Talk:Wikipedia community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia community article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

1. No consensus AFD March 7, 2007
2. Keep, AFD April 2, 2007

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] AfD nomination

I must say, if anything came out of my nomination for the pages deletion, it is that the quality of the article has significantly improved! When I first nominated, it was barely a stub and completely unsourced. It is a huge topic, and it hardly did it justice. It still has a long ways to go, but since then, it has gained multiple editors, multiple sources (more than most articles), and has expanded into what can begin to look like an article about the community here. ho could guess that an AfD could be so beneficial? --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

This article is redundant and is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is already in other articles such as the Wikipedia article and the community article. The first sentence wraps up the entire article anyways. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We care.

[edit] Advertizement

This article reads like an advertizement for Wikipedia. We are not here to have an article to promote ourselves. This is a self-promotional advertizement. A big no-no. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, you yourself started the aritcle (with lots of "please expand" templates), and now you're saying it's an ad? That's peculiar. --Conti|✉ 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am being honest about this. I wrote a promotional ad for the community. It was not my intention. I made a mistake. Sorry. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you ever seen the Wikipedia article? Your logic is flawed... - Denny 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not explaned your reasons. Please do not remove tags or proposals for deletion. Gain consensus first. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Per policy anyone can dispute a Prod tag or a Speedy delete tag... if you want to see this deleted (as I see you left notes on other talk pages) please file an AfD request based strictly on policy based reasons why it should be gone. be sure to read the previous AfD first, however. It likely will fail to be deleted again and could be seen as disuptive by some editors... - Denny 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see it as disruptive by saying it could be seen as disruptive by other editors. Also, we are not here to write self-promo ads about the community. It is redundant anyways. Thanks. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Who is in support of merging and why? Who is against? Please give us your pro/con here. I am against, since I think this article will invariably grow over time and to suppress it now prematurely will do more harm than good. A year ago... I would have supported as a no-brainer redirect. Not today... please let us know your opinions. - Denny 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave my reasons above for deletion. Having redundancy on Wikipedia does not help improve our mission. Later on, I realized it was essentiallly a reproduction of information already in existing articles. You mentioned a year ago you would of supported a redirect. If you would of supported a redirect and deleted an existing article, then there would be no today for growing an article from a year ago. What is the difference between last year and this year for your differing opinion. If anything you can tweak the community article or the Wikipedia article if needed. Nevertheless, we are not here to write self-promotional ads about ourselves. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your referring to it as an advertisement doesn't make it so. a majority of editors don't consider it so. And the difference between a year ago and now is sourcing. There were no (or unknown) articles about Wikipedia's community a year ago. Thanks to Essjay's actions, there are now, and this will grow in time. Even if only one more is done a month, in a year there will be another 12 sources. Even another 1-2 more will make this an ironclad (if short) article. I would appreciate an answer to this question:

Your advertisement statement--if you stand by this conviction, why don't you nominate Wikipedia for Articles for Deletion? And on what policy are you basing thus the elimination... of both of these articles? Please answer all points. I am willing to reconsider if you answer based on policy... - Denny 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting into further debates about this. I made my statements known. Besides, the Wikipedia article can fully cover the community aspects. We do not need an extra article to cover a topic already in other articles. Duplication is unnecessary. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

By your logic Wikipedia is not an advertisement, then? If so... why is this one? I asked you before, but you did not answer. We don't delete content for non-policy reasons. What policy is this article violating? - Denny 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We are here to better this encyclopedia. Redundancy articles is not within the Wiki mission IMO. Feel free to ask a good administrator who spotted the redundancy. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As the above conversation is being quagmired, will previous contributors (beyond Quack) sound off on whether they feel this should be merged? Based on current info I am opposed. - Denny 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no independent information here. If someone had enough to make it grow, they could always turn the redirect back into an article. For now, it's too bad. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

object to merger, an independent topic. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, wikipedia community is people, to be respected, not swallowed by 'net monster of 'pedia. `'mikka 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge this article into wikipedia, the article is long enough. Sub articles ought to be spun off, such as History of Wikipedia. Plus this article is notable to stand on its own, and has plenty of references for it. Mathmo ^Talk 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sub-articles are created if the relevant section in the main article becomes too lengthy. This is not the case here. In the future when the section becomes too long and a sub-article is warranted then by all means create a sub-article. But for now this is not happening. I will probably AFD it as soon as I figure out how to start the AFD process. I suggest, merge whatever you find worth merging. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I agree it should be merged. This is just one, albeit prominent, example of online communities. It should be part of an article on either Wikipedia or Online communities. Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you support it even though it's notable now to stand on it's own with 20+ sources? - Denny 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Discussion

I noticed in the AFD a lot of people striked out their votes. I did not know the reason for this at that time. I did some searching into the matter. The article survived because of aggressive vote canvassing.Take a look at the date of March 8. Here is an example of the canvassing for votes. This may be grounds to open a deletion review or a re-nomination for the deletion to get a better and more accurate measure of true consensus. Nevertheless, there is overlap in the Wikipedia article and the community article. Since, it is clear of overlapping information, there is no need for an extra article. Redundancy does not better an encyclopedia. Not much worth merging for a subject matter that is covered at the Wikipedia article and in the community article. A small paragraph covers the whole topic. Or just read the first sentence can wrap up the subject. We don't need to repetitiveness in separate articles. It is more than fair to merge any information anyone considers is worth merging. Sub-articles are created if the relevant section in the main article becomes too lengthy. This is not the case here. In this regard, I recommend to AFD the Wikipedia community article. Cordially, :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Update. AFD discussion is over. Article has significantly expanded.:) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing onslaught

Wow, nice finds, Quack. Are you changing your mind? - Denny 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines and resources for contributors

The following is a similiar version of a welcoming template given to new editors known as and called newbies.

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I believe this would fit nicely in the body of the article. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't cross link between article space unfortunately. Good idea at the heart, but... we can't. - Denny 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We may want to re-consider and make an exception in this case. It fits perfectly into this article. I want to explain it to the reader how Wiki works. This is it. This is the mother of all instructions. This article is too vague. I want details how all of this functions. At the root of it all are policies and guidelines to lead us to the promised land... Wikipedia... and good standing articles. If not this then what. Please do tell. Think about it. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing articles with project space. You are confusing Wikipedia's internal operations with its finished product. If you want to create a help page for newcomers, go ahead – but do it in project space, not on this article. (In fact, probably better if you improve an existing help page rather than starting a new one) – Qxz 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may. I want this article to have factual details of how the "finished product" is made. Insight is the key. How does the community work together using policies and guidelines to better our encyclopedia -- if you will. (Or I'm really confused.:) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive source line

This was the great collection that QuackGuru had found. It looked not so good having a zillion source on that one sentence so I am pulling them here, for us to use/readd to the article piece by piece... for content:

Going to readd below the ref section/in it as additional sources now. - Denny 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

The name "Wikipedia" has inherently a basic three part meaning:

1) An encyclopedia (the actual body of the collaborative creation).

2) A project (the effort and devotion of energy to that encyclopedia).

3) A community (a diverse group of people interested in that project).

What does this go? Maybe under a section called: Whats in a name. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave it out of this article... it's better maybe for the Wikipedia article, but how much background should we give here on Wikipedia itself and what wiki's are? Odds are if they made it to this article, they got that under control, and we don't want to get this article unfocused. - Denny 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ned's reinsertion of the merge to Wikipedia tag

See Talk:Wikipedia#Wikipedia community

[edit] a new section (oh my)

Notable Wikipedians

A lot of Wikipedians have devoted a lot of energy to better this encyclopedia. Details about this subject would be fascinating to read. A section with a small overview of notables within the community would be nice. Of course we need solid sources for this topic. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard in my two months here. Absolutely not. This takes all the problems that "external links" and "list of notable..." sections have, and multiplies them by about a thousand. How do you define a "notable community member"? All you can be sure of is that (a) no two peoples' definitions will agree, and (b) anyone who's been around for a fair while and considers themselves to have "influence" (see also 'cabal') will insist that they get a mention, resulting in the edit war to end all edit wars. And don't tell me that would be a conflict of interest; you're violating WP:COI just by creating and editing this article, is anyone likely to care?

If a Wikipedia contributor is even marginally "notable", then the severely biased view of this area that people have ensures that they already have their own article (e.g. Essjay controversy, and don't tell me that article's about the controversy and not Essjay, it's got his damn username in the title). This article is idiotic already, and should have been merged on sight (how it's staying in place at all is beyond me, especially given that it's entirely the product of two users). Please do not make it a hundred times worse. Thanks – Qxz 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that idea. I'll try again. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a new section (oh yeah)

Wikipedians in the news

Here is a better idea with a more focused title. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbies

A noteworthy mention about "newbies" would fit well in the article.

Something like... New contributors are called newbies and Wikipedia has a policy stating that don't bite the new comers.^{[citation needed]} Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

............ -- Ned Scott 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very absurd to mention "newbies" in the article. Newbies is a concept far bigger than us, and you might as well also "note" that Wikipedians use keyboards.. I actually see much less usage of the word on Wikipedia than I do on other internet communities, so I don't even think the information accurate in what it's suggesting. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything is fully sourced and is relevant. I never heard of the word newbies until I came to Wikipedia. An article in which insightful information is portrayed is encyclopedic. Moreover, it is even better when is is completely sourced. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because you cited someone who said it doesn't make it accurate, nor is it a unique element to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

According to "Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006." the term "newbie" originated between 1965 and 1970. It's a general English term for newcomers and novices. There's nothing Wikipedia specific about it. Jay32183 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New editors on Wikipedia are specifically called "newbies." So this is accurate. The word is very unique. I never heard of the word until I came to Wikipedia. This information is about the Wikipedia community. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored what I said. The word "newbie" has been used since the late 1960s, and appears in dictionaries. People new to anything are called newbies. Wikipedia using a common English term the way it is used normally does not make that term special. The fact that you had never heard the word is meaningless. Jay32183 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is explaining about the Wikipedia community. That is what this article is about. There are many words found in dictionaires such as volunteer, group, and international which are much more commonly used. By your logic, we should remove all words you feel are common. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"More than 2 people are called a "group" in Wikipedia, and the participants are generally referred to as "volunteers". Usual laws of physics apply to the volunteers." ... In other words, there's no point in stating the obvious. New users are called newbies everywhere. --Conti|✉ 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is to state information about the Wikipedia community. In other words, stating information about the Wiipedia community is good editing. Further, by your logic, you want the article deleted. Feel free to vote. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

a) Not a vote. b) I fail to see how my logic demands the deletion of the article. c) Good editing entails a lot more than just stating random but true information about the subject. Read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It might've been noteworthy if new users were called "foobars" in Wikipedia. It's definitely not noteworthy when new users are called what new users are called everywhere in Wikipedia. d) I am having a very hard time assuming good faith here. --Conti|✉ 01:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that new editors all over Wikipedia are called newbies. Editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, a group, etc. This is specific information about editors on Wiki. The sentence is very short, informative, and has two inline citations. I want to expand, improve, and keep the article. Generally speaking, I know others want to delete. They can't delete. So, in turn, they want to remove information or attempt to merge to restrict the development of this article. The votes are for keep and not merge or delete. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But you're trying to insert into an article a detailed way of saying "On English Wikipedia, editors use common English when talking to each other." We don't need to say that Wikipedia doesn't have a secret code. Jay32183 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I inserted information in a detailed way that is about the Wikipedia community. Move on. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This "newbies" note isn't appropriate for the article, and it's obvious to everyone but you. -- Ned Scott 08:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a disingenuous edit summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=120932415&oldid=120932033 "...the source in this case is not accurate. a source alone does not make something true." According to this edit summary, the term newbies is inaccurate. However, according to the discussion here by other editors and the reference it is highly accurate. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate, but irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is accurate and it is about the Wikipedia community. New editors on Wikipedia are called newbies. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ekke, Ekke, Ekke, Ekke, Ptang! --Conti|✉ 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

History of an editor who continues to remove references, undo my edits, and make disingenuous edit summaries.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, as someone whos contributed a lot to this article on a very notable topic, I'd say back burner the newbie thing and focus on getting sources about the other-language communities. - Denny ^(talk) 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I will put it on the back burner for 72 hours. Another note. I will give it 72 hours to leave the merge tag. If it is not merged or an active discussion with valid reasons are given to merge, I will agressively remove it. Happy now. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New contributors are called newbies^[1] and editors, for the most part, remain anonymous.^[2] I would like to "expand" one sentence by including, New contributors are called newbies... This is just about five or so - little words about the Wikipdia community. Information about the community is relevant. Some people may believe some information about the community is not relevant. I understand, expanding and improving articles is the Wiki way. I know in my heart others are attempting to merge to "trim" and have the 'net monster of' pedia to dismantle this article before it grows into a good standing article. Wikipedia is about the content and the community is about the people which is to be respected. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, while newcomers are sometimes (and certainly not always) called newbies at Wikipedia, the same can be said of thousands of other sites. Every member-based site I have been on calls newcomers newbies. Calling a new member a newbie is not in any conceivable way exclusive to Wikipedia; it is as common as saying the thing you drive your car on is called a "road." Adding stuff like this does not help this article; instead, it makes it sound as though the Wikipedia community fails to recognize what it has in common with other online communities. Risker 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, editors on Wikipeda are "volunteers." The word volunteer (like newbies) is not exclusive to Wikipedia. So that makes your arguement irrelevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you're not getting it. We don't say "people who work on Wikipedia are called volunteers". If you wanted to say "Many newbies come to Wikipedia daily", while being a sloppy way to write, would at least be better than what you are trying to do. It's one thing to use a word in an article, and a totally different thing to assert that it has unique significance with that topic. -- Ned Scott 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you do not get to decide on the time frame for the newbies tidbit or the merge tag, that's not how these things work. -- Ned Scott 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am being a good editor by informing you in advance. 72 hours is more than fair. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What's fair in your mind is not what's normally done on Wikipedia, or fair to others. Right now the discussion about the newbies tidbit supports not including it, and merge tags are usually given a week or two for discussion. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion for not including the newbies tidbit is a logical fallacy. Kind of reminds me of some of the comments in the AFD discussion. Eh. I am committed to quality work. According to some editors, if a word is not exclusive to Wikipedia we should not include it? You are all an interesting bunch. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out to you, it's one thing to use a word in an article, and a totally different thing to assert that it has unique significance with that topic. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

According to your logic, everything in an article must be unique or it must be deleted. From this logic we must "trim" the Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia community article and have a big merge party of both articles. I think not. I suggest you read both the AFD discussions and then read it again. Logically fallacious arguements should not merge or delete anything. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, a sentence does not have to be a unique significance to be in an article. Moreover, the sentence does not claim any uniquieness. Incidently, the sentence can be modified to go something like this... New contributors are sometimes called newbies... Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, stop trying our patience. These are not Logically fallacious arguements. You are wrong, and I don't know how else to spell it out for you. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Read your edit summary. not notable/ unique to Wikipedia, and not necessarily accurate (the source in this case is not accurate. a source alone does not make something true. According to your edit summary, the term newbies is not used to call new editors newbies on Wikipedia and is not accurate. So, what are new editors called? They are called newbies. And thats the truth and it is accurate. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"According to your edit summary, the term newbies is not used to call new editors" Now you're just being absurd, that is not at all what is implied by my edit summary. You just quoted me word for word, and then came to a conclusion that isn't even close to what it actually said. Drop the act, Quack, we know you're not stupid. You can't just play dumb and pretend to not understand what we are talking about. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary is very clear and disingenuous. Now, you are coming to the talk page and changing your story. I suggest you add the info back in or we can work together to re-word it. I am interested in collaborating. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack, you're attempting to use a dictionary definition. Saying newcomers are called newbies is not the same as saying Wikipedins are volunteers. It is the same as saying that an unpaid contributor is called a volunteer. Discussion about how welcome newcomers are, or how newcomers are treated would be one thing. But the definition of the word "newbie" should be left to the dictionary. Jay32183 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Newbies Tidbit

Here is a reference which explains about newbies among other things.[7]

Here is a sentence in the Wikipedia community article. > Editors, for the most part, remain anonymous.

I would like to add a tidbit to this sentence above or create a new sentence about "new contributors."

Such as > New contributors, who are referred to as newbies, are welcomed by senior Wikipedians using a welcoming template...

For example > Wikipedia has a policy which states don't bite the newcomers and...

Another example > New contributors who are sometimes called newbies...

I am interested in collaboration on this sentence and I am getting no help from the other editors. Please review the reference and collaborate. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are getting no help because it shouldn't be done. You are ignoring everything you are being told, and at this point it is just disruptive. Stop suggesting that "New users are sometimes called newbies" be inserted into the article. Anyone can look it up in the dictionary. We assume users coming to English Wikipedia speak English, so we do not define common English, as in terms that are not used only by specialists in the feild. You need to understand that. Jay32183 01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around. I am getting no help because you are not here to help. You are here to help your friend. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in collaborating, feel free to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise stop your disruption. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I would be trying to stop you from adding something as stupid and pointless as "newcomers are called newbies" regardless of Ned's opinion. You are wrong and need to stop. What you are attempting is not what Wikipedia is for. I cannot assume good faith at this point. You are a disruptive contributor who wants to add pointless information to feel like you're helping. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Deal with it. Jay32183 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to put the "newbies" tidbit on hold for now. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

OK, so the trivia section has a grand total of 1 piece of trivia, and it's not something overly useful. I mean, what (first of all) has it got to do with community? Secondly, doesn't WP get vandalized DAILY anyway? I think the trivia section should be removed...ideas? ~ Giggy! ^{Talk | Contribs} _{About Me | QASMT} 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Deckill er 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this. It's fluff cruft to make this article look bigger than it really is, anyways. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed by Gurch. ~ Giggy! ^Talk _Contribs ^{About Me} _{To Do List} 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Denny Colt, SqueakBox, and I believe the trivia section should remain in the article. We have all reverted the info back in. It is the most notable trivia we have. Don't forget, it is the only trivia we have available for the article. And it is very informative and relevant. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By definition trivia isn't even notable, it's trivial information. This being our only bit of trivia is by no means a reason to keep a non-notable tidbit in the article. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Many articles on Wikipedia have trivia. So that makes your argument irrelevant. This is the only trivia available for readers of this article. We are here to expand articles and not delete entire sections. Well rounded articles are complete. I'm afraid your edits has deleted a notable trivia. Think about it. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How the hell does that make sense to you? There's not one bit of logic in that last message.. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Logic is the key. It make perfect sense to me. The tidbit is logical, well sourced, and notable. What part of that you don't understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding another article with trivia in no way makes my argument irrelevant. Finding and removing non-notable tidbits is a major effort echoed by things like notability guidelines, trivia guidelines, and the fact that we remove bad trivia all the time. We can find typos in the majority of articles, but we still remove and correct them when we find them.
Again, "only trivia" doesn't make it any more important, as I stated before
We are here to write good articles, which may include expanding or removing content. We don't just keep crap just to "grow" the article.
This doesn't make the article well rounded or complete, because it doesn't add anything of value to the article
Did you really just say "notable trivia"?.............

So yeah, all the reasons you gave pretty much fail. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Every year, on or around April Fools' Day, the Wikipedia community prepares itself for the massive vandalism that is expected to take place because of the day's celebrations, which lasts for 48 hours instead of 24 due to its worldwide audience.^[3]

The trivia note is very well written, informative, and educational. This is a unique type of trivia about the community. It reads as an encyclopedic masterpiece. The key is logic and quality. We are here to write quality work. Therefore, it is logical to include such insightful information. Spare us the rhetoric. Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

- That's not unique at all, it's April Fools day, everyone braces themselves for jokes and hoaxes. Other websites with user-generated content have the same problem, and Wikipedia deals with this stuff every day. This isn't quality content, it's not important content, it's fluff, filler, cruft. There's nothing insightful about this at all. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one day out of the year event is notable. This is part of the community history. It meets the satisfactory for inclusion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Would you care to actually explain yourself rather than just making absurd statements? -- Ned Scott 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. You have reverted a good trivia piece. It remains unexplained. Your reasons do not have weight or logic. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained myself, as has User:G1ggy and User:Deckiller. User:Gurch also agrees with the removal. At this point you are blatantly disrespecting and insulting your fellow Wikipedians. It's one thing to disagree, but to falsely state that no explanation is given, and that our views have no weight, is unacceptable behavior. You've been warned about this kind of behavior before, Quack, and you need to stop. -- Ned Scott 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing the matters at hand on the talk page. The trivia is encyclopedic and belongs in the body of the article. If anyone out there is reading this, please add it back in. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a disputed matter now, so no, we do not just add it back in, we finish discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

disruptive edit warring

you have been warned

Please stop your continuation of reverts. There is no consensus to remove the trivia section. Please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack.. read WP:3RR. It's not three reverts over a period of days, it's three reverts within 24 hours. -- Ned Scott 00:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments and more involvement from other Wikipedians

For those of you who have been watching from above: You can go ahead and add the trivia section. I would like to see who will be the first Wikipedian who will step forward and add the greatest trivia of them all about the community. It is like no other, IMHO. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, stop egging people on to add something we're still talking about. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So far Quack is the only one who wants to include the trivia that has come to the talk page, and his rationale doesn't hold up. Three of four users who think the trivia should be removed have come to the discussion and given legitimate reasons for the trivia's removal, as well as there being Wikipedia guidelines to avoid trivia sections and non-notable tidbits. As it is right now, we don't put that trivia back in. We don't just bypass discussion and try to force our way in, that's not how things are done. -- Ned Scott 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

more edit warring by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=126931161

This editor seems to want to edit war his way to his version. If you are reading this... and disagree with Ned, please revert and add in the exceptional trivia section. Give it a try. The trivia piece is noteworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At least four users (including myself), as well as a few guidelines, are supporting not having the trivia in the article. It's misleading to call it "my version". It's disruptive to encourage other users to ignore the active discussion about this and just add it back in. Instead of encouraging the edit war, how about you invite the other editors to discuss with the rest of us? -- Ned Scott 02:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There you are, then. It's not in a trivia section. I encourage you to expand on traditions in the community—I would do it myself, but I haven't been around long enough to notice any. Also, there is a {{trivia}} template that is a much better way to deal with trivia sections than just removing them. --Dookama 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I asked you do discuss this first. This is not a community tradition, it's just a day of high vandal traffic. The tidbit isn't notable, nor is it even specific to the "community". Changing the header title doesn't change that. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While "celebration" (to use the word loosely) of April Fool's Day is hardly exclusive to Wikipedia, I think it's worth a brief mention that, even if the community doesn't vandalize Wikipedia itself, it prepares for the high volume of vandalism which is in itself an annual tradition. (Keep in mind that I'm applying tradition very loosely throughout – I just can't think of a better word right now.) --Dookama 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dookama. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

more disruptive edit warring by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=127019506&oldid=127019374

I do not understand. Ned Scott, please stop your continuation of reverts. Please edit/expand the triva/community tradition section rather than "blanking" information about the community. We are here to build an encyclopedia and not nuke complete sections which are fully sourced using attributable, verifiable references. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A few things. One, completely unrelated to this dispute, Quack, you do not have to make subheadings for every new message you make. Two, being fully sourced does not make something notable or appropriate in an article. Also, you asking people to ignore the discussion and valid concerns of your fellow Wikipedians is far more disruptive than me removing the trivia. Making a good article does not mean keeping everything just to make it physically larger (in data), it means improving it. You keep pushing for these insignificant tidbits, even though they actually hurt the article instead of helping it. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a dumbing ground for anything remotely related to a topic.

Just let the discussion go on instead of making a scene and disrupting it time and time again. This is a minor issue and it's absurd that you are making it this hard to have a normal discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A yearly tradition on the 1st of April

This is a yearly tradition on Wikipedia. Its about the community. Its a part of the history of the Wikipedia community. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A tradition suggests collaborate between the community in regards to the event. In reality it's a mass of individuals acting who are independently acting on the same day every year. This is why it's not notable to the community, because it's not something "the community" does as a community, it's just something that happens that involves people in the community. If a bunch of people in a town put on a coat when it snows, does that make putting on coats a community tradition? No, it's just something you do when it's cold outside, even if it's cold the same time every year. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

more reverts by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&curid=9902773&diff=127324661&oldid=127177044

The reasons for inclusion have been given above. They are valid. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quack, I am doing nothing wrong by reverting the added trivia, and I can only assume at this point that you are noting it here to make me look bad. WP:AN/I is discussing how to deal with you once again. Your attempt to discredit me and mislead others is not only disrespectful to me, but it's uncalled for and unacceptable. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section belongs in the article and at this point Ned Scott has reverted numerous times the inclusion of the insightful trivia section. There is something wrong with doing multiple reverts against consensus. Hopefully, Ned Scott will stop removing the section and let it be. I invite anyone to overview the above discussion and make an assessment about the notable trivia section. If you agree, please add the trivia section to the body of the article. Thank you very much. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus to include it, and currently the discussion doesn't favor it's inclusion. I'll repeat what I said above, since apparently you missed it: "A tradition suggests collaborate between the community in regards to the event. In reality it's a mass of individuals acting who are independently acting on the same day every year. This is why it's not notable to the community, because it's not something "the community" does as a community, it's just something that happens that involves people in the community. If a bunch of people in a town put on a coat when it snows, does that make putting on coats a community tradition? No, it's just something you do when it's cold outside, even if it's cold the same time every year." -- Ned Scott 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for new sections

Well, this article has certainly grown since I first saw it. It has occurred to me that an area that is not currently covered is whether or not people editing from IP addresses are considered part of the community. I am not in a position to research this myself, but perhaps an enterprising editor might consider trying to find out if there are reliable sources for some of these points:

What "community" activities are restricted to full account holders as opposed to editors who edit directly from their IP address? (Page creation, participation in !votes, administrator status, etc.)
Are IP-based editors considered part of the community?
Are there any IP-based editors who have more than X edits (perhaps 1000, perhaps 5000)? (I know the answer is yes to this one, because I have seen one IP editor like this working away here.)

Also, getting away from the IP issue, some reference to the various volunteer non-editing roles that Wikipedians assume - aside from the admin/bureaucrat/ArbComm ones, also some of the "assistance" roles like RC patrol, AMA, the group that greets new members - might be an interesting addition.

I know this might be hard to source, at least without too much self-reference, but it might be worth a try. Risker 02:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As time permits (I generally have less time in the last weeks of the month due to the books) I'll dig around for sources. Great ideas! - Denny ^(talk) 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The incongruity that ip's are called "anons" whereas they are anything but (on ly an account guarantyees anonymity) might be added, SqueakBox 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User RfC related to this article

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru. -- Ned Scott 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Admin interviewed on Swedish Radio

Wikipedia admin Theresa Knotts is interviewed on Swedish National Broadcasting Service. She talks about protecting Wikipedia from vandals and sabotage. She feels proud to be a part of Wikipedia. Interview: Listen and learn --Bondkaka 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added trivia section

The reason I added this to the section is that being pretty new at Wikipedia I was shocked at the amount of vandalism done during the few days. There was even an editor who got blocked with the comment "Happy April's Fools Day". Of course this wasn't funny at all but I think new editors should be aware that vandalism picks up more than normal so they can help keep an eye on things. I know it helped me once I realized that April fool's day brought out this horrible behavior.

I also think that the word 'Newbie" should be added in, maybe where it says not to bite the new comers. It is a very common know word for new people and it does help identify those who are new so they don't have to continue to say so. Have a good day! --Crohnie 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also added to the trivia section about newbie's. I found an internal article about the term being used and feel it is appropiate to add. --Crohnie 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work. As more editors review the article, they feel the trivia section belongs in the article. I hope Ned Scott will respect consensus. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very impressed with your expansion of the trivia section. Your work about new editors is very educational and informative. A big thumbs up. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru invited me here via email. Not sure what he/she wants me to do or comment on. Please let me know how I can help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Easy, add more to the trivia section. I have started and I think it's a good idea. --Crohnie 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Crohnie, as it's been discussed before, both the newbies trivia and the April fool's day trivia is inappropriate to the article. These are concepts and issues that hold no significance to the "community" as a community. The fact that Wikipedia gets vandalized on April fools day might be something to note about Wikipedia in general, but there is no community wide effort to fight it, nothing organized and nothing more than individuals acting independently. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I've been studying all day and as a result I'm pretty braindead, so the following may or may not make sense.) In response to your edit summary, WP:CIV. Also, individuals who share a goal acting independently within a group are still an identifiable subgroup with a discernible goal, whether there's any leadership/organization or not; as such, they form a kind of ad hoc, slightly anarchic community within a community. The key word there is community.--Dookama 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Scott, being a newbie I have to say you are not seeing things like I am. My first April fool's had a lot of managers out making repairs and even having fun with the April 1st jokes. So it does change things. Also, being a newbie is also used a lot when we get here. Some are not know immediately but as soon as someone said 'don't bite the newbie" it got immediate attention" so I believe as being new and seeing it from a new way, it does fit in, as is an apparent agreement of a few other editors here. Think about when you were new, and how things went for you. It's hard to get used to, hard to learn and we are treated as newbie's esp. when mistakes are made, and boy I have made my mistakes. Thus this is good information to keep in the article. --Crohnie 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, others believe that the trivia section belongs in the article. Why do you have such strong issues with it? Others even added to the section that I put in. There is no reason that I can see for its removal. Please explain. You seem to be the only person removing it. --Crohnie 10:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged the trivia section... Please take some time to read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Please work this into the main article text. I'll check back in a week or so and anything not worked into the article will be deleted or commented out.--Isotope23 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=128986616

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=next&oldid=128986616

I have integrated the trivia section into the body of the article as Isotope23 suggested but I was reverted by Michaelas10. Everything is fully sourced and there is consensus among editors to include the fully cited information. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Two options for review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=128986616

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=129005615&oldid=129001488

Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why Michaelas10 (talk · contribs) reverted you (you would have to ask that editor), but just changing the heading from "Trivia" to "Community traditions" doesn't solve the problem... in fact it makes it worse in my opinion. It's still a trivia section but now you are adding the connotation that these are some sort of traditions here, which adds an element of original research (is calling someone a "newbie" really a "Wikipedia Community tradition" or is this more just a general practice on internet communities?) These sections need to be integrated into the article, not just renamed and moved. If they can't be integrated they should not appear here.--Isotope23 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is why Michaelas10 reverted you... and it looks like he and I are in agreement here. The presentation of this content needs to meet the Manual of Style.--Isotope23 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I integrated into the article. I still do not undertsand. The policy is integration which does change everything. If the title needs to be changed then change the title rather than revert it. The policy on the trivia section is integration. So, I was integrating according to Isotope23s' suggestion of: "Please work this into the main article text." I did that and I was reverted. Further, I think a new title and separate paragraph may solve the issue. Instead of community traditions, how about community topics or community issues or something along those lines? Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did add it to the relevant paragraph. A new section under its own title will work just as well too. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you didn't integrate it into the article; you just renamed it an moved it. Even with the new name it is still an unrelated collection of bulletpoints with no cohesiveness... aka a Trvia section. The sections that can be worked into the article text should be worked in and anything else should be removed.--Isotope23 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving it to the appropriate place is a step to integrating it. A separate paragraph and a good title will resolve this matter. The tidbits are all part of the Community activities. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that these are all an integral part of Wikipedia community, or that they should all be listed in the same paragraph. These are 3 separate concepts that really have no common thread. Calling someone a "newbie" is an internet community phenomenon; it's not specific to wikipedia and it isn't even universal here. WP:BITE could easily be integrated with the section on allowing anyone to edit... and that could be integrated into the exisiting Background section. The April fools mention doesn't seem to have a logical home here. I wouldn't call it a community tradition as much as a necessity of reality. Even then, I don't see a compelling reason to mention this.--Isotope23 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Michaelas10 who wrote in part: "If you're interested in properly integrating it, please add it within the relevant paragraph, or create a new section devoted to community issues."[8] I will follow his advise. I will create a new section devoted to community issues. Simple enough. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is fine; just make sure you are integrating it into the article (i.e. rewrite it in paragraph form) instead of just moving the bullet points into a newly named section. Otherwise this will just be a renamed trivia section.--Isotope23 20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

...and it is still a renamed trivia section. Retagged. You need to integrate it; not just move and rename it.--Isotope23 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did integrate it according to Michaelas10's advise. A separate section under its own title is fine. It fits like a glove under the new title. Thanks for your help. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No... you just renamed the trivia section to something else and moved it up the page... and it is still a trivia section which should be removed per WP:TRIV unless it actually gets integrated into the article.--Isotope23 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sections about trivia or related to trivia are allowed to be in articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Should_trivia_be_allowed_on_Wikipedia.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Handling_trivia

We do not have to break up the community activities section. There is no policy stating we cannnot have trivia under its own section in articles. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be an essay. Please take some time to read our guideline on trivia. Besides, like I've said about 7 times now this needs to be integrated into the article... which you have not done Quack, and this is suggested by the essay link you've provided. Please read the content you are linking to. This needs to be integrated into the article; otherwise I will comment it out or move it to the talkpage until it can be integrated.--Isotope23 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've requested full protection as a party of the conflict so the matter could be properly discussed. If this wouldn't be done sooner, I'll try prepare the initial draft of the section tomorrow. Guru, there's also no policy regarding removal of weasel words or spam, but we should strive for quality at Wikipedia and collaboratively decide what's best for the article right now. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidance

See also Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Practical steps (essay)

Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts.

The policy is a guidance. We can have a trivia section according to what I have read. I added a new section. Anyways, the guidlines and policy about trivia are vague and needs to be updated. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thousands upon thousands of articles on Wikipedia have sections about Trivia.[9] There are even articles devoted to specifically trivia. Moreoever, Handling of trivia may become policy one day. Having a section devoted to trivia is more than fair. Any suggestions, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in this meatpuppet-fest, it's not going back in the article. It's crap, it's stupid, it's inaccurate, and as pointed out above, it's original research. I don't care how many easily mislead new users Quack finds to round up, because we don't make decisions based on numbers or by how many people want something back in. The newbies tidbit in particular should not be added, as discussed on this talk page. This amount of resistance to removing crap makes me think that this is some kind of trolling attempt.

Quack, I can't even count how many times we've warned you about pushing pointless issues like this. It's disruptive and you need to stop. You might think that I'm the "bad guy" here, but when people start talking about a community ban for Wikipedia topics, they're talking about you and not me. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some links I think might be of interest to the above discussion

With all the discussion about how trivia is not allowed, how it's inappropriate and really how April Fools made no difference here I found out differently here on Wikipedia with just a simple search. Please look at the following: [[10]] and [[11]]. The first shows that a trivia section is used and the second shows that April Fools Day was hard on Wikipedia. You can also do a search of Newbie's and find an article about it. I may be new but I am not stupid and do not get told what to do or not to do. I try to learn policies and follow them. I don't know if I was the one being mentioned above but I found it quite uncivil to make the claim. --Crohnie 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there are other articles out there that have trivia sections in them doesn't justify having one here... or in those articles for that matter. Please see WP:FISHING which outlines the problems with that line of reasoning. As for having mention of April Fools Day in the article; that isn't the issue here. Find a logical place to write a paragraph or two about it in the article and that is fine by me. The problem here is QuackGuru's "solution" of continuing to move the bulleted list around the article with different headers. These sections need to be integrated into the article narrative.--Isotope23 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Thousands of articles on Wikipedia have a devoted section about trivia. Are administrators allowed to get in the middle of content disputes? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Please see WP:FISHING? I thought essays are not policies or guidlelines and we should avoid them. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that it is widely acceptable on thousands of articles on Wikipedia to have a devoted trivia section. Saying a trivia section is not good here and yet it is routinely accepted throughout the community speaks volumes. We should go with what has worked. I don't see any problem with trivia in this or other articles. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Essays are not policies or guidelines, I referenced WP:FISHING because it succinctly states why the reasoning "trivia sections exist elsewhere, ergo they should exist here" is not sound... and my involvment here is as an editor, not an admin. You may have noticed I've not whipped out my mop.--Isotope23 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins are no different from you or I, and there's no reason at all that they wouldn't be "allowed" to be in a dispute, discussion, or anything else a normal editor might find themselves in.

The consensus is to avoid trivia, especially trivia-specific sections. There are thousands of articles with trivia sections because we haven't gotten to them all yet. There are even more typos in Wikipedia than there are trivia, but that doesn't justify typos. Just because you saw it in another article doesn't mean you get to do it here.

And again, while some of this stuff might be worth a mention about Wikipedia over-all, none of it corresponds to the "community" of Wikipedia. Most Wikipedians wear shoes, but that doesn't mean it has relevance to us as a community. The same can be said for "newbies" or the April Fools Day vandalism. We have editors acting independently of each other, and not as a community. You seem to think that if you take an arbitrary group of people, find something in common with them, then that must be a community aspect.. ... but it's not. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a proposed compromise (food for thought)

If said trivia does not belong on Wikipedia I would expect to see the same vigor to delete all trivia from Wikipedia. I don't. Therefore, you are objecting to the material and not the trivia section. If the material was integrated as suggested by the administrators will a compromise satisfy your taste?

As for the administrators who are participating, will you accept a compromise if the trivia section was removed and the context in whole be moved and integrated in the appropriate sections?

As for the regulars, newbies, and the invited, will you agree to a compromise if the information was fully integrated as recommended by established editors. What I am trying to say is that if trivia section was removed and information was properly placed in relevant paragraphs will you agree to this proposal? Any suggestions or thoughts are welcomed. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors push for trivia removal all the time, on a daily basis. Making the claim that this does not happen is extremely laughable. No compromise, it's content that shouldn't be here at all. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michaelas10 and Isotope23,

I would greatly appreciate it if you commented on this compromised proposal. Thank you. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First I resent my research being described as fishing. I have tried real hard to follow policy and did a search for the above links not fishing. I have to say what Mr. Guru added makes sense and from what I understand follows all of the policies. This should be an easy article to edit, yet we find ourselves disagreeing on even the smallest of things. Granted, what Mr. Guru added could use a bit of tweaking. I still find this is a minor problem blown out of proportion. If someone would explain to me why this stuff should not be add and give other alternate ideas that would be very much appreciated by me. Right now it seems more like complaints against an editor than complaints against the article. If you would prefer me to move on to edit a different article, please say so, it won't hurt my feelings. This article is about Wikipedia and the community. So I don't understand all the disputes over something so simple. Like I said, if it would be better for the article for me to leave it, then please let me know. I thought this would be a safe article to edit and to be bold and understand things better. Apparently this is not the case. Also, instead of repeating why the information shouldn't be added how about new information to be added. Of course this is just my opinion so I hope I haven’t upset anyone. I am posting this in good faith and I am trying real hard to read others posts in good faith too. As it stands now I think what Mr. Guru is suggesting to add is a good faith edit and I agree with what he is trying to say though I think it needs to be tweaked to give it better flow. --Crohnie 02:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that what you are doing is "fishing"... I referenced WP:FISHING because it illustrates a point. Just because trivia lists exist in other articles doesn't mean we should add one here; it just means they have not been dealt with yet in those other articles... i.e. when we go fishing we don't always catch all the fish. WP:TRIV is a pretty clear guideline why this sort of information presented in this manner is not really helpful in articles.--Isotope23 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and polite response. I understand and agree this should be put to rest right now at least. --Crohnie 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eighty per cent male

Notwithstanding Jimbo Wales's quoted on the ground findings about the community, I do not find that this is a credible statistic. What Jimbo Wales is talking about are the people he meets. By definition the community do not meet face to face. The majority of them do not identify demographic data about themselves. Those that do meet face to face are contributers who perhaps have fewer real life commitments than others - breakfast meetings in Australia recently with Jimbo Wales would be less likely to include women who have to responsibility for children, workers who need to start early in the day, ... adding to the perception that contributers are 80% male because those are the ones that meet up. I suspect there is no reliable way of getting demographic data but I would like the article to reflect that meet-ups are probably not the way to gather the data about who contributes. --Golden Wattle ^talk 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment is now tagged as dubious--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is making a general statement that about 80% are male. He did not say exactly or precisely. He did said, about. The people who go to meetups are a general reflection of the contributors from Wikipedia. Thanx for your concern. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying that, Quack? Are there any available reliable sources that have assessed the demographic make-up of the Wikipedia editor pool and then compared it to the attendance of Wikipedians at gatherings? I would be more inclined to suggest that this paragraph be re-written to eliminate this first sentence, and place the Sanger critique after the (current) final sentence. Risker 02:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is your assertion that people who go to meetups are a general reflection of contributers from Wikipedia that I take issue with plus of course that that is inferred in the article. There is no substantiation of that fact. Communicating on the internet and wishing to meet fellow contributers and/or being available to do so logistically are two very different things. Meetups occur in ver few locations, contributers are geographically more dispersed. People hve real-life commitments which prevent them from atending meet-ups - see for example Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne_5#Apologies:_I_wish_I_could, Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia_3#Can.27t_make_it_:.28, Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup_2#Maybe:_I.27ll_try.2C_but_don.27t_let_the_bacon_get_cold and those are for the people who reply. People who work, women who have to get children to school, ... these won't be at metups but may well contribute. Hence the comment in its present context is targetted as dubious. A properly selected and studied sample such as at User:WikiInquirer/WikiStudy is likely to give far more information and far more reliably than one person's anecdotal assertions of who he has met in person, no matter who that person is. --Golden Wattle ^talk 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Male domination on Wikipedia is a commonly known fact

See: Criticism of Wikipedia - Male domination Have a nice day. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The underlying reference to support that assertion is http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1614751,00.html and it states "edits to Wikipedia entries are 60% male" - a much more credible statisitc than the 80% and very good reason to ispute the use made of Wales's quote in the context that has been made of it. it would be more interesting to make the disticnction between the hitwise stat and those who go to meetups than assert as you have done by inference inthe article and explicitly above "The people who go to meetups are a general reflection of the contributors from Wikipedia." I would like a slighly more robust source for the 60% but I do believe it and assume it is underpinned by research.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also the Time article by Hitwise gneral manager also states "82% of those making edits to the site are 35 years old or older" - a useful perspective to add when writing about the community.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rememeber that Mr. Wales is making a general statement of about 80%. That is close to the 60%. Though, the 60% has not been verified by a more reliable source. However, we have two sources that infer a male dominence and thus Wales general statement is reliable. If it is still not to your satisfactory, you can expand on it by including another reference and context from another source as suggested. There will always be sources that differ slightly. It is our job as editors to include and explain various informational resources. I believe you have touched on something that can be a welcome addition to expanding this article. I look forward to your edits gracing this article. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be bold myself to clarify the bit on male editing. Just give me about five of minutes. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review my edit and thanks for your ideas to expand this article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the addition of the Hitwise statisitc has helped to address the credibility of Mr Wales's statement as it applies to contributers rather than those who attend meet-ups. Thanks--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: How do you know the anonymous editors are not female? I see the links but couldn't some people who edit here not have seen the list for females, thus it would be inaccurate? Or do we just use the links available now until something else says different? ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. We use the sources we have available for now. When more sources are available in the future we can then evaluate those source too. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 17:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

I've started writing a new section, but came to the conclusion all bulleted points of "Community activities" are already described elsewhere. The basic solution would be getting rid from the entire section for now.

The April Fools' Day part, in addition to having absolutely nothing to do with the community, is explained generally under the "Criticism and controversy" section in Wikipedia. "Concerns have also been raised regarding the lack of accountability that results from users' anonymity,[63] and that it is vulnerable to vandalism and Internet trolls."
The newcomer part has already been merged in the "Open source publishing" section with this edit. "The Wikipedia community has adopted a policy, 'don't bite the newcomers' and editors, for the most part, remain anonymous."
The editing part has existed in the "Open source publishing" section since the article was first written, and in various sections of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where anyone can edit and is built on consensus of the community." Michaelas¹⁰ 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the bullet points are a bit redundant with the text.--Isotope23 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The key points to a solution

The April Fools' part is part of the community which is a notable event. Saying there are similar tidbits (generally) in other articles is an irrelevant point. For example, Wikipedians are volunteering their time which is explained elsewhere. But when it is relevant to this article it can be included here too. In review, the April Fools' tidbit is not in any other article at the moment as far as the eye can see.
The newcomer part has extra details which further enhances the article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If there is any concerns it can be slightly tweaked and/or condensed.
The editing part can be incorporated into the background section as suggested by Isotope23. The solution is a compromise. Regards, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Answering your comments:

It isn't a part of the community and thus has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Moreover, as I've already specified, the vandalism issue is already discussed generally in the Wikipedia article. Pointing out the specific days and articles where it's especially high (and correspondingly received media coverage) might be tad trivial, but you're still welcome to try it out there.
The provided source doesn't state that the term newcomer is used for new editors and most are called newbies by established Wikipedians, which makes it original research. The final sentence doesn't sound very neutral, and is obvious from reader's discretion. I have a good reason to believe it's fine the way it is.
It quite fits in "Open source publishing", so I don't see a point in futilely adding it to a separate section.

I would like to hear comments from other users who had a role in this dispute to establish consensus and proceed to request unprotection. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Michaelas10 (talk · contribs). The April Fools reference isn't a function of the Wikipedia community and really has no logical place in this article. Newbies/Newcomers is not something that is specific to Wikipedia... it's a general internet term. the editing part is alreadly in "Open source publishing" and the wording there could be tweaked if anyone saw fit.--Isotope23 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A brand new compromise and proposal

"New article proposal" Submitted by QuackGuru

Please take a look at this new draft. This is a worthy compromise and would make a great article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking a Wikipedia namespace page from a mainspace article is a self-reference. The additional sentence doesn't sound neutral and is obvious per se. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is an article about wi8kipedia so self-referencing doesnt count, SqueakBox 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An article about Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have "self-reference" issues. A self-reference issue is making a statement like "on this article" or "Here on Wikipedia...". Sentences, links, etc, should be formatted to make sense even if the article wasn't being hosted on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording is a little clunky, but that can be hammered out. I think it's a fine incorporation of the information in the trivia section. :D --Dookama 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect request

Hi all. We on WP:RPP have been receiving a number of unprotect requests both on Wiki and in email to unprotect this page so it can be updated. When I look here, I don't see any conclusion to the previous dispute. So ... have you guys reached a compromise or not? - Alison ☺ 18:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one receiving those emails, it seems. – Steel 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm - Alison ☺ 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy as long as the bulleted trivia section is either left out or incorporated into the article and I've gotten an email from QuackGuru (talk · contribs) indicating he is agreeable to this, so I'm personally fine with unprotecting. However, my beef was with the trivia presentation; others took issue with the content itself so it might be a good idea to give all parties a chance to respond before it gets unprotected. There really is no hurry here.--Isotope23 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I still stand by my opinion the article is fine the way it is. QuackGuru's desire to change context in the article isn't productive, and might result in even more trivia/POV/self-referencing than currently in the article. Whenever this gets unprotected, I'll fully endorse a consensus of no change. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He's just going to go back to adding it in, or finding someone to do it for him. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And may I ask whom you are deciding is editing in bad faith? I find you to be rude and so I am out of here. For some reason you seem to think your way is the only way and won't even discuss good faith ideas. For an article that should be an easy edit, it's a war zone and that kind of stress I don't need nor do I want. Have fun, --Crohnie 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not in bad faith, it's a more than reasonable conclusion given the history of the situation. You won't be getting any pity here, as there's also more than good reason to believe that you are nothing more than a meatpuppet for Quack. I have no problem with being civil and assuming good faith where it should be assumed, but it's very obvious what's going on here, and such manipulation is simply not acceptable. These low-blow tricks won't work here. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have striked out the bad faith comments. Ned Scott, please stop. You have been warned about your behaviour before. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not strike comments without the user's permission, especially since Ned Scott has already been warned about the above comment. On a different note, I'm still awaiting a reply in regards to whether you approve a consensus of no change or not; full protection period should be minimized as much as possible. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I've seen enough. Unprotect request has been declined at this time. - Alison ☺ 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Scott, please back up your claims of my being a single purpose account please. I am taking this behavior to administrators as I do not believe my behavior warrents this kind of accusation or attacks. --Crohnie 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were an SPA, but I do believe you are here just to support Quack blindly. "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate." and "The arrival of multiple newcomers with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints rarely helps achieve neutrality and usually damages it. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less." are the parts of WP:MEAT that I was thinking about. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on the new draft. I support the information to be fully integrated into the appropriate paragraghs. On a further note, some of the information has been recently rewritten and tweaked. Everything is fully sourced and is about the community. And more importantly, it is neutral in tone and thus improves the article and by extention improves Wikipedia overall. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, this isn't worth it. If anything, I should be happy that people are making this a worse article, because it would just prove my point that the article shouldn't exist. I'm taking it off my watch list, and you guys can have your fun. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic

Is there any demographic data about wikipedia readers or editors? I figure IP alone could tell something. Mathiastck 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

the second paragraph of the background section includes some demographic data referencing an article based on Hitwise statistics and some anecdotal observations by Jimmy Wales.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Avoid self-references" gone paranoidal

Why do I have this impression that the current article is kinda paranoidal on WP:SELF. The rules about reliable sources specifically say that a website is a valid source of information about itself. Of course opinions about wikipedians and the community must be "second-hand". But to cite an explanation about who is an admin from an article by a Stuart Corner (WTH is he?) is kinda brainless IMO. Any opinions? `'Míkka 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not a self-ref. The ref is reliable. Agreed? Mr.Guru talk 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure you are answering my question. My point is that this article has not a single reference to any wikipedia page, and I find it kinda strange. `'Míkka 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems kinda strange. What next? Mr.Guru talk 21:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think something like this. However such references must be added very cautiously, because our policies tend to drastically change over time. Probably only as an indication where there the "original" description is stored, without specific quoting. IMO it will be much better than a hearsay of how a particular journalist understood it. Since it seems that primarily it is you who maintains this page, I leave it up to you what else can be done. `'Míkka 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional sources

The followng list is removed from the article. It is already oversaturated with references. There are a thousand more web/blog/newspaper references to wikipedia. If the links below say anything else useful about the article's topic, which is wikipedia community, by all means, incorporate. But to keep this raw list is pointless. `'Míkka 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any oversaturated links left in the article it should be removed. Mr.Guru talk 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing un-merge

Information from this article was merged into English Wikipedia. I find no place where this was dicussed and a consensus was arrived at. i think this was a bad idea -- the community exists on more than the english wikipedia, and a significant section of it crosses language bounderies. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 25#Wikipedia community → English Wikipedia in the context of a proposal to delete the redirect, and several editors also felt that the merge was a poor idea. I therefore propose to undo it unless there is significant opposition. DES ^(talk) 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to undoing the merge per Ned Scott's comments. The consensus was keep the redirect as is. That was the last debate. If not, I will AFD it to merge or delete. Do you prefer the merge be in the Wikipedia article or the English Wikipedia article. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 19:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I find no comments by User:Ned Scott on this talk page, and none in the RfD discussion linked to above. If such comments were made elsewhere, please point me to them. i find no discussion of the merge at all, much less a consensus to merge, on this talk page. In the RfD discussion the question of merging or unmerging was really off-topic, but of those who discussed the issue of the merge, one said "I don't know why it was merged", another said, "Keep, revert the merge", another said "I don't see a discussion regarding the merging of Wikipedia community into English Wikipedia.", and I said "Undo merge failing that, keep redirect" (seconds after the closer closed the discussion) I see no one but you arguing in favor of the merge. If there is some other discussion where consensus to do the merge was formed or expressed, please link to it. Note that consensus can change and a previous consensus is not an absolute bar to contrary action in future. DES ^(talk) 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_14#Wikipedia_community Mr.Guru talk 20:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that pointer. I count five editors who favoed a merge, and five who opposed it -- hardly a clear consensus either way. Perhaps other editors will comment here DES ^(talk) 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to editors who might have been canvassed to participate here. Meatpuppetry will not be accepted here. I might be forced to report it to the noticeboard if they comment here. If you were contacted to comment here, don't. Its called meatpuppetry. Mr.Guru talk 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASS What I did was contact everyone, without exception who commented in the recent RfD discussion, since the issue of the merge was raised there, but not determined there, inviting them in a very neutral way to comment here. That is not improper canvassing, it is in fact encouraged. See "friendly notice". I assign your implication that I improperly canvassed as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and your "warning" as an attempt at intimidation. I will myself report the matter to WP:ANI, so that there can be no question of what the proper policy position is in this case. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not contact Ned Scott and the other editors who support a merge. You contacted a limited amount of specific editors. I do not support targeting specific editors to comment here. I know exactly what is going on here. Specific editors are being asked to comment here. Lets try to get back to a civil discussion. Agreed? Mr.Guru talk 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I contacted every editor who had commetned at the RfD, the only relevant discussion i was aware of when I was sending the notices, and the most recent one in any case. If you want those people who commented in the discussion linked above also contacted, I will do so. I strongly resent your personal attack in stating that I was "targeting specific editors to comment here". DES ^(talk) 21:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article must be re-created, because wikipedia works exactly in opposite direction: according to the Wikipedia:Summary style, big articles are split into smaller ones when a topic becomes large enough, leaving the main article with a section with a summary of the new topic. Merge happens only when there is a content fork (people started working on similar articles independently) or the small topic cannot be expected to grow. Mr.Guru did a great job to write this article and I was very surprized when they mercilessly killed it without apparent serious reason. `'Míkka 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that QuackGuru has taken too much ownership of the article in question (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), which complicates the matter because s/he misinterprets comments, puts words in people's mouths and makes decrees (the RfD is a prime example). This has resulted in the incorrect application of bureaucracy (such as DRV and RFD) and policy/guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Consensus). There will be no proper solution to the matter at hand until QuackGuru takes a step back and allows others to help without subverting discussion or acting unilaterally at the first hint of a majority vote. BigNate37_(T) 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion review

I propose we keep the merge as is or we should take it to deletion review. At this point, there should be a consensus to un-merge or the merge should stand. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 19:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

deleteion review (DRV) does not review decisions to merge or unmerge, they are not deletions. A merge is simply another editorial change. (If you take it to DRV I confidently predict that the discussion will be swiftly closed as out-of-scope for that process.) I would be well within policy to simply undo the merge without prior discussion, and allow people to revert or discuss afterwards, provided I didn't edit-war or revert-war over the matter. But I think it is more polite to propose such a change in advance. However if no one objects, there is a consensus of one to undo the merge. I hope that there will be more discussion than that. Do i take it you are objecting? what are your actual reasons for objecting, if so? DES ^(talk) 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments on unmerging

Upon further review, I agree with the merge as done. It seems to make for a better article at the target of the merge. --- RockMFR 00:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yor review is incomplete. You didn't review the most critical argument: the redirect to English wikpedia is wrong: wikipedia community is interlinguistic. `'Míkka 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is virtually no content in the international section. Wikipedia started here? Ok. There are different versions? Ok. This doesn't have anything to do with the "community", really. Alright, so the redirect is wrong. Move this to English Wikipedia community to preserve history, redirect that to English Wikipedia, then redirect this to Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 05:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Absense of content means that it was not written yet. I repeat: a great number of wikipedians work in severeal wikipedias. This is an important trait of wikipedia community. The fact that something is not written is irrelevant. Many things are not written in many articles. `'Míkka 16:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit request

Edit request per RockMFR comments. Move this talk page to Talk: English Wikipedia community and move the redirect to English Wikipedia community and then redirect Wikipedia community to the main Wikipedia article. For some unkown reason the redirect here does not have a move option. I request an admin to try and do this. Thanks. Mr.Guru talk 18:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another idea could be to merge the history. See: WP:HISTMERGE Mr.Guru talk 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A history merge would be a bad idea -- it eould make the histoy of English Wikipedia practically unusable. M<ovint this talk page before a consensus forms on the unmerge oen way or anothe woudl also be unwise, IMO. DES ^(talk) 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I am not following the past discussion, but the contest that was once here is now at the content and internal structure section of the article Wikipedia. Having duplicated materials here makes no sense to me. (True, in the process, I deleted some materials that I found to be not essential.) I don't know if there is some discussion on whether this topic warrants a stand-alone article. -- Taku (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)