Article introductions, ~or~ just exactly how stupid are wikipedia admins Options

[TungstenCarbide]

What is so magical about the first sentence of articles that they must contain every spelling, pronunciation, translation, transliteration and etymology known? Why must it be there and no where else?

More specifically, why does everything in red have to be in the first sentance?

Kyrgyzstan (pronounced /ˈkɝːɡɪstæn/; KƏR-gis-tahn; Kyrgyz: Кыргызстан [qɯrʀɯzˈstɑn]; Russian: Киргизия [kirˈɡizija] or Киргизстан [ˈkirɡistan] or Кыргызстан [ˈkˠɨrɡˠɨzstan], variously transliterated, also Kirgizia or Kirghizia), officially the Kyrgyz Republic, is a country in Central Asia. Landlocked and mountainous, it is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the southwest and China to the east. The ethnonym "Kyrgyz", after which the country is named, is thought to originally mean either "forty girls" or "forty tribes", presumably referring to the epic hero Manas who, as legend has it, unified forty tribes against the Mongols.[citation needed] According to popular interpretations, the 40-ray sun on the flag of Kyrgyzstan symbolizes the forty tribes of Manas.


See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=269348830
there are even more hidious examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ages_in_opening and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ing_clusterfuck

I made some notes on my user page but it was spitefully deleted after I was banned. Is there an administrator without their head up their ass who can undelete my page? thanks.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 14th March 2009, 3:57pm

[CharlotteWebb]

Kyrgyzstan (pronounced /ˈkɝːɡɪstæn/; KƏR-gis-tahn; Kyrgyz: Кыргызстан [qɯrʀɯzˈstɑn]; Russian: Киргизия [kirˈɡizija] or Киргизстан [ˈkirɡistan] or Кыргызстан [ˈkˠɨrɡˠɨzstan], variously transliterated, also Kirgizia or Kirghizia)

The weight of the latter names outside the [[Kyrgyz SSR]] page seems a little bit undue. Perhaps putting it in a footnote or an ==Exonyms for Kyrgyzstan== section would be the best compromise, or maybe a separate article—we have quite a few in [[Category:Country name etymology]].

...originally mean either "forty girls"...

Funny I thought the scripture said "seventy-two".

Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) is a plant in the family Fabaceae. It is commonly known as Maithray (Gujarati), Methi (Oriya, Bangla), Methi or Mithi (Hindi , Assamese, Nepali, Marathi मेथी, and Urdu ميتهي , from the Sanskrit मेथिका), Menthyada soppu (ಮೆಂತ್ಯ) (Kannada), Ventayam (வெந்தயம்) (Tamil), Menthulu(మెంతులు) (Telugu), Çemen (Turkish), Hilbeh (حلبة Arabic, חילבהHebrew), or ulluva (ഉലുവ Malayalam)، shambalîleh (شنبليله Persian). Fenugreek is used both as an herb (the leaves) and as a spice (the seed). It is cultivated worldwide as a semi-arid crop. It is frequently used in curry.

These definitely don't belong in the lead section, but that doesn't mean they don't belong somewhere. I don't know what else you may have said that was deleted, but the indefinite block seems harsh at first glance.

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't know what else you may have said that was deleted, but the indefinite block seems harsh at first glance.

I called Georgewilliamherbert a marshmallow stuffed lard ass and told him to stay the hell off my talk page. Something about that guy rubbed me the wrong way, like his mind was too empty to actually do any editing, so he just wanders around dredging people through the sewage of his lectures.

PS. there was nothing on my user page offensive - they just deleted it out of spite. Is there an admin around who can undelete it please?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 14th March 2009, 5:38pm

[Noroton]

a marshmallow stuffed lard ass

I'd never heard of this particular perversion before, and I have to thank TungstenCarbide for stuffing my brain with visions of ... well, you know. Questions to which I'm not sure I want answers but for some reason (and let's not explore that) feel compelled to ask:

1. How does one actually stuff a lard ass with marshmallows?

(and if this has anything to do with it, really, I'd rather not know: http://www.marshmallowshooter.com/ )

2. Why would one do this thing?

3. Would a lard ass stuffed with marshmallows be considered a lardier lard ass than a lard ass not stuffed with marshmallows?

4. Would a regular ass stuffed with marshmallows thereby become a lard ass?

5. Is it more or less comfortable to sit when your ass is stuffed with marshmallows than when it isn't, whether or not it's lardy or relatively lard-free? I mean, having your colon filled up is generally uncomfortable, but they're marshmallows, so they should be pretty soft, right?

6. Do they say "lard arse" in the UK, or is that just too many "r"s for an "r"-challenged dialect to take on when dealing with emotionally startling rarified perversions? (Actually, I find 19,800 "lard arse" ghits, so I guess that answers the question.)

7. Are marshmallows that are used for stuffing right out of the bag or are they toasted?

8. Are there health risks involved in stuffing ones ass with marshmallows?

9. How many bags of marshmallows does it take before a lard ass is considered stuffed? Would that be any more or less than a regular ass?

10. Was this ever done at Guantanamo? If so, did it result in authorities recovering actual actionable information preventing a terrorist attack on our homeland?

11. Should diabetics be careful about stuffing marshmallows up their asses? If so, are there gluten-free alternative marshmallows safe for gluteus maximi?

12. Does the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man have a marshmallow-stuffed lard ass?

13. Does this work with Peeps? After all, it's about that time of year ...

[TungstenCarbide]

a marshmallow stuffed lard ass

I'd never heard of this particular perversion before, and I have to thank TungstenCarbide for stuffing my brain with visions of ... well, you know. Questions to which I'm not sure I want answers but for some reason (and let's not explore that) feel compelled to ask:

1. How does one actually stuff a lard ass with marshmallows?

(and if this has anything to do with it, really, I'd rather not know: http://www.marshmallowshooter.com/ )

2. Why would one do this thing?

3. Would a lard ass stuffed with marshmallows be considered a lardier lard ass than a lard ass not stuffed with marshmallows?

4. Would a regular ass stuffed with marshmallows thereby become a lard ass?

5. Is it more or less comfortable to sit when your ass is stuffed with marshmallows than when it isn't, whether or not it's lardy or relatively lard-free? I mean, having your colon filled up is generally uncomfortable, but they're marshmallows, so they should be pretty soft, right?

6. Do they say "lard arse" in the UK, or is that just too many "r"s for an "r"-challenged dialect to take on when dealing with emotionally startling rarified perversions? (Actually, I find 19,800 "lard arse" ghits, so I guess that answers the question.)

7. Are marshmallows that are used for stuffing right out of the bag or are they toasted?

8. Are there health risks involved in stuffing ones ass with marshmallows?

9. How many bags of marshmallows does it take before a lard ass is considered stuffed? Would that be any more or less than a regular ass?

10. Was this ever done at Guantanamo? If so, did it result in authorities recovering actual actionable information preventing a terrorist attack on our homeland?

11. Should diabetics be careful about stuffing marshmallows up their asses? If so, are there gluten-free alternative marshmallows safe for gluteus maximi?

12. Does the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man have a marshmallow-stuffed lard ass?

13. Does this work with Peeps? After all, it's about that time of year ...

Well, Noroton, I came here for a serious discussion, unlike you. But to clarify where my choice of words came from, and maybe 'choice' is the wrong word since they just kinda rolled without thought; the marshmallow I think reflects a general poofiness, touchy-feely quality and lack of substance in his post. And the lard-ass refers to the general lack of valuable work from this administrator, who appears to just sit around subjecting people to his blather.

Wikipedia obviously isn't the place for me, but for the love of god how hard is it to write clear and simple intros that draw a person into the article, instead headache inducing clusterfucks that chase them off?

[Noroton]

Well, Noroton, I came here for a serious discussion, unlike you. But to clarify where my choice of words came from, and maybe 'choice' is the wrong word since they just kinda rolled without thought; the marshmallow I think reflects a general poofiness, touchy-feely quality and lack of substance in his post. And the lard-ass refers to the general lack of valuable work from this administrator, who appears to just sit around subjecting people to his blather.

Oh, I'm sorry. I got the impression that you took a less serious attitude, and therefore didn't expect a great deal of seriousness after you posted this:

I called Georgewilliamherbert a marshmallow stuffed lard ass and told him to stay the hell off my talk page. Something about that guy rubbed me the wrong way, like his mind was too empty to actually do any editing, so he just wanders around dredging people through the sewage of his lectures.

You're more likely to avoid unserious responses when you avoid innovative, humorous invective. Given the fact that you were the one who brought up the insertion of comestibles into the anal cavities of the corpulent, I really didn't think I'd be offending you or anyone else (except those with a more delicate sense of humor than I have). So again, sorry to offend. I didn't mean to kick you when you're down.

Wikipedia obviously isn't the place for me, but for the love of god how hard is it to write clear and simple intros that draw a person into the article, instead headache inducing clusterfucks that chase them off?

For the record, I agree . We certainly don't need the Tamil word for fenugreek in a lead paragraph. It's the kind of thing you should be able to convince a lot of Wikipedians to support, I think. Sounds like you made it a lot harder to do that by hurling insults at Georgewilliamherbert and others.

Personally, if I wielded the cudgel, I'd almost always give a warning to someone who'd done what you did. If any of the admins who had blocked me had simply warned me first, the blocks could have been avoided (in some cases, not about civility, I'd have argued the point). I think that's even in [[WP:BLOCK]] policy, but about one admin in a thousand actually warns first before swinging with the cudgel. (The warning isn't to inform people who don't know that bad behavior will get them blocked -- just about everyone knows that. The warning is useful to get the warnee to start thinking about where his attitude will get him.)

Another thing I wouldn't do -- because it's completely useless, unhelpful, unconstructive, pretty damn stupid and very likely extremely malicious -- is leave a scolding message on the talk page of someone who's clearly angry and who's just been blocked. This should probably be spelled out somewhere in policy, and people who do it should themselves be treated to a vacation.

Since Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, you are required to suffer fools gladly if you want to get along or get something done. Did you want to get the entire encyclopedia to change this stupid pattern of junking up the leads with pedantic trivia, or did you just want to rail against it?

It sounds to me like you could contribute a lot to Wikipedia if you stopped the insults, including the pouffy thing LessHorridVanU pointed out (if you didn't mean to insult gays by that, please say so -- EDIT: I see you did). Why not email one of the blocking admins and admit you were acting in a way that was completely useless, unhelpful, unconstructive and pretty damn stupid with regard to those insults. I'm pretty sure they'd let you back, if that's what you want. Of course, it works better if, after two weeks, you actually believe that you shouldn't be insulting people you might have to work with later.

This morning I heard an interview on the radio with the Manhattan District Attorney, Morgenthau, who's 90 and retiring after decades in that job. He mentioned that one of the important ways that criminals reform is by realizing that they've been treated fairly by the system (obviously, I'm not calling you a criminal, but the analogy is obvious). Wikipedia does a really shitty job with that, including in this case, and as a result, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. If you do your part in correcting this, you could go back if you wanted to, assuming you want to go back.

How's that for serious?

This post has been edited by Noroton: Sun 15th March 2009, 12:55am

[TungstenCarbide]

This morning I heard an interview on the radio with the Manhattan District Attorney, Morgenthau, who's 90 and retiring after decades in that job. He mentioned that one of the important ways that criminals reform is by realizing that they've been treated fairly by the system (obviously, I'm not calling you a criminal, but the analogy is obvious). Wikipedia does a really shitty job with that, including in this case, and as a result, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. If you do your part in correcting this, you could go back if you wanted to, assuming you want to go back.

How's that for serious?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing at the injustice of how I was treated. I'm railing at piss poor idiotic introductions that a 10yr old could improve on.

If you go read my reply to Marshmallow George you'll see what I mean. Those idiots are placing a tortured, twisted idea of 'civility' above article quality. Sometimes people need a good swift boot up the ass to try harder. Take that away and you get a mediocre social club. I don't think I've been treated unfairly - wikipedia admins can make whatever rules they want and kick me out if I don't abide.

I asked the guy who owns the article [[Kyrgyzstan]] where to go broach this issue and he couldn't answer. It took me like an hour to find the right style page to go to. Not that it did any good. But in doing so, and in hind sight, it became obvious that there are throngs of marshmallow georges that never make that kind of effort to improve quality - it's hard work.

This objection comes up from time to time on the talk page of the wikipedia manual of style page dealing with lead sections.

The initial drive for including information in brackets after the initial subject mention came from from looking at dictionary practice, where of course there are no leads.

So different parts of the MOS came to be maintained by different groups each with regard to their particular piece of name info in the opening sentence.

A particular article as Wikipedia is now may have English, Arabic, French, and Berber. Another may have English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles. In theory, I guess all could have etymology and IPA guides beside each.

Some encyclopedias use no parenthetical information at all after the initial mention of the subject, some use IPA, yet some others use wade-giles, some use footnotes, and so on, but finding an encyclopedia which uses more than two instances of parenthetical information is difficult.

A footnote when these things are not brief is the obvious solution, though Jeandré du Toit dumped some stuff in a box here, having procured SlimVirgin's blessing on a MoS talk page.

Back when I used to edit (and care), I put some looooong strings of info of this type I came across in footnotes, but they were all reverted pretty quickly. <snip>

Good points. Wikipedia has all kinds of formatting tricks that could help.

There have been more good ideas and discussion at this thread than my whole experience at wikipedia. Admins there seem to spend ten times the effort bludgeoning people with 'civility' than working quality problems.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sun 15th March 2009, 1:58am

[GlassBeadGame]

This morning I heard an interview on the radio with the Manhattan District Attorney, Morgenthau, who's 90 and retiring after decades in that job. He mentioned that one of the important ways that criminals reform is by realizing that they've been treated fairly by the system (obviously, I'm not calling you a criminal, but the analogy is obvious). Wikipedia does a really shitty job with that, including in this case, and as a result, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot. If you do your part in correcting this, you could go back if you wanted to, assuming you want to go back.

How's that for serious?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing at the injustice of how I was treated. I'm railing at piss poor idiotic introductions that a 10yr old could improve on.

If you go read my reply to Marshmallow George you'll see what I mean. Those idiots are placing a tortured, twisted idea of 'civility' above article quality. Sometimes people need a good swift boot up the ass to try harder. Take that away and you get a mediocre social club. I don't think I've been treated unfairly - wikipedia admins can make whatever rules they want and kick me out if I don't abide.

I asked the guy who owns the article [[Kyrgyzstan]] where to go broach this issue and he couldn't answer. It took me like an hour to find the right style page to go to. Not that it did any good. But in doing so, and in hind sight, it became obvious that there are throngs of marshmallow georges that never make that kind of effort to improve quality - it's hard work.

This objection comes up from time to time on the talk page of the wikipedia manual of style page dealing with lead sections.

The initial drive for including information in brackets after the initial subject mention came from from looking at dictionary practice, where of course there are no leads.

So different parts of the MOS came to be maintained by different groups each with regard to their particular piece of name info in the opening sentence.

A particular article as Wikipedia is now may have English, Arabic, French, and Berber. Another may have English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, pinyin and Wade-Giles. In theory, I guess all could have etymology and IPA guides beside each.

Some encyclopedias use no parenthetical information at all after the initial mention of the subject, some use IPA, yet some others use wade-giles, some use footnotes, and so on, but finding an encyclopedia which uses more than two instances of parenthetical information is difficult.

A footnote when these things are not brief is the obvious solution, though Jeandré du Toit dumped some stuff in a box here, having procured SlimVirgin's blessing on a MoS talk page.

Back when I used to edit (and care), I put some looooong strings of info of this type I came across in footnotes, but they were all reverted pretty quickly. <snip>

Good points. Wikipedia has all kinds of formatting tricks that could help.

There have been more good ideas and discussion at this thread than my whole experience at wikipedia. Admins there seem to spend ten times the effort bludgeoning people with 'civility' than working quality problems.

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty. BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

[TungstenCarbide]

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty.

What exactly may we discuss, your exalted pigheadedness?

...BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

Looking over you own last few posts, GlassBeadGame;

*I don't even understand your arrogant refusal to show any concern or responsibility. Your own entitlement is always more important to you. This is not just political. It is a matter of character. Whatever is wrong with you you need to get it fixed.
*That reminds me, when is the Garrison State going to get a new Senator?
*I thought I would let people construct their own acronym, allowing a fleeting sense of achievement.
*Joyce was a long standing member of the International Collegial Union of Poets.

Is that what you want? For all of us to emulate your idiotic one-liners that, more often than not, have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Oh grand poobah?

GlassBeadGame, You are as stupid as you are hypocritical. Hell, you make the worst Wikipedia Administrators look like geniuses in comparison. How did you manage to become a moderator here anyway?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 8:51pm

[GlassBeadGame]

I could care less about your civility or lack of it, but reducing WR to a discussion forum for a WP style manual is a complete travesty.

What exactly may we discuss, your exalted pigheadedness?

...BTW what the fuck is a WR Barnstar, Petey? Welcome new class of Wikipedian losers to the Review.

Looking over you own last few posts, GlassBeadGame;

*I don't even understand your arrogant refusal to show any concern or responsibility. Your own entitlement is always more important to you. This is not just political. It is a matter of character. Whatever is wrong with you you need to get it fixed.
*That reminds me, when is the Garrison State going to get a new Senator?
*I thought I would let people construct their own acronym, allowing a fleeting sense of achievement.
*Joyce was a long standing member of the International Collegial Union of Poets.

Is that what you want? For all of us to emulate your idiotic one-liners that, more often than not, have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Oh grand poobah?

GlassBeadGame, You are as stupid as you are hypocritical.

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

[TungstenCarbide]

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

Is that the official WR doctrine as delivered by a moderator here? Or are you just an obnoxious pompous dumbfuck who comes here for social interaction, as evidenced by your abundant posts that have nothing to do with Wikipedia?

[GlassBeadGame]

You are an idiot with an internet addiction. Nobody is telling you or your Wikipedian addicted pals what you can talk about. You just don't get a free pass when you drag down the level of discussion to "how to make a better fake encyclopedia." Get a life and leave Wikipedia.

Is that the official WR doctrine as delivered by a moderator here? Or are you just an obnoxious pompous dumbfuck who comes here for social interaction, as evidenced by your abundant posts that have nothing to do with Wikipedia?

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

[TungstenCarbide]

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

Hmm, I'm a wikipedian? Sorry, your pathetic attempt to create a self-image and hang it around my neck failed. Do you think driving 'Wikipedians' from this site will improve it? One? NYB? CharlotteWebb? and so on, all current Wikipedia contributors in good standing...

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 9:19pm

[GlassBeadGame]

Does that sound like I'm tying to moderate anything at the moment? Better to act as an incendiary and agitator at times around here. Or just let this place become another edgeless, boring and useless Wikipedian tool. You don't have a clue of what my body of posts are about. You are incapable of seeing anything accept through your pathetic "Love me. Love me. I'm a Wikipedian" perspective.

Hmm, I'm a wikipedian? Sorry, your pathetic attempt to create a self-image and hang it around my neck failed. Do you think driving 'Wikipedians' from this site will improve it? One? NYB? CharlotteWebb? and so on, all current Wikipedia contributors in good standing...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[zvook]

I'm not sure bumping a three month old thread that you dislike so much makes much sense. Did you confuse two threads? PD just made a more recent one. Tungsten now has ~200 posts here; if you're only noticing him now maybe he's not all bad.

As I said at the time, I think this thread was good for looking at the way you'd expect an encyclopedia to perform, looking at the way WP performed, and looking at the reasons for the difference.

YMMV, naturally.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm not sure bumping a three month old thread that you dislike so much makes much sense. Did you confuse two threads? PD just made a more recent one. Tungsten now has ~200 posts here; if you're only noticing him now maybe he's not all bad.

As I said at the time, I think this thread was good for looking at the way you'd expect an encyclopedia to perform, looking at the way WP performed, and looking at the reasons for the difference.

YMMV, naturally.

Good queston. I followed from PDs current thread about TC in which he "gave him a WR Barnstar." Probably better to post there but it shortly drew responses.

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

[Obesity]

I'm just horrified that PD, who has done such excellent work in exposing pedophile POV pushing and other substantive matters, is now concerned with article lead paragraph style.

Readability and lack of professional quality writing are neither unrelated to nor less important than the various other factors that make our beloved website a shitty encyclopedia--factors you harp on, like poor reliability and lack of social responsibility and coherent governance. Peter Damian, who is a competent writer, will naturally be more interested in these matters than you, who are not.

Grumbling WR wankers like to blast WP for its abject amateurism--and rightly so. Poor organization, poor wording and poor presentation are part and parcel of the of unprofessionalism that permeates the website. Such topics should be fair game, especially if we're slogging toward that elusive deep critique for which you yearn so futilely.

It's a rather technical form of literary criticism.

That being said, I don't find it interesting at all, and I'm not sure "Tungsten Carbide" is the right man for the job. Still, the topic should be highly pertinent to those who would sing of Wikipedia's awfulness.

This post has been edited by Obesity: Sun 7th June 2009, 2:16am