From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User pages search? 2 User names 3 Listusers 4 in X Place?!! 5 Categorisation system 6 HTML meta page description text 7 Ant colony? 8 Invitation 9 Racine 10 Help... 11 A serious question 12 CSS breaks in my browser 13 Pseudo-Latin: "ous" or "us"? 14 Why are the Beurocrat and SysOp subspecies "dead"? 15 You should keep this article 16 Box covering up the text 17 Wikipedians? 18 Humor 19 Ban edits to user pages except for the users themselves? 20 TWO MILLION WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!! 20.1 Bogus user count 20.2 Ok Look Here 20.3 growth rate 20.4 Welcome Message 20.5 binomial nomenclature 20.6 What should I do? 21 THREE MILLION WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!! 21.1 Biological classification

Obsolete talk is at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/old.

[edit] User pages search?

Anyway to search their content, as one might search through the Wikipedia articles themselves?

Edit: should have read about search options first...

---

What is a 'confessed contributor'? Notice I have 'stubbed' this term, so that if we continue to use it at the top of the Wikipedians page, people can find out what it means in the following:

"There are currently more than 700 confessed contributors (although there are over 10,000 user accounts and an unknown number of anonymous contributors)."

Is a 'confessed contributor' someone who responded to the following by assuming that the author intended them to modify this page to include a link to their user page, as in the following?:

"Here is a list of all the contributors who have put their name on this list."

Another comment which seems to share the 'implicitude' of the above is:

"There are no particular requirements for Wikipedians' personal pages; some people write up bios, some don't"

Does the above imply that those that don't are not one of the 700 confessed contributors but instead are one of the 10,000 'user accounts'? Is a mere 'user account' not really a 'True Wikipedian'?

I would like to see a 'How to become a Wikipedian' link (which explicitly demarcates Wikipedians and such 'perhaps not Wikipedians' as anonymous contributors or non-contributing 'regular lurkers') placed somewhere prominent, otherwise some may inevitably become suspicious that the term is some elitist notion retricted to an inner clique who(mistakenly?) treat the mere 'user accounts' as being viewed as some kind of 'riff-raff'.

--ericross

---

I understand that this page is listed as a Wikipedia entry, but I think it should still be linked to from at least "special pages" and certainly from "registered users". --John Knouse

---

I think this should be in the Wikipedia namespace and have a title suitable for a list instead of a plural article. For example: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians

Yes it should be in the wikipedia namespace but there is no need for a "List of" title since that is only needed for the article namespace to differentiate between Almanac-like articles from encyclopedia articles. Naming conventions for articles do not apply to non-articles. A non-article being; anything in the talk, user, special, or wikipedia namespace or anything that should be in one of those namespaces (blank and junk pages are also not articles; just pages). Hum, somebody really does need to write wikipedia:articles to explain this. --mav 10:10 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

---

In addition to the nationalities, how about Wikipedians/Queer, Wikipedians/Neopagan, etc.? — Montréalais

Sounds good to me. We could have Wikipedians organised by subcultural affiliation, and by religion. In that vein, I'd suggest making Wikipedians itself a fairly short page, with links to the different ways that we are organised (so far by country, by name, and by date of arrival). — Toby 18:37 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I think that Lir, before being booted, made a good point about categorizing wikipedians into subcultural groups, even voluntarily. As you may or may not know, he started an "anti-american users" page, which was rapidly condemned by the community for inspiring an "us versus them" mentality. He (or she, I don't know) countered by saying that there is no reason queer or vegetarian wikipedians can have a page while anti-american ones cannot. That is a good point, and I hope everyone can see that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or discussion group or place to meet friends. There is no reason to organize wikipedians into categories at all. It only serves to create an "us versus them" mentality. An anti-american users page may might inflammatory, but what about the queer wikipedians page? Isn't that inflammatory to everyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong? Doesn't that create divisions that aren't necessary? And the vegetarians page too: the vast majority of vegetarians abstain from meat and animal by-products because they have a moral objection and consider it tantamount to murder. Thus, we can conclude that almost every person listed on that page considers me and every other meat-eater here a murderer or an accessory to murder, or at least someone with an underdeveloped moral sense. What I am trying to say is, all these groupings are pointless and detrimental to wikipedia. It doesn't matter what "sub-cultural affliations" any of us have. All that matters is that we all edit and write using a NPOV and providing correct information. If, however, everyone feels a burning need to have these divisions, then we should allow them all, not just ones that people approve of.--Anon

Nicely put. I agree that the these groupings should not be in en.wiki. However, meta.wiki is a "forum or discussion group or place to meet friends" so these groupings should go there. --mav 23:05 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with this (as has been done). I would also argue that divisions by country (and State within the US) are equally irrelevant to the encyclopædic purpose and should also go to meta. — Toby 18:13 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I think you forget that while voluntary categorization may lead to division between the groups, it also encourages unity within them. The "us versus them" divisions already exist. Not allowing people who might take sides to say which side they are on doesn't do anybody any favors. On the other hand, the self-categorization could provide information on what biases Wikipedia may have (despite the effort to be NPOV). I'd also question the factual accuracy of your statements about vegetarians, but this is a talk article so there's little point. --anonymous(2), US citizen, vegetarian, single, artistic appreciator; Aug 16, 2004.

---

I have a mind to chop the A to Z list of Wikipedians into an alphabetized list in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Multiple-place names. I will not start for a few days (weeks) to allow others to comment/object/discuss. - Gaz - 14:36 02-Mar-2003 UTC

IMO the long list is fine and should scale for at least the next thousand users added. Having everything in one list makes it easy to see just how many confessed Wikipedian's there are. --mav

---

Could the list by alphabetical order be moved to another page ? the page is over 30k. Soon, it will suffer damage. Anthere

an alternative would be to ruthlessly cut people who haven't edited for several months... Martin

Argh! We can't just consign them to oblivion... How about moving them to a nice new page - Wikipedia:list of old Wikipedians, or something along those lines? -- Oliver P. 02:28 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea better. Removing history is not something I approve generally :-) ant

Well, Michael has been calling me "old man" in his edit summaries lately.... ;) Seriously though, that does look like it would cause some confusion as to just which way "old" was meant. Perhaps something more like Wikipedia:List of retired Wikipedians? Hmm, no, same problem there. But you get the idea. -- John Owens 16:32 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a really bad idea, I've noticed at least 3-4 users who continued contributing after a pause of 6 months and more. You can't just "retire" them!, it will be like "firing them" (geez, don't remind me the Michaelish connotation...) :) -- Rotem Dan 16:40 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good points all - I retract the suggestion :) Martin 20:23 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Why are United Kingdom *and* Scotland (but not En,Wa,NI) on there? I'm all for taking down the union jack (using the individual countries, not the union), but can we decide one way or another? --Steinsky 19:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm going to split the China listing to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Mainland China, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Hong Kong, etc. so Taiwanese Wikipedians dont have to pick a list or list twice. This eliminates the need to reveal one's POV. --Jiang 02:17, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Should I move "Puerto Rico" next to the United States listing, since Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S. WhisperToMe 06:30, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Would it be possible to make the Special:Listusers page a bit more navigable? Either by having an alphabetical index (a-z) or allowing the first couple of letters to be entered and jumped to? At the moment it is pretty useless due to the huge number of users. How, for example, could I browse users beginning with T without having to click 'next' many many times? -- HappyDog 14:15, 01 Dec 2003 (GMT)

How can I browse users beginning with 'T' at all? I have found it impossible to get past 'P'. It's broken! --anonymous(2)

---

why do certain users get gigantic fancy wikipedia space to put their retarded 'about me' pages? is this really appropriate for an encyclopedia? i dont think so.

To answer your rudely phrased question, all users may have user pages, there are certain restrictions on what may be placed there, and it is very appropriate for an encyclopedia to allow its editors to identify themselves for the purpose of more meaningful collaboration. I am sorry that you were not aware of this, and hope you will be a little kinder when asking questions in future. Jwrosenzweig 19:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Since Scotland has been added as a separate category from the UK I have added England as a separate category too. If the world cup thinks the countries are Scotland, England, Wales and NI separately then so should WikiPedia --(talk to)BozMo 20:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Does NPOV apply to stuff like this? someone removed the link to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World_Citizen citing NPOV over the head of a consensus on the VFD discussion for that page --Random|832 02:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Consensus was to keep... so... -- SS 02:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there a list of Wikipedia articles about individual Wikipedians? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Why are all the countries listed on this page, yet all other listings have their sub-sections on a separate page? To keep with standardization, should we move all the country names to Wikipedia:Wikipedians by region and have a link that says "by region" like we do for the other listings? — Asbestos | Talk 08:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

How about making the list of Wikipedians by language? I made the list in Japanese. See ja:Wikipedia:言語別のウィキペディアン一覧. I think that it will be useful. Enirac Sum 17:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User names

Sorry, really dont know where to ask this. Why aren't users in the sister wiki projects (WikiBooks, WikiQuotes, etc) shared with the Wikipedia? --Lacrymology 15:10:40, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

That's what i'd like to know.Cameron Nedland 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listusers

Noticed that an anon removed the link to Special:Listusers, after noting the large number of obscenities. So many of the names on the first page of it are essentially nothing than that, many of them being blocked for their username. Is there anything we can do about this? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could have a developer remove them from the DB. But I don't think that's really a problem. ~~ N (t/c) 02:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, it makes Listusers basically a page that we wouldn't want to link to. I don't like having any of our special pages be useless in that manner. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Even without the obscenities, it's near-useless because there are so many users. ~~ N (t/c) 14:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Tim Rhymeless on this one, I just joined and decided to browse the user list to see what other user names people have chosen and was overwhelmed by the number of spam users. Surely, if only to increase database performance, they could be removed. A related question for the developers: I am the administrator of a personal mediawiki site with about 40 users and 250 articles, and have been concerned about the possibility of spam-bots. However, as far as I can tell, there is no implementation of a human confirmation process for user registration (as in phpBB for example). Are spam-bots a problem and has anyone taken any steps to reduce that problem? --Michaell 05:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in X Place?!!

I have been on WikiVacation for a while, so just started paying attention to this. As one or two folks above have said, the new "User in Location" scheme makes absolutely no sense to me. Most of the places I can contribute information about are not the place I live in right now. I would be okay with having a new categorization scheme for who's where, but to do away with a way of listing oneself by places one is interested in and has information to offer about makes, I said, no sense to me. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation system

Dunno if this is the best place to discuss this, but the Australians are revolting! (you always knew that, of course) We aren't too happy about only having a category on pages, we would like to maintain a list ourselves. And so we shall. Just letting everyone know. We won't destroy the categories, we just want a seperate page to make it easier on everyone. The cat system is making it hard to communicate with others about meetups. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HTML meta page description text

How are people adding html meta tag information for certain wikipedia article? For example Bill Gates article comes with specified meta tag information like "Contains wealth of information about Bill Gates' life" How are people doing this, is it in the edit page section or done in a different way like in the background or something? Google Bill gates and see the link with bill gates on wikipedia, you'll know what I'm talking about. Thanks!

67.190.113.165 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ant colony?

Minor note: referring to the Wikipedia community as an ant colony is just asking people to make fun of us. Jobarts^-Talk 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Personally I think the ant colony is a fascinating analogy, if we highlight the self-organizing nature of an ant colony, and of Wikipedia. I read recently that ants are self-organizing in the sense that an ant is not told what job to do, but they are less likely to do a job if another ant is already doing it.

But then, I'm a bit of a geek.

"Quick, save the Queen!" "Which one's the Queen?" "I'm the Queen." "No you're not!" - The Simpsons (going by memory)

--Singkong2005 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing! Around here, if you're not a geek, you've separated from the herd and are liable to be culled... PatrickFisher 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Surprisingly many people haven't heard of Wikipedia! I can't contribute much because I am only in highschool but I know a lot of adults who are professionals, I was wondering whether there is somekind of formal e-mail invitation to be a wikipedian that I can give them. Is there? Or do I have to tell them about Wikipedia? If there isn't there should be something like "You have been invited to be a Wikipedian" or something like that. 24.43.51.199 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racine

Can someone explain why there is a picture of Racine on this page? Does he have some relation to Wikipedians, or is it just for an example of writer/intellectual? -Hellycopper 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help...

Sorry, does anybody know if there are Serverproblems again? I can`t save my edits in other wikis...and i think the other user can`t do this either, so i can`t ask anybody there...--212.7.174.107 11:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A serious question

In the "Listing by region" category, why "Wikipedians in Kosovo" does not exist? Aeternus 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSS breaks in my browser

Meta site [1] is covered up by the box for me. I do not see an obvious fix for this. I'm using Firefox 1.0.6 on OpenBSD 3.8. I don't know if this is the right place to say so or if there's someplace else I should report it, but there you go. Armedblowfish 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It also breaks on Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP, though different stuff gets cut off, probably due to screen size. Armedblowfish 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Try downloading the latest Firefox update version 1.5.0.2 released April 13 - download from Mozilla.com - I don't see any problems using it, relative to IE 6.0 or Mozilla 1.7.12, but I don't have FF 1.0.6 or FF 1.0.7 loaded anymore to compare, and am also using a high resolution monitor (1600x1200). --T-dot 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried downloading 1.5.0.2 on the Windows laptop (screen resolution is 1024x768). The CSS is still broken. (On the OpenBSD machine, I use the packaging system, which so far only has Firefox 1.0.6. However, OpenBSD 3.9 is coming soon, which will include a new set of packages.) Armedblowfish 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-Latin: "ous" or "us"?

A silly little thing, but - well, you could call this sort of fascination with minutiae very wikipedestrian; anyway - anybody else prefer Homo wikipediens sysopus / bureaucratus / userus rather than Homo wikipediens sysopous / bureaucratous / userous? Is there any reason to prefer one or the other as more "correct" (and I use the term loosely)? PatrickFisher 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"-US" all the way. Arthurian Legend 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PatrickFisher, in Latin, the endings would be 'us' (male) 'a' (female) and 'um' (neuter) for singular etc. see Latin declension for more detail. --Ancheta Wis 07:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the Beurocrat and SysOp subspecies "dead"?

Have these two ranks been destroyed? KFan II 14:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You should keep this article

The Monolith Deathcult article I created should be kept it was a good start on it. It also had good information at least review the article. Metal Maiden 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box covering up the text

I don't know if this is my problem or a problem with the article, but the box of "info" is covering up some of the text. WikiSlasher 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Same for me too. This is the green box on the right. It is covering up the first line of text there. Strawberry Island 05:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Some people might think that Wikipedist would be a more appropriate name, as an encyclopedist is someone who contributes to an encyclopedia. The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community. ----------- The bolded for me is what is being covered up. Had to copy and paste it into a text editor to actually see what it was saying. --Strawberry Island 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians?

This article qualifies as nonesense.

The preceeding comment comes from an editor who has been frequently warned about vandalism and adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Just FYI.--Alabamaboy 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that we have the joke tag up there anyways, and if someone takes offense to this article and calls it garbage, well... That's their own damn problem. (USMA2010 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

LOL Strawberry Island 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 :) Mathiastck 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humor

Should this article be labeled as "are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use." becuase of the comical and unture content similar to uncyclopedia? --Richman271^Hello 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban edits to user pages except for the users themselves?

I've been seeing some of my friends on wiki getting repeatedly vandalised, on a daily bases. I've come up with a good idea: How about we ban the Wikipedians user page from being edited except for the user himself/herself or by permission of the wikipedian. (I once asked a user from Homestar Runner Wiki to help me clean up my userboxes, but i gave him permission to do so)

What do you think?

Pece Kocovski 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had several users come and fix up my bad grammar on my userpage. Conversely, I've been asked for help with userpage formatting issues and I went to other user's pages and fixed up their userboxes for them.--God Ω War 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TWO MILLION WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!!

I truly commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia for surpassing the two million (or in figures: 2,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet the number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 08:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wikipedia in competiting with? Is it in competition with other user communities? It'd be cool to compare it to something it does comepte with. It's clearly the most popular wiki. So what else? Should we compare it too.... google? Yahoo? Myspace? When I have a question I'm choosing between google and wikipedia (well really answers.com but I always click the wiki link if it exists). Myspace and wikipedia both have strong user communities. Mathiastck 08:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly question, how come there are 2 M users and just under 1.5 M pages created? E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cause not everyone creates pages? --Lorian^T_C 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish this would be more user friendly, we desperatly need more detailed info on users. On that note, we desperatly need help with meta:General User Survey.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus user count

Claiming the number of Wikipedians is equal to the number of accounts opened is totally bogus. Who knows how many meaningless, duplicate, virtually unused, and inactive accounts that includes? At the very least, something like {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} should be defined. Even if the bar is as low as something like "at least one article edit within the past year," that count would at least have some sort of credibility. Rfrisbie^talk 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's the standard in the industry. There isn't really any other established way to count "users" the term just isn't well defined. What is well defined is page views, unique users per day, that sort of thing. How often does someone have to participate to count as a user? Are all of readers that don't even create acounts users? How about anonymous edits? Mathiastck 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok Look Here

This new user needs some SERIOUS help when it comes to everything. Please, edit his pages as you wish. He just decided to put a link to an image searched online. Suspect future vandal. --DrZeus 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] growth rate

Should there be a growth rate on a number of Wikipedians that come here each day? PrestonH September 26th, 2006

[edit] Welcome Message

I'm new here, and when i was going other users talk pages, i noticed that they had welcome messages on their talk pages . . . why didn't i get one yet? ScreamAtMe 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] binomial nomenclature

Shouldn't the "sysopous" and the "bureaucratous" be "sub-sub-species," since they technically are users? bibliomaniac15 Review? 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should I do?

I have an argument with a user who acused me of being un-heterosexual,plus his comments are greatly homophobic (see:":::Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade").Should I do something about this comment?(I think I should,homophobia I belive is not welcome to an online encyclopedia,so I belive someone should do something,I just wanted to ask to make sure I wouldnt act hastily".

[edit] THREE MILLION WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!!

Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine second compliment and perhaps the third for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the Three Million (or in figures: 3,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet this whopping number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biological classification

I have a problem about the biological classification of H. Wikipedian in the article, from a scientific perspective. This joke is clearly notfunny, and I do not think that it fits in with the article. In my oppinion the article should be rewritten to focus more on the facts about wikipedians and include usefull links and to make the article conform with the value of the encyclopedia as a whole. What are your thoughts on all of this?--169.232.125.176 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)