Jump to content

User:KF/For future reference/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, you still don't have new messages.

Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.

<font-size:500%>Sorry - we have a problem...</font-size>

The wikimedia web server didn't return any response to your request.

To get information on what's going on you can visit #wikipedia.

An "offsite" status page is hosted on OpenFacts.

<font-size:200%>Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-new/includes/LoadBalancer.php on line 112</font-size>

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved. While trying to retrieve the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KF the following errors were encountered:

  • Access Denied.
  • Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect.

Warning: mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.4/includes/Database.php on line 312
Unable to free MySQL result

Backtrace:

  • Database.php line 457 calls wfdebugdiebacktrace()
  • User.php line 448 calls databasemysql::freeresult()
  • SkinTemplate.php line 253 calls user::getnewtalk()
  • OutputPage.php line 422 calls skinmonobook::outputpage()
  • OutputPage.php line 611 calls outputpage::output()
  • Database.php line 348 calls outputpage::databaseerror()
  • Database.php line 297 calls *databasemysql::reportqueryerror()
  • SpecialContributions.php line 121 calls *databasemysql::query()
  • SpecialPage.php line 309 calls wfspecialcontributions()
  • SpecialPage.php line 220 calls *unlistedspecialpage::execute()
  • index.php line 93 calls specialpage::executepath()



  • If you have created this page in the past few minutes and it has not yet appeared, it may not be visible due to a delay in updating the database. Please wait and check again later before attempting to recreate the page.
  • If you created an article under this title previously, it may have been deleted. See candidates for speedy deletion for possible reasons.

Database error
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
You probably tried a search or other operation which took too long. Possible reasons include:

  • A search where all words are in quotes. Try searching without the quotes initially. If that isn't good enough, add a few more words or use a word or two outside the quotes to indicate the general topic area.
  • An exceptionally large personal watchlist (probably over 10,000 items) at busy times.
  • You may have been unlucky and tried when the database servers were temporarily exceptionally loaded. When under exceptional load many harmless tasks may be ended at once to quickly restore normal response times. Try again in five minutes if you know that what you are doing is normally fine.

The generic error message is: A database error has occurred. This could be because of an unacceptable search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: DELETE FROM user_newtalk WHERE user_id=3602 from within function "User::saveSettings". MySQL returned error "1223: Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting read lock". If the error above is 2013 your operation was ended by the database load manager. Please improve your search or try again at a less busy time. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Database error
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For KF (Talk)
A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching {{SITENAME}}), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: SELECT ss_total_views, ss_total_edits, ss_good_articles FROM site_stats WHERE ss_row_id=1 from within function "wfLoadSiteStats". MySQL returned error "2013: Lost connection to MySQL server during query". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions"

* * *

Sorry- we have a problem...

The wikimedia.org servers are currently overloaded, or down.

Hopefully this will be fixed soon; please check back in a few minutes, as the problem is most likely temporary To get information on what's going on you can visit #wikipedia.

An "offsite" status page is hosted on OpenFacts.

Donations

Due to the ever-increasing number of people visiting Wikipedia and its sister Wikimedia projects, we have a constant need to buy new hardware to keep the site running. If you'd like to help, please donate. Some links to pass the time: Wikipedia's ever-increasing popularity Paper describing the wikimedia network structure

Generated Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:09:37 GMT by wikipedia.org (squid/2.5.STABLE4-20040219.wp[icpfix,nortt])

* * *

11:09, Mar 13, 2005 The End is the Beginning is the End (3207 bytes) . . MrHate
11:05, Mar 13, 2005 Civil unions in Czech Republic (276 bytes) . . 80.53.83.194
11:06, Mar 13, 2005 Placeshifting (211 bytes) . . 66.127.54.234
11:02, Mar 13, 2005 יעקב (16 bytes) . . Noogz
10:59, Mar 13, 2005 Civil unions in Toscania, Umbria,Emilia Romagna (481 bytes) . . 80.53.83.194

* * *

(diff) (hist) . . Mahatma Gandhi; 19:03 . . Hemanshu (Talk)
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Deletion log; 19:03 . . Morwen (Talk) (deleted "Hierarchical file system": content was: 'haha I bet you thought you were going to learn about the hierarchical file system..... fat chance here')
(diff) (hist) . . M Ig Nobel Prize; 19:03 . . Magnus.de (Talk) (+ de)

< User:KF

On Fruit:

(cur) (last) . . M 00:57, 4 Jan 2004 . . Michael Hardy (Someone made a special effort to introduce this error (albeit probably innocently).)
(cur) (last) . . M 20:59, 3 Jan 2004 . . KF

Yeah, the innocent guy, that's me.

< User:KF

This is how Wikipedia works on the eve (more or less) of its third birthday. A reason to celebrate Wikipedia Day?

< User:KF (LAST CHANCE TO LEAVE)

I (some pointless numbering ahead)

[edit]

Date: Saturday, November 23, 2024

Time: 11:15 UTC

Number of articles:

{{spoiler}}

* * *

II

[edit]
The intellectual is someone who has found something more interesting than sex. (Edgar Wallace)



























































Lists created by Jengod:



e-texts





























* * *



Rescuing a photograph: The dining room and bar

III

[edit]



Wikipedia is a game. It is an entertainment, played in moves, according to rules, towards a goal.

  1. "Each move must increase an entry's accuracy, transparency, selective completeness and weighted balance, using vision and appropriate wit."
  2. "Avoid unnecessary interference."
  3. "Leave your personal agenda on the porch."

So simple. The rest is mostly technique, minimal decorum and detail.

(User:Wetman)

































''<small>This article is no more than a [[Wikipedia:Perfect stub article|stub]]. You might want to [[Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub|work on it]].</small>''

<small>''This text has been adapted from the [[1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica]].''</small>

On categories:


  • [[Category:Austria]]
  • [[Category:Austria-Hungary]]
  • [[Category:Austria-related stubs]]
  • [[Category:Austria geography stubs]]
  • [[Category:Austria images]]
  • [[Category:Austrian-Americans]]
  • [[Category:Austrian History]]
  • [[Category:Austrian Jews]]
  • [[Category:Austrian Olympians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian School economists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian actors]]
  • [[Category:Austrian actresses]]
  • [[Category:Austrian alpine skiers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian archaeologists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian architects]]
  • [[Category:Austrian artists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian astrologers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian astronomers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian biologists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian businesspeople]]
  • [[Category:Austrian chemists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian composers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian cuisine]]
  • [[Category:Austrian culture]]
  • [[Category:Austrian diplomats]]
  • [[Category:Austrian economists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian emigrants]]
  • [[Category:Austrian explorers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian figure skaters]]
  • [[Category:Austrian film directors]]
  • [[Category:Austrian film producers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian films]]
  • [[Category:Austrian football]]
  • [[Category:Austrian football clubs]]
  • [[Category:Austrian football competitions]]
  • [[Category:Austrian footballers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian heavy metal musical groups]]
  • [[Category:Austrian history]]
  • [[Category:Austrian ice hockey]]
  • [[Category:Austrian ice hockey players]]
  • [[Category:Austrian inventors]]
  • [[Category:Austrian journalists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian jurists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian law]]
  • [[Category:Austrian logicians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian mathematicians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian mountain passes]]
  • [[Category:Austrian music]]
  • [[Category:Austrian musical groups]]
  • [[Category:Austrian musicians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian opera singers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian painters]]
  • [[Category:Austrian peace treaties]]
  • [[Category:Austrian people]]
  • [[Category:Austrian people by occupation]]
  • [[Category:Austrian philosophers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian physicians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian physicists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian pianists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian politicians]]
  • [[Category:Austrian politics]]
  • [[Category:Austrian priests]]
  • [[Category:Austrian racecar drivers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian rivers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian scientists]]
  • [[Category:Austrian soldiers]]
  • [[Category:Austrian sport]]
  • [[Category:Austrian sportspeople]]
  • [[Category:Austrian tennis players]]
  • [[Category:Austrian wars]]
  • [[Category:Austrian writers]]
  • [[Category:Austro-Hungarian Navy]]
  • [[Category:Austro-Hungarian Navy officers]]
  • [[Category:Austro-Hungarian World War I people]]
  • [[Category:Austro-Hungarian people]]
  • [[Category:Austroasiatic languages]]
  • [[Category:Austronesian languages]]











If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)


















Sick of edit conflicts? Just add the following code at the top of the article you want to work on:

{{inuse}}

This will add the following text:

NOTE: This article is currently undergoing a major edit. As a courtesy, please do not make edits to this article until this message is removed, to avoid edit conflicts.

It will look like that:

{{inuse}}

__NOTOC__ suppresses the Table of Contents (for example if it would be inserted too far down in an article).












{{pd}} or {{pd|KF}}
This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.
{{pd-user|KF}}
This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator, KF. This applies worldwide.
{{PD-self}}
I, the creator of this image, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
{{PD-link}}
This image has been released into the public domain by its creator and original copyright holder. This applies worldwide. As such you are entirely free to reproduce it, create derivative works, or make commercial use of it as you see fit, without any requirement to give the creator credit. However, as a courtesy, a link back to Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) would be appreciated.
{{GFDL}}
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Subject to disclaimers.
{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}
This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose.
{{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}
This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that credit is given to the photographer.

















I didn't know there was a test.wikipedia until mid-September 2003.

Sjc, Tannin

* * *



From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KF:

KF

[edit]

Vote here (contribs) (17/0/0) ending 1:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

KF has been here for two years and has made approximately 7,000 edits, to literary and geographic topics and many others. KF is also a prolific copy editor and is active reverting vandalism. I offer this nomination with KF's permission.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candidate assumed to accept nomination by virtue of answering generic question
No need for any long discussions on my account. I thought I had accepted my nomination there. Well, I obviously haven't, so once again: I hereby accept my nomination. <KF> 04:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:43, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  3. "Antonio Black Metal Martin" 22:33, 15 Nov 2004 (MST).....seven thousand edits, vandalism aware, seems like an excellent administrator to be to me.
  4. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) I see this guy everywhere. To me, that seems like a good sign.
  5. Andre (talk) 16:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  6. —No-One Jones (m) 18:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Acegikmo1 18:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Of course. --Lst27 (talk) 00:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Another great nomination by uc. uc's really on top of things! 172 06:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. Anyone who loves to fight vandalism can't be all that bad (Smile). Let's kick some vandal b--t!Tony the Marine
  11. All your vandalism are rolled back by us. --Slowking Man 07:39, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  12. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. - Amgine 06:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Yes. func(talk) 19:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Wolfman 01:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. All right, no objections. Everyking 06:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. /Tuomas 15:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  18. Duk 16:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I would continue reverting pages in cases of vandalism and I would want to deal with requests for undeletion, having myself experienced on a number of occasions how easily articles (or at least stubs) which are worth keeping are mistakenly speedy-deleted.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I used to be pleased with my introduction to crime fiction before it was cut up and distributed all over Wikipedia. (Fortunately, whoever is interested in my original article can still access the old version. Generally, being able to do that is really one of the good features of Wikipedia.) I think the biography of Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky is quite good, and I'm watching over List of literary works with eponymous heroines because I believe nowhere else can one find such a list.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I had an argument with Maveric 149 ages ago about NPOV in Losers in literature (which has been renamed since). More recently, there was some dispute about the Gallagher disambiguation page, but both "conflicts" are hardly worth mentioning. Generally, I think it's a ridiculous idea having a nervous breakdown while you're all alone in your room in front of your PC. I'm not quite that peaceful in real life. <KF> 11:48, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Dark Frontier

[edit]

This category lists the titles of books and novels originally released in the year 1936.
See also 1936 in literature

1930s books: 1930-1931-1932-1933-1934-1935-1936-1937-1938-1939

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Frontier"

Categories: 1936 | 1930s books | Books | Literature

Ixania

[edit]

Ixania, a small fictional country somewhere in a mountainous region of the Balkans, is the setting of Eric Ambler's spy thriller The Dark Frontier (1936).

See also

[edit]
* * *

(from VfD)

Fictional country from a book that doesn't even have an article. What little content there is could be moved to one of the two lists mentioned in the article. DCEdwards1966 16:34, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is work in progress. What is the difference between the article on Ixania—a short article instead of a redirect for those looking for the placename—and those on Qwghlm, the Dominion of Melchizedek, or Pottsylvania? If you think we don't need an article on Ambler's The Dark Frontier please say so and I will reconsider publishing it or adding anything to this text here. <KF> 17:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
If you write an article about the book, you can put information about Ixania there. It doesn't need its own article. DCEdwards1966 19:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
What exactly would be the problem if Ixania did have its own article? I'm thinking of someone who remembers the name but can't place it. They might type "Ixania" into Wikipedia's search function, and they would get a result (which would also be pointing to a discussion of the novel). Don't tell me a redirect to The Dark Frontier will do because I would only repeat my initial question. <KF> 19:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
But it has no extra information beyond what is included in the Dark Frontier article. That's what redirects are for. Someone who types in "Ixania" because they can't place it is delivered the whole context in a flash. Neat huh? Dr Zen 02:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep—Trevor Caira 21:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a stub, but it's doing no harm. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep agreeing with Dante. I like the idea of 'explain something and point to its wider context' although it doesn't seem to be what most people want around here. Kappa 00:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, to The Dark Frontier if that gets written or to one of the two current lists if it doesn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I failed to make myself understood. Normally I finish an article and then post it. Just once I did it the other way round. As with all the other fictional places (have a look at their respective articles), there is a lot more to say than what the article contains at the moment. If, as Antaeus Feldspar suggests, this stub is "merged and redirected", the article on Ixania will not get written. Nipping something in the bud usually does not encourage (prospective) authors from joining in or carrying on. <KF> 01:42, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
What is there to say about it though? A good method is to begin a section in the Dark Frontier article titled "Ixania". No one is going to write about Ixania who doesn't know the novel, hey? If the section grows large, then break it out.Dr Zen 02:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I give up, whether some of you are trolls or not. I'm actually embarrassed to see someone with such a noble handle ("Dr Zen") write such a pointless comment which shows me he/she has not bothered to understand mine. If discouraging people is your policy, go ahead. <KF> 08:15, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
What was to understand? The country means nothing outside the novel, so put it in the article on the novel. That's the answer to your question. If the section grows unwieldy, break it out. And hey, people are not "trolls" just because they disagree with you.Dr Zen 23:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
KF, the point here is that the information fits in better with the main article. Even thought Wikipedia is not paper, we don't need to have separarte articles on related subjects. Oh ya, merge with The Dark Fronter and redirect. hfool 23:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is an unworthy spectacle, and I don't want to have a part in it. The "troll" bit was suggested on, and is therefore an allusion to, one of your user pages ("I'm not a troll"—now who starts a user page that way?). Whoever advocates "merge and redirect" has been prevented from realising that there is nothing to merge. Actually, there is more about Ixania in the article on the novel than in the article on Ixania. I could say a lot more here, for example generally about entries on fictional places, but why should I try and write about things no one is interested in. <KF> 19:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • One problem with leaving a stub the way it was is that people won't realise there is more information available. They may even waste their time expanding the stub. Kappa 04:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg

[edit]

I can't see on the Frederick Jackson Turner page. This has happened before (about a year ago or so), and back then I uploaded the image for a second time. Now the same thing has happened again.

Please don't tell me it's displayed fine on your screen. This doesn't help a lot. I'd like to find out what is wrong here. <KF> 17:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's getting more weird by the minute. I chose [[Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg]] as the header, and not even that is displayed. <KF> 17:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
All right, it should probably have a colon in front and read [[:Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg]], which then works (but there's still no image):

Image:Frederick Jackson Turner.jpg <KF> 18:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I added colons in front of the first two image links because that guy was just creepy. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
* * *

Angry Ryan and the Nosebreakers are said to be the first band to non-widely popularize and play the genre of music entitled anger-core. Anger-core is the heart of everything that you want to be at. Angry Ryan and the Nosebreakers are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at all times, but it is said that Angry Ryan himself is a fan of mass-consumption of both. Angry Ryan and the Nosebreakers do not sound like your cousins band. Your cousins band sucks, as do you.

The answer to all of your questions about Angry Ryan and the Nosebreakers and Anger-core lies in the following statment: Start a fire.

IV

[edit]

Hi Eric, how do you create those talk pages for anonymous users (in my case I'd want one for 172.185.179.167)? Either I just can't remember or I have never done it before or there has been a change -- whatever. Hope you are having a nice summer. --KF 17:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User talk:172.185.179.167 should work. The only way to create them other than by doing so manually is to use the "Talk" link in Recent changes. The reason for this is that these IPs are very ephemeral and may quickly be assigned to a different user, so we don't want these links spread all over the place.—Eloquence 17:43, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for answering that (as I can see now) rather stupid question. All the best, Kurt
* * *

Hm. I'd love to log in as KF but I can't. Looking at Recent Changes, no one else seems to have that problem. Could someone tell me what is wrong?

Hm, I'd love to help you, but you've given absolutely no information that could be used to do so. What, exactly, is the procedure you're following and what, exactly, is the wiki doing in response? Are there error messages? Are cookies enabled in your browser? Are you in fact KF? ;) --Brion 22:11 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If all else fails, try Mozilla temporarily. It does miracles. --Menchi 22:26 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the lack of information. I'm using Internet Explorer (and have been doing so all the time, and haven't changed any of the settings disabling cookies or whatever). When I click on Wikipedia (any page) I'm told that I'm not logged in. The spaces for my username and my password are empty. I type in both and get the message "Log in successful". Whatever page I choose next I'm again "not logged in". And there is no way I can prove who I am.
From that description, it's almost certainly a (no-)cookie problem. Sad to say, we don't actually do a double-check that the cookies were received and saved by your computer: so if the login goes okay, it says "success!" and tells your browser to save id cookies, but the next page you go to, there's no cookie returned to identify you, so you're not logged in. If all is well, you should have a PHPSESSID cookie, a wcUserID cookie, and a wcUserName cookie from www.wikipedia.org. If you don't have these, make sure you haven't accidentally set it to not accept cookies or something. (Check also if you're behind some kind of proxy that's meant to strip out advertisements; sometimes these may go for cookies too.) --Brion 22:52 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks an awful lot. I'm impressed. Someone else seems to have changed my cookie settings. Something still seems to be wrong here, but at least I can log in again. Thanks again, and enjoy your Saturday night! KF 23:09 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
* * *

From Wikipedia:Pages needing attention:

  • Crime fiction -- it is very academic and dry. I did not find to be very organized either. -- Two Halves April 13, 2003
    • A fair bit of refactoring done. Content split into three articles, and some added to other existing articles. I guess fit to be removed from here chance 09:10, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
* * *

V

[edit]

It just occurred to me that I might add this little gem of a conversation before it is finally, once and for all, deleted. This is what happened:

(1) Some school kid surfed the net for information on Gregor Mendel and wrote some rubbish in a newly created page called Heinzendorf, allegedly Mendel's birthplace.

(2) On the Mendel page, which contains quite a number of inaccuracies, it said that Heinzendorf was a village in Austria. Accordingly, in the process of weeding, another user deleted the newbie experiment and replaced it with a stub whose text read: "Heinzendorf, Austria is mainly known as the birthplace ...".

(3) What followed then was communication via the talk page:

There is no Heinzendorf in Austria. See http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.m/m529936.htm;internal&action=_setlanguage.action?LANGUAGE=en . --KF 19:48 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! -- John Owens
I was just going on the information from the Mendel page. However, was Austria a part of the Czech Republic at one time (as one page said after a google search)? -- Notheruser 19:59 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
The other way round of course. Ever come across the Habsburg empire? See also History of the Czech Republic. KF 20:27 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Interesting history (sadly, I had never heard of the Habsburg empire). Thanks for the clarification. -- Notheruser 20:46 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

(4) Meanwhile, someone had moved the Heinzendorf page to Heinzendorf, Austria.

(5) Then they obviously read my comments and found out that Mendel's birthplace can be found today in the Czech Republic. So they renamed the page again. For half an hour or so, the page had the ominous title Heinzendorf, Czech Republic.

(6) Now how would you like it if someone created a page entitled Neuyork, Neuyork? Or Londres? So I moved the page to the current Czech name of the village, relying on an Austrian online encyclopaedia (see link above).

(7) I don't know anything about Mendel. I've never been to his birthplace. And I don't speak a word of Czech. Still the name Hyncie, Czech Republic looked weird to me. Only then, after extensively googling Mendel, did I find out that the actual name is Hyncice, Czech Republic. That, hopefully, would be the final move. Viribus unitis, we'd created a great article for Wikipedia. Now that's what I call professionalism. --KF 05:19 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

PS As it turns out now, almost half a year later, someone messed up the whole system of redirects by moving the page again -- this time from Hyncice, Czech Republic to Hyncice. I wonder why. --KF 08:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

* * *

VI

[edit]

If the current deletion craze persists, the Talk:Interim page will soon be annihilated. This then is my copy:

Okay, but I also object right here. This is absolutely ridiculous. Why would anyone want to delete this page??? --KF 00:02, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moving my comment here doesn't make a lot of sense (see above -- who'd start an argument with "Okay"?), so let me say the whole thing again:
Interim is a good page, whether you consider it a stub or the (almost) finished product or anything in between. I've discussed this question before (see Talk:Point of no return), and I'm a bit tired of it. With the help of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary you can argue both for and against inclusion in Wikipedia.
I mean, why pick on this page? And would you want to wipe out, say, crystallomancy and stallion, too? What would be left? Where do you draw (your highly subjective) line?
KF 12:19, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I moved it here as I felt comments should occur on the talk page, not on the article. I thought this was standard practice. It would be better discussing this at VfD rather than here. It doesn't make sense. Who are you addressing when you keep saying you? I didn't list it for deletion and I don't want it deleted; I want it moved to Wiktionary. What's wrong with that? Angela

Hi Angela. Thank you for your answer.
(1) As I have already pointed out several times, I feel uncomfortable with the way pages are being deleted at present. This concerns the choice of pages, the speed of deletion and the procedure in general. I wonder how many potential contributors we (we Wikipedians, not you) have already scared away that way. It used to be different, I remember that very well.
(2) When I say you I mean those of us Wikipedians who, for whatever reason, have made it their main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others. As you have reacted to my message, you seem to be one of them. It makes me sad to think about it, but I remember two contributors -- Isis and Zoe -- who did more or less the same, got into a number of fights and eventually left. Whenever I come across a page I think doesn't fit in, I also do something about it, but I do not go about it systematically. I just don't think Wikipedia is that bad that such a thing is necessary.
(3) What's wrong with keeping the Interim page here? It contains valuable cross references, which is always an asset for an encyclopaedia. And again, why this page? Why not any (or rather all) of the following (a random list):
I hardly ever ask rhetorical questions, and this isn't one either.
All the best, --KF 19:14, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Firstly, I do not make it my "main (vocation-like) task to clean up after the others". I was simply responding to your question which I noticed on the VfD page.

Secondly, the "valuable cross references" will still exist. They will just link to Wiktionary rather than to Wikipedia.

Why this page? Ask jimfbleak - he nominated it for deletion. Probably because he came across it, and has yet to come across the others.

You may also be interested in the current debate on the village pump entitled Stop the Stubs.

Angela

Dear Angela,

(1) I have taken my time rereading the Stop the stubs debate, and now I wonder why you suggested I should have a look at it. There, seven regular contributors (Fantasy, Camembert, Wik, Wapcaplet, DavidWBrooks, till we *), and to some extent also Pete) argue in favour of having stubs and express -- in more words than I have ever done -- exactly my own ideas about the subject. It is only ²¹², the apparent instigator of the debate, who argues against them. So what am I supposed to learn from that? (Again, not a rhetorical question.)

By the way, today I created an article about lozenge only because I was quicker than the deleters. Never ever would it have occurred to me to write about that subject if I hadn't come across an obvious newbie experiment.

(2) As I regularly try to point out, the overall procedure and also the underlying policy of expanding Wikipedia are inconsistent. Consider this: You have a long, wikified article with a lot of (or at least some) links which do not (yet) work. That's the standard. Then someone comes along and creates a new article by clicking on one of those links and writing a stub. If the wikified article contains links like fatigues (see the camouflage article) or Geoff Mute (because he was an extra in some 1973 B-movie), we are encouraging users to write dictionary-type articles as well as short biographies on irrelevant (or fictional) people. Speaking as an advocatus diaboli now, if you really wanted to prevent people creating stubs, you would have to remove all those dead links in the first place rather than clean up radically after someone has made a mess. But again, I would say that that would be highly counter-productive. I'd leave everything exactly as it is and slow down the deletion process a bit.

(3) My question why Interim is going to be deleted rather than, say, plaintiff remains unanswered. I won't ask jimfbleak because I'm discussing this with you, not him.

(4) In my last reply to you I was going to say something about the quick deleters' motives. I was going to say it is to do with some kind of power struggle and their subconscious need to sit in judgement over others. I'm glad I didn't say that because I found out only minutes ago reading your user page that you are a psychologist. Actually I've always been interested in how some people can be so sure that they are right. I discussed this some time ago with Isis (at Talk:Remake): Back then the situation was similar although the discussion revolved around NPOV rather than VfD. Generally speaking, we shouldn't take Wikipedia too seriously. It's great fun, but there is something called real life, too -- didn't you mention that yourself at one point?

(5) I'm not going to keep on arguing. It's not worth the effort. However, I wish I knew why you inserted a blank line between machete and plaintiff in my last message.

Well then, bye for now, --KF 00:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear KF,

I didn't say you needed to learn anything from it. I just thought you might be interested or want to add to it. Some people don't read things like the village pump so I point it out to them when I think it is relevant.

I would like to clarify that I am not against stubs. Have a look at the other Wikipedias I have been to today - they are mostly stubs (ar, cy, ia, simple, ru). My comment on interim was relating to the fact I thought it better placed at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. I have never said it should be deleted for any reason, and certainly not because it is a stub.

This page is not the place to argue against policy.

I do not want to stop people creating stubs. It is only blank pages I object to – not stubs.

Why are you discussing this with me, not him? I argued against the deletion of interim. I said it should go to Wiktionary. I have not looked at plaintiff so I can not comment on it merits.

Why are you accusing me of being a quick deleter?

I am not a psychologist, I just studied it. Neither am I a Software Engineer (although if you read my user page after 10pm UTC today then you would have no reason to think that anyway).

I am never sure that I am right. I change my mind frequently. I did mention real life once – on a deletion policy page if I am not mistaken.

I am not quite sure why you think this an argument. I don't disagree with anything you have said.

I did not insert a blank line between machete and plaintiff in your last message, at least not intentionally. Can't quite see how that happened.

Good job I moved your comment off the article page or it would be a very strange article by now.

Angela

Well, if you are in England right now it must be 3 o'clock in the morning. So good night to you, and thanks for the reply. --KF

My guideline is that it is a good article if a valid external link can be added to it. So if you can find an external link that is not a dictionary and is about interim it would end the argument I think. BL 01:33, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not an argumment. No-one thinks it should be deleted. It should go to Wiktionary. -- Angela
* * *

Deletion craze No.2: Pejorative terms for Germans

Interesting addition. Do boche and moffe have any literal meanings? Can anyone add that? --KF 21:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I think they both mean something like a "dirty pig"...

This is not encyclopedia content, unless perhaps as part of a larger directory of racial/national insults ... which would itself be rather questionable. --FOo 19:58 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you will have to make up your mind: As long as this newly created article was part of Kraut, no one seemed to mind -- for weeks, if not months. And there was a lot of context there. Now it's a separate article, and suddenly it's no longer encyclopaedic? --KF 20:18 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Whatever. I never saw kraut. I did see this one in the Recent Changes. I can only comment on things I notice, after all, and making a new page draws attention. --FOo 20:40 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Right. If I had to decide, I'd restore the Kraut page to its original length and would encourage further discussion concerning this page: whether it should be enlarged, deleted, or whatever. I'm going to do that tomorrow (soon anyway) if there are no objections. Would that be okay with you, FOo? --KF 20:45 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The content of this article has nothing to do with "Kraut" (herbs) so why move it back there? It should better be left here.
Once again, because there is something called context. Read the original version of the Kraut article first -- it was just some sort of addendum. I really don't see the problem. KF 06:47 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Nor do I. Let's leave things as they are.
I think it at least needs balancing by similar pages for other nationalities. -- sannse 18:26 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What about "Nemetz", which give or take some spelling issues is as I recall the standard form for "German" in various Slavic langages, and means roughly "dummy" (as in, one who cannot speak properly)? PML.

Nemetz is not a pejorative term itself though it has developed from one. Boche, Kraut and the others remained pejorative.

This is pure dross and does not belong here. Someone please ad it to VfD -- Tarquin 09:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just don't believe it. We already had that discussion months ago, and keeping the articles about the Germans as they are was the agreement back then, without any objection. Are we going to use up our time and energy again and again and again to discuss the same things whenever a new user discovers a page for the first time? It's easy, isn't it, claiming that an article is "non-encyclopaedic" (what the hell does that mean anyway) and/or "POV", but I want to see you guys give reasons for your claims. If someone wanted to, they could find fault with every single page here on Wikipedia. Please don't forget the use-mention distinction, or think of the Latin relata refero if you prefer. No one here is insulting foreigners, but what kind of free and open society is it if it is not allowed/POV/whatever to talk about insulting terms? Please let's not be hyper- and hypocritical! Leave Pejorative terms for Germans as it is! --KF 12:11, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If something turns up that one wouldn't regard to be in an encyclopedia, then it can be deemed "non-encyclopedic". This is, of course, a slightly subjective statement to make, as is the point-of-view issue, but in general it is obvious (I am making no comment of the article in question though in saying so). Dysprosia 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, but that's exactly what anyone who wants to see a particular article deleted should do.Talking in general, vague and elusive terms doesn't help. Also, how many online encyclopaedias are there to draw comparisons with? True, I won't find an article on Pejorative terms for Germans in the 1911 Britannica. But have all of you forgotten how hopeful Wikipedia got started, with the explicit policy of being more than, and different from, a printed encyclopaedia? As I see it, nothing about what you ave written is "obvious". --KF 12:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If some article is rabbiting on about how wonderful some relatively unknown website is, it is obviously not NPOV since it is going on about the positives and saying nothing about the negatives. It's obviously non-encyclopedic as an encyclopedia (even though Wikip. is different from normal encyclopedias) would not devote an article to an unknown website.
I mean obvious in the sense that it is sometimes clear to see that an article is not NPOV or is unencyclopedic. Sometimes it is not however. And that is what discussions are for. And I furthermore reiterate that I make no comment on the article in question, I'm merely trying to help you understand what these things mean. Dysprosia
Help me? Are you joking? You keep on writing about things wholly unrelated to Pejorative terms for Germans and want to help me understand them? KF
You said "what the hell does that mean anyway". I thought you didn't know what it meant. So I told you. Calm down :) Dysprosia 12:47, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was referring to my previous remark at Talk:Interim that none of us should be too sure they know 100 per cent what is right, correct, moral, true (and NPOV and encyclopaedic, if you want) and what isn't. That reminds me, I have to write an answer there. Bye for now, --KF 12:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *
  • Pejorative terms for the French, because it is not encyclopedic and because it was openly created as a antiWikiLove act. Both being redhibitoire for me. We are not here to help people on purpose to go against one another. Anthère 06:44, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Delete this one. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • No. Elaborate on it. --KF 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see why this page should be deleted, but not Pejorative terms for Germans. M123 20:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Pejorative terms for Germans also delete this, see above. M123 06:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I would not be sad to see Pejorative terms for the French and Pejorative terms for Germans go, but if being unencyclopedic and anti-WikiLove are criteria for deletion, Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' and all its redirects should also go. -- Someone else 07:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Neither of these belong here. It's against the NPOV. -- Kaijan 07:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to sound evil or anything, but I don't really see anything wrong with having articles about pejorative terms, as long as they don't endorse them. They could easily be written in a NPOV way, and could be quite educational. (As is Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', in my view...) -- Oliver P. 07:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It might be worth noting that we have List of ethnic slurs. Articles are generally better than lists, though, because articles can give fuller explanations of what terms mean, who uses them, how they are used, and so on. Lists tend to just have short phrases as explanations. -- Oliver P. 07:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that lists are better than separate articles for each separate slur (vide: Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'), as separate articles are: (1) unlikely to become encyclopedic and (2) unduly emphasize the importance of each epithet. -- Someone else 07:34, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the above-mentioned articles group the terms by country, rather than having separate articles for separate terms. (However, if one term ended up hogging a large proportion of the space in the article, it would make sense to move it out into its own article.) -- Oliver P. 08:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Which is an argument FOR "Perjorative terms for homosexuals" and AGAINST Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. <G>. Not that it or its many redirects will ever actually be deleted, of course. -- Someone else 08:19, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, it depends on how you interpret "hogging a large proportion of the space in the article", I suppose... :) -- Oliver P. 09:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • One of the redirects should be deleted in a day or two: see Aug 16 listing above. Martin 09:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I just don't believe it. We already had that discussion months ago, and keeping the articles about the Germans as they are was the agreement back then, without any objection. Are we going to use up our time and energy again and again and again to discuss the same things whenever a new user discovers a page for the first time? It's easy, isn't it, claiming that an article is "non-encyclopaedic" (what the hell does that mean anyway) and/or "POV", but I want to see you guys give reasons for your claims. If someone wanted to, they could find fault with every single page here on Wikipedia. Please don't forget the use-mention distinction, or think of the Latin relata refero if you prefer. No one here is insulting foreigners, but what kind of free and open society is it if it is not allowed/POV/whatever to talk about insulting terms? Please let's not be hyper- and hypocritical! Leave Pejorative terms for Germans as it is! --KF 11:59, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • Seconded! -- till we *) 13:23, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
      • PS And isn't it a bit strange that M123 first creates an article Pejorative terms for the French and then, only a few days later, nominates Pejorative terms for Germans for deletion? --KF 12:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • no, it is not a bit strange. Look at what he wrote as a comment when he created that list http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pejorative_terms_for_the_French&action=history
      • So I looked. M123 wrote: "This page was created in response to the existence of Pejorative terms for Germans." So now that he has created an article Francophones may find offensive he wants the German insults deleted? Can we have some logic please? --KF 23:57, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • duh. He does not like the german article but thinks he won't have back up if he ask for the deletion. So he create one on the french in hope that a french will feel like putting it here. If people react by saying "yes, delete it", he just needs to say "but if we delete this one, we should also deleted that one". If no one react to the french, he may perhaps do the next one about Jews and wait for RK to list it here. The more people complain, the more back up for deletion he gets. Well, at least, I would do that ;-) Anthère
          • It was not so much that I didn't like the Pejorative terms for Germans, it was that such a page existed only for Germans (and was linked to by Germany). I figured that if I created a page about the French, either 1)both pages would be deleted or 2)more pages about other nationalities would be created. Also for full disclosure I wrote Pejorative terms for the French and User:KF wrote Pejorative terms for Germans. M123 01:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • This is getting silly. It wouldn't be a problem for me, but I didn't even minor-edit that article. See http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pejorative_terms_for_Germans&action=history . --KF 02:25, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
            • I was sure that this process was on your mind M123. What is "irritating" is that you think of the french to help you have your stuff deleted. Why us ? Now, since you improved the french article to make it more encyclopedic, it is likely we will never have these pages deleted, but likely they will stay alone with just the German and the French. Anthère
      • as for neutrality that you wonder on, I would say that this encyclopedia thrive for neutrality. It is supposed to be read by anyone with the feeling it is reporting information fairly. Now, I think that if you want a reader to think this encyclopedia is fair, there is need not only for the articles to be balanced, but also for the repartition of articles to be balanced. Which means that if you find a lot of articles celebrating america, its thinkers, its artists, its scientifics, and so on, and many articles being about pejorative terms, anti-"country" sentiment, and such on other articles, it is likely "from this country" users will think this encyclopedia is not neutral. It is pov by accumulation. Anthère
      • By all means write many long and good articles about France and the French but also face the fact that, at least right now, there are some people who don't respect them as much as they used to. Only by writing more can you restore the balance. --KF 00:05, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Since last december or so, I have seen enough very rude comments about my country on talk pages, I had to contemplate horribly pov articles on us, I was insulted privately by a couple of proeminent members of wikipedia throught email, humiliated for my english, and I revert quite frequently anti-french vandalism on french pages. Believe me KF, the fact some american people don't respect us or plainly hate us DOES NOT escape me :-) And this generated enough bad feelings in my heart for me to now focus on the french wikipedia first.
    • Whatever the resolution of these two pages, someone please consider moving relevant data into List of ethnic slurs. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri 10:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • They're sure stubs, but we should keep them. Internationnal relations aren't just diplomatic nowadays... but we're all used of diplomacy being the only POV in the History articles! So keep them! --Ann O'nyme 03:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't think renaming the page Informal terms for Germans was in any way helpful. Now it's really POV, suggesting that it is okay, in an informal situation, to call Germans those names. When and where was this discussed? --KF 18:04, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • Seconded. IMHO renaming should have been discussed here. "Informal" is inapropriate. "Pejorative" was better. What about "Offensive"? --Ann O'nyme 20:49, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *

Hi Jim, I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the way deletions have been carried out recently. I'm worried that newbies are frightened off before they get a chance to turn into valuable contributors. If someone has just discovered Wikipedia and has just made their first attempt at posting something, why does it have to be erased immediately and, even worse, labelled "junk"?

I'm in particular talking about User:194.7.209.66 and their three Wienerisch texts. I've taken the trouble to write them (see User talk:194.7.209.66 -- or has that been deleted as well?) and ask them to consider rewriting their texts, but there is no point in doing so if, a few hours later, on the same day, someone else comes along and deletes their effort. Why the hurry as if our lives depended on it?

All the best, KF 16:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

* * *

The current deletion craze No.3:

Hello again Angela,

As you would like answers to your questions, here they are: I did write a note to jimfbleak even before the two of us had our little talk last night. The sheer speed at which the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page has been growing recently makes me dizzy. Sometimes it seems to me Wikipedia has been taken over by a bunch of newbies who have no idea about what some have called WikiLove and who, for some obscure reason, are trying to reduce it to a bare minimum, without any option for expansion. I called them "quick deleters", and I'm sorry that it was you I singled out to have that discussion with. You made it clear you did not want to delete Interim. But removing or transferring it to Wiktionary is also reducing the scope of Wikipedia.

Whenever I have a look at VfD these days I'm horrified. Pages that in the past would have gone unnoticed or been improved on the spot by some other user (according to the old policy, "If you don't like it, change it") are now listed on VfD only minutes after they have been posted, or a notice saying The neutrality of this page is disputed is dumped on the page, with some flimsy explanation on the corresponding talk page (like a couple of hours ago at Point of no return). And what is supposed to happen then? I could use the "Random page" function and do the one or the other with every other page I get, but why should I?

As I already tried to point out, so many people have left (are leaving) Wikipedia, but their departure also goes unnoticed. I don't think it's a good idea that there are some Wikipedians who hardly ever write articles themselves and who believe it is their job to assess their peers' work only. (To me that's just like the head teacher in a school who does not teach himself any more or the plumber who does not want to get his hands dirty any longer.) I consider such a system (even if the hierarchy is informal and implicit) imbalanced. (But this is nothing to do with you personally.)

Thanks for the advice concerning the Simple English Wikipedia. I'll have a look at it, but I don't want to have my fingers in too many pies and, well, I'm not under stress -- I'm worried. --KF 14:51, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

* * *

One more, from VfD:

  • Moll Flanders and A Journal of the Plague Year - both just a quote and a link to Project Gutenberg. TwoOneTwo 22:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, with seven pages linking to Moll Flanders this will happen again and again and again. We encourage newbies to write stubs, and then we want to delete rather than improve them. Keep. And write a few lines about the book, those of you who have recently read it. --KF 19:21, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, we should stop encouraging it. If we encourage people to write something, and then find the product not worth keeping, it's an argument to stop the encouraging more than to stop the deletion. I vote for deletion. Andre Engels 06:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • This is what it says at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia (and there are several other passages with similar content directly linked to the "Welcome newcomers" section: "If you like, you can enter just a paragraph or two of text for an entry. It's a start. Full-blown articles are not required. Adding any (accurate, helpful) information to Wikipedia is welcome! Of course, if you can write more, that's all the better. See The perfect stub article." Nipping such an article in the bud is surely the best way to frighten off both newbies and hardened Wikipedians. I would have written a few lines about that bloody book myself but it just happens that I don't remember anything about it. Also, why pick on this article? What about, say, Ann Veronica (just a random example really)? I've said this several times before, and, astonishingly, I'm not yet tired of repeating it. --KF 07:40, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, they're both stubs. Onebyone 10:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • As newcomer, I really feel that points made by KF need to be taken on board quickly if this project is to continue as an open one. I'm also thinking of discussions over the last few days re users who have left in despair. If you come across a stub by a newbie, why list it on this page? Would it not be more appropriate to discuss what needs to be/could be added with the author and then collaborate on a better article? Or maybe sometimes accept that a good paragraph is better than a bad essay? And if you read an article you do not understand on a subject you know nothing about, maybe the fault is not with the article and asking for its deletion is not a great idea? It just seems sometime like a smallish group of experienced users use VfD as a way of saying 'I don't like this, so it should go.' This is (or could be) a great place, but I feel it can only benefit from a shift to greater cooperation and less confrontation. Or am I missing something? Bmills 12:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Those are not stubs. They are just quotes and links. The A Journal of the Plague Year page doesn't even tell me what A Journal of the Plague Year is. This is not useful and below the level of what is allowed, so the listing for deletion is completely appropriate in my opinion. Angela 12:25, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
* * *

Months later, there was the Shnorrer article:


A Shnorrer (SHNORer, n.) is a Yiddish term meaning beggar or sponger.

The term is not considered a slur or insult, rather it is often used as a compliment amoung jews.

The Anglish usage denotes a sly chisler who will get money out of you anyway he can.

Groucho Marx, in his movies, often assumed the role of a shnorrer.

VfD:

  • Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wik was correct to remove the addition of Karl Shnörrer, as it was in violation of our disambiguation policy.—Eloquence
    • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In addition, the page has been protected by someone -- obviously to make absolutely sure no one can improve its content.

Among other things, Bmills mentions Wikipedia:Votes for deletion on their user page ("What frustrates me"): According to them, it is "the most overused page here. If half the listed pages get rewritten and kept, shouldn't they be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or Wikipedia:cleanup? And what about Wikipedia:peer review. Does anyone really use it? VfD just becomes a place for scoring points and the 'votes' get buried in the arguments."

  • Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment about Karl Schnorrer moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the slang part that's a problem. It's the dictionary definition part. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro
      • Oh, that's fine with me. So let's nominate Baseball slang, which consists solely of dictionary definitions. <KF> 22:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Believe me, a cryptic reference to another page that contains lots and lots of ideas, guidelines, rules, etc. is not (let me repeat this: not) an argument. You seem to have three other "arguments" at your disposal which you use in a random fashion: "dictionary definition", "slang", and "encyclopaedic" (see Baseball slang below). <KF> 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Once again. Brash fighting on the delete page. Shnorrer is an entry entirely devoted to a definition of a word (let's ignore "slang" here). That violates the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" on the page that Anthony mentions above. Baseball slang is an encyclopedic entry that talks about how slang has affected American language, and then lists examples. Now, it is perhaps not the best written prose, but it is encyclopedic, not a straight dictionary entry. Move Shnorrer to wiki- dictionary, and delete. Lyellin 00:52, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I wasn't making an argument. The argument is already made at Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've never used "slang" as justification for a deletion. As for my use of "encyclopedic," I think regular contributors will know what I mean. If you don't, I encourage you to stick around for a while and see. There's a lot of shorthand notation that goes around on these pages. I'm sorry if I was brash. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Over time I think this could become an extremely encyclopedic article on a cultural archetype that has a lot more behind it than a simple dictionary definition. --Alex S 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wiktionary. KF: The Baseball Slang article isn't very good, but falls into the "lists" category (which is my vote below). Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: literary term. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No comment on deleting but if it does stay it should be spelled correctly: schnorrer, which gets about 44,000 Google hits compared to a few hundred for the unusual one in use in this article. Jamesday 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Important cultural term. 131.130.181.71 16:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting this term could be seen as an anti-semitic act by some. Wikikiwi 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Baseball slang -- move to Wiktionary and then delete because this is (a) just slang and (b) only dictionary definitions. For details, see the discussion about shnorrer above (VfD, 9 February). Advocatus diaboli, 23:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Encyclopedic. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, by all means keep. Sara 23:17, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • While I agree this is largely slang definitions, they are definitions that share a common thread -- in fact, one of my reasons for listing them was to give evidence that baseball has had an impact on American slang, and the only way to do this is to point out to people that many slang terms they use are derived from the sport. Perhaps there could be a larger section describing the slang itself (comments, other information) to make it more encyclopedic. In any case, I think there is enough to make it worthwhile. Of course, I'm biased. Revolver 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I might also add that although the article is titled "baseball slang", and each slang term has a baseball meaning, EVERY SLANG TERM also has an independent non-baseball meaning that has "evolved" from the original meaning, so this is NOT just a guide to "how to talk like a baseball fan".
    • Keep, but rename the article to "List of baseball slang terms". This isn't an article on baseball slang and I very much doubt it will ever be. The article falls into the large category of "list of xxx" articles. Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Making this a list would be a very bad idea. Lists are meant to categorize articles, but none of the items in this list should have articles. A list without links is of questionable validity for Wikipedia.—Eloquence 04:45, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with eloquence (wow). A pure list would be unencyclopedic. Actually, this article would be much better if it were made less of a list. Anthony DiPierro 04:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
          • That's what I'll try to do. Revolver 20:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, this is "Slang from baseball", rather than "slang of baseball",i.e., baseball terminology applied to non-baseball things. Mikkalai 02:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • One way I could improve it might be to give a short description of the etymology of each term following the definition. Some of the terms have interesting histories behind them. And I think you may have missed the point, Tempshill; these terms were chosen specifically because they have nonbaseball meanings...if I were to randomly choose baseball slang, I could come up with hundreds, few of which mean anything outside baseball. See, for comparison, [1]. I can improve it (give me some time).Revolver 02:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - encyclopedic presentation - Texture 01:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Only listed to try to prove a silly point. RickK 06:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign my vote)
      • The fact that a sport (considered the "national pastime") has had a major influence on slang in a culture, so much so that the people don't even realise it, is "silly"?? I can think of a lot of information on wikipedia that's much "sillier" -- e.g. Stanley Kubrick died 666 days before 2001. That seems sillier to me than this article. Revolver 20:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move majority of terms to Wiktionary, only retain a few examples here.—Eloquence 04:45, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not paper? If I can come up with an interesting couple of sentences on most of the terms (I probably wouldn't use all), why not? It seems like a lot of people here are poo-poo-ing this whole thing just because they're not baseball fans. Well, hey, I'm not a STAR TREK fan, but I don't go around telling the people who write those articles that they're a silly waste of space. (Sorry if I'm starting to sound defensive.) Revolver 20:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: cultural terms. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, but the article would be more useful if the terms were given some context and/or history. I may work on improving the article at some point. --Minesweeper 08:41, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Americocentric. Dictionary definitions. Not even complete sentences. Keep, because deletion would upset Americans. Wikikiwi 20:21, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I added some context. I vote keep, and btw, Wikikiwi, you really don't help your case when you mock an entire nationality. Meelar 00:43, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not making fun of anyone here, let alone a whole nation. Just have a look at how strongly they react to someone who has the chuzpah to want to see their national pastime deleted ("cultural terms", encyclopedic presentation", and so on). This is not mocking anyone; this is the truth. Wikikiwi 13:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Rename to List of... something. Elf 20:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
* * *

Seminal work

[edit]

A seminal work is one that is highly influential in an original way.

Any list of "seminal works" is of course debatable and can never be considered exhaustive either. Nevertheless there seems to be general agreement as to a handful of works. Among them are the following:


The word seminal comes from Latin seminalis "of or pertaining to the seed or semen of men and animals".

See also


[from the talk page:]


I don't know whether anyone will notice this little list here. If so, I suggest we resist the temptation to add randomly texts we think might qualify as "seminal". I myself was thinking of a number of authors (Viktor Frankl, John Rawls, Montesquieu, Hegel of course) but decided to keep this list short. What do the others think? <KF> 01:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[from VfD:]


I cannot see how one could ever actually compile a list of all seminal works, both because of the size of the task and because this task is not really NPOV. Pointless.--XmarkX 15:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Concur. Delete. -- Jmabel 17:26, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this can be worthwhile, and can be NPOV, if done properly. I think one can quite fairly say that between them Der Golem and Frankenstein have a seminal influence on dozens of subsequent "ohMyGodWhatHaveWeDone" works (including about a third of every hollywood SF movie), and similarly the influence of Jekyll&Hyde on just as many "EachManHasABeastWithin" works. But for sure if it's claiming works to be seminal it needs to make a decent case for it, and to list those works each has supposedly influenced. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Who, XmarkX, would ever want to do such an incredibly stupid thing as to compile a list of all seminal works? I guess all sorts of people come across Wikipedia: young and old, educated in institutions and educated through life, native speakers of English and "foreigners". Don't you think this list -- if we agree to keep it short (see Talk:Seminal work) -- might help quite a lot of people to understand the meaning of "seminal"? Don't you think it might help them to go on to all sorts of places, be it time travel or capitalism? Why delete? <KF> 19:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I really don't much like the current list. Brett Ellis, American Psycho, pornography in mainstream literature? Gimme a break, unless someone is punning on the word "seminal" here. Tropic of Cancer or The Story of O have been far more, uh, seminal. How is a list of seminal works different, exactly, from Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf (Great Books of the Western World)? But maybe if we sit there and let it grow it will turn into something interesting. Oh, keep, I guess. Dpbsmith 19:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems I couldn't make myself understood. If you "let it grow" you might just as well delete it right now. Okay, American Psycho is debatable, but no one is claiming that it's the only "seminal" work in that -- well, um, category. I really like the idea of the pun, hadn't thought of it myself.
  • Delete. The project of listing all (or even most) seminal works is both useless and hopeless. There could be a useful article explaining the concept of a "seminal work." Such an article might pick a couple examples (whether or not from this list) of works widely considered seminal and show how each caused a significant change in the direction of its field; that discussion would be for the purpose of furthering the explication of the concept. This article doesn't even qualify as a stub of that one, though. In response to <KF>'s comment above, no, I don't think that a mere listing of a bunch of works would help anyone understand the concept. JamesMLane 07:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 01:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A self-serving intellectual endeavor. While some works, the Bible and Qu'ran, for instance, may be seen by many as seminal works, the consensus decreases rapidly from there. What is a seminal work to one is not to another. Have any children found the passion to become environmentalists from "The Lorax?" So where is it on this list? "Seminal" could be anything from a Billy Joel song to a page from Mother Teresa's diary. It is individual beyond words. Denni 05:27, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • The whole discussion has become utterly ridiculous. You cannot add insignificant works and then complain that there are insignificant works on the list. This is exactly what makes so many people leave Wikipedia for good: a bunch of self-righteous intellectuals who oppose a particular article although they do not even care to understand the idea behind it. I wonder why I posted my initial remark on the talk page about resisting the temptation to add more works. Rather, we ought to have removed items from the list. Okay, as it is now I agree the article on Seminal work should be deleted. <KF> 20:18, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Really? (he said dryly) And on whose authority is the determination of significant/insignificant based? That, my friend, would appear to be the crux of this discussion. If the authority is yours alone then my vote does not change. Denni
      • I hope that you, Denni, have not overlooked the fact that I actually agree with you that the article should be deleted. However, it seems you don't like what made me change my mind. Please be serious and explain to me how the Bible could be called a seminal work on my authority alone. Remember, I'm KF, not Jesus Christ. <KF> 15:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • WIth regard to adding/removing: the article is editable, do whatever you think will improve it; we don't protect pages that are on VfD. As for "insignificant works," are you seriously suggesting that John Osborne's Look Back in Anger is more significant and more seminal than Galileo's Dialogues on the Two Great World Systems? that Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho has done more to change the world than Diderot's Encyclopedia or Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? Yes, I added a bunch of items—all those from Beethoven's Ninth down, I think—as a mental exercise to see what would happen if I concentrated on the concept of "seminal" rather than the concept of "great," and that's what I came up with. If you utterly disagree with my choices, it tends to confirm the idea that such a list can never be anything more than a personal opinion. Anyway, you said we should be removing items rather than adding them, so, try knocking out, say, half-a-dozen of your selections and, say, ten of mine, and see whether the article is evolving in the direction of "objectively seminal works." If you think the article was great without my additions and that they spoiled it and made it more deletable, then remove all of them. Dpbsmith 19:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm certainly not going to change anything now: This article needs a fresh, well, brain to sort out possible solutions. My whole point is: The more titles are added the stronger the competition gets, while at the same time I doubt whether there is, or should be, a notion like "more/less seminal than". The text of the article should be elaborated on, and the number of actual examples drastically cut. This was my original hope: that someone would remove, say, American Psycho (rather than add yet another contentious work). Well, let's see what will happen. <KF> 20:32, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • An article on seminal works in general would be quite nice. This isn't it, more's the pity. Delete. -Sean Curtin 02:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indeed, one might write an article about what "seminal work" means by giving examples in particular fields, but a list of 'the' seminal works in every field is too arguable and without adequate payback. I don't want to argue whether or not something is or is not seminal enough to be on a list. What the original author also misses is the large number of works and artists who are very influential on producers of later works but almost unknown and unappreciated by the general public: the author's authors and the writer's writers, the jazz musicians that influenced jazz musicians, the kinds of names that keep occurring when you ask people about who influenced them but are often too esoteric for general taste or simply not especially good but have a particular flavor that influenced others. There are small individual essays like Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful", perhaps the single most debated and influential essay in the history of computer programming. Listing the gospels as seminal and not the "Old Testament" is hideously idiosyncratic. The reason given is "Christian charity". From Leviticus 19:18 - "You shall not avenge nor bear an angry grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." So which work is seminal? No Plato or Aristotle either. No Confucius. No Vedas. No Upanishads. What of Fielding's Tom Jones, arguably the first novel? There are probably tens of thousands of arguably seminal works that have changed the way at least some people think and have influenced subsequent works, maybe hundreds of thousands. jallan 03:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't blame you, Jallan, for having got carried away, but I honestly believe you are missing the point. This discussion should not -- repeat: NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT -- be about coming up with a long list of "seminal" works. Longer, higher, bigger etc. is NOT automatically BETTER. It's interesting to learn about your personal list of seminal works, but, as you say, "a list of 'the' seminal works in every field is too arguable and without adequate payback". No one wanted such a list in the first place, so why keep mentioning it?
There's one thing though I'd like to know: Why has no one ever claimed that the list of famous women in history can never be NPOV? <KF> 17:00, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* * *

Henry Eifler

[edit]

Henry Eifler was a mechanical engineer by profession, an Austrian by birth who later moved to Connecticut, United States and sought employment with Westinghouse. Although Eifler was a humble and unpopular man, his invention is something which all human beings who drive motor vehicles use today, and if one gets caught not using it would result in being penalised in most developed countries. It is the car indicator, or turn signal.

Prior to this great invention, drivers used to have to put their left arm out of the window to indicate that the vehicle is turning left and the passenger would have to put their right arm out of the window to indicate the vehicle is turning right. This was not only a complex system of indicating which direction you want to take a turn to, but also inapplicable in situations when there was only one person present in the vehicle, that being the driver.

In order to rectify this technical blemish associated with driving, Henry Eifler pondered over the matter and became the father of the car indicator by excogitating the concept of having a signaling device which could be controlled from the driver's seat. A flashing device on either side of a few test cars was originally placed and the experiments proved successful. This model of indication was later adapted by all the major manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Eifler's invention of the car indicator forever revolutionised the manner in which people drive cars. To this day his invention is in global use, and one it seems impossible to imagine motor vehicles being made without it.

Moreover, while working for the same company, Eifler also invented refrigeration systems for trucks, which are also widely used all over the world.

It is unfortunate though, that in contrast to his achievements, Henry Eifler has been given no recognition, gratitude and credit for his services to the transportation industry. His name is not mentioned in any major commercially based encyclopaedias. Over the years, big and famous car companies owned by wealthy aristocrats came along and took his idea, and used it to their advantage but did not give the credit that the great man rightly deserved.

* * *

Could he have been ignored to such an extent that there are zero Google hits? <KF> 10:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The question remains whether this biography is worth wikifying. Rather than removing the "authorship", we might actually try to contact T L Glover. I'll do that. <KF> 20:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For more information about Henry Eifler you may feel free to contact his maternal great grandson tl_glover@hotmail.com
* * *

Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:57:43 +0200

Dear sir,

I have read the article on Henry Eifler. I do not know if it was written by you, but your e-mail address was given there (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Eifler ). My question concerns the importance of Henry Eifler: I could not find any reference to his person anywhere. As Wikipedia has seen quite a number of fake biographies and other Nihilartikels ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilartikel ), I just want to make sure this entry is serious. Can you help me in any way?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Yours,

K Forstner

* * *
Dear Sir,
Yes Henry Eifler did in fact invent this and that biography is not fake. My family has known about this for many years and the story has been passed on from generation to generation (me) and many family friends also know about this.
Yes, he was Austrian. My mother told me that he had a thick Austrian accent when he was still in his late years.
This is not fake and I would like his name to be sent to many other websites if possible.
- Tim
* * *

This is really sick:


Hephaestos, pictured at home, 2000

"Ha! Ha! You're Dead!" is a song about a Wikipedia user Hephaestos' death in 2004 at 44 from the great mid-40 year old men race and his father was pushing him too hard like Spongebob Squarepants' "The Great Snail Race".

Lyrics

[edit]
Somebody killed me, oh yes,
It's true! I'm just always one of those troubled mid-40 year old men,

(crying)

My penis was green, but I didn't understand
Because I already dead...

(chorus)

Somebody killed me!
(4x)
I'll go, to hell, drop dead,
Okay, i'll go...NOW! Fuck off! Die!
And don't waste my motherfuckin' time!
Because, everything of mine, is not so wrong and i'm never yours?

(chorus)

Somebody killed me!
(4x)

(people mumbling in background)

PENIS?
Yeah, fuck it!

Rest in Peace John Christopher Hephaestos (1960-2004)

What happened at the race?

[edit]
  • Hephaestos's father keeps saying "Faster! John! Faster, Faster, Faster!" and he keeps panting and his eyes and his whole body blows up, he lost and his father yelled "NO!" and his father was running on the track and started crying.
* * *
Never argue with an idiot, because he'll drag the fight down to his level and then beat you with experience.

VII

[edit]

Beachwear refers to clothing suitable for being worn on a beach or urban beach. Beachwear usually falls somewhere between swimwear and what a person wears when fully clothed. In an indoor pool, for lane swim, bathers will typically wear lycra briefs (men) or lycra one-piece tanksuits (women), but on a beach, or especially on an urbeach, something more substantial is preferably worn. For men, this may consist of beach shorts that are long enough to almost come down to the knees, and sometimes beyond. For an urban beach, men will often wear dark colored shorts that have belt loops, e.g. perhaps with an integral belt made of nylon webbing. Such beach shorts look like regular outerwear, but are made of non-absorbent fabrics so that they will dry fast. Dark colors, such as black, blend well with warm-weather business attire, and also dry quickly in the sunlight, since the dark color absorbs light. Women's beachwear often consist of shorts and tank top.

For men, a simple solution to spontaneous visits to the urbeach is to wear dark coloured fast-dry shorts, together with a dress shirt (a shirt with a collar), and dress shoes. For beaching, simply doff the shirt and shoes. These black beach shorts have six large pockets, to hold keys, coins, credit cards, and other waterproof items. The integral belt, made of nylon webbing, ensures good load bearing capacity (the shorts don't fall down even when the pockets are full of tools such as vice grips, screwdrivers, etc., preferably made of stainless steel so they don't rust). Urban beach shorts dry quickly through sunbathing of the entire body on black granite, or other porous and dark surfaces typically found at urbeaches.

Transformability of beachwear and urban beachwear

[edit]

Many people like to remain "beach ready", at all times, i.e. to wear something that can be spontaneously transformed into beachwear. For men, simply wearing, for example, black shorts that have an integral belt made of nylon webbing (rather than shorts that have a drawstring), together with a shirt that has a nice collar, allows them to transform from business attire (with the shirt) to beachwear, simply by removing their shoes and shirts. This allows spontaneous unplanned visits to a beach, which is especially useful for urban beaches that are usually located within the downtown business core of a city. Transformable beachwear makes lunch hour trips to the beach possible, reducing the need to find a place to change, and to carry additional sets of clothing, etc.. Good beach shorts will be mostly dry, quickly, during ten or 15 minutes of sunbathing on hot black granite or dark cement that also absorbs a lot of the water. Because urban beaches usually have a roughly textured black surface, that absorbs both water and sun (and thus heats up), good beachwear can usually be dried while on the body, simply by laying down to sunbathe for a few minutes.

Survivability and safety benefits of urban beachwear

[edit]

Transformability of urban beachwear tends to put one in a state of constant readiness for urban beaching, without any advance notice. Thus one is always ready-to-wash. This may be useful, for surviving a heatstroke, on a hot day, or simply being able to washdown in the event of an emergency. Moreover, it has often been said "wear clean underwear in case you get into an accident". In today's world of bioterror scares, urban beachwear, worn under regular clothing, may be the answer to otherwise embarrassing mass decontamination or stripdowns by fire departments or emergency responders, over-reacting to a strange-powder spill or hoax, or perhaps the real thing.

* * *

A funny thing happened when an anonymous user created a page on Saint Denis, France. The complete nonsense there was even tentatively wikified before User:Olivier pointed out that that was an "interesting joke":

This page is listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

The cathedral of Saint-Denis, located on the outskirts of Paris, was the first gothic cathedral to be built. The innovations of the choir (built in 1140-44) are accepted as the first examples of this type of architecture. Splendid and royal, many believe Saint-Denis is the reason Louis VI decided to make Paris his centre as opposed to Orléans.

Relatively unchanged until 1838 when extensive renovations where carried out by the prolific designer Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen. Adding stensils to the walls and creating new pews using extensive amounts of new materials such as MDF.

After the renovations were completed in 1846, the Cathedral was under the control of the infamous Abbot Thieri Wogan, a cruel and ruthless man who abducted 'non-believers' and subjected them to hours of torterous droning. Many of his victims died and are still buried in the grounds of the cathedral.

After the death of Abbot Wogan in 1872, Saint-Denis was abondoned and was left derelict until 1927 when Walt Disney bought the cathedral and had the whole stucture moved brick by brick to America where it was to be used as the Magic Kingdom. Eventually it was decided that it was not to be used and the cathedral once again stood empty and abondoned in a remote part of Texas, eventually being used as an elaborate out-house by slack-jawed yeokals.

However, 1971 Elvis Presely bought the deeds from the Disney corperation and had the building returned to its origional location. To this day there is speculation amongst the most learned art historians as to why Presely spent the time and money carrying out such an extensive project. Some say it was for religious purposes, apperently doing so as a mark of gratitued to God. Others say he was off his face and didn't know what he was doing. In 1973, after the second restoration, Presely returned ownership of Saint-Denis back to the French state. The cathedral was once again used as a place of worship.

In 1992 Saint-Denis was to be at the centre of one of the most embarrassing incidents for the French government when a high ranking French politician was caught staging and filming sadistic sacrifices to Lucifer inside the cathedral. The tapes were distributed to the rich and famous who were all later disgraced. These include the comedian Bob Monkhouse, the entertainer Shane Richy and the thing Bernad Manning.

Today Saint-Denis is one of the most popular tourist attractions in France due to its rich and unique history.

Rev. Johnny Parker M.A, P.H.D, B.U.M.

    • Saint Denis, France: an interesting joke... but a joke... olivier 11:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It can't be funny either cause I don't get it! BL 11:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read it. –KF 11:44, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • From the page history:
    • (cur) (last) . . 11:32, 25 Aug 2003 . . BL (vfd notice)
    • (cur) (last) . . 17:19, 19 Aug 2003 . . Michael Hardy (The title phrase was not properly highlighted. This article also lack links. Work on it.)
    • (cur) (last) . . 16:11, 19 Aug 2003 . . 195.166.157.77
    • (cur) (last) . . M 16:00, 19 Aug 2003 . . Ahoerstemeier (wikify)
    • (cur) (last) . . 15:47, 19 Aug 2003 . . 195.166.157.77 (The history of Saint-Denis)
* * *

And some more from VfD:

  • The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/redirect, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/existence, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title, Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
    • Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
* * *

And this is the version where the links have been corrected:

  • The following are talk pages archiving discussions of the AKFD article: Talk:AKFD/redirect, Talk:AKFD/existence, Talk:AKFD, Talk:AKFD/title, Talk:AKFD/merge. Also related, but discussing seperate content, is Talk:Anti-gay slogan.
    • Delete (see below) -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:Slogan AKFD/title rather than Talk:AKFD/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'
    • Delete. Such of it as is informative, should reside at homophobic hate speech. Also, see below. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • what do you want to do with the article information itself? Delete it, or factor it into another article? orthogonal 17:53, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. If you want to merge and redirect it, you don't need VfD for that, though please read past discussion at Talk:AKFD/merge before doing anything drastic. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You certainly need VfD if you want to delete the redirect, don't you? 10 pages with AKFD in their titles pointing somewhere is still gonna rack up the google hits. -- Someone else 19:56, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Sure, but first see if you can get agreement for merging the content, at Talk:AKFD/merge, then merge the content, and then see about deleting the resultant redirect, if you still feel that's necessary. IMO. Martin 23:04, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Is this junk still on? This POV rubbish has had more comebacks than Bill Clinton. Please delete it and all its unnecessary redirect pages. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Martin. Discussing whether or not the article should be deleted as a redirect is academic, because it isn't a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Discussing why we need (exact count hard to determine...15?) pages of discussion seems not so academic.--Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~
    • Delete. I don't think it is encyclopedic. The term is not all that common and it originated here as trolling, article has taken on a life of its own, deleting it will improve Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 08:24, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
  • General comments on AKFD articles above:
    • Searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" on the web now gets wikipedia-derived hits in 8 of the first 11 spots. We're not simply reporting anymore: we're actively promoting this lovely sentiment. Time to shove this toothpaste back into the tube. -- Someone else 17:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Promoting the sentiment? Does having an article on Nazism promote Nazism? Having lots of hits for Wikipedia articles does promote Wikipedia, I suppose, but I think that's a good thing. :) -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Having redirects from every marginal variation does suggest that we want to call special attention to it, yes. An encyclopedia with more entries in its index pointing to AKFD than it does to, oh, say, Nazi, does suggest that the encyclopedia is especially fond of the former, and has little rational planning or forethought about emphasizing important rather than unimportant concepts. The fact that you have to scroll down the bage to get to non-Wikipedia-related hits also suggests we might be inflating the importance of this particular phrase. And not all publicity is good publicity. -- Someone else 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And that's exactly what we deserve. If we had left that informative and harmless article alone after it had been written and posted by, I think, Axel Boldt, there wouldn't be anything to complain about now. (Due to all those redirects it's now also difficult to find the original text.) Reading the above comments shows me that right now people aren't even sure what they want deleted -- the article itself or just the numerous redirects. Two more things (again): (1) Writing about a particular subject does not imply advocating it, just as it does not imply opposing it. Please see the use-mention distinction. (2) Is there some kind of guideline on what to do when, after consensus or at least a majority decision has been reached and the matter is dropped, it is revived at a later point by someone who has just discovered Wikipedia? (I can hear voices telling me this doesn't belong here, so I may post my second question again at a more appropriate place.) --KF 09:21, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
* * *

And some more fun from VfD:

  • Prejudices in mockingbird an essay. M123 06:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • This page has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please see that page for justifications and discussion. Is "an essay" a justification? I'll transfer the text to the To Kill a Mockingbird page, where someone will hopefully work on it. Then you can go ahead and kill Prejudices in mockingbird. --KF 11:05, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, with particular attention to point 9. —Paul A 11:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • see To Kill a Mockingbird and take the trouble to read the essay. Then tell me why I should pay particular attention to point 9. -KF 12:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • #9: Wikipedia entries are not personal essays. Prejudices in mockingbird is a personal essay. Bits of it are even in first person: "I am going to be discussing this theme...", "Based on this essay and the research I have done, I can say..." I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult to grasp. —Paul A 12:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Ah, you seem to be on the right track. See, if you take out the bits you are referring to, it all of a sudden stops being a "personal" essay. Well then, taking out those half-sentences and creating some links is usually called wikifying, and that's exactly what I hope someone will be doing. But, as I stated above, I agree that this text should not have its own page. --KF 12:42, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *

From VfD:

  • List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses. Complete nonsense. wshun 21:49, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • "Nonsense" meaning WHAT? That they don't wear dark glasses? That Wikipedia is too elitist to refer to peoples' outward appearance? That you personally dislike that list? If you want to have a look at real nonsense, see List of people by first name. --KF 22:00, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • what is so special about wearing dark glasses? wshun 22:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, the fact that only a very small percentage of people regularly wear them. Let's be tolerant: This list is factual, NPOV and probably can't be found anywhere else. So Wikipedia rather than wearing dark glasses is something "special". --KF 22:25, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • From my perspective, I ask myself how we hope to have Wikipedia used as a reference. List of left-handed people...all right, sometimes students might be working on a paper on the topic of left-handedness. List of famous Germans (or other country)...fine, occasionally one might want to check if Kafka was indeed Czech. When on earth would anyone need to refer to a list of dark-glasses wearing people? Should we make a list of "people frequently seen wearing sweaters" (oooh, there's a good one for Fred Rogers, though)? Unless someone can make a stirringly good argument for how someone would use this list as a reference, I say delete. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • First of all, it's an interesting phenomenon that such a list survives undetected for months. Then someone adds a name and suddenly everyone thinks it's no longer bearable. Secondly, it does not do any harm. Thirdly, someone might want to investigate the reason(s) for wearing dark glasses: Fashion/eccentricity? Poor eyesight? Ugly eyes (or what is left of them) which someone wants to hide? Any other reasons? Finally, the question is of course where to draw the line: While People who pick their nose in public seems ridiculous to me, Famous people who smoke in public does not appear so far-fetched these days, especially in America. There's a lot of trivial knowledge on Wikipedia pages -- just read, say, the "brilliant prose" bio of Humphrey Bogart, so why pick on this one list? --KF 23:24, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Who can say this article would not be useful to some anthropologists 50 years from now? Also, there is a rumor that drug addicts are extremely sensitive to light, this list may help to confirm the claim overtime. Kowloonese 23:55, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
* * *

From Talk:Originated

Right now this page is not listed on VfD. And why is there no edit history? And why has the page already been deleted? --KF 21:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


see User talk:Kkawohl Smith03 21:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I deleted this page because it did not contain anything that remotely resembled an encyclopaedia article. It was created by a user who has consistently been creating pages of a similar nature, who currently has a dozen or so pages already listed of VfD and who has been warned by at least 5 users that he should not create such pages. Administrators are allowed to delete pages that they may consider unredeemable (described as obvious nonsense I think), without resorting to listing them on VfD and waiting the usual period of one week. I took the decision that this page fit that description. If you wish to see this page undeleted, please post your views on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Mintguy 21:39, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to start another debate here. From my point of view, this is what happens: I see a new page with a strange title has been created, it arouses my interest, I want to see it, it's not there any longer but a VfD notice instead. However, there it's not listed. Then I open the edit history to see the original text, and it's not there either. And then you as an administrator insist on being allowed to do that and tell me I should vote for undeletion of, as you say, a completely pointless page (which of course I've never seen). --KF 21:47, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate what you say, and I apologise for the abrupt tone of the above. The previous content of this page was began; was created; resulted from; developed; was born or produced., which on first reading didn't seem to make and sense to me, but I can now see that it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Mintguy 21:56, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know.. Now delete this talk page as well, please, and all the best, --KF 22:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
* * *
  • Fathers' rights - complete POV. It would be nice to have a balanced objective page on this topic, but this isn't it
    • took me a minute to kill it and Dysprosia (compliments!) another one to make a stub out of it, so keep. Kosebamse 12:26, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'd be happy to revise the POV version, but I can't seem to find it. It's not in the history.... Can someone help me locate the deleted version? Voyager640 15:56, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like Dysprosia submitted her rewrite the same moment I deleted the first version, so perhaps the database has swallowed it somehow. Rest assured it wasn't really worth reading (something like "fathers are the pariahs of our society etc." Kosebamse 18:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. If it's not a good article yet, it should be. This is an emerging social phenomenon getting significant recent press in the US. Rossami 00:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Seems an OK stub with potential. FearÉIREANN 00:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Strictly speaking I cannot vote because I didn't make the page, but only the orginal empty link to it. The fathers' rights movement is currently the largest section of the non-feminist gender equity movements. Humanist 12:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. This has potential and is an important subject. Bmills 12:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep of course. It's not the first time the original text has been deleted before anyone had a chance to read it. It would have been an important reference. --KF 13:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
* * *

VIII

[edit]

I want to write something controversial -- something someone will almost immediately label as POV ("Can this ever be NPOV?") and something someone else will almost immediately put on VfD. Let's see -- will Bibliophilia do the trick? --KF 00:57, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No. --KF 22:51, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Instead, a completely harmless article about Otto Hermann Kahn was put on VfD:

  • Otto Hermann Kahn - Looks like a fake biography. Wikikiwi 13:27, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks real to me. Other site such as [2] have similar information. What is fake about it? Maximus Rex 13:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oheka Castle here (already added to the article by Maximus Rex), books confirmed by LoC Catalog; seems good to me. Keep. --rbrwr 16:07, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The wikipedian who wrote it (User:KF) has an excellent wikipedia pedigree. Such fakes are universally (?) the preserve of the noob. -- Finlay McWalter 02:58, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And, finally, it took 1 1/2 years until someone -- a User:Adam Carr -- insulted me, calling me an idiot. Let's see if he's one of the few people who can admit their faults and apologize. (In real life, I've had an overdose of people who can't lately.) This is what caused his emotional outburst (from the "Village pump"):

Cardinal Konig again

Could someone sort out Franz Cardinal König? Some idiot insists on putting "Cardinal" in the title. Now the two articles each redirect to the other. Adam 16:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is not the way to talk about other Wikipedians. The "idiot" expects an apology from you. <KF> 16:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And while you're at it, you might as well apologize to the authors who created the following pages:

<KF> 17:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It also seems it's Carr's fault that "now the two articles each redirect to the other" (16:33):

  • (cur) (last) . . 16:21, 25 Jan 2004 . . Adam Carr (Revert: It is not WP policy to put titles like "Cardinal" in the titles of articles)
  • (cur) (last) . . 16:13, 25 Jan 2004 . . KF
  • (cur) (last) . . 02:16, 16 Jan 2004 . . Adam Carr
* * *

I'm not only an idiot, I'm also a jerk. On March 29, 2004, this was User:666's page:

I'm Administrator or Vfd.

Some people are jerks - they'll go to hell.

Why I have three user names? Well, - as I said - some people are jerks and think Administrator and Vfd were "innapropriate" and "misleading"!!!

My edits are also licensed under the BSD license.

This wiki is full of trolls and jerks.

Dori says she is a guy. I don't believe her.

And the reason is this here:

Hi, I suppose you deliberately misunderstood the discussion about your user name. VfD is just as misleading and irritating as Administrator. And what's the point? <KF> 19:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(continued from User talk:KF)
Because, as you know very well, here at Wikipedia they stand for "Votes for Deletion". What do they stand for in your case, Mr Administrator? <KF> 19:51, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They stand for "voter for deletion". Vfd 19:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See, this is what I call misleading and irritating. And no more of this please. All the best, <KF> 19:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not misleading or irritating. It's just a name. Vfd 19:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, how hard is it for you to come up with a more suitable username? Sheesh. Rainier Schmidt 20:06, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how many times I'll have to change name to make you stop harassing me. 666 20:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* * *

A new hardliner it seems, User:Exploding Boy, wants to delete the list below. Now that I have copied it he can go ahead, although it's of course a pity that it might be deleted. <KF> 03:50, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some (alternative) lifestyles:

From VfD:

  • List of lifestyles - (also "alternative lifestyles") - a seemingly random list of unconnected things, inlcuding, among others, adoption, bisexuality, Baha'i, Atkins diet, wealth and single parenting. The article is wildly non-NPOV, and its factual accuracy is disputed (also by me). Serves no obvious purpose. Delete.
    • So far, the factual accuracy has only (not also) been disputed by Exploding Boy. Secondly, this list was put on VfD last October and then removed again (but I was unable to retrieve that discussion). There must be a reason for it being removed again. It's the old problem: Whenever someone discovers a page the whole procedure may start all over again. Thirdly, how can anyone be so strict and draw conclusions from unfinished sentences? Keep. <KF> 04:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that in addition to listing the article for deletion I have also disputed its factual accuracy. Sorry, don't understand your third point; could you clarify? Exploding Boy 04:09, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll do that on the talk page. <KF> 04:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:List of lifestyles:

I added the dispute link. Most of the things listed here are not lifestyles. Also agree with the NPOV comment above.

Exploding Boy 03:08, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Come on! This is ridiculous. What "factual accuracy"? There isn't a single assertion in the "article" as it is just a list and does not even contain one complete sentence. What do you think should happen next? <KF> 03:23, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No assertions? Simply including something on a list of "(alternative) lifestyles" is an assertion. Some of the inclusions I challenge:
  1. Adoption. Adoption is a lifestyle? Or an alternative lifestyle?
  2. Bisexuality, heterosexuality. Lifestyles? Alternative lifestyles? This implies that (a) all bisexuals (heterosexuals) behave in the same way (b) bisexuality (heterosexuality) is a lifestyle alternative to the norm. Notice homosexuality is not on the list.
  3. Wealth?
  4. single parenting?
This is nothing but a random list of things that have no connection. It's also wildly non-NPOV, and should probably be listed for deletion.

Exploding Boy 03:37, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

ETA: and I've just done so. Exploding Boy 03:45, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Our article on lifestyle is little more than a stub, but the basic idea at the beginning of the 21st century seems to be that if you are lucky (i e if you reside in a free country and if you do not live below the poverty line) you have a lot of choice these days. You can live your life any way you like unless you are a danger to others.
The "article" (it's just a list really) seems to me like the result of a brainstorming session. Months ago it was me who objected to the label "alternative": Who is to judge what is the norm and what is deviant from it?
As I see it, that's all there is to this list. It enumerates some/many of the options people have leading their lives. While "adoption" itself is not a lifestyle, adopting a child or children certainly is. The same is true of being a single parent, etc. etc.
I don't really see how a list of options can ever be POV. <KF> 04:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
* * *

January 2, 2005:

Garza, Geoffery (1989-Present) GARZA stands for Greatly Annoying and Retarded Zoo Animal. Arrogant, retarted prick who survives by leeching off the accomplishments of others. Once he has drained them of everything, he destroys them by impaling them with hairs picked from his legs. The origin of his obsession with picking his leg hair is unknown.

Garza is known to be dangerous when his Gamecube is under attack and at one point murdered his own brother (by picking all of his hairs) because his brother broke their Gamecube. However, Garza could of used his paralize attack. This creature bobs his head upward, downward,to the left and to the right. By doing so he somehow sends microscopic brainwaves that create bloodclots just big enough to send the attackers into a coma for a few hours. Sadly, Garza was convicted of First-Degree murder but was pardoned by the liberals because he was a retard.

* * *

Matura trip

Hans Hass mentions his "Matura trip", but Matura only talks about the diet of exams themselves. Am I correct in guessing that a "matura trip" is a holiday (or working&travelling) time taken after these examinations, but before a candidate goes to university? If so, I really need to write gap year, which is (roughly) the British equivalent of that (it's like a Grand Tour but with more lager) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Finlay. A Matura trip (Austrian and Swiss original: Maturareise) is a journey made by former classmates more or less immediately after taking their final exams, almost always some time in June (so that former teachers are usually not able to come along as they have to teach other classes). In the good (?) old days when I went to school it was, say, a three-week coach trip through Greece (including Crete and all that); today it is mostly one (rather pointless) week in an all-inclusive club on a Turkish beach without any sightseeing. I've seen videos advertising that kind of holiday, and they practically guarantee you that during your stay there'll be no time for you to sober up and that the mess you make will be cleaned away immediately. Getting drunk and (possibly, hopefully, tentatively) laid also used to be implicit parts of the trip decades ago, but now they are the only reasons people go there and mentioned explicitly.
So you were right about the lager but not about the duration. I don't think you could compare a Matura trip with a gap year, let alone a Grand Tour.
All the best, <KF> 15:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, this really isn't the grand tour :) In Britain we call this a "Sun Sea Sex" holiday (which a government health video once described as a "Sun Sea Sex Syphillis" holiday). It's nice to see that at least Herr Hass used it more productively. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
* * *

VfD again:

  • Past - Pointless. Contents are "We have no past." Even beyond stub status, it's wiktionary at best. RadicalBender 04:37, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • First have a look at "What links here", then delete. <KF> 04:39, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's already too late: A speedy deletionist has been ... well, speedier. Now we'll never know. <KF> 04:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
* * *

How long will the following article entitled Spum survive? <KF> 12:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Spum is a neologism introduced by the Dutch writer S. Montag in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. The word stands for the form of chewing gum, which is firmly attached to the ground after being spitted from the mouth of the chewer. The word was first printed on 17 January 2004 and was based on 11 letters to the newspaper after a call in a previous column of Montag.

The word combines the negative-modern association of the word spam with the dirty sounding sp from spitting, the letter u often found in four-letter words, and the um of chewing gum.

On January 18, 2004, the word is found for the first time on the Internet, on as well the Dutch as the English wikipedia.

Stop Robbot!

What Robbot is doing is annoying and not in the least helpful considering the pages on my watchlist. Just now one word in the Wolfgang Schüssel biography has been changed, but why oh why?

He [Schüssel] has been Federal Chancellor of Austria ("Bundeskanzler") since 2000.

It used to be ("[[Bundeskanzler]]"), but now it is ("[[Chancellor of Austria|Bundeskanzler]]").

When I wrote the text I deliberately wanted to draw the reader's attention to the German term, which is explained well enough on the "disambiguation" page (" ... is the German word for ..."). What's the point of redirecting it to Chancellor of Austria?

Some hours ago, on my personal subpage, [[born]] was replaced with [[birth|born]] in a passage where I documented the wrong use of links.

What else will follow? <KF> 22:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

* * *
  • 21:51, 6 Apr 2004 Timwi deleted "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" (content was: '#REDIRECT List_of_T-shirt_slogans')
  • 21:51, 6 Apr 2004 Timwi deleted "List of T-shirt slogans" (content was: ''I'm with stupid →← I'm with stupid'I'm with stupid

This is what I found in the Wikipedia:Deletion log. It seems nothing can be taken for granted these days, not even the seven day period and of course the discussion on VfD. All our sophisticated rules won't work if sysops abuse their power in that way. I'm going to post that message on Timwi's user page, too. <KF> 20:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Words of wisdom?

[edit]

Consciousness of the Subject-superject is consciousness.

Consciousness of the subject alone is sub-consciousness.

Consciousness of the object alone is super-consciousness.

Consciousness without Objectivity is Subjectivity.

Consciousness without Subjectivity is Profundity.

Randolph Thompson Dible II, March 2005

Abuse of sysop powers

[edit]
  • 21:51, 6 Apr 2004 Timwi deleted "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" (content was: '#REDIRECT List_of_T-shirt_slogans')
  • 21:51, 6 Apr 2004 Timwi deleted "List of T-shirt slogans" (content was: ''I'm with stupid →← I'm with stupid'I'm with stupid

This is what I found in the Wikipedia:Deletion log. It seems nothing can be taken for granted these days, not even the seven day period and of course the discussion on VfD. All our sophisticated rules won't work if sysops abuse their power in that way. I'm going to post that message on Timwi's user page, too. <KF> 20:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those both seem like reasonable speedy-deletions to me. Note the discussion two levels up, about excessive overhead in wikipedia. Sometimes VfD seems like excessive overhead; some obvious bull**** articles listed there never actually get deleted because the process is so long. - DavidWBrooks 20:27, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tough, isn't it, obeying one's own rules. Still that's exactly what has traditionally been referred to as democracy, and the other form of government as absolutism. Well, never mind. At User talk:Timwi people interested in Timwi's answer will find more. <KF> 20:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I believe that this was a perfectly reasonable speedy deletion. BCorr|Брайен 01:42, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)~
I think the best strategy here, rather than labelling this "abuse" (which is a bit like labelling newbie tests "vandalism", a mistake I keep making) would have been to leave a polite note on Timwi's talk page asking for clarification of why he deleted it, and requesting undeletion to give it a chance to improve. If necessary, timwi could then have pointed you to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, and/or undeleted it but immediately listed it at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. This is not so much "abuse of sysop powers" as a minor difference in opinion between two users, which could probably have been sorted out within 10 minutes. - IMSoP 22:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And, parallel to this discussion, on Timwi's talk page:

Instead of getting so worked up over it and starting such an uprising, perhaps you should cool down a bit and think rationally. Then it might occur to you that I might have acted in good faith, and that a friendly notice would have been more constructive and helpful. The correct places to post this are Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions. — Timwi 20:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm cool now. As I have tried to point out, there's an ever increasing number of special pages. I'm quite happy that I can remember some of them, but how should I know there is a place called Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions?!?
Let me add that the List of T-shirt slogans page was not my idea. I just saw it and corrected a spelling mistake. It was obviously in its very early stages -- I was expecting "My brother went to (name of city) and all I got is this lousy T-shirt" to be the next contribution. But I had also been envisaging a longer articles, maybe even with images. This is my old question really: Why nip it in the bud? All the best to you, <KF> 20:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from creating a List of T-shirt slogans if you wish. — Timwi 20:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
* * *

I'm not sure what is going on. My Watchlist seems to have gotten stuck and shows the last edit as being at 18:38:35, an edit to Monobook.css by Eloquence. I've emptied my cache and forced refreshes to no effect. Same thing happens in both Firefox and IE. I can see in Recent Changes that there are edits that should be showing up but are not. Any idea what is happening and what, if anything I can do? older≠wiser 02:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was happening to me earlier today. I was able to get it to update correctly by choosing a different time-interval display (e.g. "all" instead of last three days). Not sure what was causing it though. Antandrus 02:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Lots of people are seeing this problem. Unfortunately, the only developer that seems to be active doesn't know the caching system well. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not just the watchlist, it's also my own contributions, which got stuck at "12:39, Oct 3, 2004 (hist) Cover version (I)", although I have been contributing all afternoon. But it also affects ordinary pages. I have cleared my cache and really cleared my cache a thousand times—to no avail. <KF> 16:47, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
And today it's my user page. I've just switched on my computer and I get my user page from last week, before some major changes. It also happens regularly that when I state a problem like this one no one answers or they tell me they do not have that problem—which doesn't help a lot either. <KF> 17:30, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
* * *

Documenting the seemingly obvious

Hi Patrick, I've wanted for a long time to tell you how important I think your work is for Wikipedia. Whenever I come across an article about some everyday object your name is bound to crop up somewhere in the edit history. Paying attention to the things that surround us is important, but taking the next step, i e writing about them in an encyclopaedic manner, is difficult as well. You've done a great job so far. All the best, <KF> 08:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kurt,
Thank you for your kind words. I like the interaction of the network of knowledge (including many basic things) in my head with that in Wikipedia, with both contributing to each other, and of course, through Wikipedia, the interaction with the networks of knowledge in other people's heads. --Patrick 10:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
* * *

On this image of Sharon Stone (to be deleted whenever it seems necessary):

This image is a possible copyright infringement and should therefore not be used by any article. This image was submitted with no copyright information, but looks like a professional photo. The photographer (or studio or whoever arranged for the shoot) most likely still holds the copyright for the image.

This image is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. To the poster: If there was permission to use this image under terms of our license or if you are its copyright holder, then please indicate so here (click Edit this page in the sidebar) - see our image use policy for tips on this. NOTE: deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page.

It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

If you believe that this image may be used by Wikipedia and by all sublicensees under the fair use doctrine, then please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page to justify this belief.

Thanks, Frecklefoot 16:01, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm most certainly not going to do any of the above. I've just removed the image from the Sharon Stone page. Go find another picture which we are allowed to use, but reading the above I doubt very strongly whether such a thing can logically exist. All the best to everyone involved, <KF> 21:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the image shown in the article is a copyvio. The image's page has absolutely no copyright information. I suspect KF just lifted from somewhere off the Internet. Can anyone confirm or refute? —Frecklefoot 15:33, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. I uploaded that image of Sharon Stone on 26 December 2002, that is a loooong time ago in Wikipedia time. Back then I didn't even know the meaning of fair use (cf. Talk:Sharon Tate).
Telling me that "those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages" is just a bit too much: Being suspended for something I did one and a half years ago when I had just discovered the upload button? You must be joking!
If it makes you happy, please delete all my old uploads. I don't mind, I don't care. All the best, <KF> 21:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

User:Secretlondon in the summer of 2004:

I've left Wikipedia again

I've left Wikipedia again - hopefully this time for good.

It felt like I was in permanent battle for civilisation against barbarism, in favour of the world against those who have never seen the world beyond the United States.

I felt not only unsupported, but actively unwelcome. A rude email from the site owner (a United States rightist called Jimbo Wales) telling me he was sick of my anti-American prejudice was the final straw. There is no point in continuing when it upsets and offends me.

I may write further on what I think Wikipedia's neutral point of view principle means in theory and practice later.

The "evil empire" is incredibly sensitive about criticism. You would have thought that they were threatened. Maybe keeping the population scared and nationalistic is good for control purposes.

Anyway the rot appears to start at the top. He classically banned danny because of a complaint by RK some time ago. Maybe if one is to issue decrees one should actually have a clue how the project actually works - rather than what you hear at the King's Court (also known as the mailing list).

For those who are interested a non-Wikimedia Wiki project is Wikitravel. It seems much more international. The house style is better, and there is none of the wretched free use images which are free only to people in the United States.

It also uses the superior Creative Commons license rather than the human-unfriendly GFDL.

One problem with leaving Wikipedia is that I need an outlet for my free images. I've submitted the best ones to deviantART as CC licensed stock. This not only gives my images a higher profile but it (hopefully) will teach people about Creative Commons.

I'm still going to have to get web hosting for them. Some of my images are not high enough quality or resolution for stock but still may be useful for people.

IX: I'm sorry, but I'd like an answer to my question

[edit]

Has Wikipedia or at least the Village Pump been taken over by an authoritarian regime or what? For days now I've been trying to find out why the "list of links" may be incomplete and what could be done about it, but all I get is no reaction (Wikipedia talk:Bug reports) or my question being archived, i e deleted (here, this morning). I don't give up easily, so here it is again. To all of you who believe in Jesus, a merry Christmas! --KF 23:33, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What list of links? If you mean the list for "What links here", there are two reasons, as has been answered many times in the past:
  1. The links tables aren't always accurate.
  2. The list is cut off after the first 500 results as an initial measure against pages that gained ~30,000 links due to user:rambot-created city entries, and an ability to page through the list hasn't gotten added yet.
If you mean something else, please specify. --Brion 00:13, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
When I'm reading, say, the 1960s page and I click on "What links here", I get
==1960s==
(List of links)
The following pages link to here:
101st Airborne Division
etc.
So this is why, not surprisingly I think, I referred to it as "list of links".
However, the alphabetical list stops at Co- (Coleco). This never happened, at least to my knowledge, when the list was still chronological.
It was never chronological, though it was previously in no particular order. I explained all this before, who was asking then?
I don't understand what this is to do with the city entries. I don't think it shows 500 results; it seems less. And anyway, if that feature does not work, how on earth are you supposed to build an encyclopaedia? --KF 00:44, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that shows 500. Count them if you like. --Brion 00:53, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)


PS When I want to edit a section of this page a different one opens.

All this sounds unfriendly and impatient to me. Am I supposed to be sorry for asking? Am I supposed to be happy that every other question is answered?
"As has been answered many times in the past": When? Where? By whom?
I'm too tired to continue now, but I don't understand any of this. KF 01:02, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
* * *

A similar case, one year later:

Remember my password across sessions.

That's exactly what Wikipedia has not been doing over the past few days. I have to log in from scratch whenever I turn on my computer. Have I missed out on anything? <KF> 21:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Still the same. KF, Dec 30, 2004.
And again today, but my problems seem to be absolutely completely utterly unimportant and irrelevant. Not a single soul reacting here. I'm the exact opposite of a computer expert, and all I want to know is whether it's my machine / connection (not enabling cookies or whatever) or a bug in Wikipedia or I don't know. I'll keep asking this question until I get an answer, no matter how long it takes. KF, Dec 31, 2004.

PS The "You have new messages" sign has lost all its charm since people I do not know started inundating my talk page with {{unverified}} messages. It's particularly the obvious ones like a screenshot I uploaded in 2002—something everybody can recognize and fix—that slightly get on my nerves.

X

[edit]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity": I read this piece of advice some time ago on someone else's user page and, as this is Wikipedia territory, shamelessly copied it onto my own. I've been thinking about this sentence ever since, mainly in connexion with people I've come across in "real life". To me, it ties in with Kant's definition of Enlightenment. I'm still trying to figure out if it contradicts in any way his Categorical Imperative or his assertion that the world is highly cultivated and civilized but not yet moralized ("Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht", Siebenter Satz).

In Wikipedia, I receive relatively few comments on my talk page. People who know better than I have pointed out possible copyright violations concerning two photos I uploaded (Sharon Tate's and Winona Ryder's). Apart from that, three of the pages I started have been modified in a way that I can no longer identify with them: Millennialism, Remake, and Losers in literature (now renamed List of anti-heroes). However, in all three cases these changes were thoroughly discussed before they were actually carried out, so I can live with that. Astonishingly, as of June 2003, I was the 83rd most active Wikipedian. I cannot deny a certain addiction to this project, but I'm not going to give away how I scored at the Wikipediholic test. --KF

Whenever I go through "Recent changes" these days hardly any of the contributors is familiar to me. Where are all the old hands? Some, it is true, have announced their retirement or semi-retirement (sadly, Fonzy is among them), but what about the others? In this context I am still wondering if the list of "missing Wikipedians" is any good: Lots of people, it seems to me, have really really departed but have remained undetected; others may inadvertently have been encouraged to throw in the towel after finding their name on this list and concluding that they have already been written off anyway.

To me, Wikipedia seems to have become a revolving door, with people coming and going much faster than they used to only one or two years ago. This is fine with me of course, but I do notice, and I am happy about, people like Ortolan88 returning after more than a year's leave.

I am sorry for those who, on joining Wikipedia, had big plans, long to-do lists and a lot of enthusiasm but who, after only a short time, vanished into thin air, often leaving behind unfinished work to be completed (or reverted) by others. Some even caused upheaval by introducing major (unnecessary and/or disruptive) changes before buggering off again. I do hope that those with serious intentions had some fun contributing to Wikipedia, despite the short period of time they were around.

It has been pointed out countless times—and it has been a major reason for many to leave this place—that Wikipedia seems to be teeming with people whose egos are too big, who cannot work in a team, and who cannot compromise. This certainly seems to be true. On the other hand, there are lots of great people working here—this is a talk page, remember, no need to be NPOV here, is there?

So again, where are all the old hands who, fortunately, have not made it onto the missing Wikipedians list? <KF> 21:48, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

* * *

XI: Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005

[edit]

1

[edit]

Hi KF,

I have moved your University of Würzburg survey, 2005 survey notice from the main page to the recent changes page, with your interests taken into consideration. Hopefully you will not mind this. If you wish to make further changes to the notice, it can be done via Wikipedia:Recentchanges. :)

Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

2

[edit]

Hi, thank you for informing me about the move to the Recent Changes page. As far as I remember, it was the very first time I dared edit the Main Page, and my bet was that the link would be removed from there within one hour. And I won! So let's watch together where it will be placed next. All the best, <KF> 17:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

3

[edit]

LOL! ;) Unless, of course that day happens to be April Fools. Reason being that the main page has really high visibility, especially by unregistered users. (Registered users usually check the RC page instead.) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

4: geni's advice on how to win an edit war

[edit]

Hi, I'm following your advice and would like to kindy ask you to revert your own changes at Wikipedia:Recentchanges so that the announcement does again "take up space at the top of this page to advertise what must be the millionth severy into thw motivation of wikipedians". See also User talk:KF#Survey Notice on Mainpage and User talk:Mailer diablo#Link to Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005 for what went on before you got involved.

I wonder what it is that makes people jump at such harmless announcements, shift them around, delete them, etc. <KF> 02:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

5

[edit]

When I read about the above survey on the mailing list I e-mailed one of the psychologists there and said I'd spread the message. I created a short article and made a link at the Main Page. Within 40 minutes or so, it was moved to the Recent Changes page. After some hours it was removed altogether by another user.

What is so awful about such an announcement? Where would the right place to put it be? <KF> 02:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

6

[edit]

I've answered your uestion at Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges Geni 12:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

7

[edit]

the village pump in theory. In parctice people create these surveys regularly and we never see the results. I wouldn't be to concerned abolt people miussing it there will be another along in 5 minutes.

8

[edit]

My reply to you can be found at Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges#Link to Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005. <KF> 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

9

[edit]

So how come I have never before noticed a single announcement concerning such an online survey although I'm a regular contributor? Maybe because people like you keep deleting the notices? For a long time the Wikipedia community seemed to be awfully proud whenever someone else recognized our work. Now that academia has finally got round to dealing with Wikipedia on a scientific basis, all they get from us is an uncooperative attitude which they might conclude is a majority decision although in fact I don't believe it would be if there were a vote on this subject. Empirical surveys like the Würzburg questionnaire are based on induction and are thus dependent on a broad basis. Why make life difficult for them by preventing people from taking part? Just because you don't like such surveys?

You never see the results of such surveys? Could it be that you're not interested in them and that you just do not bother to look them up?

I'm not going to embark on an odyssey. I'm not going to post the notice at the Village Pump only to have it removed again by someone who, for whatever reason, thinks and feels like you. I also realize you have not met my request to put the notice back on the Recent Changes page, so that's that then.

I don't know any of the people who have prepared this questionnaire. If I told you now that the success or failure of the Würzburg survey is your responsibility you'd probably say that you can live with that. I wonder though how you yourself would react if you were dependent on other people's help and they refused to help you.

This has been a disappointing experience for me, especially because Wikipedia is a community where everybody works without getting paid for it—"for love", one might say. <KF> 17:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

10

[edit]

You have a total of three places in which you can announce it. Wikipedia:Announcements (where previous survyes have been listed from time to time) Wikipedia:Village pump (news) (where I can't imagian anything being deleted) and in theory Wikipedia:Goings-on (but I wounldn't bother myself with that one). If you want to target rugalar users you might want to drop a note in at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. With all these option open to you I fail to see why we need to add a notice to the top of this page. This page exists primeranly to provide useful stuff for those who want to use recent changes.12:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

11

[edit]

Thanks for the information. That's a great help. I wonder why at first you were so reluctant to disclose it. Maybe I'll try one of the places you have mentioned. All the best, <KF> 22:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

XII

[edit]
People who enjoy eating sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made.
— Otto von Bismarck

Step 1: An article

[edit]

Johannesburg's Mall Culture

Johannesburg is South Africa's largest and most prosperous city. With such opulent wealth, an American "mall culture" has sprung up in the city over the past 30 years. Local residents, who don't have Durban's beaches or Cape Town's mountain, will often go to their local mall on a weekend, using shopping as a pastime.

The result is an excess of shopping alternatives. Johannesburg's largest and most prestigious centre is Sandton City. Other centres include Eastgate, Westgate, Northgate, Southgate and Cresta.

There are also plans to build a 250 000 m² shopping centre, known as the Zonk'Izizwe Shopping Resort, in Midrand, on the outskirts of the city. "Zonk'Izizwe" means "All Nations" in Zulu, indicating that the centre will cater for the city's diverse mix of peoples and races.

Step 2: Comment on the author's user page

[edit]

Hi Rob, and welcome to Wikipedia. Concerning what you say on your user page, we've had people from all over the world rectifying myths, prejudices or just plain wrong information about their own countries. That's exactly what an encyclopaedia is for: to provide objective, NPOV information on any given subject.

Unfortunately, although you have only just started you have already encountered Wikipedia's strict side, as one of the articles you created, Johannesburg's Mall Culture, has been put on Votes for deletion. I'm sorry for that, but there's nothing much I can do about it.

Please try as best as you can to stick to the rules laid down on, well, ever so many pages. And don't let people discourage you. All the best, <KF> 21:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Step 3: Votes for deletion

[edit]

I can't see the point of this article. The city has some malls and people like to go shopping. Sounds like most cities in the western world. --LeeHunter 20:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • At least rename it Johannesburg's mall culture because it is not a proper name. With one or two pictures illustrating what is being said, why not? <KF> 21:18, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello Kurt and Lee. I'm placing this here because I am a bit of a "newbie" and I obviously haven't created a login account that allows me to email you directly. I take it you are both official editors/contributors to Wikipedia, so I'll try not to mess with you too much. Kurt, I appreciate your kindness and the GENTLE manner in which you have tried to guide me to a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Lee, dear, I suggest you re-read the article on not biting the newcomer. Johannesburg is NOT a western city (as people in North America are so arrogantly fond of pointing out), and you'd have to live here to understand the nature of the Jo'burg "mall crawl." Ask any local resident. I'd like to hazard a guess that you've never been to Johannesburg. Um, what was that I was saying on my user page about some ignorant people in the Northern Hemisphere who peer down their academic noses across the shamefully-contrived Brandt Line, and look with disdain upon their neighbours in the south who have Christmas in summer? Oh well, at least you don't think we have lions roaming in the streets (I trust), or that Cairo is a suburb of Johannesburg. Hope this doesn't get me expelled. Rob Thomas 22:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The tip-off (other than the POV-ish language) is that this mall phenomenon is described as "American", thus derivative. And Rob, nobody's bitten you (yet)! At most, a nibble. — Bill 23:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Johannesburg & delete. Can preserve the info, but it doesn't merit an article of its own. P. Riis 23:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A facet of a local culture that is, itself, quicksilver. It is impossible to speak authoritatively about such a thing as a "mall culture" anywhere without some serious Sociology credits, and those folks would be wary of making huge generalizations. What this is is a POV observation and therefore original research. Geogre 00:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge any valid info with Johannesburg. Definitely doesn't deserve its own article. Nadavspi 00:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Improv 02:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the non-original research (ie facts) carefully into Johannesburg —siroχo 03:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've taken a stab at merging, putting the information into Johannesburg#Economy and changing the wording of the vague cross-reference under Johannesburg#Tourism. This leaves out the "culture" aspect, that some people have more fun going to the mall than doing something else. I don't think that's notable. There are people like that in every city that has shopping malls, Western or not. Absent some indication that Johannesburg is markedly unusual in this respect, there's no reason to mention it. But, Rob, please do get us a photo or two of the lions in the streets.  :) JamesMLane 06:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* * *

"Considered by many"

[edit]

This appalling phrase, a flag identifying self-delusion or worse, appears 383 times in Wikipedia (March 28, 2005), invariably identifying a shortcut avoiding thought or a cheap prop meant to bolster weak personal opinion. Search it yourself, if you hesitate, and scan the contexts— many of them harmless expressions of factual insecurity, to be sure. But, when "considered by many" appears under the fingers while you are writing, it is not enough merely to edit it away: the thought itself is suspect. User:Wetman

1610 times, as of now - Mahadevan Subramanian 10:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
* * *

You obviously do not need me to play this childish game of yours because you have been reverting your own edits for some time now. I'll refrain from becoming involved and being dragged down to your level.

However, I must admit that I'm concerned about your peace of mind and, as I'm surely much older than you, I'd be willing to give you some fatherly advice.

I'm sure you know yourself that you can spend your time more wisely than by opening a new Wikipedia account every other day. For a start, why not turn off your machine and do some reading? "There's no frigate like a book", Emily Dickinson says in one of her poems. Let me know if you want me to recommend something to you.

All the best, <KF> 22:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

(to User:Sanctu)

* * *

NO ENTRIES YET – EXTENDED LIST:

* * *

A fucktard is a special breed of Human Being that is a cross between a fucker and a retard. Fucktard's are mainly known for annoying the crap out of "normal" human beings and generally making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just that much more difficult.

That was an August 16, 2004 candidate for speedy deletion. However, in December 2004 it cropped up again:

A Fucktard is a fictional creature sometimes referenced in the newsgroup alt.tasteless. It originated in a 1996 post to alt.tasteless which contained a series of fictitious news articles and one personal account of the consequences of the introduction of genetically engineered mentally retarded humans, designed solely for the purposes of sexual gratification.

In the story, a Fucktard is designed to be mentally comparable to someone with common forms of mental retardation like Down Syndrome, but to have fit, attractive, well-endowed bodies, and no sexual inhibitions. They also have a programmed short lifespan, and rapid reproduction and growth. They can breed hybrids with normal humans, but the hybrids are always full Fucktards.

Eventually, presented with a limitless supply of sex with partners more willing and physically attractive than any normal human, humanity breeds itself to the verge of extinction at the hands of the Fucktards.

External link

* * *
  Germany, 1926 (silent movie) Austria, 1935 West Germany, 1952 West Germany / Austria, 1960 Germany, 1994 (entitled Im weißen Rößl am Wolfgangsee)
directed by Richard Oswald Carl Lamac Willi Forst Werner Jacobs Ursli Pfister
Josepha Vogelhuber Liane Haid Christl Mardayn Johanna Matz Waltraut Haas Fräulein Schneider
Leopold Brandmeyer, head waiter -?- Hermann Thimig Walter Müller Peter Alexander Toni Pfister
Wilhelm Giesecke, industrialist from Berlin Henry Bender Willi Schaeffers Paul Westermeier Erik Jelde Gerd Wameling
Ottilie Giesecke, his daughter Maly Delschaft Anni Markart Marianne Wischmann Karin Dor Lilo Pfister
Dr Siedler, lawyer -?- Fritz Odemar Johannes Heesters Adrian Hoven Max Raabe
Professor Hinzelmann Hermann Picha -?- Sepp Nigg Werner Finck Otto Sander
Klärchen Hinzelmann, his daughter -?- Marianne Stanior Ingrid Pan -?- Meret Becker
Sigismund Sülzheimer -?- -?- Ulrich Beiger Gunther Philipp Ursli Pfister
Emperor Francis Joseph -?- -?- Rudolf Forster -?- Walter Schmidinger

XIII

[edit]
  1. Maveric149 (61820 edits now; 61496 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  2. D6 (54818 edits now; 15615 edits 30 days ago; change: 42
  3. Rambot (52710 edits now; 52710 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  4. Ram-Man (46175 edits now; 46135 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  5. Bryan Derksen (38783 edits now; 35998 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  6. Olivier (37400 edits now; 36336 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  7. Angela (37356 edits now; 36519 edits 30 days ago; change: -3
  8. WhisperToMe (35431 edits now; 32676 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  9. Seth Ilys (34128 edits now; 33042 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  10. Michael Hardy (32598 edits now; 31060 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  11. RedWolf (30942 edits now; 30278 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  12. Sethbot (29852 edits now; 29852 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  13. Guanabot (29416 edits now; 29414 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  14. Jiang (29337 edits now; 28710 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  15. KevinBot (29224 edits now; 29224 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  16. Morwen (28057 edits now; 28057 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  17. The Anome (27900 edits now; 27032 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  18. SimonP (27448 edits now; 22086 edits 30 days ago; change: 9
  19. Ahoerstemeier (27128 edits now; 24673 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  20. Docu (26213 edits now; 24625 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  21. Infrogmation (25992 edits now; 24599 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  22. MyRedDice (25173 edits now; 25124 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  23. TUF-KAT (25002 edits now; 24313 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  24. Robbot (24978 edits now; 11067 edits 30 days ago; change: 58
  25. Patrick (23905 edits now; 22821 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  26. Dysprosia (23261 edits now; 22802 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  27. Lord Emsworth (23250 edits now; 22187 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  28. Jengod (23072 edits now; 21422 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  29. Hephaestos (23057 edits now; 23034 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  30. Charles Matthews (22629 edits now; 19964 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  31. RickK (22491 edits now; 20665 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  32. Maximus Rex (22312 edits now; 22312 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  33. Wik (21995 edits now; 21995 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  34. Timwi (21584 edits now; 20489 edits 30 days ago; change: -3
  35. John Kenney (19822 edits now; 16277 edits 30 days ago; change: 6
  36. Ed Poor (18965 edits now; 18192 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  37. Danny (18715 edits now; 18031 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  38. Mic (18572 edits now; 16685 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  39. Secretlondon (18384 edits now; 18384 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  40. Stan Shebs (18043 edits now; 16201 edits 30 days ago; change: 3
  41. Camembert (17817 edits now; 17817 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  42. Andre Engels (17802 edits now; 17415 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  43. TakuyaMurata (17590 edits now; 17040 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  44. Dale Arnett (16978 edits now; 15152 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  45. AxelBoldt (16659 edits now; 16527 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  46. Jimfbleak (16607 edits now; 16207 edits 30 days ago; change: -4
  47. UtherSRG (16170 edits now; 13556 edits 30 days ago; change: 8
  48. Reddi (15550 edits now; 15550 edits 30 days ago; change: -3
  49. Francs2000 (15428 edits now; 12905 edits 30 days ago; change: 10
  50. Postdlf (15343 edits now; 14066 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  51. Meelar (15184 edits now; 13648 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  52. Kingturtle (15121 edits now; 15069 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  53. Everyking (14804 edits now; 12883 edits 30 days ago; change: 8
  54. Minesweeper (14657 edits now; 14575 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  55. Tarquin (14651 edits now; 14630 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  56. Anthony DiPierro (14649 edits now; 13525 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  57. Neutrality (14429 edits now; 10537 edits 30 days ago; change: 30
  58. Rlandmann (14367 edits now; 11953 edits 30 days ago; change: 15
  59. Bkonrad (14103 edits now; 12462 edits 30 days ago; change: 7
  60. Raul654 (14087 edits now; 12768 edits 30 days ago; change: 3
  61. Zoe (14077 edits now; 14077 edits 30 days ago; change: -11
  62. Menchi (13947 edits now; 13862 edits 30 days ago; change: -10
  63. Adam Bishop (13940 edits now; 13258 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  64. Joy (13868 edits now; 11891 edits 30 days ago; change: 10
  65. Koyaanis Qatsi (13579 edits now; 13573 edits 30 days ago; change: -11
  66. Deb (13510 edits now; 12942 edits 30 days ago; change: -8
  67. Rmhermen (13362 edits now; 12114 edits 30 days ago; change: 4
  68. 172 (13134 edits now; 12901 edits 30 days ago; change: -8
  69. Sam Spade (13115 edits now; 12132 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  70. AntonioMartin (12993 edits now; 12653 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  71. RadicalBender (12978 edits now; 12391 edits 30 days ago; change: -4
  72. Eloquence (12958 edits now; 12806 edits 30 days ago; change: -10
  73. Hadal (12917 edits now; 11321 edits 30 days ago; change: 6
  74. Montrealais (12916 edits now; 12606 edits 30 days ago; change: -9
  75. Mikkalai (12806 edits now; 10725 edits 30 days ago; change: 11
  76. Guanaco (12665 edits now; 11956 edits 30 days ago; change: -4
  77. Kate (12617 edits now; 12390 edits 30 days ago; change: -9
  78. Snoyes (12269 edits now; 12269 edits 30 days ago; change: -9
  79. Hyacinth (12258 edits now; 10495 edits 30 days ago; change: 10
  80. Gtrmp (12142 edits now; 11721 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  81. Texture (11995 edits now; 11099 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  82. Mintguy (11888 edits now; 11678 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  83. Adam Carr (11883 edits now; 11339 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  84. AndyL (11799 edits now; 9871 edits 30 days ago; change: 12
  85. Sannse (11576 edits now; 11190 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  86. Heron (11569 edits now; 11005 edits 30 days ago; change: -3
  87. Tannin (11558 edits now; 11517 edits 30 days ago; change: -10
  88. IZAK (11302 edits now; 10275 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  89. Bobblewik (11236 edits now; 10267 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  90. Pcb21 (11095 edits now; 10810 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  91. Decumanus (10876 edits now; 10789 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  92. Jmabel (10808 edits now; 9071 edits 30 days ago; change: 14
  93. Wetman (10795 edits now; 9549 edits 30 days ago; change: 4
  94. Chris 73 (10642 edits now; 9123 edits 30 days ago; change: 11
  95. Curps (10533 edits now; 10533 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  96. David Newton (10345 edits now; 10143 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  97. Emperorbma (10219 edits now; 10190 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  98. Pigsonthewing (10178 edits now; 10178 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  99. Zoicon5 (10147 edits now; 8983 edits 30 days ago; change: 8
  100. Cyrius (10119 edits now; 9407 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  101. TheCustomOfLife (10090 edits now; 8493 edits 30 days ago; change: 10
  102. Lir (10020 edits now; 10020 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  103. Jerzy (9668 edits now; 9132 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  104. Hemanshu (9642 edits now; 8761 edits 30 days ago; change: 4
  105. Gerald Farinas (9626 edits now; 9134 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  106. Fredrik (9550 edits now; 9385 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  107. Stevertigo (9348 edits now; 9253 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  108. Ktsquare (9229 edits now; 9214 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  109. Jtdirl (9181 edits now; 9148 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  110. VeryVerily (8998 edits now; 7503 edits 30 days ago; change: 27
  111. OldakQuill (8983 edits now; 8428 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  112. Dori (8770 edits now; 8613 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  113. Frecklefoot (8734 edits now; 8302 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  114. Niteowlneils (8660 edits now; 7838 edits 30 days ago; change: 8
  115. Hajor (8647 edits now; 8647 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  116. Evercat (8643 edits now; 7803 edits 30 days ago; change: 7
  117. Arpingstone (8569 edits now; 8207 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  118. David Gerard (8523 edits now; 8190 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  119. Jeronimo (8502 edits now; 8275 edits 30 days ago; change: -5
  120. Bearcat (8407 edits now; 6504 edits 30 days ago; change: 40
  121. Cantus (8324 edits now; 7932 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  122. Duncharris (8227 edits now; 7121 edits 30 days ago; change: 21
  123. Lexor (8226 edits now; 7629 edits 30 days ago; change: 6
  124. Someone else (8195 edits now; 8195 edits 30 days ago; change: -8
  125. Keith Edkins (8161 edits now; 7652 edits 30 days ago; change: 3
  126. Ihcoyc (8152 edits now; 7772 edits 30 days ago; change: -1
  127. DJ Clayworth (8134 edits now; 7938 edits 30 days ago; change: -7
  128. Magnus Manske (8120 edits now; 7997 edits 30 days ago; change: -10
  129. Eequor (8117 edits now; 7391 edits 30 days ago; change: 9
  130. J.J. (8018 edits now; 7536 edits 30 days ago; change: 2
  131. Fonzy (7984 edits now; 7984 edits 30 days ago; change: -12
  132. Warofdreams (7938 edits now; 7146 edits 30 days ago; change: 10
  133. Delirium (7920 edits now; 7532 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  134. Derek Ross (7875 edits now; 7691 edits 30 days ago; change: -8
  135. Rich Farmbrough (7865 edits now; 2617 edits 30 days ago; change: 318
  136. Karada (7860 edits now; 7596 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  137. RK (7845 edits now; 7670 edits 30 days ago; change: -10
  138. KF (7817 edits now; 7355 edits 30 days ago; change: 1
  139. Brion VIBBER (7786 edits now; 7778 edits 30 days ago; change: -15
  140. Kaihsu (7751 edits now; 7587 edits 30 days ago; change: -9
  141. Jfdwolff (7707 edits now; 6655 edits 30 days ago; change: 12
  142. Roadrunner (7660 edits now; 7534 edits 30 days ago; change: -9
  143. Llywrch (7645 edits now; 7506 edits 30 days ago; change: -8
  144. Paul A (7615 edits now; 7081 edits 30 days ago; change: 0
  145. Wiglaf (7537 edits now; 6042 edits 30 days ago; change: 35
  146. Lee M (7529 edits now; 7339 edits 30 days ago; change: -6
  147. Viajero (7528 edits now; 7506 edits 30 days ago; change: -11
  148. MPF (7442 edits now; 6635 edits 30 days ago; change: 6
  149. Wernher (7399 edits now; 7006 edits 30 days ago; change: -2
  150. Eclecticology (7296 edits now; 7285 edits 30 days ago; change: -9

(November 2004)

XIV: An image sanctuary

[edit]

One of the sad things that have happened recently is that people keep replacing the images I uploaded, particularly the photos I took myself. In some cases they are replaced by more modern or up to date pictures (which, in the areas where I take pictures, is beside the point), in other cases they are removed without any replacement. <KF> 13:49, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Rescuing an orphaned image, which has been replaced by
a less nostalgic one to illustrate the Rail transport article
(although there is a similar one at Rail)
Kids and their parents watch a Punch and Judy show at the Volksstimmefest, organized by the Austrian Communist Party and held annually at the Prater on the first weekend in September.

File:Liptauer.JPG Commons

Really, end of the line
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KF/For_future_reference/Archive&oldid=1086025711"