User talk:AndrejBauer

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

April 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Dieter Spreen, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Abstract Stone Duality
Thanks for your comments. unfortunately, considering the 9 billion articles on names of pokemon characters, WP is somewhat of an idiocracy. if paul is satisfied with the project being mentioned on the list cited, im ok with that, but i agree with your reasoning. as i was not familiar with the subject, i used a google search to confirm that its of some note, but if it hadnt come up there, i would not have assumed the subject is nonnotable, just more obscure. im not a mathematician, but i can still think.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Experts at Wikipedia
This is in response to this posting at Medcom. The role of expert editors at Wikipedia is a long and difficult story. For a humorous point of view on how experts often fare here, see this, but for a more serious reflection on the question read Expert editors and, with kind of an opposite slant, Expert retention (and remember all of that material is essays and individual personal opinion, not the consensus or policy of the community). The role that experts should play was at least one of the reasons that one of Wikipedia's two founders, Larry Sanger, left Wikipedia to form a new encyclopedia, Citizendium, where experts would play a much larger role, but which has arguably been a failure simply because it did rely on experts while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. None of that should be taken as a reflection or comment upon on what's happening in the dispute that you commented upon. I just thought that you might want to know some background about your concerns. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee, but not speaking on behalf of the committee in this instance)


 * Thanks for the info! I actually feel better for not having to witness the mediation process. Frege (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Frege. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Frege~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, AndrejBauer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Andrej Bauer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Class455 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Hey Andrej; I've left a reply to your comment at Class455's talk page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there
Hey I wanted to reach out because I just ran across the AfD and some of the related discussions. I'm really sorry, it sounds like this has been quite the headache. Totally understand and respect your user page comment about why you're not editing; just in case you ever decide you want to give it another shot, I thought I'd see if I could draw out some things worth knowing, in what I hope will be a more helpful way. You clearly have a lot to contribute so I'd love it if you did consider working more on any other topics that interest you! I really hope you'll have a more positive experience. Feel free to reach out if I can provide any help. Cheers, Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliable source/verifiability thing is really confusing and I wish Wikipedia did a better job of communicating this principle not only to new editors but also to readers. The underlying issue is that anyone can edit WP: contributors are not always subject-matter experts, nor do we have a ready supply of subject-matter experts who can check everyone else's work. Instead, what we have for quality control is a rule that everyone who adds content has to supply a reliable, independent source so any reader can verify the accuracy of the claim (especially for living people, where issues around libel and privacy can come in). Which is a good solution in terms of ensuring quality, but totally opaque to newcomers, and means a ton of new users have their first contributions deleted and never come back. It's really a problem.
 * Additionally, you're absolutely right that someone should have reached out to you explaining this in the first place. We actually do have, in all the bureaucracy, a guideline called WP:BITING reminding long-time users that WP is labyrinthine and those still learning the ropes should be supported in that process. As you've seen, that principle is not always achieved. I can only apologize on behalf of the community, let you know there are people here working to improve WP on this front, and, if you'd consider it, invite you to join us! Being "bitten" certainly makes really clear how much alienating newer contributors detracts from the encyclopedia's potential, and we (obviously) need more editors who are alert to this.
 * Conflicts of interest. The plain truth is that I'm not as concerned with this as others are (neutral, reliably-sourced, notable contributions are fine with me no matter their author), but I still advise against editing your own entry or ones you're affiliated with, for preservation-of-sanity reasons. While editors should be treated respectfully, content can be subject to a high (not to say, harsh) degree of scrutiny, in the interests of maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia (I'm sure as an academic you understand this!) And scrutiny tends to go up exponentially if anyone affiliated has edited. If you're both the editor and the subject of the content, it can be well-nigh impossible not to feel personally affronted by this process, leading to distress and nearly-inevitable conflict with other editors. So usually people have better WP experiences working on topics where they can discuss material and sourcing without the added personal strain. If you spot something erroneous about you in your own bio, here's a good place to request a third party address it: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. (The entry's talk page can work too, but there's less guarantee about when anyone will happen to check that, whereas the noticeboard is checked regularly.)