This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.
|
Welcome!
Hello, Pi zero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --
Pejman47 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
From Canadian2006 ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC) The merge proposals are not something I feel strongly about, so I deleted the merge proposals. My reasoning for suggesting the merger was based on the overlap among the three articles. Much of the material in the Daniel Burnham article is about the work of his firm. In a situation like this where one man dominates an architectural firm, it's hard to separate the work of the man from the work of his firm. Also, I noticed that for some of the other famous architects, biographical material and material about their firms were blended together in a single article.
Nonetheless, this is not something I feel so strongly about that I want to tread on others' toes. Perhaps adding some internal links under a "See also" section would achieve the same end result as merging.
Hi, I would like to ask you a favor. I don't have the English version of HP7, and I need someone who does. Can you look n the book at chapter 7 (The Will of Albus Dumbledore), and tell me which is the page where The Tales of Beedle the Bard is first mentioned (it's where that magician reads from Dumbledore's will about the book he has to give to Hermione). diego_pmc ( talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page [1] diego_pmc ( talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pi zero,
I take your point on providing explanations for edits reverted and will keep it in mind in future.
The sentence you deleted has problems of tone and clarity. It remains necessary to the section, though, as it underpins the mentions of the "second major concept" and "third concept" later on. I may edit it for style one of these days if no one else does first.
The reason for replacing & ndash; with a simple typed hyphen is that the hyphen makes for a text that is easier to read when editing.
You caught several things that needed to be changed, and these contributions are most welcome as far as I am concerned.
Regards, VikSol ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How is it correct "Interview with George Bush by Mr. Reporter", or "Interview [...] with Mr. Reporter"? Also do you say GWB stated in and interview BY or WITH Mr. Reporter? I've seen it both ways in quite a few places and I'm a little confused. diego_pmc ( talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently trying to improve Concerned (see my progress here - 2 days' work), and I need some help, and don't know where to turn. As you might have noticed from the talk page of Beedle the Bard, I'm not that good at making summaries. Do you think you can help me by shortening the summary found on the comic's article page? If you didn't play Half-Life 2, or read the comic, I don't really think it is much of a problem, and I'm able to correct any inaccuracies that might appear. If you decide to help, please start from shortening from the third paragraph of the Plot section, to the end of the section (the first two paragraphs are already included in "Plot summary" on my intermediary page). Please help me with this if you can. Thanks! diego_pmc ( talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to reduce its size a bit, you can check it out at section Plot summary. It is somewhat more reasonable now, but it could be better. diego_pmc ( talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For your work and copyeditting on Concerned to allow the article to successfully pass to good article status. Keep up the good work! Sabre ( talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
I also want to thank you for this, and want to ask for your opinion. Do you think there is any point in listing Concerned for FAC now? Diego_pmc Talk 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's not necessary, and besides that advice given at the proj page is sometimes semiautomated, which won't do me any good. Diego_pmc Talk 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Pi Zero! I would value your input on the place of Anne Rice in Vampire literature at Vampire literature. Colin4C ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pi,
In the Voynich Manuscript, you lately changed the sentence "Another hint are two symbols..." to "Another hint is two symbols...". Wouldn't both be correct, since the hint consists of two symbols, but at the same time both symbols make up the hint? (Since it's an equivalent, it goes both ways, methinks. Not meaning to criticize your edit -- I'm just curious, since I'm not a native speaker.) -- Syzygy ( talk) 12:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Pi, I wil fix that immeediately. Rich Farmbrough 15:10 28 December 2009 (UTC).
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Magic in Harry Potter. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Π0, I wonder what your reasons were for this revert? At the top of the page it says the following: “… Its purpose is to record decisions made in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. … This document is meant as a reference of consensus decisions on the Wikipedia Manual of Style and, when available, the reasoning behind each consensus. … This register is meant only to give editors better understanding of the current state of things, which is useful both to those considering proposing changes and to those seeking to better implement the MoS as it exists.” The topic of typographical vs. programming quotation marks has never had a consensus. Thus the page have to document this fact. By blanking that section you make it appear as if there was some kind of consensus only nobody had the time to document it. While in truth there wasn’t a consensus through many years of MoS existence. And it is ok for that section to be biased towards the typographical quotation marks, since the MoS itself is presently biased towards the programming glyphs. // stpasha » 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, a request, because of your earlier interest. Here User:Aeusoes1 described a problem with Template:IPA consonant chart in his IE browser (then he retired for some days). I found a possible solution, but I cannot check behavior in IE (Firefox and Safari did OK). So if you can use IE, could you check the effect of the sandboxes experiment, linked in that talk? Expected & unexpected behavior is described in the talk. - DePiep ( talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) linkfix - DePiep ( talk) 12:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you made an edit there. The style guide desperately needs a thorough copy-edit, and I've started by examining the first few paragraphs, on the talk page. I have no particular agenda in changing the substantive guides—at least not in the near future. Just in cutting back the verbiage so it's easier to read. You may be interested in this endeavour; the style guide probably needs assistance from more editors in the long term. Tony (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can get somewhere, by approaching the tangle of issues from its edges: take one specific, relatively simple point, discuss it, then move on to another, and clear out the peripheral stuff so there's common ground we can stand on when we get to the center. (Sorry, I'm afraid that metaphor got mixed somehow.) Here's one specific point, to start with.
In your cquote from a "WP friend" (in the content that you link to, above), it is asserted that
That's incorrect. I don't know the context that originally surrounded the passage that you cquoted, of course, so I can only speak to the cquoted material. The two main types of articles at Wikinews (as the content guide puts it; as a first approximation I suppose it'll do) are synthesis articles and original reporting. The cquote then levels some criticisms against synthesis articles, to which I can think of some responses (if you wish, though I've seen longer-established Wikinewsies wax more articulate on that than I'm likely to), but original reporting is highly prized, and close to the core of the the project's ideals. At the upper end of OR work is the user status of accreditation. Synthesis articles, besides whatever merits they have in themselves, are also what Wikinewsies cut their journalistic teeth on, both learning the skills of Wikinews mainspace writing (which sometimes even includes things like what it means to write news neutrally) and accumulating evidence of their journalistic reliability/trustworthiness. -- Pi zero ( talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I still have trouble accepting that some people start with opinions and then choose "facts" to fit. It should have been obvious to me, from the rant claimed above to need rebutting, that no meaningful dialog could take place; perhaps the single most revealing passage in it was "Hard to disagree with that" — following a cquote unhinged from reality. Someone said you can't reason someone out of an opinion if they didn't get into it with reason (must look that up on Wikiquote). The alternative is to debate for an audience, which is politics and doesn't come naturally to me.
What really concerns me, though, is that somehow the cultural dynamics of Wikipedia fosters that kind of mindset. Indeed, there are these deep undercurrents that suggest a fundamental flaw in the marvelously idealistic experiment that is Wikipedia, undercurrents that have gradually built over time, unseen below the surface, that seem quite likely ultimately to destroy the project. It's not just Wikipedia, of course; at least some of this seems to be a major trend in modern culture ( truthiness?), and Wikinews directly opposes it: research the facts before asserting them, keep in mind the sources of claims of fact, keep straight what is claimed fact and what is opinion. It's terrible to contemplate that crowdsourcing might be inherently corrosive to the ability of individuals to think objectively. -- Pi zero ( talk) 17:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Amy 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of my Wikinews article. Much appreciated.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Pi zero:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
I noticed your comment on Wikimedia argument board, about toxicity. I decided that I was too emotionally involved already in the prior section, and should return home, here to en wp before further embarrassing myself, bickering with Mr. Elvey in section 3f ;o) I am Ellie Kesselman Feral Oink.
If anyone ever decides to pay any attention to your suggestions, and you need help, please consider asking me! I would be happy to assist.-- FeralOink ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I found your comments to be quite interesting.
In discussions similar to this one, the topic tends to wander very rapidly, and descend into the weeds rather than having any sense of focus on the overarching meaning. This has already begun to happen in the sub-thread I started there. I thus find it rare to require further comment on my part in the thread. If my posts cause some to think more abstractly of the problems facing the project, then some positive has been done.
You very clearly had some interesting thoughts regarding the abstract problems facing the project. It was encouraging to read your comments. I am curious what Douglas Hofstadter would think of Wikipedia from the perpsective of GEB, most especially what meaning can be derived from it all. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. What is the source of your pseudonym? Of note; at least in American format, Pi day, month, hour and second are soon approaching....3/14/15 9:26 a.m.
I did sincerely want to thank you for you newest comment. It's good to see that while editors can see an issue differently, they can be civil. Not everyone in this discussion is, and your mature responses are a breath of fresh air and much appreciated. With thanks, Tenebrae ( talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please correct the block you placed on my WikiNews account. I have been a contributor to Wikimedia for many years, but have had multiple accounts over the years. I am trying to consolidate all of my old accounts with redirects on each old user page and usertalk page to my account pages of "user:Nicole Sharp
" and "user talk:Nicole Sharp
" on each Wikimedia project. Old usertalk content on each wikiproject has been archived at "user talk:Nicole Sharp/archive
." I have successfully consolidated my old accounts on all 11/12 Wikimedia projects, the exception being WikiNews, due to your block. WikiNews still has two duplicate accounts for me that need to be consolidated with redirects. If you can please correct the error of the block so that I can finish there, it would be appreciated, thanks! I cannot edit my or your talkpage nor e-mail you from your userpage on Wikinews due to your block.
Old accounts with redirect links: user:Nicole21532, user:Nicoletapedia, user:AprilNicoleSharp, user:vegaserrana.
Nicole Sharp ( talk) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm proposing a panel on real-time collaborative editing at Wikimania this year: https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Waiting_for_Real-Time_Collaboration
Eloquence suggested you would be a good person to have participate, since Wikinews might be a good use case for this sort of functionality. Interested? C. Scott Ananian ( talk) 19:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Although I've been pouring effort into mitigating certain inadequacies of the wikimedia platform (stuff the Foundation technically could and imho should have done ten years ago, but in practice wouldn't want to do because it wouldn't be consistent with the natural impulse of an institution such as the Foundation to centralize control), I'm not convinced we'd have as much use for collaborative editing at Wikinews as Wikipedia would. Perhaps I don't fully understand the concept; and I distantly recall there was a bit of experimenting by some Wikinewsies several years ago, so perhaps some currently-less-active Wikinewsies would disagree. In most cases, though, each individual news article is written by a single reporter — with multiple reporters, generally there needs to be one author responsible for giving coherence to the whole — and we've found that review of an individual article usually can't be usefully split between multiple reviewers (off hand I can only think of one major exception in the years I've been on Wikinews) and is nearly impossible to do while an article is undergoing active edits (though very rarely I've started a review while an article on a breaking story was still being written; and there always comes a point where editing has to be frozen for at least a minute or five to complete the review). -- Pi zero ( talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Is an archived reference to an old version of the inventor's website reading "leko TM Lego" proof enough ? http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20021001230309/http://www.tokipona.org/etym.php PieterJansegers ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering what you think of an idea of mine. Well, I was thinking that we might decide to make a special section for 'brief ' stories, just a paragraph or two summarising an event that is published very quickly. This way, we could write about a much higher proportion of stories. Is this a kind of dane idea, and ,if it is, what should I do with it, Qwerty number1 ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Meow! Hello. The DIEHARD pet store has chosen to hand you our special MEOWCATs. This cat is really adorable!
MEOCAT™️ is a product of the Diehard Pet Store. You are legally obliged under Wikipedia law to take care of your pet. The Diehard Pet Store has no responsibility for anything that happens to your pet, and is simply an act of God or force majeure. Your Diehard Pet No. is 2019-A-001-02. Please retain it for future reference when you wish to return your pet.
Thank you for accepting this pet. The Diehard Pet Store uses specialized and streamlined WikiLove technology to send pets to Wikipedians all around the world and cheer them up.
A diehard editor (
talk) 07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
To anyone concerned, please see n:Wikinews mourns loss of volunteer John Shutt. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I don't know who you are, but you seemed you did a awesome job imporving Wikipedia, also inculding the Vampire article. I hope your family is well. May you rest in peace. JennilyW ( talk) 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
This is sad that he died. May he rest in peace. 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.
|
Welcome!
Hello, Pi zero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --
Pejman47 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
From Canadian2006 ( talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC) The merge proposals are not something I feel strongly about, so I deleted the merge proposals. My reasoning for suggesting the merger was based on the overlap among the three articles. Much of the material in the Daniel Burnham article is about the work of his firm. In a situation like this where one man dominates an architectural firm, it's hard to separate the work of the man from the work of his firm. Also, I noticed that for some of the other famous architects, biographical material and material about their firms were blended together in a single article.
Nonetheless, this is not something I feel so strongly about that I want to tread on others' toes. Perhaps adding some internal links under a "See also" section would achieve the same end result as merging.
Hi, I would like to ask you a favor. I don't have the English version of HP7, and I need someone who does. Can you look n the book at chapter 7 (The Will of Albus Dumbledore), and tell me which is the page where The Tales of Beedle the Bard is first mentioned (it's where that magician reads from Dumbledore's will about the book he has to give to Hermione). diego_pmc ( talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page [1] diego_pmc ( talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pi zero,
I take your point on providing explanations for edits reverted and will keep it in mind in future.
The sentence you deleted has problems of tone and clarity. It remains necessary to the section, though, as it underpins the mentions of the "second major concept" and "third concept" later on. I may edit it for style one of these days if no one else does first.
The reason for replacing & ndash; with a simple typed hyphen is that the hyphen makes for a text that is easier to read when editing.
You caught several things that needed to be changed, and these contributions are most welcome as far as I am concerned.
Regards, VikSol ( talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How is it correct "Interview with George Bush by Mr. Reporter", or "Interview [...] with Mr. Reporter"? Also do you say GWB stated in and interview BY or WITH Mr. Reporter? I've seen it both ways in quite a few places and I'm a little confused. diego_pmc ( talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently trying to improve Concerned (see my progress here - 2 days' work), and I need some help, and don't know where to turn. As you might have noticed from the talk page of Beedle the Bard, I'm not that good at making summaries. Do you think you can help me by shortening the summary found on the comic's article page? If you didn't play Half-Life 2, or read the comic, I don't really think it is much of a problem, and I'm able to correct any inaccuracies that might appear. If you decide to help, please start from shortening from the third paragraph of the Plot section, to the end of the section (the first two paragraphs are already included in "Plot summary" on my intermediary page). Please help me with this if you can. Thanks! diego_pmc ( talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to reduce its size a bit, you can check it out at section Plot summary. It is somewhat more reasonable now, but it could be better. diego_pmc ( talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For your work and copyeditting on Concerned to allow the article to successfully pass to good article status. Keep up the good work! Sabre ( talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC) |
I also want to thank you for this, and want to ask for your opinion. Do you think there is any point in listing Concerned for FAC now? Diego_pmc Talk 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's not necessary, and besides that advice given at the proj page is sometimes semiautomated, which won't do me any good. Diego_pmc Talk 17:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Pi Zero! I would value your input on the place of Anne Rice in Vampire literature at Vampire literature. Colin4C ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pi,
In the Voynich Manuscript, you lately changed the sentence "Another hint are two symbols..." to "Another hint is two symbols...". Wouldn't both be correct, since the hint consists of two symbols, but at the same time both symbols make up the hint? (Since it's an equivalent, it goes both ways, methinks. Not meaning to criticize your edit -- I'm just curious, since I'm not a native speaker.) -- Syzygy ( talk) 12:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Pi, I wil fix that immeediately. Rich Farmbrough 15:10 28 December 2009 (UTC).
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Magic in Harry Potter. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Harry Potter. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Π0, I wonder what your reasons were for this revert? At the top of the page it says the following: “… Its purpose is to record decisions made in discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. … This document is meant as a reference of consensus decisions on the Wikipedia Manual of Style and, when available, the reasoning behind each consensus. … This register is meant only to give editors better understanding of the current state of things, which is useful both to those considering proposing changes and to those seeking to better implement the MoS as it exists.” The topic of typographical vs. programming quotation marks has never had a consensus. Thus the page have to document this fact. By blanking that section you make it appear as if there was some kind of consensus only nobody had the time to document it. While in truth there wasn’t a consensus through many years of MoS existence. And it is ok for that section to be biased towards the typographical quotation marks, since the MoS itself is presently biased towards the programming glyphs. // stpasha » 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, a request, because of your earlier interest. Here User:Aeusoes1 described a problem with Template:IPA consonant chart in his IE browser (then he retired for some days). I found a possible solution, but I cannot check behavior in IE (Firefox and Safari did OK). So if you can use IE, could you check the effect of the sandboxes experiment, linked in that talk? Expected & unexpected behavior is described in the talk. - DePiep ( talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) linkfix - DePiep ( talk) 12:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you made an edit there. The style guide desperately needs a thorough copy-edit, and I've started by examining the first few paragraphs, on the talk page. I have no particular agenda in changing the substantive guides—at least not in the near future. Just in cutting back the verbiage so it's easier to read. You may be interested in this endeavour; the style guide probably needs assistance from more editors in the long term. Tony (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can get somewhere, by approaching the tangle of issues from its edges: take one specific, relatively simple point, discuss it, then move on to another, and clear out the peripheral stuff so there's common ground we can stand on when we get to the center. (Sorry, I'm afraid that metaphor got mixed somehow.) Here's one specific point, to start with.
In your cquote from a "WP friend" (in the content that you link to, above), it is asserted that
That's incorrect. I don't know the context that originally surrounded the passage that you cquoted, of course, so I can only speak to the cquoted material. The two main types of articles at Wikinews (as the content guide puts it; as a first approximation I suppose it'll do) are synthesis articles and original reporting. The cquote then levels some criticisms against synthesis articles, to which I can think of some responses (if you wish, though I've seen longer-established Wikinewsies wax more articulate on that than I'm likely to), but original reporting is highly prized, and close to the core of the the project's ideals. At the upper end of OR work is the user status of accreditation. Synthesis articles, besides whatever merits they have in themselves, are also what Wikinewsies cut their journalistic teeth on, both learning the skills of Wikinews mainspace writing (which sometimes even includes things like what it means to write news neutrally) and accumulating evidence of their journalistic reliability/trustworthiness. -- Pi zero ( talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I still have trouble accepting that some people start with opinions and then choose "facts" to fit. It should have been obvious to me, from the rant claimed above to need rebutting, that no meaningful dialog could take place; perhaps the single most revealing passage in it was "Hard to disagree with that" — following a cquote unhinged from reality. Someone said you can't reason someone out of an opinion if they didn't get into it with reason (must look that up on Wikiquote). The alternative is to debate for an audience, which is politics and doesn't come naturally to me.
What really concerns me, though, is that somehow the cultural dynamics of Wikipedia fosters that kind of mindset. Indeed, there are these deep undercurrents that suggest a fundamental flaw in the marvelously idealistic experiment that is Wikipedia, undercurrents that have gradually built over time, unseen below the surface, that seem quite likely ultimately to destroy the project. It's not just Wikipedia, of course; at least some of this seems to be a major trend in modern culture ( truthiness?), and Wikinews directly opposes it: research the facts before asserting them, keep in mind the sources of claims of fact, keep straight what is claimed fact and what is opinion. It's terrible to contemplate that crowdsourcing might be inherently corrosive to the ability of individuals to think objectively. -- Pi zero ( talk) 17:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Amy 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of my Wikinews article. Much appreciated.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Pi zero:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long
Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2300 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
I noticed your comment on Wikimedia argument board, about toxicity. I decided that I was too emotionally involved already in the prior section, and should return home, here to en wp before further embarrassing myself, bickering with Mr. Elvey in section 3f ;o) I am Ellie Kesselman Feral Oink.
If anyone ever decides to pay any attention to your suggestions, and you need help, please consider asking me! I would be happy to assist.-- FeralOink ( talk) 17:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I found your comments to be quite interesting.
In discussions similar to this one, the topic tends to wander very rapidly, and descend into the weeds rather than having any sense of focus on the overarching meaning. This has already begun to happen in the sub-thread I started there. I thus find it rare to require further comment on my part in the thread. If my posts cause some to think more abstractly of the problems facing the project, then some positive has been done.
You very clearly had some interesting thoughts regarding the abstract problems facing the project. It was encouraging to read your comments. I am curious what Douglas Hofstadter would think of Wikipedia from the perpsective of GEB, most especially what meaning can be derived from it all. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. What is the source of your pseudonym? Of note; at least in American format, Pi day, month, hour and second are soon approaching....3/14/15 9:26 a.m.
I did sincerely want to thank you for you newest comment. It's good to see that while editors can see an issue differently, they can be civil. Not everyone in this discussion is, and your mature responses are a breath of fresh air and much appreciated. With thanks, Tenebrae ( talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please correct the block you placed on my WikiNews account. I have been a contributor to Wikimedia for many years, but have had multiple accounts over the years. I am trying to consolidate all of my old accounts with redirects on each old user page and usertalk page to my account pages of "user:Nicole Sharp
" and "user talk:Nicole Sharp
" on each Wikimedia project. Old usertalk content on each wikiproject has been archived at "user talk:Nicole Sharp/archive
." I have successfully consolidated my old accounts on all 11/12 Wikimedia projects, the exception being WikiNews, due to your block. WikiNews still has two duplicate accounts for me that need to be consolidated with redirects. If you can please correct the error of the block so that I can finish there, it would be appreciated, thanks! I cannot edit my or your talkpage nor e-mail you from your userpage on Wikinews due to your block.
Old accounts with redirect links: user:Nicole21532, user:Nicoletapedia, user:AprilNicoleSharp, user:vegaserrana.
Nicole Sharp ( talk) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm proposing a panel on real-time collaborative editing at Wikimania this year: https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Waiting_for_Real-Time_Collaboration
Eloquence suggested you would be a good person to have participate, since Wikinews might be a good use case for this sort of functionality. Interested? C. Scott Ananian ( talk) 19:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Although I've been pouring effort into mitigating certain inadequacies of the wikimedia platform (stuff the Foundation technically could and imho should have done ten years ago, but in practice wouldn't want to do because it wouldn't be consistent with the natural impulse of an institution such as the Foundation to centralize control), I'm not convinced we'd have as much use for collaborative editing at Wikinews as Wikipedia would. Perhaps I don't fully understand the concept; and I distantly recall there was a bit of experimenting by some Wikinewsies several years ago, so perhaps some currently-less-active Wikinewsies would disagree. In most cases, though, each individual news article is written by a single reporter — with multiple reporters, generally there needs to be one author responsible for giving coherence to the whole — and we've found that review of an individual article usually can't be usefully split between multiple reviewers (off hand I can only think of one major exception in the years I've been on Wikinews) and is nearly impossible to do while an article is undergoing active edits (though very rarely I've started a review while an article on a breaking story was still being written; and there always comes a point where editing has to be frozen for at least a minute or five to complete the review). -- Pi zero ( talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pi zero. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Is an archived reference to an old version of the inventor's website reading "leko TM Lego" proof enough ? http://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20021001230309/http://www.tokipona.org/etym.php PieterJansegers ( talk) 21:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering what you think of an idea of mine. Well, I was thinking that we might decide to make a special section for 'brief ' stories, just a paragraph or two summarising an event that is published very quickly. This way, we could write about a much higher proportion of stories. Is this a kind of dane idea, and ,if it is, what should I do with it, Qwerty number1 ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC).
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Meow! Hello. The DIEHARD pet store has chosen to hand you our special MEOWCATs. This cat is really adorable!
MEOCAT™️ is a product of the Diehard Pet Store. You are legally obliged under Wikipedia law to take care of your pet. The Diehard Pet Store has no responsibility for anything that happens to your pet, and is simply an act of God or force majeure. Your Diehard Pet No. is 2019-A-001-02. Please retain it for future reference when you wish to return your pet.
Thank you for accepting this pet. The Diehard Pet Store uses specialized and streamlined WikiLove technology to send pets to Wikipedians all around the world and cheer them up.
A diehard editor (
talk) 07:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
To anyone concerned, please see n:Wikinews mourns loss of volunteer John Shutt. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
I don't know who you are, but you seemed you did a awesome job imporving Wikipedia, also inculding the Vampire article. I hope your family is well. May you rest in peace. JennilyW ( talk) 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
This is sad that he died. May he rest in peace. 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 17:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)