Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/Archive 2

message: GASP! SUCH A THING EXISTS‽ Duecex2 00:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HUMOR ON WIKIPEDIA???

message: Sorry, really dont know where to ask this. Why aren't users in the sister wiki projects (WikiBooks, WikiQuotes, etc) shared with the Wikipedia? --Lacrymology 15:10:40, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
:That's what i'd like to know.Cameron Nedland 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User names 

message: Noticed that an anon removed the link to Special:Listusers, after noting the large number of obscenities. So many of the names on the first page of it are essentially nothing than that, many of them being  blocked for their username. Is there anything we can do about this? Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could have a developer remove them from the DB. But I don't think that's really a problem. ~~ N (t/c) 02:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, it makes Listusers basically a page that we wouldn't want to link to. I don't like having any of our special pages be useless in that manner. Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 09:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even without the obscenities, it's near-useless because there are so many users. ~~ N (t/c) 14:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with Tim Rhymeless on this one, I just joined and decided to browse the user list to see what other user names people have chosen and was overwhelmed by the number of spam users.  Surely, if only to increase database performance, they could be removed.  A related question for the developers: I am the administrator of a personal mediawiki site with about 40 users and 250 articles, and have been concerned about the possibility of spam-bots.  However, as far as I can tell, there is no implementation of a human confirmation process for user registration (as in phpBB for example).  Are spam-bots a problem and has anyone taken any steps to reduce that problem?  --Michaell 05:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listusers 

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

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

message: How are people adding html meta tag information for certain wikipedia article? For example Bill Gates article comes with specified meta tag information like "Contains wealth of information about Bill Gates' life" How are people doing this, is it in the edit page section or done in a different way like in the background or something? Google Bill gates and see the link with bill gates on wikipedia, you'll know what I'm talking about. Thanks! 
67.190.113.165 08:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML meta page description text

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

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

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

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

message: Meta site  is covered up by the box for me. I do not see an obvious fix for this. I'm using Firefox 1.0.6 on OpenBSD 3.8. I don't know if this is the right place to say so or if there's someplace else I should report it, but there you go. Armedblowfish 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also breaks on Firefox 1.0.7 on Windows XP, though different stuff gets cut off, probably due to screen size. Armedblowfish 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try downloading the latest Firefox update version 1.5.0.2 released April 13 - download from Mozilla.com - I don't see any problems using it, relative to IE 6.0 or Mozilla 1.7.12, but I don't have FF 1.0.6 or FF 1.0.7 loaded anymore to compare, and am also using a high resolution monitor (1600x1200).  --T-dot 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried downloading 1.5.0.2 on the Windows laptop (screen resolution is 1024x768). The CSS is still broken. (On the OpenBSD machine, I use the packaging system, which so far only has Firefox 1.0.6. However, OpenBSD 3.9 is coming soon, which will include a new set of packages.) Armedblowfish 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS breaks in my browser 

message: A silly little thing, but - well, you could call this sort of fascination with minutiae very wikipedestrian; anyway - anybody else prefer Homo wikipediens sysopus / bureaucratus / userus rather than Homo wikipediens sysopous / bureaucratous / userous?  Is there any reason to prefer one or the other as more "correct" (and I use the term loosely)? PatrickFisher 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PatrickFisher, in Latin, the endings would be 'us' (male) 'a' (female) and 'um' (neuter) for singular etc. see Latin declension for more detail. --Ancheta Wis 07:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-Latin: "ous" or "us"? 

message: Have these two ranks been destroyed? KFan II 14:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the Beurocrat and SysOp subspecies "dead"? 

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

message: I don't know if this is my problem or a problem with the article, but the box of "info" is covering up some of the text. WikiSlasher 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for me too. This is the green box on the right. It is covering up the first line of text there. Strawberry Island 05:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedians are the people who write and edit articles for Wikipedia. Some people might think that Wikipedist would be a more appropriate name, as an encyclopedist is someone who contributes to an encyclopedia. The ending of Wikipedian, though, suggests being part of a group or community. So in this sense, Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community.  ----------- The bolded for me is what is being covered up. Had to copy and paste it into a text editor to actually see what it was saying. --Strawberry Island 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box covering up the text 

message: This article qualifies as nonesense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaingy (talk • contribs) 
::The preceeding comment comes from an editor who has been frequently warned about vandalism and adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Just FYI.--Alabamaboy 19:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that we have the joke tag up there anyways, and if someone takes offense to this article and calls it garbage, well... That's their own problem. (USMA2010 05:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL Strawberry Island 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Mathiastck 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A limited amount of humor, declared as such, is of significant value in building a community. You don't get paid to edit here, you don't get Playboy interviews or Oprah appearances. All get is a feeling of fulfillment intrinsic to your inner cultural conditions. If you can't laugh at yourself, as long as it doesn't hurt the project itself, a community of grim inner-self driven academics may not sustain. Even the Zen ascetic monks are allowed their bit of humor. And, please, learn more from seasoned hands instead of taking sides with someone accused and blocked for repeated cases of adding nonsense. Aditya Kabir 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians? 

message: Should this article be labeled as "are not intended, nor should they be used, for any research or serious use." becuase of the comical and unture content similar to uncyclopedia? --Richman271Hello 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, it's not even funny in the slightest. Encyclopedia Dramatica, on the other hand, is hilarious, if also completely morally bankrupt. I think the humo[u]r tag should be removed because it's only funny if you have a lame sense of humour.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor 

message: I've been seeing some of my friends on wiki getting repeatedly vandalised, on a daily bases. I've come up with a good idea: How about we ban the Wikipedians user page from being edited except for the user himself/herself or by permission of the wikipedian. (I once asked a user from Homestar Runner Wiki to help me clean up my userboxes, but i gave him permission to do so)
What do you think?
Pece Kocovski 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban edits to user pages except for the users themselves? 

message: I truly commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia for surpassing the two million (or in figures: 2,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet the number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 08:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wikipedia in competiting with?  Is it in competition with other user communities?  It'd be cool to compare it to something it does comepte with.  It's clearly the most popular wiki.  So what else?  Should we compare it too.... google?  Yahoo?  Myspace?  When I have a question I'm choosing between google and wikipedia (well really answers.com but I always click the wiki link if it exists).  Myspace and wikipedia both have strong user communities. Mathiastck 08:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly question, how come there are 2 M users and just under 1.5 M pages created? E  Asterion u talking to me? 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause not everyone creates pages? --LorianTC 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[2|TWO]] [[Million|MILLION]]''' WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!! 

message: Claiming the number of Wikipedians is equal to the number of accounts opened is totally bogus. Who knows how many meaningless, duplicate, virtually unused, and inactive accounts that includes? At the very least, something like  should be defined. Even if the bar is as low as something like "at least one article edit within the past year," that count would at least have some sort of credibility. Rfrisbietalk 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it's the standard in the industry.  There isn't really any other established way to count "users" the term just isn't well defined.  What is well defined is page views, unique users per day, that sort of thing.  How often does someone have to participate to count as a user?  Are all of readers that don't even create acounts users?  How about anonymous edits?  Mathiastck 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus user count 

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

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

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

message: I have an argument with a user who acused me of being un-heterosexual,plus his comments are greatly homophobic (see:":::Homosexual behavior is activity by persons who have not developed beyond the stage of adolescence. At physical and mental maturity, usually around the age of 24 years, humans are normally heterosexual.Lestrade 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should I do?

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

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

message: Why is this page joking like Uncyclopedia!? It states that Wikipedians is A SPECIES!! --Edmundkh 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it is in the Wikipedia: namespace.. so it doesn't really matter? 131.111.8.98 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a kidding page!! 

message: I'm just going to say my peace: the image that's in there right now is extremely childish and not very encyclopedic. Quadzilla99 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: ...serious business.  --Spamwise 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians... 

message: Wikipedia:Community redirects here, but I wonder if that is good. Actually, it has been stated that "the community" does not necessarily equal the group of wikipedia users. That is one of the possible meanings of "the community", but not the only ones. For instance, there are developers that are not really wikipedians. I am not sure what we should do about that redirect though - delete it? // habj 21:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The redirect from [[Wikipedia:Community]] 

message: The biological information bar is kinds funny, but who says that Wikipedians are human? I'm sure some are, but what about ANNAfoxlover, who's a red fox, and Wwwwolf, who's a grey wolf, and Alphachimp, who's an orangutan? And can someone fix the picture, please? Thank you. A•N•N•Afoxlover     PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no responses to this, I am deleting it. Enjoy! A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Post new messages at the bottom or they will get ignored, and someone will accidentally leave you a  warning ;-)  —dgiestc 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry! A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not? A•N•N•Afoxlover St. Patrick's Day 2007 22:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's funny but inoffensive, matches the manual of style for species articles, and is consistent with the rest of the page, which is non-serious ways of looking at the Wikipedia community. —dgiestc 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxobox can stay. It looks fine. Acalamari 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The taxobox says that all Wikipedians are humans, which are an invasive species. First of all, I am not a human. I'm sure there are other Wikipedians who aren't humans. Also, the image in the box does not suggest that they are human (I don't know what in the universe that thing is anyway). Also, the box is turning the page into a humor article, which it shouldn't be. It is offensive to me, because I am not a human. Also, calling someone a nerd or geek could become offensive to a few users. It should be removed. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, are you really a red fox??? I thought humans were the only animals that could successfully type on a keyboard, but of course I could be wrong. Humans, and primates, have opposable digits, suitable for typing, and also suitable for advanced language. I would never expect any animal other than a human to make thousands of edits to wikipedia. Considering there are millions of wikipedians, I would think there could be a few dozen non-human wikipedians, like animals who were kept as pets, and randomly inserted letters as a username and password, and was smart enough to create the account. I never thought such an animal would make edits, though, and even severalhundred or thousand. It's possible, however, that a few animal wikipedians have made many constructive edits, although I would not expect many animals to have an IQ similar to that of humans. However, some animals, such as Koko the Gorilla, and Alex the Parrot, do have IQ's that are quite close to that of a human. Should we keep the possibility of non-human intellignet life a secret? BTW that image is a wikipedia mascot, second only to wiki-pe-tan. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a minute, humans! 

message: Hi. Why do the sysop, bureaucrat, and nerd subspecies of wikipedians have a cross beside it? Doesn't the cross indicate they are extinct? Also, shouldn't the subspecies of stewards, checkusers, oversights, developers, boardvotes, and foundation members be also included as rare subspecies? Should it be fixed? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any info in taxobox documentation about the use of "†".  I'm not sure why it's there.  Are you sure you want to clutter it up by adding every single user class?  Especially since there is so much overlap between those and the existing ones? —dgiestc 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subspecies 

message: Hi. Wikipedians are not elephants, as far as I know, so what does this have to do with Stephen Colbert?! Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL!!! 

message: Recently I noticed that the image column have been vandalised for a few times by placing inappropriate image. Can you people please stop this joke!!?? It's NOT funny at all!!!!--Edmundkh 10:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image vandalism 

message: What happened to the picture of Wikipe-tan in the library? Who put that stupid "bug thing" back.—Joe Jacard (Talk-Desk) 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipe-tan 

message: Added several additions to the scientific classification.Tyg13 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post new comments at the bottom or nobody will notice them.  Secondly, it's not very funny having a huge exhaustive list of ell symphylums, superfamilies, etc.  Brevity is the soul of wit. —dgiestc 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, about that. I didn't know whether or not to add it when I was about to press the save page button. Tyg13 05:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Update 

message: There is a huge problem.  I recently checked my user talk page for the last edit, which was mine: , and I got this edit: .  It says I have 38 intermediate revisions.  But that's not the problem.  I clicked on "Older edit," and it takes me to this page: .  One more time and I get here: .  I click on "Newer edit" and I get back to that last one, but when I click on "Newer edit" again, I get sent here: .  Somehow, I got trapped in Wikipedia:Wikipedians, and the same thing happens no matter which page's history I look at.  So I think there is some sort of virus on Wikipedia that brings users to this article.  ––Ksy92003(talk) 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy delete - I've never heard of this Pirandello and this is the english wikipedia!!! Wait a moment ... where am I? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍  contributions 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah there's some WS going on here. I noticed it from here, and lots lots and lots of weird things going on. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, you guys! Ralbot sended me a signpost. You see, this bug  was over a half-hour long! Causing edits AND reverts from numerous un-related articles. Go  here for more information about this "world's dangerous bug". --   PNiddy  Go!  0 05:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virus??? 

message: Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine forth compliment and perhaps the fifth for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the Five Million (or in figures: 5,000,000) mark of the Wikipedian Population!!! Yet this whopping number of registered user accounts of this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on contributing! Yaaahooooo!!! 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[5|FIVE]] [[Million|MILLION]]''' WIKIPEDIANS!!! YEAH!!!