Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Wikimedia forum)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit


This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues..., User:sefer azeri writes: "atan haqqında yazdığın məqaləni də sildim bu da sənə paz olsun ... çox göt-baş atsan onun qəzeti haqqında məqaləni də sənin qəzetin haqqında məqaləni də siləcəm ... nə istəyirsən elə" (To displease you, I will do everything.). -Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues... and vandalism continues...!!! Ladies and Gentlemen !!! How long the vandals, remain unpunished ?! How long the vandals, the administrator will be ?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In these edit the person says "deleted due to copyright infringement"[1][2]. Were these images copied and pasted from another source? Or were they taken by you personally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs to me. They are stored in my personal library. There is no copyright infringement. They have been removed without any reason. They removed without discussion. Also, this page also deleted. Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the image yourself? Please note that simply owning a copy of an image is not the same as owning the copyright of an image. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem. I am the author. Documents belongs to me. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you email the image in question as I am unable to see it? Also you said that you took the picture with your own camera? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I photographed their own picture. Web pages belonging to me, these photos are available: 1, 2 Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So this was published in 1933 [3] You do not own the content in question but it should be in the public domain as it is so old. This document is from 1993 [4] Unless that is your signature on the bottom you do not own it. The person who wrote the document or the government owns it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said and you acknowledge, there is no copyright infringement: 1. That is the official document (Letter of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.)), according to our laws, in the public domain. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 8:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the first one appears okay. But were does it say government documents are public domain? I do not see it here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You see through autotranslator. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I found: Article 7. Objects not covered by copyright protection, (page 15). --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that indeed says state documents are not covered by copyright. Have requested the deleting admin comment here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For it have requested the deleting admin comment here. No results. Is there another way to solve the problem? Vandals will not be punished? --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to give them some time to respond. Also they are not a "vandal". They are deleting stuff as they see it as a copyright infringement. I am waiting to hear their side of the story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time? I can show 100 cases. They will not let me in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as well as other users. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, there was no discussion. Now I began. Articles must be restored first. But I still have not recovered, only 1 article has been restored. In this article, the photo has not been restored yet: [16].--Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that. Will give the admin more time to response. Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. "Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban?" - I did not understand, you want to know the reason for this? I have not breached any rules. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if their was a discussion that resulted in your ban. And if so can you post it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I created this article. Protested. But they could not delete the article. They blocked me. They are a group. Receive a salary from the state. They do not allow us to. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (Müzakirə edilmədən silinən məqalələr):
    • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (Reklam və spam xarakterli məqalələr);
    • Blank pages (Information pages are not). (Boş məqalələr (çox qısa və heç bir informasiya daşımayan məqalələr (məsələn, Filankəs - rejissor)) (Ən sadə məzmun qaydası: Məqalə başlıqdan və bu başlığı çox sadə şəkildə də olsa ifadə edən ən azı bir cümlədən ibarət olmalıdır.));
    • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (Vandalizm nəticəsində yaradılmış məqalələr);
    • Misspell the name of the article. For example ( az:Fizuli instead of, az:Fizuli) (Məqalə başlığı səhv yazılmış yönləndirilən məqalələr (məsələn, Fizuli));
    • Written on the same subject, if another article (Eyni və ya çox yaxın məzmuna malik başqa məqalənin mövcud olması);
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (Məzmunu mötəbər mənbələrlə əsaslandırılması mümkün olmayan məqalələr, o cümlədən istifadəçilərin mənbələrə əsaslanmayan özfəaliyyəti);
    • Articles in other languages (Digər dillərdə yazılmış məqalələr).

Under these rules, the articles can not be deleted: [17], [18], [19].

In addition, I would like to mention:

Deleted articles have already been restored:az:Söhrab Arabov, az:Rövzət Dəmirçizadə, az:Məhyəddin Abbasov, az:Nəsib Muxtarov (arxeoloq). But now the deletion is discussed. No reason given. These pages will not edit anonymous az:Vikipediya:Kənd meydanı, az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə müraciət, az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr, az:Nuxa qalası, az:Nuxa qəzası, az:Şəki dövləti. They want to be I could not edit anonymous, and I could not have to complain. So I can not complain that they want to lock me global. For this nachili private discussions. The same individuals: User:Wertuose, User:Sortilegus, User:sefer azeri. But not yet found any reason not bud. If they though an appeal to the Steward, let them come here. If they are right, what are afraid?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism continues. Again, the pictures are deleted without discussion ([25], [26] They belong to the opposition. For this reason deleted.). Some, after being restored. But some still have not been recovered ( [27] ). Worst of all is that such things happen regularly. We are angry, we are wasting our time, but it is happening again. All intellectuals went out. How long this situation will last? Please help. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)

15 years of Wikipedia[edit]

Less than six months away. Perhaps it is time to share the planning with the community? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll start by questioning the terms "story", "brand" and "positioning". Who is telling what story? Wikimedia is a community, not a brand. We shouldn't be positioning, we should get people to write and read. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. These marketing efforts seem pretty silly given that Wikipedia already has enormous brand recognition. We don't need to explain what Wikipedia is to people, per se, we need to find ways to motivate people to edit and contribute. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Katherine (WMF): is this an activity for which you wish the volunteer community to assist in the planning and execution, or are you confident that the Communications team have it covered? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than this, En WP is going to have 5 million articles. --TitoDutta 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Katherine (WMF): It seems you are confident that your team can manage entirely on their own without any help and that there is nothing that anyone else needs to know about it. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rogol Domedonfors: Thanks for the second ping, I somehow missed the first! I really look forward to working with community, and sharing the ideas from the WMF Comms team. It's my understanding that right now people are having conversations about this in different places, including their home Wikipedias. Fortunately, Pharos started a page here on Meta that seems like a good place to organize. I expect WMF Comms team will start contributing thoughts there soon, and I hope other do as well. Although it may seems obvious to say, the WMF Comms team has been anticipating the 15th birthday for some time, but conversations and focus have intensified since Wikimania. That said, we're still gathering ideas and doing our research. For example HWalls (WMF) held three workshops at Wikimania on ideas for the 15th birthday, and the WMF Comms team met last week with people involved in organizing the 10th birthday to learn what they felt worked, and what they felt should be improved for this year. I expect that we'll start posting to the page Pharos started soon, and would of course welcome everyone else to join there as well. If there's anything specific you think the team should be considering, people we should be talking to, or ideas we should be exploring, please let me/us know! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizm in Azwiki[edit]

Have vandalizm here. please protect that page. --Idin Mammadof 1:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we actually encouraging vandalisms and how to fix this[edit]

Sorry for the length of this post. Still I think it is a worthy read.

As an ex-vandal (I sadly must confess) and an ex-admin I think I do have a considerable view of the problem of vandalism, from both sides of the barricade.

To clarify: as a vandal I mainly wasn't active on Wikipedia, but rather different smaller wikis not related to Wikimedia, and sometimes some forums. And I hope this was long before enough.

And I gotta say your methods dealing with it are ineffective at most! It is ridiculous that people got to stare in the screen for hours playing Whac-A-Mole with vandals to prevent the site being flooded; it is ridiculous that sophisticated tools have to be developed just for this purpose! Do not be deceived by 'Pedia's popularity – while this is undoubtedly a significant factor, I'm positive the current flood is far too large to be explained just by popularity.

No, all of those public discussions, info and intervention pages, complaints, RFCc, public logs… You're asking for this yourselves! You have wise and enlightening pages like w:wp:DENY, w:wp:TMOAV, w:wp:RBI, but you don't practise your preaches. In the dark times I was vandalizing myself, I'll tell you, when I was seeing a FRACTION of all of this I was bursting out laughing uncontrollably! Why do you think do vandals always keep their style and leave traces? Because they WANT to be recognized, of course. You're just a one huge canteen for trolls. And again, I'm telling this from the perspective of an ex-vandal.

As a result of this people have to direct a large fraction of their energy to combat trolls, rather than help newbs, fix errors on pages, etc. Vandals' harassment techniques and burdensomeness make some productive users to grow in frustration and eventually leave. Newbies are being scared off, some fraction of the sneaky vandalism passes uncaught.

As an admin, I've been fending off vandals long enough; and I don't really wanna to be doing this again. I simply have a too big feeling of the utter pointlessness of my efforts. I'm tired of fighting it in such a way that I know my actions are actually counter-productive.

In this case Wikipedia's openness works against it. Do understand that vandals really do crave to see any impact of their actions. That's their goal, their reason to vandalize! When I was vandalizing, I was waiting for the results and looking for them, staring at the RCs, reading certain meta-pages and users' discussions…

That's not the way at all. The vandals' actions, from their perspective, should go to a black hole or /dev/null. No impact of their actions should be visible to them. Reverting, Blocking, Ignoring is important, but it's not enough. All pages like w:wp:LTA or w:wp:AIV should be removed from the public and be made visible only to trusted users. Also any discussions, RFCs, etc about them should be held somewhere unreachable by vandals (but reachable by all good users, not only admins). There should be consensus not even to mention their nicks in the public, even less to complain about their disruptiveness. Obvious vandalisms should not only be rollbacked; no, the vandalized versions should be removed from the page's history, at least from the vandals' perspective. The right to do so could be granted to anyone with the rollback right. If you ask me, I'd say the vandals should not even see who has blocked or reverted them; also the block reason should be left empty. Again; when I was vandalizing, I was sticking to pages that responded in a Wikipedia-like manner. If I saw a page that was removing traces of my vandalisms and made it impossible for to witness the results of my actions, I was going elsewhere.

Please learn from the experience of other sites, where this is exactly what is happening. On StackExchange banned users do not see their deleted content. On many forums vandals are just being arbitrary banned by they-don't-know-who, and their posts are being deleted. By the way, perhaps StackExchange's privilege system is worth considering?

By the way, I know I'm somewhat not practicing my preaches myself by publishing this very essay. But I really think this must be brought to attention.

Finally, it is important that I was talking only about die-hard vandals. These methods should never be applied to hot-blooded users, users that are just suspected of being vandals in disguise, etc… I am aware of Bang Bang's case, AFAIK there was not only one such mistake in the history, and well, I am in no way promoting this kind of hasty administrative actions.

I am also posting this on w:wp:VPIL and w:User:Marcgal/How do we actually encouraging vandalisms and how to fix this. Regards, Marcgalrespons 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, @Marcgal: I agree with this 100%. No question that many, many other sites have succeeded in this area where mediawiki currently does not. It's hard to change such a deeply-rooted aspect of current wikis, but some of the tools and techniques you mention can be very effective. At the very least it's worth implementing or testing them on new wikis, and offering standard tools that deny attention. SJ talk  03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of truth to that and I would add 2 things that IMO the sites culture creates a lot of vandals. The lack of trust and the general us and them mentality of the admins, especially on ENWP helps to create vandals and rather than deescalate issues they do more to escalate them and ensure that people don't want to contribute and view the projects as a joke. Its gotten to the point now on ENWP that innocent editors accused are blocked, just in case, IP's and new editors are automatically assumed to be vandals, sockmasters or trolls with no AGF whatsoever and every attempt by some of the admins to find a reason to block or revert actions is made rather than looking for a reason to keep and welcome. I have seen all of this first hand personally in the same way as the testimony above. In my case the community voted to unblock me but a couple people who didn't agree got the outcome changed and now the admins won't unlock my account and really never intended too because I criticized some of them for being abusive. So now, ENWP loses a high output editor with more than 500, 000 edits lots of featured content and passion for the project because a few admins want to prove they are in control. My block isn't preventing anything other than edits getting done and all the block is doing is causing disruption because admins won't remove it. I am just one example of hundreds or thousands and if we start being more welcoming to people and judge them on the content they do and the contributions they make to improve the project rather than one or 2 people with the ability to block making accusations or not liking the person, then these projects would b a far more productive and collegiate place. Reguyla (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

special:Notifications at various WMF projects[edit]

Dear friends! I wondered how and where special:Notifications works. Neither does w:de:special:Notifications support @[[user:Foo bar|]] nor:

  1. pa: w:pa:special:Notifications
  2. pnb: w:pnb:special:Notifications

At some other projects notifications are delayed:

  1. d: d:special:Notifications – notification delayed
  2. si: w:si:special:Notifications – notification delayed
see testwiki:user:לערי ריינהארט/! messages#links to test pages at other WMF projects

note: I did not test all WMF projects ;-)
question: Is this behaviour intended? Best regards lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (leri raynhart)

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether a certain edit is supposed to trigger a mention notification or not is partially described at mw:Manual:Echo. --Nemo 11:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Nemo. I posted the question at mw:project:Support desk. ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


it is very difficult to find original info from wikipedia because everyone can have it's own idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed "Wikipedia End Of Knowledge Project” - WEOK Project[edit]


(This submission was intended to use RICH TEXT, to help the reader get the main points. But that stuff has all been stripped away. Any ideas how I might write my way?)

My understanding is that what happens on Earth, grossly, is typical of what happens on all Earth-like planets, everywhere in the Cosmos. This includes evolving-experiencing what I call the Terminal Stage of Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution - the time when everything that can ever be known is known (including knowing all things that can never be known). This is the time when Humanoids on Earth-like planets reach the end of knowledge, science, discovery, change, evolution, competitive advantage, history, newness.

It’s also the point when they must inevitably-necessarily (naturally) accept-adapt to a dramatic and fundamental transition. They have been hurtling through the most rapid and dynamic phase of Human-oid Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution, during which change was the norm (what we're experiencing now). Over a generation or two, they must accept-adapt to the Terminal Stage of Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution. This is the very, very long time - the remaining 1.2 billion or so habitable years for their planet - during which their previously hyper-dynamic Socioeconomic-Psychological System merely cycles through the standard-fixed-Universal set of Socioeconomic-Psychological Fashions that are known to be efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable.

Arriving at the End of Knowledge is a very big deal for Humanoids. It changes everything.

I think we Earthlings will reach our End of Knowledge within the next 250 years (before the year 2250). Then, the last of our biodynamic research scientists will discover the last of the cascades of chemical signals that Manage our individual body-brain-mind systems. Then, the Earth's Humans will know everything they can ever know about the Evolution of the Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, the Individual Human Lifetime, and everything else.

The process has already begun, judging by the recent closure of physics and astronomy departments in many colleges and universities. Too few bright students (especially white, male, heterosexuals) were applying for physics and astronomy courses, because they knew these fields were dying, and that future jobs in physics and astronomy would be given to the best qualified among the pool of politically-correct/affirmative-action students.

Indeed, in the Western-white nations, all aspects of social participation (which were originally established to serve only white, male, heterosexuals) are now evolving away from the capitalist policy of “equal employment-performance opportunity” and toward the socialist ideal-manipulation-bluff of “entitlement of full equality for all” (this process hasn’t yet begun in any Asian, Negro, or Arab-Muslim institution or nation).

Around the year 2250, this process will be complete worldwide. Education will no longer be linked to getting a job, but will become just another fashion-entertainment. By that time, the zillions of detailed files of Wikipedia will (inadvertently) prevent ordinary people from making sense of being alive in Modern Times. A clear, simple, and comprehensive text will be needed. The Earth’s great thinkers will gather and finish the WEOK Project, perhaps labeling their file The Big Bang and Its Consequences.

I’m Asperger Autistic, prone to obsessions and lists, and have been focused on ‘knowing about everything’ since I finished my PhD in 1975 (social psychology, based on a BA in biology and chemistry). It's become a 40,000-word draft (later, if enough readers are interested). Its working title was, The Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances, with the subtitle The Four Great Systems of Change: Evolution of the Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, and the Individual Human Lifetime.

The root “Manage” includes the processes of controlling-ordering, and making decisions about, and deciding outcomes for, resulting in “knowing.” The word “Appearance” includes the way something physically looks, as well as the way it is mentally perceived (impressions, illusions, semblances, pre-tenses, facades, veneers, guises), and also includes the processes of physically Appearing, originating, emerging, Evolving, Devolving, ending, Disappearing.

I’m most interested in the PROCESSES that drive the four great systems of change-evolution (Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, Individual Human Lifetime). My view is that each system involves a very limited set of Laws of Nature (variability, choices), which, by successive iterations among those fixed laws-antecedents-causes must inevitably-necessarily-naturally, in the fullness of time, produce-generate fixed sets of consequences-effects, critical masses, Stages (the last of which is Terminal). I’ve labeled this process The Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances.

Plato (423-347 BC) was the first to establish this line of logic, arguing that all evolution moves-progresses toward the perfection of ‘Universally favored’ forms - his metaphorical shadows cast on cave walls by a central fire. I think Plato imagined-understood that all change-evolution must inevitably-necessarily-naturally operate via fixed sets of extant-behavioral repertoires and physical environments (the Physical, Biological, Socioeconomic, and Personal Appearance Managers), and that they would inevitably-necessarily-naturally select particular-limited-Universal forms that are efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable in each current, extant, here-now environment-situation.

Establishing the WEOK Project might involve asking interested people to apply and say why they want to join-contribute, providing a few revised-new paragraphs.

I'd like (but don't require) to have the role of inviting the first few dozen applicants to join the Project; when I resign, become disabled, or die (I'm 72), the current editors will democratically, together with Wikipedia man-agement, decide how to proceed.

Information about each of the editors will be held in a dedicated section, which has Wikipedia links with each of their contributions.

An automatic mechanism will invite the current editors to vote on each paragraph or section when they think-feel-believe it is complete-correct-unimprovable.

Only what is now known about each topic will be included-described: • All text will be in clear, simple, direct, and engaging language (I'll prefer Standard American-English, because it's my native-thinking-analytical language). • No history of science will be included (because nearly all of it is wrong, and therefore useless and a waste of time for ordinary people). • No sources-citations will be included (because they just get in the way of ordinary readers, and are easy to find online). • Contributors may use the following literary devices: hyphenated sets of synonyms; bulleted-indented blocks of text; bold, italics, underlines, CAPITALS, lower-case, ([parentheses]), and “quotes.” • The essential minimum of scientific terms will be used (which readers may Google if they wish, preferring .org and .edu websites, because they're more likely than .com websites to be free of bias and self-interest).

Nearly all of the material in my draft was drawn from established experts (mostly Wikipedia), following the procedures I’ve just described. But I’ve included a few personal-original theories:

The first is mentioned in the Introduction and detailed in Section II, about Biological Evolution. It involves the powerful process of convergence. A simple example of biological convergence is the independent evolution of the Old World Wolf and the Australian Thylacine, which share the same body-behavior system. But the idea of convergent evolution is much bigger than the independent Appearance-creation of two wolf-like species in different parts of the world. Convergence is at the heart of what I mean by the Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances. Specifically, all systems of change-Evolution, that is, all cause-and-effect relationships, must necessarily converge on a surprisingly small set of outcomes that are efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable for particles-planets-suns-singularities, body-behavior systems, socioeconomic systems, and psychological situations.

A second bit of original thinking also involves the Biological Appearance Managers (chapter two), but focuses on the Biological Evolution of Modern Humans, due specifically to the Biological Appearance Manager I call preemption. Two causes (forcing agents) Managed the Biological-Appearance Evolution of all of us, Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), about 50,000 years ago: 1) The onset of the Most Severe Ice Advance, which forced the Old World’s Human population toward the equator and into hyper-competition for living space-resources. 2) The inevitable Appearance-Evolution of the Socioeconomic-Psychological Appearance Manager that I call preemption, dominated by the inevitable logic that it’s much more efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable to kill the other guy before he kills you - then, having killed all of the other men, you get to mate with their women and draw them and their children into your power network.

In other words, my view is that Natural Selection produced, in place, the racial-ethnic groups of Modern Humans we see today (rather than pretending that there was another out-of-Africa migration of superior people). My view is that no other physical cause-and-effect mechanism could have produced us. Why didn’t it happen earlier - 1.8 MYA, 2.5 MYA, 1.3 MYA, or even a few hundred thousand years ago? Because it wasn’t yet physically possible for a critical mass of Homo sapiens members to evolve-Appear. And, of course, there hadn’t yet been a sufficiently catastrophic-selective Ice Advance.

And, of course, it’s my personal-original idea to construe The Knowledge as the direct-inevitable-necessary-natural result of the Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances.

Sincerely yours, Peter Norris

Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi[edit]

Any users can freely comment on this proposal.--GZWDer (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Username policy[edit]

Moved from Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find global username policy? Please ping me in your response. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know none exists. Ruslik (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Skyllfully: There is no a global policy, but you can see Help:User page instead.--Syum90 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal:

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.


Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

tired of people hating[edit]

I have a lot of ideas and opinions of like others and everything that I have been doing was to help everyone first before me but being treated like a black sheep to everyone and everything that was going on to me and a couple others was wrong and inhuman nature I was doing it for the good and I never got one dollar for all the ideas people destroy and the way you guys where making your systems where evil and wrong and it was blaming me and my friend that was helping everyone and coming up with new ideas to create new jobs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s/[Wikimedia] biggest scandal: Industrial-scale blackmail[edit] Any Comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)