User:Trafford09
Tip of the moment...
 The fastest way to end a conflict: walk away
Edit warring is bad, especially when idea exchange has stopped and is replaced by reverting edits. Not good, as it disrupts Wikipedia and wastes resources. Wikipedia's main resource is the time and effort that you and other Wikipedians devote to contributions. Edit warring is like a game of tic-tac-toe: once you know how to play, nobody ever wins. Edit warring is worse, though, because it can go on indefinitely and can get you banned. The solution? Chill out and relax. Go edit somewhere else on Wikipedia for a few days; Wikipedia has millions of nice and quiet pages to work on. Meanwhile, you may think of a solution that everyone will be happy with which you can bring to the talk page. When you come back, stay calm and keep your involvement in the dispute on the talk page. Others who refuse to do so will answer for it eventually. Building consensus is the Wikipedia way of resolving disputes, as continued discussion brings new possibilities and positive solutions to light. Think "What if we..." – – To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}
|
- Tomorrow's FA (Featured Article)
La Salute è in voi! ("Health/Salvation is in you!") was an early 1900s bomb-making handbook associated with the Galleanisti, followers of anarchist Luigi Galleani, particularly in the United States. The anonymously written, Italian-language handbook repackaged technical content from encyclopedias and applied chemistry books into plain directions for non-technical amateurs to build explosives. It wrapped this content in a political manifesto advocating for impoverished workers to overcome their despair and commit to individual, revolutionary acts. American police and historians used the handbook to profile anarchists and imply guilt by possession. It figured prominently in the prosecution of the Bresci Circle, a case that revolved around the anarchists' right to read. Successful political bombers of this era ultimately had career backgrounds in explosives and were not the self-taught amateurs the handbook sought to create. (Full article...)
(Don't panic if the above item is in red.)
... ctd.
(not really, but I like the gif)
(another neat gif)
|
.gif){kind=small}
... so see US firearm deaths, {US} angry White man and
|
_jacketed_hollow_point_rounds.jpg){kind=small}
If some of the above tickle you, do check out these: User:Ira_Leviton#About_me_via_userboxes - bravo Ira :)
How is Wikipedia considered, externally?[edit]
* * * Did you know that you can support Wikipedia, by becoming a fan of its Facebook Group? * * *
- The above group has 553,705 fans, as at 4 Jan. 2011 (up from 366,372 fans as at 14 June 2010).
| External aspects of Wikipedia. Hit 'show' to present a drop-down list ---> | |
|---|---|
|
"Wikipedia better than Britannica", claims experienced dictionary-writer. Good ol' Beeb. Several sections of the BBC have a policy of using Wikipedia unashamedly (good on them). BBC article March 2009: "UK politicians' Wikipedia worries" is largely pro-Wikipedia, despite its title. BBC article 2007: "Students 'should use Wikipedia'" it says, partially quoting Jimmy Wales. Some BBC articles rely heavily on directing readers to WP, e.g. this article on WW2 code-breaking. The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) (here) directs viewers to Wikipedia's Counting Single Transferable Votes article. The Daily Telegraph's on-line website section provides an RSS feed from Wikipedia (here), above its own Technology RSSs, but ironically still propagates old anti-Wikipedia stories (here) ! BBC article 2005: [1] The results of an analysis of a broad range of entries from the websites of Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica] states that "... reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.". But we've improved since then, I'm quite sure. Re. spam: http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients How big is Wikipedia? This big! See also Wikipedia:Statistics. As of today, Tuesday, April 30, 2024, English Wikipedia has 6,818,822 articles. Wikipedia has an "External peer review" page: Wikipedia:External_peer_review. Quotes from people that have made comments about Wikipedia as a whole can be found at Wikipedia:Testimonials and Wikipedia:Criticisms. See also Category:Critics of Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Press coverage 2010. |
Favourite articles etc.[edit]
Just a reminder to myself of what I rate as Good articles etc.
| My favourite articles | ||
|---|---|---|
|
 This Wikipedian recites the Wiki Prayer regularly. | God, grant me the serenity to accept the pages I cannot edit, The courage to edit the pages I can, And the wisdom to know the difference. |
See also[edit]
| Assorted snippets, hints & tips |
|---|
|
Click here. |
Self-reminders[edit]
| Things done / to do | ||
|---|---|---|
|
See web-browsers & mIRC chat, for double-spacing etc. |
Read, get & use user:chzz/help. |
Read about using freenode Correct any misused templates, finding them by a search of WP Mainspace articles, like this. |
Ongoing[edit]
When the Moon is closest, it is at perigee, and it looks slightly bigger from Earth. Perigee is the point at which an object makes its closest approach to the Earth. Often the term is used in a broader sense to define the point in an orbit where an orbiting body is closest to the body it orbits. The opposite is the apogee, the farthest or highest point.
 |
Vandal-patrolling.
Help out with pages which need copy-edit.
Most-wanted articles - some 'missing" articles are still linked 140 times!
Help with Requests for feedback, as & when I get time.
Added {{Portal box|Law}} * In re & {{Clear}} to these "In re" articles.
Wikipedia Templates and User Page Metadata[edit]
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #15 |
