This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
AND NONE OF YOU DELETE THIS I'M SICK OF WAITING SOMEONE TELL ME WHY [name removed] WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE I DEMAND AN EXPLANAITION PLEASE HELP IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A STALKER ON WIKIPEDIA
Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, Zam Wesell was killed, so it couldn't be her. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And what are you talking about, "Reputation function?" Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Anakin...I'm pregnant with his baby. He keeps having wierd dreams about my baby killing me when it is born. What's so bad about him? He's not that bad; otherwise I wouldn't have married him. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Obi-Wan just told me that Ani turned to the dark side! Can it be true? He was so much stress! It could be possible...I'll file for divorce right away! But first, I'm going to Mustafar to find out if all this is true. Her majesty Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I will now click on said link to find what has greatly disturbed me so. User:Queen Padmé Amidala
That explains very well why I am being stalked. But why do you think those things about Ani? Other than killing those Tuskens, he has never done anything really bad in his life...that I know of, that is. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
He executed a hundred cuddly ewoks who stole his dinner, by chopping their heads off with his lightsaber! I know man, I WAS THERE!! Willski72 ( talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wen said that Wikipedia's articles sometimes are unbelievable. The reason is that everyone can edit or alter an article.
So rediculus! I don't think so, how do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.164.97.76 ( talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes the beauty of it is that if someone changes it incorrectly then someone else will come along and change it back correctly. It works itself out in the end. Willski72 ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While I think Wikipedia is a very useful resource, I have to agree that there are certain articles that tend to get skewed quite a large way, often due to gaming the system. I think that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer at the top of every page cleary stating that anyone can edit it (it used to do this, though I never think it went far enough). The disclaimer should also state not to take information at face value and to always check for reliability of the sources. Far too many people take Wikipedia as fact, without realising the origins of the information - even the media are guilty of this - I've often seen mistakes created on Wikipedia propagated throughout the media. As it stands, I cannot wholeheartedy recommend others to use Wikipedia, but with such a disclaimer I would be more inclined to give Wikipedia my reccommmendation. 80.219.51.173 ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The reliability of Wikipedia is orders of magnitude better than the reliability of the internets in general. Some people will take anything at face value, even if they googled it on some geocities page. These people only have themselves to blame, and for these people, Wikipedia is a huge step forward. Anyone who actually does have half a clue will know to be critical of their information, not just information found on Wikipedia, but also information from so-called reliable sources or commercial encyclopedias,not to mention commercial newspapers. Reliability of Wikipedia is on par or better than that of commercial encyclopedias (not to mention commercial newspapers) in some cases, and worse in others. It is arbitrary to make this into a case against Wikipedia particularly ("why can't you always be better?").
This isn't an issue in any case, since the proper disclaimer is already linked from each and every page. There isn't anything to add to what it says there. caveat emptor. -- dab (𒁳) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is best considered as a point of first resort - and both " caveat emptor" and "there is no cure for deliberate stupidity" apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Tell that to Mr Wen. If he's a historian by training, he may give you a gold star. Especially if you make it clear you've read that link. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
True, especially when he's got a few pints down him! Willski72 ( talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Candlewicke we are talking about the window cleaners brother-in-law and not the window cleaner himself! Willski72 ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To draw all these themes together, suddenly I hear a very old crackling recording, and George Formby sings, "Wen, I'm cleaning windows" ... Michael of Lucan ( talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke, don't try to change what I said. I said I start with Wikipedia, but I also look into it myself. NC Live, SIRS, Facts on Files, and other library services should always be used in conjuntion with an encylopedic service like Wikipedia. Besides, if you only use Wikipedia, what ever your writting will basically be a paraphrased Wikipedia article. So basically, I'm saying that I follow though with what I find on Wikipedia instead of half assing it. -- MahaPanta ( talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that, even if
that's no guarantee that there aren't other "reliable sources" saying the exact opposite. There are no 100% reliable sources. The only way to be sure is to look at as many sources as you can, as up-to-date as you can & as specialized as you can. Even then you only get the opinions of experts, who aren't infallible. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, I remember the ancient "Definition of Neurosis". A sane person knows 1+1=2. An insane person knows 1+1=3. A neurotic person knows 1+1=2, but it makes him nervous.
Trying to define truth, and trying to verify it, makes me nervous. The only people who know "the Truth" seem to base it on faith, which is seriously scary. "I believe it to be true, therefore it is." The rest of us know that truth is a shifting, amorphous thing. And, yes, even 1+1=2 is not true for every set of premises. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, there's so much computer red tape on this thing its unreal! (Although in this case some of that red tape is necessary otherwise we'd have some really wacky stuff on here!) Willski72 ( talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I like it! We should start a wikipedia campaign to pressure the worlds governmnents to say duct tape instead of red tape! Willski72 ( talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sign for archive bot MickMacNee ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The picture postcard attached the the Laurens Shull piece - which is also in the Battle of Château-Thierry article - is not exactly NPOV. This battle was a victory for the combatant allies, who included a large contingent of troops from the US. To put it very politely, the US had finally come off the fence and joined the war, after years of catastrophic slaughter in the trenches of northern Europe.
However, the label on the postcard overstates the importance of the Battle of Château-Thierry in isolation. The battle of Château-Thierry was part of a much wider battle, to which the US soldiers certainly contributed bravely, and in which they were an important factor in achieving victory. And that wider effort was indeed a turning point of the Great War.
The postcard is an interesting object, but it was published later in the US as a piece of patriotic puffing about a victory. It should not be reproduced without a little comment to give it context.
Let me stress again that this is not to demean the bravery of the US troops, whose arrival, however delayed by their government, made a difference [1]. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You handled that very delicately bravo! If its propoganda then that should be mentioned, is it? Willski72 ( talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Stadt ( talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke - As an over educated person, I know the history of everything (and have learned to value nothing), and do not need citations. However, as you and I must assist the Masses, citation now added. As indicated by my user page, I am too lazy to do any work on this, so I have added the fifth item which came up on Google when I put in "made a difference" and "Great War". That seems to be how "citations" are selected for many articles, so I feel no shame. ;-D Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a terrible pain being over-educated as the under-educated masses all expect so much from us when one is tempted to simply lounge around and commit acts of criminal laziness. This is of course our divine right. But it's so much bother telling them that so I save time by disguising my laziness through regular bouts of back-breaking manual labour. -- can dle • wicke 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if i'd taken up that rectal thermometer job i'd be rich enough to agree with you both now.... Willski72 ( talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we wouldnt want that now would we....? Willski72 ( talk) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I might just go and lie down in a corner somewhere and cry...shudder. Willski72 ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Its just not as easy to descend serious arguments into farce these days! Willski72 ( talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The question is, is the character really fictional? Would she be on Wikipedia if she were not real? Willski72 ( talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a worm hole or something. Willski72 ( talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well its a good job someone is because i dont have a clue! I highly suspect you are correct and i therefore change my phrase to,
"Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a TARDIS or something"
Hopefully thats more logical(!) Though im not sure they had them in the star wars galaxy which, we are reliably informed, is far far away. Willski72 ( talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be interesting, the doctor with a lightsaber. Maybe his sonic screwdriver extends! Willski72 ( talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well you know.... i try not to brag! Willski72 ( talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the election in Iran not news? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the link "Michael Jackson" in the Michael Jackson's snippet (spelling?) in the "news" section should lead to the "Death" section of the article, not just the "Michael Jackson" article. Or is there a reason it doesn't? G man yo ( talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this actually is already linked on the main page. Very disappointing that the main page would link to an article with so little substance. -- Susan118 talk 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) It should be Pop star Michael Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 50, after suffering cardiac arrest.. This is In The News after all, and not Featured Article of the day. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the two huge sections of junk above, maybe now an admin might notice this section. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is on the Main Page talk and ANI and not one reply for hours. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be no comma after the word "March" in the hook currently in queue 1. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Until the nature of what's happening in Honduras is clear, I don't think it should be labeled a "coup d'état" as is done on the main page. All actions undertaken by the military, the Supreme Court and Congress appear justified in the Hondruan Constitution, especially as Zelaya was not respecting the Court's decisions declaring the referendum illegal. Zelaya was abusing his power, and any president doing so loses his or her status as president, and may be arrested.
[[ 190.77.117.50 ( talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]]
{{ editprotected}} I think that the first "In the news" story should say "Chenzhou, China" instead of just "Chenzhou" since most people probably have not heard of Chenzhou. SlaterDeterminant ( talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added information on the Hohle Fels page about the bird flute found. I don't think there should be an individual page created just for the flute, atleast not as of yet. So can we please get a link to the page saying something like "Archeologists confirm the discovery of a 35,000-year-old flute in Hohle Fels cave, the oldest confirmed musical instrument, in Germany.", and link Hohle Fels? We really should have a link to an article where people can find out more information on the subject being discussed. JanderVK ( talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You cannot change the link now after all this time. what does it matter anyway? they can still find it caus flute is linked too. 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
?? - 206.240.26.51 ( talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
yeah i want to edit it too, oh wiki gods.-- 24.109.201.127 ( talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Did wikipedia just crash? i was trying to browse some article and a This Wiki Has A Problem page popped up everytime, whats the matter?-- Josecarlos1991 ( talk) 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sky News, BBC, TZM and CNN are all reporting that Michael Jackson has died, I advise the editing admins for the main page, not to 'jump the gun', per se, he has been known for his publicity stunts. Worth watching though. Murgon ( talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, deaths from natural causes don't really go on the main page. There was a fight over it when Sir Edmund Hillary died. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sir Edmund Hillary was nothing compared with the King of Pop, the worldwide popularity and sudden, shocking death of Micheal Jackson should be reason enough to appear on the main page. User talk:Pho3nix-
I don't think this should be on the main page, even though he is an extremely famous person, if we put this on the main page then why shouldn't we put Ed McMahon(or however you spell it), Farrah Fawcett and other notable deaths recently? Blah42b10 ( talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a news story about Lucas Glover winning a golf tournament. Does anyone seriously consider that to be more important or notable than one of the most famous stars in the world suddenly dying at an early age? Why the hell wouldn't this be considered notable enough for the front page? Zincomog ( talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we make the picture just a little bit bigger (maybe 80-100px wide)? Mononomic ( talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it standard policy only to announce the deaths of heads of state on the main page?-- 24.218.164.106 ( talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
After the mourning period.... but before the afternoon period!!!! Willski72 ( talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it off the front page. Now we can get on with other things. Peter Greenwell ( talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh no! What have i unleashed! Willski72 ( talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You know i thought better of you Candlewicke, outbursts such as that are not wanted on this encyclopedia! Next someone will come up and start shouting about thrilled zombies and criminals that are getting soft (or some such nonsense!) Willski72 ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with you lot is that you just "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough". There, i have done one, are you satisfied now! Willski72 ( talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, this post is a bit of a thriller wasn't it? I mean, I know it's just human nature that we have to cry over his death. He was gone too soon but just be happy. We've just got to leave him alone, and We're almost there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Right thats it! I asked nicely, i tried to appease you! I tell you know that you are responsible for what i have been driven to! Remember that as they put me 6 feet under! (Sound of rattling followed by a 'click' 'click' 'click', a gulp, a loud bang and a soft thud.....) Willski72 ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Im dead and i cant get away! Oh look i've still got that gun (loud bang followed by a soft thud). Willski72 ( talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if i was in hell before i have no idea where i am now.... and those bloody Michael Jackson song names are still going! (Loud bang followed by a soft thud) Willski72 ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh no i havent got any bullets left! Willski72 ( talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have any idea why our article count dropped from over 2, 929,000 last night to 2,926,000 this morning? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again the expansionists have been defeated by the minimalists, it is only a matter of time before there is nothing left.... Willski72 ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry Willski, I bet this goes on all the time. Tomorrow you'll wake up and there'll be 30,000 new articles and the following day there'll be 8,000 less. It all works out in the end. -- can dle • wicke 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
First let me say i was not in any way being sarcastic (!) and i fully believed that i would wake up one morning to find that Wikipedia had imploded on itself! However i now take great comfort in the knowledge that this was not the beginning of the end but just the normal workings of a somewhat erratic machine! PS "The deletionists have won" would be a far better name for a band than some of the rubbish they come up with, it has my full support. Willski72 ( talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
PPS "Anybot's algae articles"??? There really is no contest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry! Willski72 ( talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that would be very scary, especially if (for some unknown reason) the page called "The deletionists have won" was flashing bright red or somesuch colour. It would also be even scarier if the article went on to describe the mass murder of the expansionists in the middle of a meeting by gas through the air vents/deletionist indoctrinated man with machine gun etc Willski72 ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel like a dog thats just been kicked for goodnaturedly barking at the wrong person! (I was joking... as i have been all the way through... just in case you hadnt already worked that out). Willski72 ( talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This gives you more time to join the Wikipedia:Three-millionth topic pool! - Banyan Tree 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Re astronomer Rolf Brahde, it's heartwarming to see Norway back in the DYK column. Sca ( talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the vast population (a fifth of the worlds!) and the large surface area (4th biggest in the world!) this is a shambles! Or maybe i've mixed Norway up with China? Willski72 ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a statistical fact that Norway once controlled a huge empire and defeated Germany single-handedly in the Second World War. Willski72 ( talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh curses, now our Secret has finally been exposed. We "Europeans" are all really Norwegians. When we are not working on our Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius encyclopedia, we write fake articles on the imaginary countries of "Europe". We warned you not to tell the non- "European" editors. The whole game has been spoilt. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Slip of the tongue, im sorry! At least they still dont know about the Luxembourg's huge new navy thats 3 times bigger than any other. Woops! Willski72 ( talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you hear that North Korea has just built 2000 new ballistic missiles with nuclear capacity and that they can fire as far as 10,000 miles in only 5 minutes? Willski72 ( talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes well.... always remember never to mess with Russia. Its powers are too mighty to comprehend! Willski72 ( talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Put some more bright colors in it. -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Two of the items in Did You Know are non-compliant as they fail to deal with Canadian subjects. Can someone fix this urgently? Michael of Lucan ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your majesty - I am joking. {Bows and grovels, backs from the Borg throne room then, unplugging self from the Hive Entity, enters escape pod. Sound of airlock closing.} Michael of Lucan ( talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You really shouldnt have those escape pods within easy reach of jokers, or at least have a guard there watching the thing! Willski72 ( talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In the news "Republic of Ireland" should be pipelinked to show Ireland as Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and the main page should be accurate and reflect this. MITH 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The name of the independent Irish State is a source of continual discussion on Wikipedia, because it has emotional issues for many people. Like the name of Football/soccer/Association football, this issue cannot be resolved by discussion. You will not stop the dispute without mass slaughter of one side or the other. Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution.
I have clear views on both subjects, but have learned not to express them. Peeing against the wind only gets you wet - the wind flows on regardless. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution".
Is it me or can you just not have fun any more! Willski72 ( talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes.... can be a bit of a bother when one of your cows tramples on you cant it.... Willski72 ( talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How many cows are we talking about here? Willski72 ( talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, since it doesn't apply to a single article or even to a specific project.
I've noticed that some of the articles on Wikipedia contain content that definitely isn't appropriate for small children, yet they could still come upon them accidentally by using the
random article feature. Clearly, Therefore, something needs to be done.
Wikipedia isn't censored, so that's not what I'm proposing. Rather, any articles detailing the processes of human reproduction (with or without pictures) or excretion (with pictures), as well as anything else that may be determined inappropriate in the future, should be moved to a separate namespace, perhaps "Adult:" or something similar. Then, on the page for that subject in the main namespace, a warning template should be placed stating that the content isn't appropriate for children and containing a link that a person can click to go to the article if he isn't bothered by the inappropriate content. --
Aruseusu (
talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the item about the North Korean launch be changed to reflect that they were cruise missiles? In its current form the text implies that they were ballistic.-- Fireaxe888 ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. I follow the line that people expect the worse, especially from a communist dictatorship that has shut down its borders and is well known for its nuclear ambitions. Its imprecise not inprecise by the way, but i wont hold it against ye! Willski72 ( talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
hi i edited and page and i would like back to normal please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.25.72 ( talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see Hindi, Tamil, JKannada OR ANY OTHER INDIAN language on the language pnel..-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What we need are more video game articles. A lack of snippets on the front page that link to meticulously written articles about this medium will lead to loss of credibility in the scientific world. Please include more video game articles. Thanks. 84.129.157.23 ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the discussion where it was decided that Wikipedias in other languages listed on the Main Page need to have at least 40,000 articles, changed from 20,000? -- 82.6.52.129 ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The News section states that the OAS has suspended Honduras, but shouldn't it also be noted that Honduras actually left the organization prior to being suspended? AP: Honduras leaves OAS after body decries coup LCpl ( talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can one send a page to AFD if it is on the main page? I'm going to assume the answer is no but I'd like confirmation. Thanks very much, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no problem with you nominating a page at DYK, but, once it is nominated, it should probably be replaced. I think there's a policy against DYKing AFDed articles, but not AFDing DYKed articles. J Milburn ( talk) 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
So D-Day only got a featured picture and was excluded from "on this day" under the "it only should appear in one section per day", but now we have a featured picture and on this day for Independence Day. Are there 2 standards at work here or has policy changed as a result of the d-day discussions? Knowledgeum : Talk 08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Were the July 7th bombing in London, 2005 not thought of as notable enough to go in the 'on this day' section? There are no recent items hare either. Sorry for the late comment, not much use. - Finkzizard 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.40.48 ( talk)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
AND NONE OF YOU DELETE THIS I'M SICK OF WAITING SOMEONE TELL ME WHY [name removed] WON'T LEAVE ME ALONE I DEMAND AN EXPLANAITION PLEASE HELP IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A STALKER ON WIKIPEDIA
Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
SHOUTING doesn't help, it's just rude. And rudeness is also quite rude. And I'm removing the name from your post. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, Zam Wesell was killed, so it couldn't be her. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 14:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And what are you talking about, "Reputation function?" Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Anakin...I'm pregnant with his baby. He keeps having wierd dreams about my baby killing me when it is born. What's so bad about him? He's not that bad; otherwise I wouldn't have married him. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Obi-Wan just told me that Ani turned to the dark side! Can it be true? He was so much stress! It could be possible...I'll file for divorce right away! But first, I'm going to Mustafar to find out if all this is true. Her majesty Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I will now click on said link to find what has greatly disturbed me so. User:Queen Padmé Amidala
That explains very well why I am being stalked. But why do you think those things about Ani? Other than killing those Tuskens, he has never done anything really bad in his life...that I know of, that is. Queen Padmé Amidala ( talk) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
He executed a hundred cuddly ewoks who stole his dinner, by chopping their heads off with his lightsaber! I know man, I WAS THERE!! Willski72 ( talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Wen said that Wikipedia's articles sometimes are unbelievable. The reason is that everyone can edit or alter an article.
So rediculus! I don't think so, how do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.164.97.76 ( talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes the beauty of it is that if someone changes it incorrectly then someone else will come along and change it back correctly. It works itself out in the end. Willski72 ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While I think Wikipedia is a very useful resource, I have to agree that there are certain articles that tend to get skewed quite a large way, often due to gaming the system. I think that Wikipedia should include a disclaimer at the top of every page cleary stating that anyone can edit it (it used to do this, though I never think it went far enough). The disclaimer should also state not to take information at face value and to always check for reliability of the sources. Far too many people take Wikipedia as fact, without realising the origins of the information - even the media are guilty of this - I've often seen mistakes created on Wikipedia propagated throughout the media. As it stands, I cannot wholeheartedy recommend others to use Wikipedia, but with such a disclaimer I would be more inclined to give Wikipedia my reccommmendation. 80.219.51.173 ( talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The reliability of Wikipedia is orders of magnitude better than the reliability of the internets in general. Some people will take anything at face value, even if they googled it on some geocities page. These people only have themselves to blame, and for these people, Wikipedia is a huge step forward. Anyone who actually does have half a clue will know to be critical of their information, not just information found on Wikipedia, but also information from so-called reliable sources or commercial encyclopedias,not to mention commercial newspapers. Reliability of Wikipedia is on par or better than that of commercial encyclopedias (not to mention commercial newspapers) in some cases, and worse in others. It is arbitrary to make this into a case against Wikipedia particularly ("why can't you always be better?").
This isn't an issue in any case, since the proper disclaimer is already linked from each and every page. There isn't anything to add to what it says there. caveat emptor. -- dab (𒁳) 09:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is best considered as a point of first resort - and both " caveat emptor" and "there is no cure for deliberate stupidity" apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 ( talk) 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Tell that to Mr Wen. If he's a historian by training, he may give you a gold star. Especially if you make it clear you've read that link. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
True, especially when he's got a few pints down him! Willski72 ( talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Candlewicke we are talking about the window cleaners brother-in-law and not the window cleaner himself! Willski72 ( talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To draw all these themes together, suddenly I hear a very old crackling recording, and George Formby sings, "Wen, I'm cleaning windows" ... Michael of Lucan ( talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke, don't try to change what I said. I said I start with Wikipedia, but I also look into it myself. NC Live, SIRS, Facts on Files, and other library services should always be used in conjuntion with an encylopedic service like Wikipedia. Besides, if you only use Wikipedia, what ever your writting will basically be a paraphrased Wikipedia article. So basically, I'm saying that I follow though with what I find on Wikipedia instead of half assing it. -- MahaPanta ( talk) 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind that, even if
that's no guarantee that there aren't other "reliable sources" saying the exact opposite. There are no 100% reliable sources. The only way to be sure is to look at as many sources as you can, as up-to-date as you can & as specialized as you can. Even then you only get the opinions of experts, who aren't infallible. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, I remember the ancient "Definition of Neurosis". A sane person knows 1+1=2. An insane person knows 1+1=3. A neurotic person knows 1+1=2, but it makes him nervous.
Trying to define truth, and trying to verify it, makes me nervous. The only people who know "the Truth" seem to base it on faith, which is seriously scary. "I believe it to be true, therefore it is." The rest of us know that truth is a shifting, amorphous thing. And, yes, even 1+1=2 is not true for every set of premises. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, there's so much computer red tape on this thing its unreal! (Although in this case some of that red tape is necessary otherwise we'd have some really wacky stuff on here!) Willski72 ( talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I like it! We should start a wikipedia campaign to pressure the worlds governmnents to say duct tape instead of red tape! Willski72 ( talk) 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sign for archive bot MickMacNee ( talk) 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The picture postcard attached the the Laurens Shull piece - which is also in the Battle of Château-Thierry article - is not exactly NPOV. This battle was a victory for the combatant allies, who included a large contingent of troops from the US. To put it very politely, the US had finally come off the fence and joined the war, after years of catastrophic slaughter in the trenches of northern Europe.
However, the label on the postcard overstates the importance of the Battle of Château-Thierry in isolation. The battle of Château-Thierry was part of a much wider battle, to which the US soldiers certainly contributed bravely, and in which they were an important factor in achieving victory. And that wider effort was indeed a turning point of the Great War.
The postcard is an interesting object, but it was published later in the US as a piece of patriotic puffing about a victory. It should not be reproduced without a little comment to give it context.
Let me stress again that this is not to demean the bravery of the US troops, whose arrival, however delayed by their government, made a difference [1]. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You handled that very delicately bravo! If its propoganda then that should be mentioned, is it? Willski72 ( talk) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Stadt ( talk) 00:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Candlewicke - As an over educated person, I know the history of everything (and have learned to value nothing), and do not need citations. However, as you and I must assist the Masses, citation now added. As indicated by my user page, I am too lazy to do any work on this, so I have added the fifth item which came up on Google when I put in "made a difference" and "Great War". That seems to be how "citations" are selected for many articles, so I feel no shame. ;-D Michael of Lucan ( talk) 10:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a terrible pain being over-educated as the under-educated masses all expect so much from us when one is tempted to simply lounge around and commit acts of criminal laziness. This is of course our divine right. But it's so much bother telling them that so I save time by disguising my laziness through regular bouts of back-breaking manual labour. -- can dle • wicke 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if i'd taken up that rectal thermometer job i'd be rich enough to agree with you both now.... Willski72 ( talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and we wouldnt want that now would we....? Willski72 ( talk) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I might just go and lie down in a corner somewhere and cry...shudder. Willski72 ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Its just not as easy to descend serious arguments into farce these days! Willski72 ( talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The question is, is the character really fictional? Would she be on Wikipedia if she were not real? Willski72 ( talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a worm hole or something. Willski72 ( talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well its a good job someone is because i dont have a clue! I highly suspect you are correct and i therefore change my phrase to,
"Yes thats the sort of thing im talking about, maybe a TARDIS or something"
Hopefully thats more logical(!) Though im not sure they had them in the star wars galaxy which, we are reliably informed, is far far away. Willski72 ( talk) 17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be interesting, the doctor with a lightsaber. Maybe his sonic screwdriver extends! Willski72 ( talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Well you know.... i try not to brag! Willski72 ( talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the election in Iran not news? Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the link "Michael Jackson" in the Michael Jackson's snippet (spelling?) in the "news" section should lead to the "Death" section of the article, not just the "Michael Jackson" article. Or is there a reason it doesn't? G man yo ( talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed this actually is already linked on the main page. Very disappointing that the main page would link to an article with so little substance. -- Susan118 talk 02:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC) It should be Pop star Michael Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 50, after suffering cardiac arrest.. This is In The News after all, and not Featured Article of the day. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed the two huge sections of junk above, maybe now an admin might notice this section. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is on the Main Page talk and ANI and not one reply for hours. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There should be no comma after the word "March" in the hook currently in queue 1. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Until the nature of what's happening in Honduras is clear, I don't think it should be labeled a "coup d'état" as is done on the main page. All actions undertaken by the military, the Supreme Court and Congress appear justified in the Hondruan Constitution, especially as Zelaya was not respecting the Court's decisions declaring the referendum illegal. Zelaya was abusing his power, and any president doing so loses his or her status as president, and may be arrested.
[[ 190.77.117.50 ( talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]]
{{ editprotected}} I think that the first "In the news" story should say "Chenzhou, China" instead of just "Chenzhou" since most people probably have not heard of Chenzhou. SlaterDeterminant ( talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added information on the Hohle Fels page about the bird flute found. I don't think there should be an individual page created just for the flute, atleast not as of yet. So can we please get a link to the page saying something like "Archeologists confirm the discovery of a 35,000-year-old flute in Hohle Fels cave, the oldest confirmed musical instrument, in Germany.", and link Hohle Fels? We really should have a link to an article where people can find out more information on the subject being discussed. JanderVK ( talk) 02:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You cannot change the link now after all this time. what does it matter anyway? they can still find it caus flute is linked too. 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
?? - 206.240.26.51 ( talk) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
yeah i want to edit it too, oh wiki gods.-- 24.109.201.127 ( talk) 21:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Did wikipedia just crash? i was trying to browse some article and a This Wiki Has A Problem page popped up everytime, whats the matter?-- Josecarlos1991 ( talk) 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sky News, BBC, TZM and CNN are all reporting that Michael Jackson has died, I advise the editing admins for the main page, not to 'jump the gun', per se, he has been known for his publicity stunts. Worth watching though. Murgon ( talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, deaths from natural causes don't really go on the main page. There was a fight over it when Sir Edmund Hillary died. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sir Edmund Hillary was nothing compared with the King of Pop, the worldwide popularity and sudden, shocking death of Micheal Jackson should be reason enough to appear on the main page. User talk:Pho3nix-
I don't think this should be on the main page, even though he is an extremely famous person, if we put this on the main page then why shouldn't we put Ed McMahon(or however you spell it), Farrah Fawcett and other notable deaths recently? Blah42b10 ( talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a news story about Lucas Glover winning a golf tournament. Does anyone seriously consider that to be more important or notable than one of the most famous stars in the world suddenly dying at an early age? Why the hell wouldn't this be considered notable enough for the front page? Zincomog ( talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we make the picture just a little bit bigger (maybe 80-100px wide)? Mononomic ( talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it standard policy only to announce the deaths of heads of state on the main page?-- 24.218.164.106 ( talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
After the mourning period.... but before the afternoon period!!!! Willski72 ( talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it off the front page. Now we can get on with other things. Peter Greenwell ( talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh no! What have i unleashed! Willski72 ( talk) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You know i thought better of you Candlewicke, outbursts such as that are not wanted on this encyclopedia! Next someone will come up and start shouting about thrilled zombies and criminals that are getting soft (or some such nonsense!) Willski72 ( talk) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with you lot is that you just "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough". There, i have done one, are you satisfied now! Willski72 ( talk) 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, this post is a bit of a thriller wasn't it? I mean, I know it's just human nature that we have to cry over his death. He was gone too soon but just be happy. We've just got to leave him alone, and We're almost there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Right thats it! I asked nicely, i tried to appease you! I tell you know that you are responsible for what i have been driven to! Remember that as they put me 6 feet under! (Sound of rattling followed by a 'click' 'click' 'click', a gulp, a loud bang and a soft thud.....) Willski72 ( talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Im dead and i cant get away! Oh look i've still got that gun (loud bang followed by a soft thud). Willski72 ( talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if i was in hell before i have no idea where i am now.... and those bloody Michael Jackson song names are still going! (Loud bang followed by a soft thud) Willski72 ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh no i havent got any bullets left! Willski72 ( talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have any idea why our article count dropped from over 2, 929,000 last night to 2,926,000 this morning? Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again the expansionists have been defeated by the minimalists, it is only a matter of time before there is nothing left.... Willski72 ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry Willski, I bet this goes on all the time. Tomorrow you'll wake up and there'll be 30,000 new articles and the following day there'll be 8,000 less. It all works out in the end. -- can dle • wicke 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
First let me say i was not in any way being sarcastic (!) and i fully believed that i would wake up one morning to find that Wikipedia had imploded on itself! However i now take great comfort in the knowledge that this was not the beginning of the end but just the normal workings of a somewhat erratic machine! PS "The deletionists have won" would be a far better name for a band than some of the rubbish they come up with, it has my full support. Willski72 ( talk) 09:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
PPS "Anybot's algae articles"??? There really is no contest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry! Willski72 ( talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that would be very scary, especially if (for some unknown reason) the page called "The deletionists have won" was flashing bright red or somesuch colour. It would also be even scarier if the article went on to describe the mass murder of the expansionists in the middle of a meeting by gas through the air vents/deletionist indoctrinated man with machine gun etc Willski72 ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel like a dog thats just been kicked for goodnaturedly barking at the wrong person! (I was joking... as i have been all the way through... just in case you hadnt already worked that out). Willski72 ( talk) 14:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This gives you more time to join the Wikipedia:Three-millionth topic pool! - Banyan Tree 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Re astronomer Rolf Brahde, it's heartwarming to see Norway back in the DYK column. Sca ( talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the vast population (a fifth of the worlds!) and the large surface area (4th biggest in the world!) this is a shambles! Or maybe i've mixed Norway up with China? Willski72 ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a statistical fact that Norway once controlled a huge empire and defeated Germany single-handedly in the Second World War. Willski72 ( talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh curses, now our Secret has finally been exposed. We "Europeans" are all really Norwegians. When we are not working on our Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius encyclopedia, we write fake articles on the imaginary countries of "Europe". We warned you not to tell the non- "European" editors. The whole game has been spoilt. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Slip of the tongue, im sorry! At least they still dont know about the Luxembourg's huge new navy thats 3 times bigger than any other. Woops! Willski72 ( talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you hear that North Korea has just built 2000 new ballistic missiles with nuclear capacity and that they can fire as far as 10,000 miles in only 5 minutes? Willski72 ( talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes well.... always remember never to mess with Russia. Its powers are too mighty to comprehend! Willski72 ( talk) 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Put some more bright colors in it. -- AaThinker ( talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Two of the items in Did You Know are non-compliant as they fail to deal with Canadian subjects. Can someone fix this urgently? Michael of Lucan ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your majesty - I am joking. {Bows and grovels, backs from the Borg throne room then, unplugging self from the Hive Entity, enters escape pod. Sound of airlock closing.} Michael of Lucan ( talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You really shouldnt have those escape pods within easy reach of jokers, or at least have a guard there watching the thing! Willski72 ( talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In the news "Republic of Ireland" should be pipelinked to show Ireland as Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country and the main page should be accurate and reflect this. MITH 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The name of the independent Irish State is a source of continual discussion on Wikipedia, because it has emotional issues for many people. Like the name of Football/soccer/Association football, this issue cannot be resolved by discussion. You will not stop the dispute without mass slaughter of one side or the other. Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution.
I have clear views on both subjects, but have learned not to express them. Peeing against the wind only gets you wet - the wind flows on regardless. Michael of Lucan ( talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia aims at consensus, and for that namby-pamby reason rejects mass slaughter as a solution".
Is it me or can you just not have fun any more! Willski72 ( talk) 21:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes.... can be a bit of a bother when one of your cows tramples on you cant it.... Willski72 ( talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How many cows are we talking about here? Willski72 ( talk) 12:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, since it doesn't apply to a single article or even to a specific project.
I've noticed that some of the articles on Wikipedia contain content that definitely isn't appropriate for small children, yet they could still come upon them accidentally by using the
random article feature. Clearly, Therefore, something needs to be done.
Wikipedia isn't censored, so that's not what I'm proposing. Rather, any articles detailing the processes of human reproduction (with or without pictures) or excretion (with pictures), as well as anything else that may be determined inappropriate in the future, should be moved to a separate namespace, perhaps "Adult:" or something similar. Then, on the page for that subject in the main namespace, a warning template should be placed stating that the content isn't appropriate for children and containing a link that a person can click to go to the article if he isn't bothered by the inappropriate content. --
Aruseusu (
talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the item about the North Korean launch be changed to reflect that they were cruise missiles? In its current form the text implies that they were ballistic.-- Fireaxe888 ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. I follow the line that people expect the worse, especially from a communist dictatorship that has shut down its borders and is well known for its nuclear ambitions. Its imprecise not inprecise by the way, but i wont hold it against ye! Willski72 ( talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
hi i edited and page and i would like back to normal please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.25.72 ( talk) 23:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see Hindi, Tamil, JKannada OR ANY OTHER INDIAN language on the language pnel..-- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 15:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
What we need are more video game articles. A lack of snippets on the front page that link to meticulously written articles about this medium will lead to loss of credibility in the scientific world. Please include more video game articles. Thanks. 84.129.157.23 ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the discussion where it was decided that Wikipedias in other languages listed on the Main Page need to have at least 40,000 articles, changed from 20,000? -- 82.6.52.129 ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The News section states that the OAS has suspended Honduras, but shouldn't it also be noted that Honduras actually left the organization prior to being suspended? AP: Honduras leaves OAS after body decries coup LCpl ( talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but can one send a page to AFD if it is on the main page? I'm going to assume the answer is no but I'd like confirmation. Thanks very much, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no problem with you nominating a page at DYK, but, once it is nominated, it should probably be replaced. I think there's a policy against DYKing AFDed articles, but not AFDing DYKed articles. J Milburn ( talk) 09:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
So D-Day only got a featured picture and was excluded from "on this day" under the "it only should appear in one section per day", but now we have a featured picture and on this day for Independence Day. Are there 2 standards at work here or has policy changed as a result of the d-day discussions? Knowledgeum : Talk 08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Were the July 7th bombing in London, 2005 not thought of as notable enough to go in the 'on this day' section? There are no recent items hare either. Sorry for the late comment, not much use. - Finkzizard 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.40.48 ( talk)