They want to delete us again

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-08-31 08:43pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Hmmmmm. Whoever wrote the entry for the Knight Hammer in the Star Destroyer entry made several grammar errors... *Edits*

So how do we go about creating a personal page for ourselves?

Once you register, you already have your own page. Look in the upper left hand corner. See those options? Click on the one with your registed name. This is your profile which you can edit and flesh out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alyeska

Thats mine and what I've done with it over time.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-31 08:46pm

I see. Thanks.

*Compulsively corrects a spelling error in your profile.*

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-08-31 10:06pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I see. Thanks.

*Compulsively corrects a spelling error in your profile.*

Personal pages are nice because you can create subdirectories behind them (like Alyeska's
http://en.wikipedia/org/User:Alyeska/Stardestroyer.net,
or my
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neoca ... on_debates);
they're like cubby holes where you can keep anything you want.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-31 10:41pm

Surlethe wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:I see. Thanks.

*Compulsively corrects a spelling error in your profile.*
Personal pages are nice because you can create subdirectories behind them (like Alyeska's
http://en.wikipedia/org/User:Alyeska/Stardestroyer.net,
or my
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neoca ... on_debates);
they're like cubby holes where you can keep anything you want.

I already have one of those on my board, but this has much nicer formatting options...

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-01 01:20am

Rogue 9 wrote:I see. Thanks.

*Compulsively corrects a spelling error in your profile.*

I see your expanding your profile page pretty fast. That inspired me to start adding information to my own. I've expanded from two stub parapgraphs into three seperate sections with plenty of detail about me.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2005-09-01 02:55am

I've got my profile page looking slick now too. Still thinking of more things to add...

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-01 03:02am

Can you link yours so I can see it?

This is what mine currently looks like

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-09-01 03:19am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kross

Mines swanky.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2005-09-01 03:19am

Alyeska wrote:Can you link yours so I can see it?

Yeah, here.

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2005-09-01 03:28am

OK. So the best way for our members to have our voices heard on Wikipedia, is for them to contribute more widely to Wikipedia in general. Thus expanding the community of useful Wikipedia members, which is (presumably) one of the primary goals of Wikipedia.

Oh the irony!

By being pricks to us, Wikipedia is getting us to help them!

I don't mean to imply that contributing to Wikipedia is actually bad, or that we should boycott them on principle. By all means, if you enjoy it, go wild! Expand the Wikispace! I'm just amused by the irony, that's all.

EDIT: spelling.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-09-01 03:35am

I've edited like half the SW articles on Wikipedia.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-01 03:53am

From reading other peoples user pages, I'd have to say mine looks much different and reads more like a Wiki Article.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-01 04:58am

The world can be a funny place.

For those not entirely keeping track, some information.

Ryan Nolan was one of the ones who voted for deletion of the SD.net article and also pointed out keep voters lack of edits. Since then he is starting to help keep my SD.net article in good shape. He did some clarification and grammar edits on the article and just removed vandalism from the talk page.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-09-01 05:31am

My user page is just normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elfwood
Any suggestions about what i should add.

Also what is happening with the TrekBBS article?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-09-01 01:46pm

Still blocked. 3 admins contacted. and Dammit I got some good ideas to start articles, too. I need to figure out how to make pages all spiffy, too, rather than actually looking like an encyclopedia.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-01 01:59pm

Chardok wrote:Still blocked. 3 admins contacted. and Dammit I got some good ideas to start articles, too. I need to figure out how to make pages all spiffy, too, rather than actually looking like an encyclopedia.

Do what I did. Go to some of the spiffy looking pages, click the Edit button, and instead of editing anything, just examine the code they used.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-09-01 06:06pm

Hm...should this thread be HOSed or something to reduce accusations of garnering?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-01 06:07pm

Too late now.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2005-09-01 06:11pm

Well, for a possible undeletion vote in the future.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-09-01 06:15pm

Pu-239 wrote:Well, for a possible undeletion vote in the future.

Why bother? Wikipedia is full of trolls, incompetent buffoons, useless pricks and jackass admins.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-01 06:18pm

Not to mention an NPOV policy that bans the use of facts if they are disputed. I just had an edit reverted that said that the Northern belief that slavery was a factor in the Civil War was justified, because "it's obviously POV." I fully sourced the assertion; it is incontrovertible fact, but since Confederate wankers insist on their states' rights argument, I can't put it in the article.

Akaramu Shinja · Post by **Akaramu Shinja** » 2005-09-01 06:19pm

Dalton wrote:Why bother? The Internet is full of trolls, incompetent buffoons, useless pricks and jackass admins.

I agree completely, so who cares? Only those in the above categories I'm sure.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-01 06:24pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Not to mention an NPOV policy that bans the use of facts if they are disputed. I just had an edit reverted that said that the Northern belief that slavery was a factor in the Civil War was justified, because "it's obviously POV." I fully sourced the assertion; it is incontrovertible fact, but since Confederate wankers insist on their states' rights argument, I can't put it in the article.

Refuse to back down on the issue, but also point out that states right was a known false call by the south. Southern slave holders fought to preserve the right to keep slaves but intentionaly lied to the public and used states rights to rally the ignorant peasents.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-09-01 06:47pm

I'm not backing down. They made the mistake of leaving in my source links in the external links section. I have issued an ultimatum, saying that if I don't get the explanation I asked for, I'll put it back.

Edit: Evidently the use of the world "justifiable" is a point of view, even when the justified belief in question is backed up by all the facts.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-09-01 08:20pm

Dalton wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:Well, for a possible undeletion vote in the future.
Why bother? Wikipedia is full of trolls, incompetent buffoons, useless pricks and jackass admins.

Like staring into a mirror, isn't it?