-Why not. It's Monday. We could wash off the Wikipedia grime from the past week.
Each Monday I am taking a stand against whoever it is who runs this show and doesn't care about editor retention. Along with some others, I am withdrawing my labour every Monday as a reminder that protecting the quality of wikipedia pages isn't possible because volunteers burn out if they try. Please join us. You'll be glad you did.
However, I gathered some data to show that this essay is not the answer. If we take a break or retire from editing, pages do deteriorate, there is no safety net for them. If the central administration doesn't care about editor retention, then there's not much that a few individual editors can do.
 |
|---|
| 4 July 2024 |
|
|
|
|
Salicaceae flowers |
| A flower. Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
Nice. Very Salicacious, very salubrious. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 |
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
| style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
Hello Sminthopsis
Some support, I hope (nice pseudonym by the way).
There is clearly a problem with science in Wikipedia. For a start, the general principle that only secondary sources can be cited (not very strictly observed in general) becomes a real problem in science. If the only scientific facts and ideas to be presented are ones that have made it into the newspapers and other "media", then compiling a readable scientific entry is impossible. Even quoting only scientific review papers is problematical. And all this doesn't just apply to scientific topics sensu stricto, it also applies (obviously) to natural history (some of the "amateur" entries are dire), but to the biographical entries for major scientists too.
On the other hand, I do have some respect for the "republican" principle in Wikipedia: that anybody can have a go. And as you say, it's not a journal, and we (and everyone else) should not be publishing original research in Wikip (you'd need to be a bit mad to do so, surely!).
I look forward to your return from sabbatical.
PS do you have any firm or tentative views on the Wiki principle that the vernacular names of species in English are not capitalised? It does create problems with knowing whether a small black sandfly is the species Small Black Sandfly, or a Black Sandfly that happens to be small, or an individual Sandfly that happens to be both small and black.
Respectfully
Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see this username appearing in my watchlist again! I hope to see it more in future; knowledgeable plant editors are definitely needed. Best wishs for the New Year. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
@Sminthopsis84:, I recently started editing reliability articles on Wikipedia, I added a new technique using the Gini coefficient in assessing the degree of aging of non−repairable systems[1]. However, a user deleted my edit based on his personal opinion, even though I defended my case legitimately with references and evidence on the talk page. What's the proper procedure to handle such disputes and deal with user's personal opinions. Sarouk7 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Heterophylly has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Heterophylly until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Vabanipu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 15 § Vabanipu until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Category:Cynophalla indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 | |
| Nine years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sminthopsis84! I understand your revert of my removal of "Guelph, Ontario: The World Publishing Company". Although, the only issue is that the only World Publishing company I can find is the one onwiki, an American publishing company that was founded in 1902, 20 whole years after Manitoba and the great North-west: the field for investment, the home of the emigrant: being a full and complete history of the country was published. I don't see how it could be the same World Publishing Company, and I'd appreciate your feedback.
God bless! Suo Edits (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the company or James Walter Lyon could use a wikipedia page of their own. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your editing attracted my attention. There are points of difference, but I like the cut of your jib. Also glad that you're back after being inactive for a while. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
