Can and may I create a page based on my research on the administrators' behaviour, with evidence and such, Greatnecro and ZooGuard? — Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 07:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Probably best not. When somebody did that here for Portuguese Wikipedia, it didn't go down well. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Scream!! and ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel, I was already in Wikipedia. It's just that I thought that even with the most rational arguments on why I shouldn't be blocked for a simple spelling mistake or why they should calm down on me the same five administrators would gang up on me and threaten to block me. I still have my log, and unblocked, so maybe we could use that to test out the administrators. Believe me, just sending them an apology message would incite them. I have the evidence I need. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- My own (limited) experience with writing a Wikipedia article was rather sobering for me. I wrote an article about a figure in the ROA, "Russian Army Of Liberation", which collaborated with Germany in WW2. The article was basically a translation of one on the same figure in the Russian-language version of Wikipedia. The individual concerned was formerly a Soviet journalist and played a significant role in ROA propaganda but he disappeared mysteriously in the summer of 1944 near Berlin, possibly abducted by the Gestapo. There were rumours he was in fact Jewish, and these may have been a factor in his abduction, if this was what indeed happened. Basically, his story was a minor but fascinating sideshow of WW2. My article was repeatedly refused on quality grounds (it was my first try, admittedly) but I addressed all the issues brought up by administrators, adding that it was essentially a translation, to which the reply was that perhaps the Russian Wikipedia has different standards. Anyhow, it was never accepted, even though English-language Wikipedia seems to accept all sorts of garbage as articles. Ι had a feeling they found the subject unappealing but never admitted to it. After that experience, I lost interest in writing for Wikipedia. Philosophyfootball (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The 15 functions of Wikipedia
As it is coming up to WP's 15th birthday, what are its functions?
- The source of all (mis)information (both, at the same time, in the same article)
- Gresham's Law as applied to encyclopedias
- A point of first resort.
- A point of multiple resort (see all the websites copying from WP).
- A fruitful ground for Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and their relatives.
- A fruitful source of complaints by 'nobody agrees with our (so off-beat they are out of tune) theorists.
- A (mis)quote mine.
Well, I liked the nonsense
- Classic humor never goes outta style. At least put The Encyclopedia Any Kid Can Vandalize back in. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Pedantry part 2
- There's currently 203 million content pages across the Wikimedia domains, but only 50 million articles on all versions of Wikipedia. — Dysk (contribs) 20:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't there a fuss a while back over the choice of image used when smallpox was a featured image?