User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh

This is Wiki-Pharaoh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 5 days

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited All Souls Church (Braintree, Massachusetts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi Wiki-Coffee. I wanted to raise the issue of your username being very similar to that of Coffee, to the extent that multiple users have confused you for them. Placing "Wiki-" at the start of a username that's identical to a long term and well known editor likely falls afoul of the username policy, even if it's a common word such as in this case. Would you consider renaming to avoid confusion? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: If I am honest I have a problem with re-naming because I like the name Wiki-Coffee, additionally I am conducting a research project off-wiki which I have used my username as is at the moment. Re-naming would require me to go through each instance of Wiki-Coffee and remove it / change it. I could make it clearer on my talk page that I am not Coffee however, they are distinct usernames :). Furthermore, G-R renamed to this after two previous name changes in the past already. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 07:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues with rules

I saw your proposals about the rules; the majority seems to oppose your proposals. Maybe you can go to "Wikipedia talk:" pages, like WT:policies and guidelines or WT:NOT, where you can ask questions about specific rules. I wonder which rules you have issues with, so I can guide you there. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Sorry, which rules? I do not have a problem with Wikipedia rules so much as I think they can be improved. More specifically the layout and accessibility of them to editors. Right now they are not very clear and sometimes (even most of the time perhaps) people seem to argue about which ones are relevant and which ones are not. This isn't productive. But the truth is, it is not for me to say. Wikipedia's community has decided and thus that is how it stands. There is no personal damage onto me so my suggestions are really just that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 07:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules, eh? You were discussing the rules about protecting pages, like WP:protection policy. Also, why proposing Wikipedia:Rule 1 and requesting clarification on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: There are lots of rules I come across in my work off-Wiki. When I need to refer to one I know if its an Act of Parliament or Case Law and I know the precedence of those rules. They are clearly defined and which has authority in which case doesn't have a 100 degree angle of interpretation. I found the rules on Wikipedia have 180 degrees worth of interpretation and thus there is no clarity of which actually applies to which situation. In spite of this, I appreciate that these rules and doctrines here on Wikipedia have long been established and for those on here they seem to work in a way. However, I am persuaded by my own views and that of experienced others that the current policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are so obscure that they are counterproductive. I really no longer take notice of them anymore given the wide array of interpretations people seem to apply to them, each person having a different view on them without there being any real authority which has the right to establish a firm interpretation. This isn't how I personally operate it is a sort of anarchy. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 08:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to WP:help desk and ask if you like. Or go to WP:VPIL, where you can incubate your ideas and flourish them. George Ho (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:policies and guidelines page yet? George Ho (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: No I have not read it but I will do so now. Sorry, I am not used to seeing a whole page of guidelines for how to create policies / guidelines on a website. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 08:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you finish reading the page, you can also read Wikipedia:Principles, a list of so-called Wikipedia principles and other essays. You can see a navigation template at the bottom of a page. --George Ho (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are curious about a policy or guideline and want to ask, feel free; again, I recommend going to "Wikipedia talk:" page. I did so at WT:V and WT:canvassing. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Is there a list of "core" guidelines and policies which are generally enforced? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before reading the other rules, I would first recommend reading Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Purpose. Afterwards, you can read Wikipedia:Core content policies, which considers WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV the three core "content" policies. Also, there are WP:list of policies and WP:list of guidelines. If you want to create or improve an article, how about WP:Your first article (if you haven't built one before) or WP:writing better articles (an essay)? Again, read the first two: "Here to build..." and "Purpose" before reading others. --George Ho (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Not as easy to read as facebooks community standards haha. You see that Facebook page, that is the kind of direction I'd love to see Wikipedia policies take. A simple, single page which deals with things. Do people usually have the time to read so many guideline or policies and I wonder what type of people are attracted to reading so many. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 09:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also WP:What Wikipedia is not, which has the "not a social media" section, like Facebook; and Wikipedia:Wikimedia policy, which shows two links, including one to "Terms of use" by the Foundation. You might want to read the guideline, Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects, which also links you to other sister projects of Wikipedia, like Wikimedia Commons and Meta-wiki, which deals with the Foundation and its projects (like Wikipedia) as a whole. Even meta-wiki also has new project proposals there. Well... treat it like an invitation, though it also tells you how to link a sister project in articles. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community behavioural policy?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The question is, does Wikipedia have behavioural policies that cover how users interact with each other? If so how do I find them? Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Coffee This may be of use to you - Category:Wikipedia behavioral policies and guidelines. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of KnapNok Games page

Hi Wiki-Coffee, I noticed that you marked the (now removed) page of KnapNok Games for speedy deletion under the criteria of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". While I have no issues with admitting that I am an employee of the company described in that page, I believe I had written it with as much of an objective view as possible. The page was also linked to on several pages as can be seen on its what links here page.

In any case, if possible, would it be OK to retrieve the content for that page for my own safe-keeping?

Cheers,

Anchel (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to portals

You can explore Portal:LGBT and Portal:Law. You can explore more at Portal:Contents. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SRAEG

Per "In the case, you do not wish to consent to continue being a subject in our research please inform us and we will cease the collection of further data involving yourself." I'm going to invoke this, and request that you provide to me a copy of all the data you currently hold on me.

I also suspect this is an enormous piss take and you're trolling the entire project. This is all just complete fantasy nonsense and I think you need to seek professional help. Nick (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Non of the data which is collected is personally identifiable, usernames are assigned a value like 1,2,3,4 and so on. "Cease the collection of data involving yourself" refers to the cessation of collecting data so far as we know is related to your edits on Wikipedia. For example, some of your contributions might be categorised but you nor anyone else can be identified personally by any data we store or keep in relation to the research. I apologise if this was not made clearer.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]