Template talk:Introduction to Wikipedia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The word n00b laboratively by many of its readers", instead of "...by its readers." Any thoughts? Acaides 06:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• By its readers has my preference, no need to get overly specific. --fvw* 23:36, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

• Sounds redundant to me, though if we want to get picky we could say something like "the articles are written collaboratively", thus being clear that many people contribute to each article, not just the encyclopedia: Piyrwq 23:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

omit "collaboratively" and "many" and leave "..by its readers" we allow for many modes of writing including individual and collaborative, and many instances, where a reader writes many articles.

What about "Written and edited by people like you"?--Light current 02:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I like Light current's suggestion...written and edited by people like you. I think that the color should be a deep blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.51.207 (talk • contribs)

I like Acaides' suggestion. The fact that the readers provide wikipedia with about everything it is should stressed when possible. It's a great thing to think about! Kribbeh 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should best represent reality. What seems to be the reality of editing on Wikipedia is that many edit, and then there are those, with ample time on their hands, who "camp" on a page. I suppose they are the 'R'eaders. They alter or delete whatever they do not like, with a myriad of excuses and never a regret. Truly, I am not complaining about this behavior (even if I think it makes the main concept of Wikipedia moot), but I do believe that Wikipedia is not advertisting itself correctly.

"By its readers" is preferable to "by many of its readers". The second is more clumsy and the adjective is unnecessary. "By its readers" does not necessarily mean "by ALL its readers". The people who read it edit it, therefore it is edited "by its readers"- keep it short and simple. Anne 30-Jun-2006

It looks like you are complaining about people who, as you say, "camp" on a page. They shouldn't continually revert your changes with no reason given anyway. Perhaps you should discuss the changes you're trying to make beforehand? If there are only two of you working on a page, and can't agree on the content, other editors or even administrators can be called to help resolve the dispute. I'm just a noob here myself, so don't ask me how that works.

Unless you're saying the Introduction page should say "While anyone can edit a page, not everyone's edits count. This makes the main concept of Wikipedia moot." ...? --70.142.40.34 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By "not complaining", I was trying to imply that I have no emotnknknjoijional investment my comments. Also, I did not say that changes are made without explaination, but "with a myriad of excuses". I.e, not sound reasoning but an attempt to excuse bad behavior. Anyhow, to put this simply, perhaps the verbage should be: "While anyone can edit a page, additions should be considered fleeting unless you are willing to protect your investment through vigilant attrition"?

seriosuly, leave n00bs alone. theyre not noobs forever

WP:VFD is very antagonistic to people who aren't logged in, yet deletion and commenting on deletion is part of the editinanimal testing is a terrible thing and needdss to be stoped one anf or all!A g process. Has the logged in part become mandatory, or are admins implementing a policy against the spirit of Wikipedia? 132.205.45.148 14:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is, I think, a very good point. The current policy is in place not due to a lack of respect for anons, but because it is very, very difficult to prevent double-voting, which is already hard enough to do with logged in voters. Still, I should look into this... --L33tminion | (talk) 16:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have a question. What reassurance do we have that articles on this site are reliable? How do we know we're not getting fed a bunch of BS? It kind of kills the concept of an encylopedia if the content is possibly made up out of the whims and fancies of others.

--It's reliable for the same reason that you say it isn't. Anybody can edit it, meaning that mistakes get caught and fixed very quickly.

ŵãē ìǒĮëňťłų

---

"It's reliable for the same reason that you say it isn't." An interesting answer...Perhaps a better way to ask the question is, what editorial policies guarantee accuracy vs popularity? Or, in plain English, how do we know the information represents the truth about a subject as opposed to popular myth?

We hope that "popular myths" won't stand up to rational argument as well as the truth, but on a fundamental level, Wikipedia is not about truth as much as our(that is, anyone who comes to Wikipedia and bothers to contribute) current understanding of the truth; this is also true of other encyclopedias - they just have a smaller "our". If you want absolute truth, you'll have to go somewhere else(and if you find it, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...) Thanks for the question, though! JesseW 19:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Last time I vandalized wikpedia (I confess, I have a few times) it disapeared within five minutes. I don't know if it was a bot or an administrator somewhere who found out someone edited such and such page and quickly saw that it was vandalized or just some casual wiki user, but it was gone. This place is very reliable, but its occasionaly prone to spelling errors.

People could just type junk and maybe others would never know, and someone doing a project could use this junk and then fail. Not very nice at all, if you ask me.

If you're doing a project and you only use wikipedia, you deserve to fail. Its not nice or nasty, its proper. aussietiger 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this page as simple and uncomplicated as possible. It's already got too long and complicated. It needs to have as little text as possible (in fact, I'm thinking of trying to make it almost totally image-based).

Please don't add millions of links, we need to keep people on track to go through the intro. If there are too many links, new users will get sidelined and go off to random parts of the site. Thanks, Tom- 16:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Indeed. Dan100 21:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Just to explain the reasons behind this: people don't like reading. If the page looks even remotely long, complicated, technical or boring users just won't read it: they'll hit back, and we might lose them. We have one chance to sell Wikipedia, it needs to be a very, very simple and terse. There's a heck of a lot we can try to explain, but we need to prioritise and only have the bare minimum to get people interested and editing. Tom- 22:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is very important. I think many users wanting to know more about wikipedia will click from the main page on the wikipedia link in the intro line, expecting a concise and organize 'about' page like you would find on any other website, but instead they find a lengthy encyclopedia article on wikipedia that's not intended as an introduction.--Nectarflowed 05:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely and totally agree.Icurite 22:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yah so do I and I'm just a new user! Just sighned up TODAY keep it simple thats what I'm doing. Get me at ssharply@yahoo.com and give me your opinion,please let me know. I agree as well, but I feel the Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia page should be added (in either 1, 2, or 3). The page is written specifically for new users, but when I accidentally closed the page, it took me forever to find again. Is there a reason this wasn't added here, or am I missing the way I am supposed to find it? It just seemed logical for me to look here for that page. -Razor X 20:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the template doesn't make it obvious to a newbie that they can edit the page. It might need some rephrasing ("You can edit the page below") or made much smaller and less complicated ("Welcome to Wikipedia. Try editing this page now!") ProhibitOnions 12:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am surprised to see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers redirecting here. Has there been any discussion about such a drastic move? Having been developed over many months, the old version was refined, balanced, and comprehensive. There is also Wikipedia:Tutorial which is better developed and more comprehensive than this new page here. In a word, this is a step back. I don't think that this important page should be switched to a totally new version without discussion. Even a poll might be appropriate. Kosebamse 17:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The thing I like about these pages is that they're very simple and encourage people to get stuck in, which is exactly what we want. The old pages were long, dry and, realistically, no new-comer would ever read though them. They will these! Dan100 20:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm also surprised to see this redirect. Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has been around since before February 13, 2002 (it was moved to the Wikipedia: namespace then, I don't know when the previous page was started). This page was just created November 30, 2004. There should definitely be consensus before redirecting such a well-established page to such a new page -- this is a major change. The content of Wikipedia:Introduction certainly has potential; however, I think it needs more time to develop, and a consensus, before it is used to replace Welcome, newcomers. User:Norm and User:Tom-, please consider reverting Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers back to its own content, and start either a discussion on the Talk: page or an RFC to gain consensus to redirect. Thanks for listening. Charm ©† 08:02, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree بؤنلتبنank you for inviting me.

• That is good. Fun, friendly and inviting. I assume it has implicit consensus as rdsmith4 is the only person changing it - I guess the rest of us like "Let's start". Dan100 20:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pardon me. I'm not being contrary - I'm trying to make a tutorial that does not "talk down" too much to those reading it. I'm trying to make it a bit more mature; "Let's start editing" sounds kiddish to me. Also, there's no reason that every little change needs to be discussed beforehand, and the fact that one person made an edit does not imply any sort of consensus for or against. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I do see where you're coming from. How about just "Start editing now!"? I like a kinda 'high-energy' wording, with an exclamation mark, to draw people on to the next page. Dan100 22:16, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Hmm. It was originally my wording, and I wasn't sure about it at the time. It's a very tricky balance between being friendly and just plain patronizing. I'm not sure what's best myself... Tom- 23:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've just changed to "Start editing now!". I think I prefer that to "let's...". Is that ok with people? Dan100 19:49, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Hi. I'm new here. When I first signed up, I was taken to the "tutorial" page. Now I can't seem to get back there, everything that looks like it should link to that takes me here instead. (Although I eventually managed to find it by searching on the word "tutorial"). It occurs to me that this section and the tutorial should be combined, or one should link directly to the other. Thanks. Ravenswood 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the language links at the bottom? Are they supposed to be like that? --Spug 00:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Predictably, this pages gets vandalized a lot even though it encourages readers to test on Wikipedia:Introduction 2. Therefore, I suggest the introductions be reorganized: move Template:Please leave this line alone to Wikipedia:Introduction, so readers can test editing on the very first page; use Intro 2 as a page of links about editing in more detail; leave Intro 3 more or less as it is. I've put my proposed changes to Template:Please leave this line alone at Wikipedia:Introduction/temp; the new content of this page would be as follows:

{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. -->

Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 19:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this page is getting a lot of vandalism, especially from IP addresses that have no accounts on Wikipedia. INFORMATION CENTER© ^{talk contribs} 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've seen the great success that the Intro page has done by it's funny history. But although it has made people start to write right in their first step by Wikipedia, shouldn't the introduction start saying about how to read it ? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia in first place. Then you are told that you can edit it. I think the explanations about editing pages should start on the second page. (I don't know if that's good or bad, but ovewriting the first page should stop with this sequence) --Hdante 21:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's good how it is. It emphasizes the difference between this and other encyclopdeias. Most people know how to read an encyclopedia, but they don't all know how to edit one

But I agree with Hdante that not everyone knows how to read a wiki. Not everyone knows where he can search things and what kind of features he can use to help me reading. So I think a tutorial for reading/using wikipedia is also required.

I think this is a good suggestion - but am guessing that such instructions already exist Trödel|talk 14:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi You appear to have submerged the (very) nice Tutorial which Isomorphic wrote, and I've contributed to, behind a redirect to the Introduction. Seeing no discussion of this on the talk page for the Tutorial, I'm curious why you did this, and where it might have been discussed. In lieu of any such discussion, might I suggest you retract the redirect until such discussion has taken place somewhere? --Baylink 14:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) (copied from my talk page Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

I don't know anythiung about that, I responded to the note at the top of this page. I am copying this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Introduction. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. The intro and tutorial serve very different purposes: the intro is a quick primer on editing with a place to test it briefly, while the tutorial is for those who want more detailed instruction. — Dan | Talk 15:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this change either. The intro should be as simple and to the point as possible. Now it's way too long. Change it back, please. Shanes 16:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Looking over this talk page, it seems like people keep wanting to redirect old pages to here. It's one thing to be bold, but could people please not redirect established pages like the Tutorial and Welcome, Newcomers without asking first? The tutorial frontpage redirect was very strange, since it made it nearly impossible to find the rest of the tutorial. I'm reverting this page to its short format, since several people have asked that this page be kept short. Isomorphic 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I infer from his comments above that SamSpade believed that the merge note on WN was justification, in some fashion, for changing the tutorial into a redirect to the introduction. I am not entirely sure why he might believe that, but it's the only thing I can draw from his comment above in this section, which he ported over here from his talk page, a reply to my inquiry.

I am, however, now concerned. Sam, it would probably be good if you could clarify the thinking that led you to the aforementioned redirects, as, unexplained, it appears to impute to you bad judgement about how and when to make large changes to important pages without concensus. --Baylink 15:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's time to have some serious discussion of the various introductory pages. We have Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and Wikipedia:Tutorial, which all serve related purposes. There have been some haphazard attempts to merge them, but doing something like that will require thought and discussion. I am making a village pump announcement, and start discussion on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Isomorphic 18:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can second that. I am still pretty new here, and when I first began, I found myself reading through so many explanatory pages that it was hard to remember which pages had the real useful, nuts-n-bolts information. For this reason, my first contribution was probably about 4 hours after first being introduced to the site.--Whysperseed 14:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia with the sole intent of doing my best to revert any and all vandalism I see. (Because of this point, I didn't read many 'tutorial' articles.) But from what I've gathered, Wikipedia's introductory pages are prime targets for malicious edits. Kribbeh 00:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that ANYONE can edit ANY page seems like it would cause more problems than any benefits achieved. As the number of visitors and edits increases, it becomes increasingly hard to audit the changes for false, purposefully misleading, or incorrect information. What about Bias? Ignorance? Hearsay? Underlying agendas? Pranks? It seems like wiki might be better off with a similar, but less "open" mechanism to public knowledge. Why not force people to be logged in?

It is suprising how "self-healing" Wikipedia is. Such changes, or vandalism, as it is referred to - is quickly reverted, and those that continue to vandalize the Wikipedia can have their IP or username banned. Trödel|talk 03:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That didn't stop me from having an erect fallace protrude onto my corporate desktop yesterday after clicking on the feature article from two days ago. I think there is going to have to be some sort of scoring system by which a higher positive allows higher privilages; privilages which would include raising the required score needed to edit a particular page. Making such a ranking system that works correctly and allows true NPOV is the challange. Jeff Carr 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia strives for a NPOV (Neutral Point of View). In some of the more popular (controversial) pages, there are pages of discussion in trying to get a NPOV and accurate information Kimun 21:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) --- If anyone can edit Wikipedia, can't someone simply delete an entire article? ---

As far as I can tell, it takes two oxen, a monkey, and a chest of gold to do it. By which I mean that I spent the last half hour learning how to nominate a page for deletion but *still* am not sure whether I did it correctly. Janet13 3 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)

Normal users can't delete pages (we can delete content, but that can be reverted). We have to nominate pages for deletion and in that, follow a three step procedure. Then people have to vote on whether to delete it. There's a strict deletion policy in place. Janet13 3 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

It seems confusing for new users [I'm a brat] trying to make sense of what Wikipedia is to read on the introduction page (blah) that the page is a stub about a mathematician [wish I were him], and that this page is in the category for such figures [therefore address me as a Dumbticianist]. If we want to let users experiment with editing a page at this point in the introduction [in my opinion], why not have a link to the sandbox [where I'm at] instead of letting them edit the intro page ['cuz I'm horny]? I think at the least the editable [idible]section should be titled "previous sample edits to this page" ["sample my edits" 'cuz I'm raunchy big daddy)--Nectarflowed 04:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect (my ass on) this page, but still have the "test edits..." [that's right] heading editable (idible)? --MarSch 16:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does all people is arguing on what news is the best and whats not..whats on the front page and whats not..the bottom line is we heard something new from all parts of the world not certain places only.Did all of you get what im a talking about..NEWS is basically new events. -- flunked School House of Rock grammar

The bot, User:Sandbot, is suppose to be enforcing the first two lines every thirty minutes. Should it not be enforcing the header, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose renaming the templates used in the intros to their respective Wikipedia equivalents. Thus {{introduction1}} would be used instead of {{warning to not edit this}}. The warning should be in some comment. Because of their strange names the templates were already once listed on tfd. --MarSch 15:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC) Kings and Vagabonds

See Template talk:Please leave this line alone for a discussion of why the templates are named as they are. They were taken of tfd after the issue was explained. Trödel|talk 13:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand why they are named as they are, but it is silly. Their name should imply their purpose. You can explain the rest in a comment.--MarSch 11:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This template should stay as named - right now I see a 1-1 vote for the move - this is no consensus for change - so it should stay where it is. Trödel|talk 16:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel that "don't edit this" template is more appropriate. Unless there is more community support to do so, I will not edit my bot. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if these templates must be named by a warning without a proper explanation in the comment then they should be numbered. Or could someone explain to me why {{don't edit this}} is Intro1 and {{don't edit this either}} is Intro2 and {{this should not be edited}} is Intro3.... But why would you want to warn in the template name if you (could) also warn in a comment? Therefore I propose to replace this page with

{{Introduction1}}<!-- This line generates this page, so please leave it alone. You may test and edit below -->

and move the template which generates it to {{Introduction1}}. Templates should have descriptive names. --MarSch 16:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please direct further comments on moving the template to the template talk page so all discussion is in one place Trödel|talk 02:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason for the "no profanity, please" in the comment, as it is ill-defined and may lead newcomers to believe pages like fuck won't exist. --SPUI (talk) 17:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur --MarSch 5 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

I would like to encourage people, especially beginners, to use section editing, as opposed to general editing. With that in mind, I inserted two headlines, but alas, there is not [edit] link. Why not? What can be done to make them appear? — Sebastian (talk) 05:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I presume the lion's share of the Wikipedia:Introduction page is contributed by the cute little template at the top, so users can't mess with it. However, in the name of efficiency, I thought I'd point out that the linked text "Be Bold" in the area about being bold but not being reckless actually links to "Wikipedia:Be bold" which redirects to "Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages". Maybe whoever has the keys to templates might want to update that link to point directly to its ultimate destination and maybe reduce the workload on the server just a wee bit? Weichbrodt 13:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Done Trödel|talk 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the introduction should remain informative and less interactive. When I viewed the introduction page from the main page (I think I clicked "anyone can edit"), I get some weird topic and absolutely nothing about the Wikipedia.

Normally, I wouldn't see this as any big deal, but this is where people are wanting more information about the Wikipedia, and if the template is missing from the page more often than not from people editing the page, is it really worth it encouraging people edit the introduction page?

I believe, to keep everything simple, encourage editing in the sandbox first and foremost, and take the "test edits..." line out of the Introduction1 template. (I'll crosspost in the template's talk page.)

For some people, this world will never be right.

What is it for, for users to test out editing? (This is a serious question) Blueaster 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is meant for newbies to test out editing. It proves to them that, yes, they can edit wikipedia. It also helps introduce wikipedia syntax. It's like a local sandbox. This link is Broken 05:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that there shouldn't be a test edit place on such a high-profile page such as this. Just a thought. I think the current non-standard arrangement with Template:Please leave this line alone, is confusing for new and experienced users alike. If the page needs protecting - protect it and let users "view source", - perhaps put comments at the top of the page imploring new users not to vandalise and to go to the sandbox? Richard Taylor 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys are missing the whole purpose of this page, i.e. 1) to let people edit, 2) to show the trust/welcoming nature of the community. Sure this page is vandalized frequently; however, if you review the history (the last time I counted was in April/May time frame), the number of inappropriate edits << (is much less than) the number of total edits. If you are concerned I would ask that you sign up at Cleaning Department - Dust Removal on Introduction and indicate what times you would help wtch the page. I can no longer participate as frequently as I would like - but checking this page is about the only thing I do when I login and I am impressed at how rarely it is in an improper state (even though the bot that used to automatically revert the page stopped working in late June/early July). Finally, the use of the template makes vandalising this page permanently much more difficult and makes it much easier for the new users to try out editing without effecting the instructions on the page.

For me, this page is important to remain editable, because that says to new users of wikipedia: "Welcome, we trust you, join our community and help us build the a great encyclopedia." (in a way much better than words) Trödel|talk 01:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said. clap, clap. That's why I keep the page on my watchlist, to help do that dust removal - but also to enjoy the often amusing or interesting questions that get asked on the page. I sometimes respond to some of them. JesseW 17:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we advertise on this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.234 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 August 2005

No, see Wikipedia:Spam. JesseW 18:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How are the I's pronounced? --24.176.138.2 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I pronounce it Wick-eee-pee-dee-ah. But I suppose another way would be Why-keep-eee-dee-ah. Why do you ask?--Light current 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

the first is the correct form Broken S 02:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia it's pronounced as either week-ee-peedia or wick-ee-peedia. --JoanneB 11:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone else say "Wih-kip-ee-dee-uh" like I do? —guest

I do--80.195.233.233 11:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how I and, I believe, most Americans say it. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've actually heard it as Wih-kip-AY-dee-uh. That's kind of a pretentious was of saying it, though.

I've always said "Wick-ih-pee-dee-ah". The word shouldn't sound much different from Encyclipedia, should it? Kribbeh 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

except that it's encyclopedia--Danlibbo 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like an awfully bad idea to make the introduction empty! It an introduction for God's sake!!! You can see from the reactions above that this is a very very VERY bad idea. There should be an - dare i say it - introduction here! --The Minister of War 06:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because the introduction is part of the page, it is possible for less scrupulous editors to remove the introduction. Quite a few Wikipedians watch the page to make sure that it stays there, but sometimes it disappears briefly. Check the page again to see the normal introduction. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit images? If so, what is it?

No, you must download the image and use a program on your computer to edit images. -- user:zanimum

adding images

Is there a way to add images that are not already a part of wikipedia? (like from some other website?) If there is, what is it?

If you join Wikipedia as a member, you can upload images, at "Upload files". Make sure the images are copyright-free, or under a free license. -- user:zanimum

I would have posted this sooner but I had assumed this talk page was also a test page of sorts. The header that Sandbot keeps adding includes the line "No profanity, please." This gives newbies an incorrect impression that Wikipedia is censored to "protect" minors. I asked AllyUnion to fix it and he came onto IRC and started complaining about me. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what is wrong with common decency. The use of explatives on the Introduction page presents an image of chaos and lack of scholarly review that is not in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia - to create an excellent free encyclopedia. Profanity can be an article, Fuck can have one too, but we should encourage common decency in our discussions with each other and the use of gratiuitious explantives in article text is not encyclopedic. Finally, "No profanity please" is not a censorship but a reminder to people to live up to their better selves, to respect the many people that visit this page, and there is, of course, no punishment or consequences for violating this request for decency. Trödel•talk 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Curious if I could get the edits back last January - I found that the new offset based on the date is pretty cool. My quick check of edits over a week in Jan 2005 found that about 18 registered (and now blue) users edited the page, 12 of them restored the comment. 4 of them were newbies trying out editing with random text and 2 restored the template link without restoring the comment, but did not object to restoring the comment by others. Near as I can tell Rdsmith4's edit] was the first one to introduce the no profanity request. Trödel•talk 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Guest here, so I have no idea how many rules I'm breaking as I type this, but just a response to that first comment: There's a very fine difference between "No profanity, please" and "No profanity, or else." The implication is that, sure, you can swear if you want, but you'll risk major etiquette/maturity/image points. [By the way, anyone can feel free to correct my spelling and grammar mistakes, in the Wiki spirit.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.234.152.119 (talk • contribs)

*some spelling fixed* Of coures you aren't breaking any rules by adding comments here. I happen to agree. The message is fine. BrokenSegue 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't no profanity merely mean that it shouldn't be used out of quotes, etc. because it's not an effective, professional way to communicate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D prime (talk • contribs)

Exactly Trödel 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been in many arguements about profanity and if it should only be used to display the nature of something. If you think about it, a majority of the time "#@^!" would work just as well, would it not? Kribbeh 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, censoring swear words like that would keep the spirit of the word, but not the raw encyclopediac value. Perhaps, in hypothetical example, there's a fictional (or even real) person who is known for saying the word "fuck". Now, if that persons' article said "This person is famous for saying the word #@^!.", then that would be misleading and not very helpful. I honestly can't imagine any case in a professional encyclopedia that censoring a swear word (and thus removing encyclopediac value of using the actual word) would be useful, with maybe one or two very minor exceptions. Of course, if an article quotes something that includes an already-censored swear word, then I'd think that keeping it in it's original form would be best, with maybe a note explaining which particular swearword was used if it's truly that important, or perhaps a sort of reversed method (such as "Before dying, he loudly cussed the word 'fuck', though most versions censor or even remove mention of which precise swearword was used.") 67.83.72.38 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"An outdated, over priced, and rarely ever complete set of Encyclopaedic tomes"

Righty-ho. But if I were writing an academic paper and had a choice of quoting EB or Wikipedia, it'd be EB every time - its content is static and therefore more reliable - even if it is more reliably wrong. Imagine completing your 50,000-word thesis only to discover that the meticulously-footnoted references had ben removed! --Dazzla 07:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you were writing an academic paper and were quoting EB (or Wikipedia), I am guessing you would probably not get an "A", as encyclopedias are a starting point for a good academic paper, especially if the assignment was to do some real research, not just quote someone else's efforts. Trödel•talk 12:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but research must always be backed by cited sources - as such, wikipedia is not a suitable citable source. Innit.--Dazzla 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - and articles should be moving towards having cited sources over time. That way like all research projects, you start at an encyclopedia to get an overview of the subject, and then use the named resources as the starting point for your paper. My point is that if you are citing EB as a definitive source you are only citing a paraphrase of another source - and a good paper should identify the source of the quote and cite it directly. Although most articles start without citations - the goal at WP is to have articles reach featured articles status which includes the requirement of verfied and citable research. As long as you understand it is a work in progress and you use it to find other sources then WP is great, and WP is just like all encyclopedias, i.e. they should generally not be cited is because they should contain existing knowledge and not original research Trödel•talk 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to answer to this particular point: "Imagine completing your 50,000-word thesis only to discover that the meticulously-footnoted references had ben removed!". One can use a permanent link to avoid the problem of dynamic content. Each version of an article has a permanent link, which one may obtain from the article's history page, or by using the Permanent link on the Toolbox on the left side. Also, there is Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Capi 12:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Canadian artist born in Quebec. Author of the ZEN OF FLIRTING(c), Lullaby for Adults (c), Lullaby for Pregnant Women (c), Evening Chant(c), Mystic Morning(c) (Meditation and Music) CDs.

I may be new, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't go here. Kribbeh 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is a HUGE target for vandalism. I think that instead of linking to it on the homepage, we should have a link to it that comes up when you log in. I know what you're thinking: "If you have to log in to use it, and the article is the only place that suggests that you get an account, it's kind of a Catch-22." So, on the homepage, it could suggest somewhere that anyone hoping to make edits start an account. (On the bright side, this article gave me my first chance to revert vandalism and make me feel good about my WikiAccount.) JaredW! 12:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I love the fact that the article is put right after three fine cases of vandalism. Anyway, I must encourage all cleaning up of vandalistic acts; that's why I registered to Wikipedia in the first place. Make a difference to Wiki's society! Kribbeh 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Mind the language busta!--007ketan 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As some of you who watch this page and help clean the vandalism up may have noticed, Sandbot is not running every 30 minutes. If you find vandalism, you can click this link to force Sandbot to repair the header. Rather than click edit, find the right text, and save etc. Trödel 01:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Just release the hounds on vandal; the ones that have bees come out of their mouths.

Pearl Harbor:The plan

I am a 20 year old just looking for answers that no one in my family seems to have. I am a new commer to this so I hope that someone out there will give me some advise of stories that I can relate to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.97.26 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

ps: why did you put noobie/noob? you should put /\/ () () 8 |3/ /\/ () () 8 what we need in wikie pp is spell check, honistly. I try to look up somthing and cant get it if i miss spell it,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.65 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 May 2006(UTC).

Ok that is stupid. You say there should be spell check, "honestly". that word is spelled h o n e s t l y. honestly. and I am 12 years old, loser. also, "can't" has an apostrophe in it, and is spelled wrong if not. and misspell. kk??

---

Lol after a fullstop is a capital, you silly billy! Try not to be so much of a smart arse =]

Really, was that nessesary?