User talk:Wxtrackercody/Archive 1

WPTC Invite[edit]

The WikiProject Tropical Cyclones recruitment drive!

The WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (WPTC) needs your help. Since 2008, our number of members have decreased. We need your help making sure all of are Featured articles are updated and some project processes need to be accomplished. We can do some processes with many active members, so we Wikipedians like you to help us get this done. In WPTC we

Work on vital articles such as Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Ike, Hurricane Camile, Cyclone Tracy, or 2004 Atlantic hurricane season
Update season articles
Create new articles for every Atlantic hurricane season since 1851 and every Eastern Pacific hurricane season since 1949.

If you have any questions just ask Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs), Jason Rees (talk · contribs), Juliancolton (talk · contribs), Mitchazenia (talk · contribs), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs), Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) or Thegreatdr (talk · contribs). Click here to join!

15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hey[edit]

Hi! Did you get to Wikipedia from using WU? ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I've been coming to Wikipedia for years, just started edited the site though yesterday. You should see me in WU sometime, I know we've meet there before.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any trouble understanding, just pop a question in the article's talk page (Talk:2010 AHS). Someone will be able to help you out!. Happy Editing! Darren 23^Edits|Mail 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Julia[edit]

Wait until the NHC officially says that TD 12 is TS Julia before changing the article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TD 14[edit]

Hi. Sorry about that, I had an edit conflict and inadvertantly reverted your edit while adding mine. I don't mind restoring the section, although I'll have to fix the broken templates and collateral damage errors. I'll put it up again, unless someone reverts it again. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We usually wait until the official NHC advisory, but it's listed on NRL. I'll have the section put up but it might not stay up for another hour or so. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks TropicalAnalystwx13 01:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait until the advisory is out. Occasionally that renumbering is incorrect. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when, as long as I've been following that (All of this year), it has been correct. We DO have TD #14.

I promise you 100% TropicalAnalystwx13 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful when you revert another user's edit multiple times. You could be blocked for violation of 3RR. It's only another hour until the offical advisory. ~A H 1^(TCU) 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll wait...But, I really don't see the point. I mean, its already official, so why not post it? TropicalAnalystwx13 01:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not really official. The NHC can sometimes change their mind with those reissue things. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cody (TA13). what harm does it do? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be wrong information if the NHC were to change their mind. It's not really official until the advisory comes out. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's official. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderground[edit]

Hi...are you from WeatherUnderground? TDI19 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah TropicalAnalystwx13 12:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. I am a lurker there, and am debating about joining. Should I? TDI19 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Is Igor a Category 5....jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Is Igor a Category 5....jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...[edit]

I hope you weren't serious here... because that is the public sandbox and anyone can edit over your tests. If you want a more permanent spot, make a user sandbox, like here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

136 kts is 156 mph, which is C5. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

It need to have better name, source, license and author. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a better name such as: Hurricane Igor 1925Z on September 13, 2010.jpg, not This is a category 5.jpg, source it if you can and license at US Military Navy, NOAA or NASA depending on its source. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 05:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you know this, but we try to stick with MODIS images as much as possible. And btw, it's currently a fact that Igor is a Cat 4. I know you think it was a Cat 5, but unless it is said in the BT or the TCR, it is not a Cat 5. Thank you. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 05:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also try to stick with a standardized way of naming images, so please follow those guidelines, and rename the images you uploaded, which no offense, might not be used at all. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 05:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha... TropicalAnalystwx13 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't name it Hurricane Igor.jpg because the name Igor will be reused and you should include the time such as 1925Z on September 13, 2010.jpg. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Hurricane Igor.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Hurricane Igor.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Do I know you[edit]

I am from WU (well not exctly, I heard of WU from Wikipedia). BTW, in order to publish you two sandboxes you need to add sources. Cheers and happy editing. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain how you know my named :P TropicalAnalystwx13 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On WU, I heard people call you that and I did the same. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH...Okay TropicalAnalystwx13 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IRC[edit]

Hi, TropicalAnalystwx13, I would like to invite you to go to the WPTC IRC. Just go to this link, put your nickname, and in the channel, put #wiki-hurricanes. Please visit us. Thanks. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit at 2010 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Hi, I have reverted your edits at 2010 Atlantic hurricane season as you removed true information from the article. Also please try to use an edit summary as it informs editors of the changes that you have made. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 01:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Wxtrackercody. You have new messages at Bobby122's talk page.
Message added 03:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi![edit]

Just came by to say I'm a young meteorologist too! 10 YEARS OLD! No one can beat that =) TheAustinMan (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and I thought I was the youngest, too! Its good to know other people are my age, and YOUNGER! TropicalAnalystwx13 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to my 2014 Atlantic hurricane season page. Just don't remove my timeline next time alright? TheAustinMan (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! TropicalAnalystwx13 20:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An oh, set the storm's intensity according to the timeline!

TheAustinMan (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request[edit]

Hello there, Wxtrackercody! I'm Netalarm and I have been around for quite some time now. I'm messaging you because I've noticed that you've indicated that you want to be adopted on your user page. To get started, you can also find an adopter yourself. A complete list of adopters list available here. When choosing an adopter, please check their availability. You may also want to find an adopter that has similar interests, although it is not required you do so. Once you have found an adopter, you can message them on their talk page and ask to be adopted. If you have any questions about this process, feel free to message me on my talk page.

Click here to view the list of adopters

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Netalarm^talk 04:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Typhoon Megi[edit]

good morning! I've just noticed you updating the storm's strength and category. however, it is very prohibited to do it. If you want to put the current information about Typhoon Megi (2010), please put it in meteorological history. And please don't change the image of Megi. Thanks! have a great day! Shalom! :) Jpuligan_12 (talk) October 18, 2010 (2243 UTC)

I know, my mistake. I thought it was an current infobox, so I was inputing the current stats in. I realize now that in the WPAC section, you guys do not do that. I update the ATL part, which uses the boxes, so...yeah. 70.248.122.46 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption[edit]

Hi Cody, I notice on your User Page that you're listed as seeking editor adoption. I have just joined the program as an adopter - although not exactly an expert as I've only been around here a few months longer than you have! - so here is an offer to wiki-adopt you.

I am online almost constantly (I sometimes take a few hours out to sleep, but not often...) so I should be able to help out with any issues or questions fairly quickly. I don't know much about your chosen topic area - I live in England and weather here is really very tame and boring, in fact most of our weather is the remnants of former Atlantic hurricanes and storms when they have lost all their force and excitement - but hopefully that shouldn't be an obstacle.

There's some more information about me in a rather eclectic series of userboxes on my user page.

Anyway let me know what you think - if you agree, then we need to remove the adoptme template from your user page (although the program also allows you to have more than one adopter if you wish.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll remove the userbox away right now. TropicalAnalystwx13 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't do it again please[edit]

Please don't change articles, infoboxes, etc. unless the NHC officially said so i.e. issue an advisory! This has been said before to you here and in Talk:2010 AHS so please read and remember this. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree with this. The best track and official advisory should have no correlation with each other. However, you may hide the new information and unhidde when the advisory comes out. Hink recently started doing that for adv 1 for Shary and Tomas. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't care if you disagree YE, there is a consensus. Hink also hid that section, instead of showing it to the world. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 14:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me that's what I said. I told him to hid it. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism (do not get scared)[edit]

For next time do not edit peoples user page when posting a message to them. You put the welcome stuff (and any other messages) on User talk:X instead of User:X. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone

It's not vandalism. It was a good faith edit, but do welcome people in their talk page next time. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my piont. But to people that are blind (such as me sometimes :P) it can be. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox[edit]

User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:TropicalAnalystwx13/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cody. I just wanted to check, is that Sandbox one you want to keep for further editing tests? If so, I will probably vote Keep in this deletion discussion. If you don't need to keep it for further editing tests, you could probably arrange to get it removed, which would save going through the whole MfD process. Anyway let me know what you think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Demiurge, you're his mentor? Great. Nice to see a familiar face from DYK after leaving it. I'd suggest that there are other ways to do "editing tests", and that having a WP:FAKEARTICLE with the addition of a non-existent category 5 hurricane, then tagging the associated talk page with a project banner (thus categorising the page as a project article), is not the way to go about this. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left?? You're not allowed to leave! :) Although actually I largely gave up reading T:DYK when it suddenly started getting 50,000 words new discussion every single day. But I will be back there I think.

The WP:FAKEARTICLE redirect is itself under discussion at present, and the argument for keeping it is that "FAKEARTICLE is intended to only apply to non-articles that are masquerading as articles". That clearly isn't the intention in this case. However, there's a possibility that someone might somehow stumble upon the page and think it's an article. For this reason it needs a Userspace Draft template at the top.

Also I think you're right that it shouldn't be in that category. But that can be quickly fixed.

For testing out potentially complex series of edits to fairly complex pages containing things like large tables et cetera, what are the better ways of doing it? I don't think testing it out in article space and hoping one will always hit Show Preview instead of Save Page is a good replacement approach.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but this isn't a userspace draft by any stretch of the imagination – as I've pointed out, 2010 Atlantic hurricane season is superior and this is, save the user's own questionable additions, identical to that. I agree that testing complex edits isn't for user space, but honestly, he doesn't need the entire content of this page to test these edits, does he?! I'm not sure if this has changed since CCBYSA3.0 became an official license, but at least under the GFDL, the page would also be a copyright violation as he didn't attribute any of the contributors to the main article when he copied it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it needs a Workpage template at the top instead then.

What is and isn't needed for testing is a bit less clear, but maybe it's a question of visualisation as opposed to purely technical testing. That is, what looks "right" when something is added. It's plausible that adding an entirely fictional storm as a test would be the best way of doing that, since it would appear in several different sections of the page in different formats - which in turn requires pretty much the entire content of the page. He's made numerous edits to the real 2010 Atlantic hurricane season article so it's obviously intended to be constructive.

I'm not clear on the copyright issue, but it's my understanding that attribution is sufficient, so that is another thing that maybe needs adding to it.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TAwx13. Please don't remove the MFD tag, which you have now done twice, from your sandbox. Doing so does not make the deletion discussion go away, and repeatedly doing so can get you blocked. The notice will be removed if the page is kept. Str Pby (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now sufficiently addressed all concerns regarding the page, I have moved to withdraw the deletion nomination. Please understand that you have not "won"; this does not give you the right to again edit the page in such a way that it fails Wikipedia's guidelines on acceptable use of user pages. If you do do so, there is nothing stopping a new deletion nomination from being started, and in all honestly if you did do so it might be seen as being disruptive. So, go and use it for test edits, but don't make any "fake" stuff about it — that goes on Wikia or some other forum. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that add categories in user space and user talk space[edit]

Hi again :) I realise your sandboxes were created because an admin actually suggested that you create them, so I hope you're not annoyed that now people are discussing deleting them and arguing about what goes in them. But there are a few things that need to be done differently. There are mostly good reasons for this even though it may seem like making a big deal out of nothing.

First of all, the issue of having templates on userspace talk pages that put those pages in categories shared with real articles.

Possible scenario[edit]

Let's imagine someone who doesn't know anything about Wikipedia - say a reporter for a major TV station - wants to find some information about a major hurricane.

They put the hurricane name into Google.
Wikipedia is the top link.
They read the Wikipedia article about the hurricane.
There happens to be a template about an issue that can be discussed on the talk page, so they go to the talk page for the hurricane article.
All of this looks great so far, it gives a really good impression of Wikipedia.
At the end of the talk page, they see the article is, in an official-looking box, listed as being in category "Current-Class Tropical cyclone articles".
Great, they think to themselves, that sounds perfect to get some more background for the news report I'm doing. They click it.
The category all looks very serious and professional... except...
... they see and maybe click on this, and end up here, or even worse, they click on this and end up here.
They then see a whole bunch of either experimental, unfinished, or just downright fictional workspace and test pages.
They see this without understanding that these are just sandboxes or editing tests or whatever they are.

This can give a very bad impression of Wikipedia - and this particular reporter might then go and repeat their views about it to his colleagues, and the effect snowballs.

Conclusion[edit]

This is why we don't do anything that puts pages from user space (including user talk pages) into Categories that are only intended for things that actually are articles.

Unfortunately the template "hurricane" adds the pages it's on to a Category that is for actual articles. So that template must not be used on pages in userspace.

Do you understand why this is?

Secondly, is it OK if I remove that template from the pages in your userspace that it's on?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... TropicalAnalystwx13 17:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. I'm adding some {{tl:Userspace draft}} templates (or other appropriate templates) to the top of them as well. Hopefully this will help to prevent or discourage any future misunderstandings or unnecessary deletion discussions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

A tag has been placed on List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your main sandbox actually being used for?[edit]

Cody, please can you explain what you are actually doing with your main Sandbox?

Is it:

just for editing testing, or
intended to be a draft of the mainspace article that will be required for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, or
a place to have some fun writing about a fictional 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, or
something else?

Thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using it to test my editing skills. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk)

OK, in that case I will change the template from Userspace Draft to something a bit more appropriate.

Also, I strongly recommend that you don't run test edits by creating entire fictional hurricanes and having a sandbox that looks like a proper hurricane article but is about fictional ones. Your English skills are good enough that you don't need to practice writing ordinary prose by doing that. Just use the page for testing table format changes, track images, links, general layout, or anything else that you really need to test.

If you need a block of text so that you can see how the layout looks with actual text in it, you could consider using Lorem ipsum.

Regardless of how the current MfD goes, I think there will always be considerable resistance to the use of Wikipedia for writing fictional material about hurricanes, especially if some people get the idea that it's being done for "fun" when these weather systems do actually cause real death, destruction and misery. You should really think about taking a different approach.

A better idea would be focusing on something in your userspace that can actually become a real article one day, and concentrating on improving that.

Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work? If the article becomes a Keep, can I keep the article?

If it becomes a delete I can change it to something that actually needs to be made (like the real 2011 Atlantic hurricane season page). Fair? TropicalAnalystwx13 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd still recommend focusing your efforts on something other than largescale writing of fictional material in your userspace, even if it comes back as Keep. Why not just use Wikia for that?

If it comes back as Delete, then yes create something that is a proper userspace draft. But, I'd recommend just getting a new name for that (like Sandbox9 or Sandbox14 or whatever), because otherwise if anyone ever has an issue with the new page for something else, then it will show in the history of the page (Sandbox) that it's already been deleted once.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are not votes[edit]

Cody, deletion discussions are not votes. There is absolutely no need, or point, in counting up how many people "voted" each way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are out to get me, I know you are...It's a number for god sakes! It's not a big deal. I'm not mad at you or anything but it seems like every single thing I do you guys (Not necessarily you) have to correct :| TropicalAnalystwx13 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There not out to get me. also, you do not own articles. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. Also, he didn't say he did own articles!

Reply to Cody which I was just writing:

Graph illustrating the rise in process levels ("rules") from 2005 to estimated levels at the end of 2008. By the end of 2008, process levels are expected to be **OVER 9,000**!

Try not to see it that way. Wikipedia has lots of "rules", lots of them aren't obviously sensible or easily understandable, and most people think there are too many of them. That's why WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is an official policy and says Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies, and links to WP:IAR which is another official policy, very short and says only: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

It would be nice if I had a more up to date graphic to illustrate this.

But, if there is a concensus and someone suggests you should do something differently, it's easier just to smile and think "hmm, OK then". Because otherwise people who are a bit too obsessed with rules (like me, sometimes) just become more and more of a bother. Plus, some of the "rules" do actually have good reasons for them, even if it's totally not obvious what the reasons might be.

Unfortunately, as a massively interactive project, Wikipedia is somewhere that there are always going to be lots of people wanting to tell other people they are doing things wrong. (But, it's also like that on some of the online games I play...)

Also it's worth remembering that you are not someone who gets criticized or corrected a lot. There are people who run for election as administrator or arbitrator who had been blocked more than a dozen times (I don't think you've ever been blocked at all). There was a guy recently who was suspected of creating tens of thousands of articles that could all have been violating copyright. There are IP addresses that get page after page after page of warnings about their editing. There are vandals that cause millions of IP addresses to be blocked. There was recently a university professor that asked their university students to make ten constructive edits each to Wikipedia. The result? Twenty-two of the student accounts were blocked by the end of the first day, and a phone call was made to the university to helpfully explain things to the professor. So really, things aren't all that bad.

I keep this oddly sized userbox on my user page to help keep me calm when necessary. (Or is it a warning to others..?)

This user tried to do the right thing and believed in good faith but got disillusioned and started to believe in bad faith. If this user has become paranoid, please let this user know.

You should consider using it too. But actually, there are people on Wikipedia who are much more paranoid :)

You could also perhaps remind rulemongers of the policy WP:BITE, which says A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong".

But it's difficult when someone is moaning at you about some rule, to reply calmly enough. Because suggesting they go read WP:BITE risks giving them the idea that you just don't care about what they're trying to tell you. Which isn't a good start.

But I've quoted it here now anyway, so they can read it as they pass through on their rule-enforcing errands :)

Just make sure you don't get disheartened enough that you suggest they go read WP:DIG instead. Because, if everyone gives up digging and goes to the beach, who would make all the Flood control we need to deal with all these storms...?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]