Miscellaneous desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 18

Wikipedian dies

What happens when a wikipedian dies? I mean what happens to his user page and stuff? Has it ever happened? A.Z. 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what would happen (presumable the account will become inactive) but unless someone notified wikipedia how would anybody know if the person had died and not just stopped using their account? I suspect that in the years that wikipedia has existed and considering the thousands of wikipedians that have helped make it so good that at least one poor soul has died. ny156uk 12:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have 3.8 million user accounts - although the number of actual people is certainly less than that because some people have sock-puppets. Let's guess at 2 million actual people. The death rate in most of the world where computers are common and Wikipedians are therefore most likely to live is between 5 and 10 deaths per thousand people per year. So between 10,000 and 20,000 Wikipedians die every year. That's between 30 and 60 of our members every day - the odds are good that a Wikipedian died while I was typing this message. Obviously Wiki doesn't know when this has happened - even very experienced Wikipedians leave the project for all sorts of reasons other than death (and some of them return months or years later) - but many, many of those two million users create the account and never edit a single article. But even if you are talking about experienced Wikipedians...I think there are something like 10,000 people with more than 1,000 edits - every year 50 to 100 of them will die. So what happens? Nothing. The account is still there - nobody ever edits it again because the password is (presumably) lost. The user page remains as a memorial forever (Hmmm - maybe I should clean up my user page some - I wouldn't want what I have now to be my perpetual memorial!). If it's someone very well known, we may wonder where they went - perhaps even someone might take the trouble to email and ask how they are - but mostly, probably not. A recent rule change allows people to take over accounts that have very few edits credited to them if they have been inactive for some large amount of time (to prevent the hogging of good user names). But that rule excludes accounts that have more than a few edits credited to them - so if the account owner dies and is a "true Wikipedian" with a bunch of edits to their name - then the account will probably be here as long as Wikipedia continues to exist - which (since we are now the repository of ALL human knowledge) could easily be forever. I think that's a fitting end. I'm going to go off and cry now! SteveBaker 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the death rate among Wikipedians should be lower than that among the general community, because most Wikipedians are in their 30s or younger, so barring accidents and comparatively rare illnesses most will have a good few decades of editing to look forward to. In the end, of course, death comes to us all... -- Arwel (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found there is actually a page dedicated to wikipedians who died.[1] A.Z. 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned about one Wikipedian who died after some serious illness but only because their family reported it to their Wikipedia userpage. But since most Wikipedians are young, they probably won't prepare something to be sent to Wikipedia for when they die. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are any Wikipedians known to have died from remaining at the keyboard too long, ignoring the need for sleep, food, water, bathroom breaks, employment, education, socialization, and hygiene? Edison 04:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably old Dirk has died at his keyboard, in his lonely room, but nobody has discovered the body yet.. :) --Zeizmic 11:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the good ol' days; him and Stu duking it out... :`-( · AO ^Talk 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I dont remember that-- but there agian I was a relative newcomer to the RDs. Any way Im sure Dirk is still alive and has indeed found a new life outside WP.(unlike some of us) 8-))

This brings up an interesting point, when considering the mortality rate of Wikipedians one must take into account the quantity of contracts Wikipedians take out on each other. :-) StuRat 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah hows it goin' Stu? I see you havent been editing much since I left (was banned) 8-))

Redirect

Hi!
Suppose I want to create an article x₂, but it already exists under a synonymous headline x₁, ... what are the steps i should follow to redirect x₂ , to x₁ ? Thanks,--Pupunwiki 14:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the #R button on the toolbar above the edit box --⁪froth^t 14:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You create the article x₂, and put on that page nothing but #REDIRECT [[x<sub>1</sub>]]. If you can't remember what you need to type, click the #R button on the toolbar above the edit box when creating the article x₂. If you preview the page, it will look like it hasn't worked. You can't see if you got it right until you save the edit. Oh, and the help desk will usually give you a better, quicker, answer to any questions about Wikipedia than the reference desks will. Skittle 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot !--Pupunwiki 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of TBD in the table of super 8 result of ICC 2007

Pls. elaborate the meaning of TBD that appear in the column of the country name in the table of super8 result in the wikipedia page on icc worldcup 2007203.112.218.18 14:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably , you did mean TBC . Well, as it can be seen here -[2], it means " To Be Confirmed ".--Pupunwiki 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- TBD=To be determined. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the meaning of the name "GUINNESS"

hi there ..... my name is "GUINNES" yes i use only single "s" in it ....... now i looked all over the net ...and only thing i found out ...is that my name is irsh(and i m not sure of that either).... now i am asking you guys to help me out with the meaning of my name ...<email removed>.... i would appreciate it ....if u help me with my name ....(sounds stupid but i really cant find the meaning of my name ).

It is an anglicisation of the Gaelic name Mag Aonghuis, meaning son of son of Aonghuis. It goes back to a fifth century chief of Dalriada, an Irish kingdom established in what is now Argyllshire in Scotland. This information is, of course, for the double ss spelling. Clio the Muse 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBA World Championships

I sit possible to talk to the participants of the BBA World Championships over the internet these days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.199 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Brian Peppers

What's the real story behind this Wikipedia article? Why is it write-protected? It seems like if worst came to worst, someone could write a short, properly sourced stub article, and that article could be protected. What's up with this? Thanks. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the deletion discussion [3] it seems that the main argument was 'Wikipedia is not a sex offenders registry, nor a repository of Internet rumors'. So yes, such an article could be written, but it was decided it should not be. Algebraist 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test of empathy and compassion. If you argue that the article should be re-created, you fail humanity 101. alteripse 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that it takes more than a physical deformity to make a person notable enough for inclusion. --TotoBaggins 13:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not always

Matrixism

Why isn't there a Wikipedia article on Matrixism?

I've read stuff about notability but there seem's to be quite a few reliable references for Matrixism. For example the following;

Bouma, Gary (2007). Australian Soul, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13 978-0521673891

Kohn, Rachael. The Spirit of Things, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National, August 20, 2006.

Possamai, Adam (2005). In Search of New Age Spiritualities, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN-13 978-0754652137

Morris, Linda. They're All God Movies in Mysterious Ways, The Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2005.

Jordison, Sam (2005). The Joy of Sects, Robson Books. ISBN 1861059051

206.188.56.88 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the deletion discussion? Algebraist 20:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the deletion discussion you suggested I still can't understand why the creation of a Wikipedia article on Matrixism has been blocked. Is this due to prejudice? Is prejudice a major problem in Wikipedia? 206.188.56.24 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelmimg majority in the deletion discussion voted to merge the article on Matrixism into wikipedia's article on The Matrix. There is however no mention of Matrixism in The Matrix's article. 206.124.144.3 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any article on Matrixism would be a steaming pile of tautologies and assorted other nonsense. The Matrix trilogy doesn't make any bloody sense under close scrutiny. The first one's very good stylistically of course. Vranak 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting POV but it doesn't address the question at all. 206.124.144.3 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted content was mainly an advert for a website that promoted the "religion". If you believe there is now a case for notability, take it to WP:DRV. Rockpocket 07:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the closest analog, Jediism, does not exist except in reference to an external event which invokes it (the census response). --24.147.86.187 12:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jediism is not Matrixism's closest analog. The Jedi religion is a phenomenon of census polling wereas Matrixism was designed intentionally. Closer analogs to Matrixism would be The Church of All Worlds and Scientology and both of these religions have their own articles. 206.188.56.88 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Church of All Worlds but Scientology is definately more notable than a religion with supposedly 400 followers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course being as notable as Scientology isn't the standard. By any reasonable standard Matrixism is notable enough. 206.124.144.3 09:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use "any reasonable standard" here. We use a particular standard, one which has been carefully and collaboratively developed over time. THAT SAID, I note that the NONarticle in question was last "deleted and salted" before many of the references cited herein were first published. It is POSSIBLE, depending on what those references say, that notability by WIKIPEDIA standards should be revisited. But it is up to YOU, dear anonymoose IPhuman, to bring forth the relevant quotes in those texts to convince us. The act of salting, as I understand it, shifts the onus of notability from the default ("create away, and we'll check it as it develops") to the claimant ("here, I've written this draft and posted it on a talk page, come discuss it and we'll see if we can build a political, gentle, and appropriate case for UNsalting").

Note that this latter process requires a friendly attitude and willingness to work with the collaborative process, not harsh language, Anti-cabal-esque behavior, and/or dismissal of others' standpoints and standards as "unreasonable". If I were you, I'd get to work on both the page you think should exist, and the appropriate, nice way to bring that page forward when you have a draft in hand. But I'd also be prepared for the possibility of both disagreement and, if others cannot agree that the notability standard has crossed the fence, a "no" or "not yet" at the end of the process. Being able to work WITH others, and accept the collaborative process, is a basic requirement for convincing the community of anything. Jfarber 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would move forward as you suggest but the Matrixism talk page has also been locked and salted. Why has the Matrixism talk page been salted? I don't know for sure but it is hard not to think that it would be to prevent discussion and transparency. 206.124.144.3 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, the correct place to move this discussion forward is WP:DRV. Please take your case there, as this is not the place for such a debate. Rockpocket 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]