Thamus

Hello, Thamus, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Etiquette
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• A Guide to Wikipedia
• How to develop an article
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have. Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

concerning your hesitation with the Recycling article. in general i commend you on lurking around before taking any action but remember; if you do something that most people reject, the worst that can happen is that it will be reverted and someone might comment on your talk page. The Criticism section on recycling was actually merged from criticism of recycling so if you want to make drastic deletions from the recycling article, you can always move that stuff to the criticism article. you're right though. either recycling needs to winnow down that section or drastically beef up everything else. And don't worry about micro managing. Alot of times there are people who watch articles and fix up any info that is dropped into it to make it work. If you wanna start editing small and work your way up you can always choose a Wikiproject and look at their list of things to do. have fun.

glad you're here. Some thing (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note for myself

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Divide_Wikipedia

last trial : -- Thamus ^joyfulnoise 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

What's up? Any specific troubles encountered with the so called wikipedia edit system? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer on your mail, after some delay. Cheers! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your link problem

I figured out the problem with your links: they are to a web site different from en.wikipedia.org, namely strategy.wikimedia.org. There is probably some way to link there other than to provide a full URL, as is done to Meta & Commons, but I don't know what it might be. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi²!

The mysterious words in the answers to "Divide Wikipedia":

Citizendium

an alternative (schismatic) Wikipedia that is used by "anarchists" to frighten opposition (very unprecisely said), it has few articles

Wikiversity

a site for teachers producing free tutoring information for everyone to use in their lessons at "no cost" (except own printing, etc).

Unified login

a system that I don't know how it works, and that in an automagical way have given me a login User:Rursus on each and every Wikipedia of every language. I did something that I can't remember: I entered "My preferences", then followed a link "(Manage your global account)" or "unified login" then I had a login name for each and every language wikipedia there exists.

There's an ongoing debate between "academists" trying to propone a more "peer reviewed wikipedia" and egalitarian "anarcho-techocrats" (more like my stance) claiming that wikipedia is nothing like neither an academy nor a real encyclopedia, but something that requires OpenSource development models. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for popping over to my talk page and encouraging me to look at your proposal. I'm afraid I don't like it :o( My view on Wikipedia leans more towards the libertarian side of things than the controlling side. I'm not even sure we have the community manpower to make the proposal work in any case. But thanks again for taking the time to contact me. I really must add something to my user pages to try and encourage input to the strategy wiki. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm enjoying your messages, although they scare me a bit :o)

Here's one problem I have with your proposal: I know that you explicitly state you don't want to "split" Wikipedia. And I realise you make it clear that all articles (both "wikipedia" and "wikidemia" would all still remain on the same site. However, your proposal will mean two article versions (as you know). I just think that will be bad. Why would that be bad? Some thoughts:

• Once it becomes known that there is a "better" Wikipedia, why would anyone view the "normal" one? Won't it become some kind of un-viewed slum? Won't it get the reputation as the place where the vandals roam?

• It's plausible that, after a while, the two articles on x-subject will be vastly different from each other. So what will someone searching on a subject think? It will make viewing Wikipedia content quite strange. It will be confusing.

• I don't think the "anyone can edit" idea is that broken that it needs such a huge change. Don't you agree that it's doing pretty good so far? Better than any reasonable person would ever have expected?

• Recent news tells us that we're not attracting as many new editors as we used to. This will divide the community in two: those that edit the "better" versions and those that edit the "normal" version. I don't think that's desirable.

Overall, I'm on your side. I want Wikipedia to be accurate. I want it to be the best resource in the world. I just don't think this is the right proposal to make that happen. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)