User:94.8.98.105/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * Rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
 * Utililize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on [ my talk page]. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). Happy editing! Lady of  Shalott  23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Filmography of Chris Columbus
Sorry, but IMDb is not a reliable source?--Lcsrns (Talk)'''  15:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Take it to any other editor, they'll say the same. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the rule anyhow: WP:IMDB. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I didn't knew. Is tv.com, Rotten Tomatoes (for the Tomatometer thing), Box Office Mojo, or Metacritic reliable in this wiki? --Lcsrns (Talk)'''  15:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ps:Also sorry for my english since it isn't my native language.


 * Tv.com no, rotten tomatoes yes, metacritic yes (but only if you're stating the ratings from rotten tomatoes or metacritic, if you reference reviews from another website you should get it from the site). 94.8.98.105 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and Box Office Mojo and Film Affinity?--Lcsrns (Talk)'''  15:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes to boxofficemojo, no to filmaffinity.com. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thankyou for your very encouraging comments and barnstar. May I ask though what convinced you that this is the case? I've noticed looking in your history you edited Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad‎ which I started and mostly wrote and Adar oilfield which I've helped bring up to GA. Funny you should mention the dedication, believe me some days, like those recently even I have off days...♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read your essay concerning quantity and quality and I agree that Wikipedia needs to be comprehensive in its scope as well as providing in-depth information about given topics. In my op, your seemingly perpetual affinity for creating articles in essential areas is doing Wikipedia so much good. Did you know that you've created $76161/3700000$, roughly 2% of all of Wikipedia's articles? That is an impressive bit of statistic, best, 94.8.98.105 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Sadly though we are way off even a glimmer of our full potential. A lot of that has to do with the way the site is run which offers little to actually attract the editors it needs. Yes, google drives traffic to us but the percentage of active contributors is extremely low. We could easily get tens of thousands of new active editors producing content if we offered them a chance to be rewarded, e.g a $500 monetary award for the best article in a month etc. If I had my way of course I'd have used a bot to generate 10 million start class articles! But given that I don't have time to write every article LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is too much encouragement on other areas unfortunately, I think the very breadth of Wikipedia has become the opening of a path that leads towards its downfall. The fact that we have ANI, where those who look towards drama thrive and forget what they originally came here for. I've created a few DYKs (5 or so, I think), but I do see it as a distraction of sorts. We're losing editors and nothing is being done to draw them in. A vast majority of editors look only towards their own gain rather than the project's. All of these are issues that really do need some discussion. Consensus is another issue, an Einstein comes along and proposes something and is shot down by the Beckhams of this site because they don't get it. "Initiative over consensus" should be a bloody motto. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And very constructive proposals rarely get the go ahead. Bakc in 2008 I almost succeeded in a geobot which would have started an article on every populated settlement in the world. Even now at WP:Bot requests I have proposed a bot to created lists of all 350,000 odd British Listed Buildings but the interest is very poor. Sure there are editors who've supported the idea but those who have bot coding abilities generally seem more into wiki politics than content. By Beckhams I gather you mean both popular and dumb! I also proposed a global version of http://www.geograph.org.uk/ under a sister project, something which is actually being sorted out and could eventually get us tens of millions of images of places around the world, the photograph the whole planet. I also proposed a Wiki Atlas with high quality free map making possibilities, much superior to Open Street Map, barely anybody showed an interest. So constructive proposals are usually ignored. Instead they choose to spend their time fussing over BLPs and image censory.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can understand their hesitance (those are very bold and massive suggestions and could potentially do damage as well), but bold decisions need to be made otherwise the wiki will perish.
 * I'm not sure I agree with you on the monetary issue however, bring money into it and everything just gets rather chaotic. It may spur an increase in quality, but with it will come competitiveness, hostility and a higher rate of sockpuppetry to try and win a prize or such. Incentive is a definite need, but I don't think money propositions are the way to go. On that note however, I think we're blocking and sending away potentially brilliant editors unnecessarily by being overly punitive to sockpuppets. User:Island Monkey is a prime example of an editor who was doing some pretty decent work here, until it was found that he was abusing accounts and was sent away indefinitely. It should be warded against, but not as much as it is! 94.8.98.105 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * True, you are right in that aspect, although the site is pretty hostile anyway! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding to Blaubär und Blöd. Obviously I'd rather create them fully first time but there are so many to get through..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright and stubs are good. It's setting up the building blocks and might be unrewarding for you sometimes, but it's pretty vital. What nationality are you by the way? 94.8.98.105 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:DYK
Good comment. (Yes, I'm aware you're chiding me just as much as some of those other editors...but I still appreciate the voice of reason.) Best, r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)