CanIBeFrank

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:Attribution
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Requests for oversight
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
• Wikipedia:Block log
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
• Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
• Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"
• Wikipedia:No legal threats
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal looks interesting...

...and is a good idea; expertese in Wikipedia is something I at least hadn't considered before. (A question, though: Do experts in your scheme gain any privelege, or is it simply a "mark of distinction"?)

But you should understand that there is a great deal of hostility and suspicion among many Wikipedians towards any proposal which creates more hierarchy among editors--especially on the content side (as opposed to the administrative side, admins and bureaucrats are now accepted features of the encyclopedia). And, I might add--Wikipedia is becoming more professional these days even without formal hierarchies; policy changes in the past year and a half have made it easier to get rid of trolls, crackpots, and POV-pushers, and undo their damage. Many of them are still here, but a cultural change is occuring here.

(This is one reason I haven't been involved in this debate for a while--working on articles is more productive.)

Anyway, good luck.

--EngineerScotty 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

What username do you normally edit under? --Stormie 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am curious as well. Thanks. — Satori Son 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I normally edit under this username. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are especially well-versed in En-Wikipedia policy, terminology, formatting, and etiquette. But if you prefer to not to disclose your former username, I will respect your privacy. Have a good one. — Satori Son 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ?

In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)