reading EngineeringGuy's statement, I agree that Chealer should explain the reason why the material was removed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)