Wehwalt

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Wehwalt. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

- Not sure how you were ever not welcomed. It is good to see you about. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you in your place of exile. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Grace

Raul ran Samuel Johnson before his big 300th birthday and wouldn't run him again on the date, so I got his early life page up to FA status and it ran on his birthday. It happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how it was. Regrettably, the "Early Life of Grace Sherwood" is pretty much a blank, so that's out. Johnson, on the other hand, assured himself of good biographical coverage. Yes, I believe Bencherlite was unreasonable, and that he is very incorrect to not consider the circumstances, such as a matter of healing to PumpkinSky. We shall see if there is an opportunity to address this further.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Was there a special occasion for Grace to run the first time? Is the redo just to have it up again "clean"? I agree with Malleus's idea that front page status is horrible for pages - it has destroyed a few FAs of mine. To Autumn still has some plagiarism and a lot of the sources were destroyed by amateurs deciding to have a go and cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, someone (not Rlevse) thought it would be cool for Halloween. I agree on the main page, alas. I am also coming to think we need a new model. One article a day on a main page when so many just come in through google … and page views for TFA are low, but main page hits are at a high. Very strange. If you need cleanup done, just let me know. I can send you an email to reply to.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The To Autumn issue was well known and it was even put on FAR because of the plagiarism. The user has done a lot to destroy things, and a lot of people allow it. There is little to protect content and to ensure that content policies are upheld (plagiarism, deceit about what sources say, original research, etc). Just look at Kubla Khan, which was incredible before a guy inserted pure original research, off topic nonsense, and rewrote cited statements to say opposite of sources. The main page just attracts more of it. FA protection is needed before anything should be on the main page to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think FAs should be given whatever protection those maintaining them want.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way - Chelsea Manning - why are people going on and on about it? It isn't like the name Chelsea is actually feminine or a real female name. It is a location ("landing place [on the river] for chalk or limestone"). Even with the "a" at the end, it isn't feminine. Silly Americans who have a stupid inability to name things properly is the real problem. :) This is quite fascinating. Same problem with Ashley, Leigh/Lee, and many other names that were male or neutral names that some how got adopted for girls in the US (or are unisex). Hunter and Taylor are another set of good ones. Wikipedia is so screwed up. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I tossed a few peaceful words in there, nearly got run over by the train, and hastily exited. My practice is, avoid areas frequented by zealots. As for the name, not much improvement on Bradley, I fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming has always been a big issue with Wikipedia and will never stop. Samuel Johnson had some interesting name wars. Authors who didn't use their real name also had problems. Poor Byron! Someone wanted to have me banned because I pointed out that Byron was in the Library of Congress under his full name. Arg. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the endless battles over I/P names. Although "al-Quds of Gold" doesn't have the same ring to it--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So many problems. These are the kinds of things that make my ban seem more of a boon than a loss. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To you, perhaps, but I suspect that you don't actually mean it. If I ran the show, I would ban bans, or at least have them sunset. We are so short on skilled writers that I shudder what I get with the "random article" function.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what it was like when I was not banned - sock puppets of known people constantly following me, harassing me, sending me nasty emails, etc. the outing was rather nasty too. Edits were stalked to cause all sorts of nasty disruption. If something needs to be put in, I can tend to get that accomplished now without any major problems. Clean up can take a while, but it mostly tends to happen. Only Kubla Khan was never truly cleaned up (a few people tried, but the guy was persistent over a year and no one blocked him for abuse). The last version without the original research, plagiarism, nonsense, off topic rambles, etc. Such problems are the core of why Wikipedia will never go places, and the administration supports such things. I've been working on my own, personal stuff instead. Time consuming but should be good when complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't question it, though I did not pay much attention to it at the time. People are often badly treated around here. I will look at that version and diff it to the present, and, of course, apply my own judgment to the matter. It may be a couple of days, I am way behind as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Rather than the version you present, could you prepare a version in a sandbox which includes any good things that have been added since, including technical improvements? That might be better than a straight revert.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That was the last clean version before the guy took over. I can send you some stuff via email that I sent to ArbCom about the original research, plagiarism, and other problems by that user. That is the bigger concern. It isn't worth it in the long run because guys like him are very common and get very entrenched. I just used it as an example of a good page suffering from hitting the main page (it was put up as DYK after it was expanded). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but is anything since then worth keeping in your view? Given the proxy issues raised recently regarding the infobox case, I obviously would not be inclined to do a straight revert in any case, and intend to exercise my own judgment, but I'd be grateful for your recommendations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I'd prefer the bad version stays. I have my own competing encyclopedia that I've been working on, and showing how Wikipedia was an attempt to do well and how it ultimately deteriorates is only beneficial to me. They had their chance and they failed miserably. It is just one of many examples of such problems. I posted a note on the current edit a thon promoter whose group was responsible for taking credit of my work on the Ada Lovelace page while their only contributions were nonsense and rumors (such as claiming she had affairs and had a gambling problem). Wikipedia is a scholarly black hole, and no matter how much effort it will just all disappear and be destroyed in the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)