Lapsus Linguae

Wednesday

25

December

06:46 UTC

Information
Name:	Craig
Joined:	October 23, 2005
Location:	Third rock past Sol
Gender:	Male
Sex:	Yes please
Age:	Better side of 40
Contact:	User talk
What it means:	"Slip of the tongue"
Language?:	Latin
Thank-you:	You're welcome
Interesting Links
Wikipedia News:	Wikipedia Signpost
Spelling, etc.:	British/American English
Page statistics:	Histories
Edit count:	Statistics
Contributions:	My edits

I joined Wikipedia on October 23, 2005, after reading (over a period of several months) probably hundreds of articles and then eventually editing a bunch without creating an account. Someone suggested I create an account, so I did.

Biases

News Flash: I have some.

However, if you find bias in anything I have written, then I have failed in that particular piece of writing. If you point it out to me politely, I will respond politely, and we can work together to improve the article.

I am not going to list all (or any) of my possible areas of bias here. Everybody is biased on some subject to one extent or another, and it's usually on subjects that interest them -- and many, many things interest me. Speaking for myself, the topics that interest me the most are the topics where you will find me doing something more than just correcting the occasional spelling or formatting error, but I think that probably goes for most people.

Things I'm Learning

Although I was using Wikipedia as a reference source for months, and tweaked a couple of articles here and there (usually nothing more than correcting a spelling mistake) before a flurry of activity prompted someone to suggest I actually join, now that I have joined and have to take some measure of responsibility for what I do, I am more likely to stop and ask myself, "Is what I am about to do the best course of action?" Sometimes it is, and sometimes, believe it or not, I learn something. Here are some things I am learning:

• Although it appears to be the norm in many articles, it is not good practice to link every single occurrence of a year (e.g., 1967) in an article to that year's page. While this obviously makes sense generally anyway, I often see articles that link to the page for a particular year even when there is no information on the year's page relevant to the article that links to it. See the Wikipedia guidelines "Make only links relevant to the context", "Manual of Style (links): Internal links" and "Manual of Style (dates and numbers): Date formatting" for more information.

• Using footnotes and citing sources isn't as simple as you might think!

• Some editors have an agenda.

• Who'd have thought there could be so many guidelines to create those small and simple-looking disambiguation pages?!

• If you go to a page on Wikipedia such as ETA and then you click on the link there to go to the Eta page (note the same spelling but different capitalisation), and then you click your browser's back button, you will go back two pages instead of one, and then you'll go forward two pages instead of one if you click your forward button. The intervening page just kinda disappears. Happens to me with the latest versions of both Firefox and MSIE on Windows XP, but it doesn't happen on a Mac. (Apparently this browser bug has been fixed in the upcoming version 1.5 release of Firefox.)

• Link spammers will also delete legitimate external links in an effort to hide the addition of their commercial links.

• After avoiding figuring out how to deal with vandals beyond simply reverting their edits over and over, this is what I've figured out so far:

1. Revert: First, do revert their edits.
2. Warn: Then post a note on the user's talk page. What do you post though, especially if you're not an administrator and so you can't authoritatively threaten blocking? Well, you use an existing warning template. You don't need to think up anything or let your annoyance show in wording you choose; just pick the appropriate template, add it to the user's talk page and sign it. Signing it is important, I believe, so that others who come along later (possibly to add more warnings) can see that a real user has taken the time to warn the vandal. And, of course, the warning itself is important too; besides the fact that the vandal might not actually realise he/she is a vandal (usually unlikely, but possible) and so might modify his/her behaviour as a result of the warning, it's important because the various policies state that a user must be warned before eventually being blocked by an administrator. Your posting warnings allows an administrator to realise that this requirement has been fulfilled and so he/she can go ahead and block the user if that is the appropriate course of action.
   • So, for example, to post the "test3" warning ("Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -->") on a user's talk page and sign it, all you enter into the editing box is: Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism template link|vandalize]] pages, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Please stop. If you continue to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism template link|vandalize]] pages, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- {{test3}} --> --> --~~~~. That's it! No agonising over how to word the warning to be firm but fair, as it's already done for you.
3. Report: Eventually vandals should be reported if they persist. There seem to be at least two places to report vandals, so I'm not that clear on which one you should use. I do note that the warning templates on each page are different, with the templates on the second page discussed below referring to a particular page that the vandal has vandalised. Here's my best guess:
   • The "Vandalism in Progress" page has a lot of information, such as the steps you should take, the warning templates you can use, when not to report someone as a vandal (important too), and how you should categorise the level of vandalism (also quite important). I have used this page with success.
   • The "Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism" page seems to be a place you'd go for quicker action, but I'm not sure. I have not used this page.
   • If someone can clarify the distinction between the two pages for me (or point me to a page that distinguishes the two) I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

• How to do nested and mixed ordered and unordered lists using wiki mark-up! (See above.)

• More to be added as I learn it.

If you feel that any of the conclusions I have drawn above are incorrect, please feel free to let me know. Thanks.

Cool Stuff on this Page

Anything on this page that looks remotely cool I have brazenly stolen from other cool user pages on Wikipedia:

• The design of the information column on the right is from Hall Monitor.
• The date and time in the "calendar page" in the top, right-hand corner are from Serhiodudnic, with modifications by me to make it work in MSIE.
• And I occasionally use templates I find to inflate the stuff in my Babel box. As you can see, I like to collect them!

Thanks everyone!

Vandals

Hey, it took only four days for the first vandal to hit my user page:

1. 2005:10:27:14:10 UTC :: 209.250.165.122 :: Talk :: Contributions :: IP owner :: IP location :: Reverted by: Deanos
2. 2005:10:27:14:12 UTC :: 209.250.165.122 :: Talk :: Contributions :: IP owner :: IP location :: Reverted by: Deanos

Thanks to those of you who have reverted vandalism on my pages.

Picture of the Day

Picture of the day

The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1