User talk:Ohadaloni

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, ! I am Twinkler4, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing   at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your question! ... thanks
I have yet to read the detailed wiki intro pages for writers and please ignore anything that will be answered there. I will try to be as detailed as poissble with yes/no questions so that you can type as little as needed, but feel free to simply ignore me, espically if you beleive I am about to discover all the answers anyway. I really only have one question: Should I write anything at all in my page? '''By that, do you mean your own, personal user page? If so, the main reason for those is to just tell a little about yourself, show what groups, projects you're working on, what you're doing around wikipedia.'''-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can not conceive of anything I would not myself consider some form of indirect marketing. What is custumary?

I understand the wiki software somehow knows you are registered to absorb new writers such as myself. (and correct me please, as...) I will see you as my writing style mentor to help me conform with standards, in as much as this term is relevant. I will nag you as little as possible if at all, but would request any additinal URL guidance in this matter. I appreciate your help.

Ohadaloni 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)ohadaloni

Please disregard the above to save typing, and the next question is, (and follwoing I will rephrase as a yes/no):

Are there separate Verifiability guidelines for Wikipedia pages VS the adjacent discussion pages? '''Verifiability is to ensure that the reader of an article is reading something that has been published by a reliable source, the adjacent discussion pages are for users to talk about facts placed, paragraphs written and to basically dicuss with other users what is best for the article. If someone places a piece of gossip on a article about an actor and there is no source, or a reliable one, editors can chat on the discussion page about the issue. There is no verifibility guidelines for the discussion pages.'''-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to edit the first page which is true content for lack of confidence on this issue. Am I adhering to Verifiabilty wikipedia standards by making sure my comments, potentially not 100% verfiable, only appear as part of a talk page on the subject matter, with the hope someone with more verification on the issue will eventually transfer the content to the main page, thereby also insuring the verifiabilty of the content of the main page?

'''You may find this helpful, this is a segment from WP:NOR for "No Original Research,


 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
 * Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis.
 * Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

The three main policies of Wikipedia are WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, you may find them useful to read. '''-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is no ready URL for this next one, please do not type an answer. It might be long:

How does the Be Bold guideline assist in answering the last question, if at all? '''Here is segment from WP:BOLD "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." See WP:BOLD for more'''-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

--Ohadaloni 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope I could help a little! -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You did. I also received by now similar comments as part of a discussion on a page, and togehter this wiki crash couse is taking shape. I will now put a few lines in my page saying what I think I might contribute to wiki, thanks. --Ohadaloni 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving comments on talk pages
If you wish to move a comment or whole section just cut and paste it to the appropriate section of the page. Thanks, Richard001 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help
from the looks of your user page, it looks like you'll do a lot of good towards wikipedia! good luck! -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  23:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hello again, if you ever want to test out wikipedia features, you can use my own personal sandbox, so that you don't have to get frustrated by the normal one. You can use it any time to test out how the code works! Secret-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Will the next wiki recruit read my recreational sandbox2, or was that a total waist of creativity? Not that this question needs an answer or anything... I just thought I'd let you know I did use it, if you happen to be watching my page still --Ohadaloni 18:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I Love You All
I'd like to thank all that help in my absorbtion as a wiki, and also give special thanks to the designers of the software, which again and again makes me discover I should be more humble in asking questions which the software can answer strickly from experience usign it. As a seasoned professional in the field (in which I have no intention contributing to wiki) I can not find a better compliment then expressing this thought: With most systems, my feeling is "If I had written this myself, it would work" As juxtaposed with the wiki software, "If I had written this myself, I'd be proud" and I am hardly ever shy. I think it a classic demonstration of how open source and free information psychology yields superb results, implemented in the vast field called knowledge, as opposed to this silly little field called computer Software. The wiki software is as magical as the content and concept.

Regarding orginal thought, Darwin says there is not a single drop of rain that will not change anything in the environment, and everything infuences everything. I should therefore think that if I placed an internal Wiki link from this page to another with my own writings, it can not possibly be un-biased and objective, and must contain at least from a Freudian perspective, an original self-marketing thought. This being the case, I am hesitant as to whether this follwing semi-internal link is appropriate in this case. not addressed to anyone in particular - please comment or remove it if relevant.

Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation

I am also a big movie fan, and in my small collection of several hundereds only, I am quite agile, having watched many of them over and over. in the course of my searches for new knowldge of the same I might also make minor corrction attempts to movie and movie creation content. I Love You All - is quoting De Neuve from The Hunger. Its a phonetic association, nothing more.

I might also comtribute to bettering the speed of learning to play the Guitar, especially for beginners, if I find relevant articles on the subject.

I will rarely create a new page, if at all. My personality demands that when I create something new, it will contain original thought. I do this all the time, and for this I have a private web site, where originality is the primary focus.

The purpose of this text is to find out, rather than to tell, what contributions to Wiki will make the most sense. I prefer it thought of as a solicitation for comments rather than a wiki-mission-statement or promise of any kind. As time goes bye, this page will refine itself and find its main content into my description page as my wiki goals are refined.

In my mind I see my list of know-hows, and will ammend the wiki mostly guided by the selection of such know-hows from my list, by other wikis. How do I make wikis ask me to write about something, and know I know anything about the subject, is my main concern, and relates to self-marketing wiki no-no-s. Also, I know too many very interesting little things that are not likely to be interesting at all to anyone else, and would be a waste of otherwise better valued wiki time.

--Ohadaloni 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My Wiki Mission Statement
As a new wiki slave, all you slaves are my bosses, and please be as bold as you are expected to be as a wiki, in commanding me to do my job.

--Ohadaloni 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!
I read your question and your asking for me to reply on your page, I am not very familiar with Open Source, and the question is hard for me to register, especially for how young I am. If you could possibly ask your question in a simpler form, that would help me with answering your question, thanks. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first article
It seems that wikipedia already has Crusty The Clown except spelled Krusty the Clown. I will be placing a redirect so that if someone happened to type Crusty the Clown it will take them to the page Krusty the Clown. Thanks -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

that was quick
I was still busy reviwing this, to make sure I am at all correct. Its the open source phsychology. Release early, release with bugs, but release. Well, first try. Lets see how long it takes me to learn how to undo this. But please, no hints till I ask..

so how does one remove an article?
Not from the perspective of history logging, but I noticed that while you were working there was a stage where the page was not there, as if never having been created, and later appeared with the redirect. Will simply erasing the entire content of a page make its title not be found in the searches until someone puts the next content piece in? I'd hate to think I might do somthing like this again without knowing how to undo this quickly. Say it would not make sense to swap the content with a redirect. What then? Even though it has no references save sanboxes, cluttering the data with unusful titles reduces the quality of searches for useful titles. .

Only Admins
Only administrators may delete an article per WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD. Removing all of the content on a page is called blanking. Also, Wikipedia articles are usually caps sensitive, so a Crusty the Clown article is not the same as crusty The clown article. Redirects are articles that just automaticaly link to another page with the same name, same idea.. etc. If you ever need to quickly undo something you did, go to the history of the page, select two revisions of the article and click "Compare selected versions" there will be two revisions on the page. On the right side it will say something like

"Current revision (14:58, June 12, 2007) (edit) (undo)"

If you click undo it will undo that revision of the article, it will show the editing box, scroll down until you get to "Save Page" click Save Page, if you are not undoing vandalism WP:VANDAL write what you are doing in the "Edit Summary" box! -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if you think your comments are foolish that were made on my talk page, please leave them, wikipedia often reminds us to not undo anything on talk pages, as they are archived and saved. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for rude, vandalist remarks made on the page may be reverted. Such as this one -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I have deleted your questions, I am sorry for that, would you also like the last comment you made deleted also?-- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  21:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel misguided
As far as I am concerned, I prefer this discussion remain public as long as it is live and active, and if any conclusions seem relevant and general, they can be summarized, after possibly also discussing with others, but the talks themselves should be stored, if publicly, as dated forums, not in the wiki page presentation, which makes them look like brain storming in progress.

So much for your question, but I take it for granted, that adherance to wiki standards should be the guide, and what happens with this experience will simply guide me in my future talks and selection of language, probably already influencing this text.

This brings me to the title subject, regarding the guidance I am looking for:

This seems to present an intrinsic WP:COI to all wikis. If everything one writes outside of articles is expected to be signed, and while potentially revised, never truly erasable, (not including non-adherance to wiki standards), then it seems one must always be cautious and persent their case with a self-marketing commitment to excellence. This means WP:VANDAL is in fact almost solicited by the non-erase policy, and revisions might tend to hide and obscure information, and present both [WP:VANDAL]] and WP:COI marginality problems for all, regardless of any concious malintentions on the part of the wiki.

Surely when revising, you mostly tend to make sure your presentation is well done rather than the better content, which in an encylopedia, mostly means, more content.

Isn't it advantageous for example to encourage university professors to write content with many typos, and give the oppurtunity for proofreaders like me to study new fields of interest, while at the same time correcting typos, saving a bundle of time to the professor who taught me. Needless to say, if no one is interested in his field, his assitants will evenually do the job anyway, but not in most cases, and not with this subtle pre-condition for publication.

In my case, I have no monetary gain or loss from my minor and meaningless embarassment, but it is sure to influence my open source-like approach, of release fast, and will make me far more reserved in the future.

Is this reservedness expected and common? Isn't the wikipedia loosing the lesser perfect content for this? Aren't pages supposed to evolve towards quality, implying free will writing and erasing, through better guiding standards, or through the software? For example, have wikis freely erase their own writings, but not the writings of others?

Note this is not loss of knowledge at all. Any other wiki can always go to the wiki logs, sign their name on a new talk, perfectly adhering to wiki standards, and just say, "on date so and so ohad made a fool of himself in front of the planet". Of course, if this is presented as just a quote from the logs, its a separate fact, that is obviously Verifiable, and there is no issue.

Needless to say, why on earth would anyone do such a thing, and so the standards would still have protected me and all other wikis. Though I am possibly not fully protected from a legal perspective, I can go look for the offender and sue them for personal damages. The Wikipedia is out of the loop, just like google is not responsible for content. But if I can not be freely responsible for my own content, then who is? At google, if I erase content from my own web pages, google will make it disappear from their cash as soon as they can help it, not even for legal reasons. When you are the size of google or the wikipedia, legal objectives and foundation guidelines had better coincide. Google can not be trusted if its search yields obsolete results, and so I am automatically protected from my own advertizing flaws. Google will erase them from history almost as quickly as I do. (Google in this context refers to any reliable search engine).

--Ohadaloni 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the More Scietific Side
This entire discussion can be disregarded as futile, if my conjectures can not be shown to carry some weight. If I claim that Wikipedia could have more and/or better content, but can not show why this claim is valid, then my claim is meaningless. I must admit I do not have any more than the thoughts I have already shared, and was hoping that by making a convincing case, it might create energies to test and see if it makes sense. Surely there is much history one can research in the wiki logs to verify or disproove the validity or relative validity, and possibly the experience of more seasoned wikis have these logs somehow embeded in their subconciousness to quickly provide me with the guidance without need of research or lengthy discussions.

--Ohadaloni 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Crusty
Overanalysing this for obvious Freudian reasons, it occurred to me it is likely that the writers of The Simpsons have designed a Pavlovian response. Krusty always breaks cake Crusts in peoples faces, especially his own and Bobs'. I think Crusty the Clown might be a part of a collective spelling error designed by the script writers and so this new page with the redirect might be a wee bit more useful then I had orignally thought.

--Ohadaloni 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Question
Usually only admins are allowed to do that, but you could delete all of the content of the page and redirect to your new title or on WP:SPEEDY says this

Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author in good faith, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  17:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm vandalism cases? well there is WP:LONG which are vandals that have done long term vandalism etc. to wikipedia, perhaps the most well know one would be User:Willy on Wheels -- ♫Twinkler4♫   (Talk to me!)  17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from Sandbox2
Hey this sandbox is for my newbie peeps who want to get to some serious sandboxing! My newbie peeps, you can edit below this message!! But if you have a question don't ask me here, ask here (Talk to me!)

Or in other words, this is a test page for new users (that I have welcomed) to test out stuff on, it doesn't matter if they screw this page up or anything!! -

Life, The Universe, and Everything
As per your suggestion, I'll ask on this page the question that can not be answered without being a true acedemic of the theory of the communities of Galactic Encyclopedias. --Ohadaloni 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please fill in the measures where musical notes are missing, but do not accidetally mess up the pauses
Its almost like The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over The Lazy Dog. There are already three species of encyclopedias that are extant for some time with a high chance of lasting long into the future of their evolution. They are: The Slaves, The Guide, and the Terminal Shock in Your Eyes.

All relevant Wiki internal links are riddled. Please do not change original text, just add the links. I will make this line very colorful soon if no one else does.

Original Thought - Guide or Galactica?
The Internet game of wiki is about stiching human knwoledge for the purpose of better arriving at it later. Wikipedia is nothing but a better search algorithm than google, with the entire wikipedia but a small single backup tape on the google virtual shelves of knowledge. Its like the Guide and the Galactica compared.

We improve this algorithm by stiching URL synapses across this enourmous brain.

I forget from computer science theory the name of this algrithm, and someone please help, but it goes like this: You have a search tree, and whatever structure you use and respective algorithm, after a search occured, stitch the root with the result, so next time the search will flow instantaniously (at hash speed). At google, if you type the word galactica, you will just get whatever page is ready for this search. Think of it as the last time someone searched, except its a recursive definition. But google can follow your instructuions to search their cache, but only if they care to, and possibly after they have already delivered to you the search results. With wikipedia, its the same, but the order of magnitude is closer to that of the human brain than to the best computer algorithms on earth, and hence its power. --Ohadaloni 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution Mathematics
The mathmatical principles for which Nature is but an example, can be applied to the survival of copies of pages in the Wikipedia. As we copy ideas from page to page, making slight changes initially, creating Evolution-style low variance mutations, and as we drop over time all duplicate such knowledge by the gradual process of changing such copies to fit their new environment, selecting those copies who best fit, discarding all else as poor junior wiki tryouts, thereby artificially selecting the better knowledge, and while rewriting history time and again, we are perfecting it. Wiki is young, much like mankind, and the individual pages have high variance as long as they evolve, and low variance once they mature. At that stage, evolution will call it a perfect page, with Darwin's strict limitations on the concept of perfection: Just as perfect as needed to survive.

By the way, the high math of evolution goes about like this: If replication with low variation exists in high quantities and said high quantities mostly die, never re-replicating, then bla, bla, bla -- bla, bla -- bla, bla... (The Simpsons Arresting Crusty The Clown). With nature, replication has geometrical growth which implies the rest.

--Ohadaloni 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

yes its possible
yes its possible to link to wikiversity without the external link, use the syntax:

Main page

and it'll look like this:

Main page

Hope this helps. 76.192.5.108 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Not sure
In my view, it is much more important to transfer through the wikipedia the little knowledge that I have to the millions who do not have even that, than for someone to teach relatvity theory to the few who care.

I want to be able to link mostly to wiktionary or answers.com without having my additions to the articles of the wikipedia being offensive to the text, except for the colors. This makes pages more legible for people with lesser vocabulary without cluttering the pages with references that are there for no reason that is of any importance for possibly most readers.

Example: Taxonomy is most related to the concept of a replicator].

I just wanted all three links to look like the first two.

This is an example of how a piece of text can look with zero references that are visible. As it happens to also be written in a wikipedia promoting style for educatinal purposes, this example is more than relevant.

It is taken from some writings of mine on my website. I use the term replicator for convenience, though it may be archaic and not widely used. Its reference in the wikipedia is somewhat opaque. While I would not wish to change anything in the text, I wish to provide yet another verifiable reference.

This happens to me often when reading wikipedia pages.

I find myself taking some time reading other internet pages, having gone through google, for the purpose of understanding the page I am reading. It would be nice if I can embed this minor research in the article, for the sake of those as un-knowledgable as I just was until recently - without troubling the majority of readers with unimpartant references.

--Ohadaloni 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if you are a wiki
please log in and leave a signature again.

I hope you are monitoring this page, or else you will not see my long thanks above.

--Ohadaloni 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if you are not a wiki (fat chance)
then mucho thanks, and please be one, so we don't have to thank each other this agressively next time.

--Ohadaloni 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Feline Hyperesthesia Syndrome
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Feline Hyperesthesia Syndrome, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Feline Hyperesthesia Syndrome is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Feline Hyperesthesia Syndrome, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

see the talk page
There are many links on the internet regarding FHS. I will update this page shortly and continually over time. This illness is a rare mental illness in cats, and there is much debate on whether it is at all a disease, some syndrome, is it inherited, and other open questions that make verifiability very difficult in this case. There are many references to verifiable conflicting or contradocting facts. I am hoping for some guidance from taking to people and suggesting what is usually done in such cases.

Separately, my cat Nekko, [], was suggested to be put to sleep by the top veterinarians in Israel several years a go.

Nekko is alive and well, thanks to two (separate) new treatments, with much original resaerch totally unverifiable outside of my home.

Thomac Hanks listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomac Hanks. Since you had some involvement with the Thomac Hanks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)