User talk:Echidnae

G'day Echidnae

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it and become a regular contributor. You're already well past the welcome, newcomers stage but you'll probably find some things you've missed there if you skim it quickly.

Having a userid is no big deal, it just gives you a little more privacy (even admins can't then see your IP address) and makes communication easier. And it costs you nothing; Nothing forces you to logon once you have a userid, but whenever you don't you are again exposing your IP, it makes it harder for you to sign things and also exposes you to the risk of being impersonated.

Yes, as you commented on Votes for deletion/Ceciliantas, we do take notice of the number of edits people have done, and also the quality of these. Please don't take this personally. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got.

We also make it a policy to assume good faith. But one problem is that we can't easily tell whether a group of people are really individuals or whether they are sock puppets. I hope you see our dilemma!

But the main thing I wanted to say is you seem to have missed the point of my last comment. If the figures you quote are accurate, verifiable and support the claim that this is a significant event, then use them to improve the article. That is what will persuade long-standing editors to vote to keep it.

Wikipedia is often hard work. Others are putting a lot of work into the quality of articles, and in freeing them from hearsay, advocacy and sometimes just plain vandalism and gigglecruft (my own neologism). If you put in some hard work too, this will give your views more weight. As I said before, this system is not perfect, but it is what we have.

You don't need to restrict this work to the article in question. The figures need to be seen in context, and the Internet phenomenon article doesn't currently give them a good context, nor does the Star Wars Kid article give any at all. How many threads have this number of views, edits, replies? How significant is the eq2permafrost site on the Internet? Andrewa 15:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'm also happy with the decision to delete, although I tend towards inclusionism generally. I was concerned that if we let this through, we'd then have to repeat the debate for every Internet phenomenon however small, in fact Wikipedia would have become a prime vehicle for spreading such material, with spirallingly less evidence of notability until eventually some line was painfully drawn. But I notice the vote was not unanimous even taking the most severe view on newcomers. Like all large wikis, there's a certain chaos here.

Feel free to drop me a line whenever you think I can help, either on my talk page, or by email if you don't want the whole world to see it permanently archived (sobering thought). You may have noticed I have admin authority, which gives me no extra status or voting rights but several conveniences and responsibilities... I can view deleted pages for example, at least I can until the next database cleanup zaps them for good (or more exactly, after that you need someone with at least developer authority, which gives among other things access to the database and its backups, and developers tend to have little time for such requests). Andrewa 05:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching those double-bass things. I wasn't even sure what they were called. Kushboy 07:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Faith No More
Thanks for correcting me on the Mike Patton/RHCP feud. I mis-remembered it. Adamravenscroft 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Adamravenscroft

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)