User talk:Tox~enwiki

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 06:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Salut Tox,

j'ai remis la version ancienne sur la page "Temps hexadécimal" sur la page de discussion, j'explique pourquoi. --Charles Lemaire 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Language
Tox, did you read the discussion page for Language before making your radical changes? You describe a language as a system of symbols and rules. It seems to me that this is only a description of an intellectualized, formalized language&mdash;as I believe I have said on Talk:Language. But what I think is not so important; can you cite a recognized scholar who defines language as you do? David Pierce 08:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Responded with a personal note at User talk:David Pierce and a discussion at Talk:Language. --Tox 13:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Special characters
Please be careful when editing pages. Your edit to the ISO 8859-1 article today accidentally replaced many non-ASCII characters in the article. I fixed it. If you are in the habit of copy-pasting article text into an editor and then copy-pasting it back into your browser, please be sure your editor is fully Unicode-capable. Thanks &mdash; mjb 05:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, usually I catch it when that happens, but it hasn't happened in a while. I haven't been able to figure out exactly what's causing the problem.  I'm not using a text editor, I'm editing directly in my browser.  I'm running OS X and using Safari, both of which are usually quite good with Unicode.  The special characters seem to be garbled only on random occasions, though when it does happen it seems to occur only after previewing an edit.  To fix them, I usually go back to the first editing page (before I previewed the edit) and save the page again.  Any ideas?  &mdash;Tox 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Re Mega Society
Hi Tox. Regarding this Mega Society brouhaha, if references, citations, etc. can be found I will not oppose the article being kept. It was the CTMU fiasco which led me there, but I do believe that as it stands the article isn't really meritworthy anyway (if it was, it wouldn't have been AfD'ed). And as far as Asmodeus' editing on the article goes, I'm not so sure he will be an ally: someone mentioned vandalism having happened on the page...I suggest you look at the article's history and see just what contributions Asmodeus made there. It seems there is some nasty feud between Mega Society/Mega Foundation, which I am sorry to have now become involved in, but that Asmodeus' edits to the Mega Society page reflect just which side of the feud he is on. Anyway, find references, and I'll be quite happy! Byrgenwulf 09:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded with a note at Byrgenwulf. &mdash;Tox 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society AfD
Pozdrav! Hvala na obavijesti! GregorB 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the Mega Society deletion be overturned here. --Michael C. Price talk 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tox, thanks for trying to alert me that the Mega Society page was up for deletion. Sorry I was rather busy for a few months and didn't check in. The "discussion" on its deletion was disheartening to read. I'll try to contribute towards getting it back & better. Pmcculler 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
Hi, Tox, I don't think we know each other at all at WP, but I think we have both been involved in actions related to CTMU mentioned by Michael just above. You might be interested in this MfD, which is a consequence of threats by User:DrL and User:Tim Smith to have me blocked for alleged privacy violations in my documentation at User:Hillman/Dig/Langan. ---CH 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

language discussion
Tox, would you be so kind as to share your opinion concerning my question placed on the talk:language page?  j Virus  08:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro project

 * Response at User talk:Pheonix15 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Introductions. &mdash;Tox 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An ingeneous method around that. The ToC can be moved between these two intros by placing where you want the ToC to be. You can look here for more--Pheonix15 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We also need to attract more members. An ad in one of these would be good:


 * I asked Miranda for one. A reading list for members would be good as well--Pheonix15 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

creation–evolution controversy
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy FYI --Kaptinavenger (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Population update project
Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the sigfig template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:13, 4 March 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 Tox. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Tox~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 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)