Wikipedia talk:Contact us

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Contact us page, not a place to contact anyone. See Wikipedia:Contact us for details on where to contact us. This talk page is not for help. Please see the Help desk for that.

Archive 1

Avoid overloading info-en

A lot of people email info-en asking for:

Information about products of companies on which we have articles.
Information about registering in universities.
Permission to reproduce our text or images.
General questions on science, history etc.

All these people receive "boilerplate" answers which redirect them away. In order to relieve the load on info-en, all such requests should be discouraged. David.Monniaux 13:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. Boilerplate answers are exceedingly easy to send, and I doubt many people will bother to read the now-lengthy instructions. I prefer to keep it short and sweet. — Dan | talk 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, with one exception: We need to discourage questions about text permissions. Linuxerist E/L/T 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting other users

This page is missing some of the most important ways to contact Wikipedia, i.e. other Wikipedians. I suggest including most if not all on WP:HELP here or at least a link to that page called "Where to find answers to specific kinds of questions" or "How to ask other users specific kinds of questions". ~~Also, please correct "adminsitrators"~~ --Espoo 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HELP is linked from "how to edit." I believe adminsitrators is already fixed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

There is a section on this page entitled 'for Website adminisitrators' - note the extra 'i'. Perhaps an admin (or whoever has the appropriate permissions to edit the page) could correct this? Cynical 18:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's "adminsitrators", as i already pointed out :-) --Espoo 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, adding the {{tl|Editprotected}} template to a talk page should get an administrator to come by shortly and examine the request to edit a protected page, hopefully =P. — TheKMan^talk 20:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing userpages

I know this is a noob question (i'm a noob myself ^_^) but are people suppose to edit other people's userpages? Mr Fresh

Looks like instead of reading and following the directions in the lines at the top of this page you accidentally wrote "ìî:" in front of them (in addition to adding "ìts perfect beautiful the painting. I thinkthat it is atleast." after KMan's signature). Please read the instructions and do not post any answer here:

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Contact us page, not a place to contact anyone. See Wikipedia:Contact us for details on where to contact us. This talk page is not for help. Please see the Help desk for that.

--Espoo 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello How are you

On your Main Page the word "ORGANIZATIONS" is spelled in correctly. You have it "organiSations"

Wiki Edits

I've edited numerous pages over the past few days and my edit count remains the same. Is there a problem with the counter? Is this a result of the replication lag?--Gnosis 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would best be asked at the Village Pump, but I will go ahead and answer. The toolserver editcounter is dead, and can no longer be used. I cannot find a link, so here is how to use the current one:. Copy and paste the code on this page (not just the part in the box), onto this page. Then, go to [1] and you can see your edit count! A bit lengthy, but once you install the code, you can just click the link each time. Hope this helps. Linuxerist E/L/T 17:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category needed

That's a pretty good addition to our site, but it needs to be categorized - preferably somewhere under the Category:Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Why do your encyclopedia let anyone to edit the content? What will happen if someone changes the content wrongly or deliberately? You should collect the views of the people who think that some contents are wrong or should be edit in anyway, and then you do researches to decide if the claim is correct, and finally, do editing and also acknowledging that persons who tell you the mistakes and also the source of your research. The present practice will make me doubt if your information is 100% correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.67.142 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Because by letting anybody edit it, it will grow and increase in quality. This is called peer review. We don't have funding to commission experts to work on this encyclopedia. Read Wikipedia:About for more information. —Michiel Sikma, 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ for more information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original poster. I just made a few corrections to a page because the writer's grammar was atrocious! Clearly, not a native English speaker. Fortunately, I'm fluent in several languages and I was able to ascertain what the writer was trying to communicate. However, I was shocked with the ease with which I was able to make the corrections. I was not even prompted to leave a name. I could just as easily have altered the content in a malicious manner. I am also disturbed that there is a complete lack of accountability. With most websites, the author is acknowledged. This allows the reader to reward or castigate the writer based on the content and accuracy of the article. Wikipedia is an anonymous bulletin board that allows anyone to say anything and is therefore nothing more than gossip, right or wrong. I find it annoying that when I google a question, a gossip center often tops the list. A better system is to acknowledge the author and his/her creditials. The discussion board is where the topic can be discussed and rated. An article could be flagged to be re-written or even taken down if necessitated by the community. There ought to be a version control so the reader could see how many revisions exist of the article and how the article was altered -- perfected, possibly -- over time. Freedom of speech does not translate into lack of accountability. Most of the articles I've read are badly written. Claims are not documented and the grammar and style are indicative of poor critical thinking skills and a general lack of basic education. I think there remains an enormous credibility issue for Wikipedia. Sadly, Wikipedia is actually being cited by students who don't understand the process by which information and knowledge are correctly manufactured and distributed. -Steve

Possible Lottery Fraud

Hi On Friday night I received an e-mail that I have won £1 800 000.00 from the Uk National Lottery - based on my e-mail address. My first instinct told me that it was scam, but I e-mailed them with information. I decided that if they were to ask me for my bakning details, I would know that it's fraudulent. They never asked for that. This morning I received an e-mail to say that I could come in on 22nd June to collect the cheque, but that I have to bring £5500 for the processing of the cheque. The e-mail addresses that I have had to deal with, are: josph sanuis; josphs@gmail.com Sir Franklin Mills: franklinmills25@yahoo.co.uk Adress: UK NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS: PO Box 1010 Liverpool L70 1NL UNITED KINGDOM (Customer Services)

I hope you will be able to clarify this to me. Thank you very much. Erine Visser

link title

chat

Here's a link to XOS chat: http://www.xboxopensource.com/cgi-irc/irc.cgi?adv=1 . You have to select irc.freenode.net in the dropdownbox and type #wikimedia-bootcamp as a channel. Maybe someone can find out how to preselect these? It would be usefull to decrease the emails to info-en , as people can directly contact others. effeietsanders 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

out of control Admin guy Mtz206

I want to know how to have this guys Admin powers removed, One of the Articles that he "patrols" is Brett Favre. Now, from reading that Wikipedia guidlines nonsense, the only things that are said to be allowed are Neutral opinions. The whole Favre thing stinks of Bias in favor of Favre, there is maybe two sections of Neutrality in that.. His Name, and his Home Town.. the rest is nothing but a biased opinion. So, when I edit in Facts about Favre's horrible Playoff games, they get edited out and this out of control Admin Jerk sends me the little warning saying Im not allowed to use Wikipedia as a Soapbox.. when this whole Article is a soapbox about Favre, anyone with common sense can read it and Realize that its nothing but a SoapBox by his fans to make up excuses for his past 5 years of Failure.