Somedaydoctor

File copyright problem with File:Someday.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Someday.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

nice user page

I like your page. If there is help needed in the project I can help.--Stone (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Danke! Schön zu hören, dass Dir die Wikipedia gefällt. (Sorry the Sie/Ihnen makes me feel very old, darum ist mir das Du/Dir lieber). Sollte ein Fremdenführer durch die Wikipedia gebraucht werden stehe ich gerne zur Verfügung. Hier gibt es alles Wettbewerbe, Verbrechen und Spass.--Stone (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Answers to the questions

How long have you been on Wikipedia?

There is a easy answer: Since early 2003. The more profound answer is a given by a toolserver tool: Edit count

Specifically, I am trying to argue that Wikipedia is positive because it encourages collaboration and spreads knowledge faster. What is your opinion of this?

The example I like best was the article on the Fukushima I nuclear accidents which cover the subject in a relative objective way. The facts are in the article very fast and the information necessary for a person not interested in to much detail is sufficient. A lot of hard science is not put into wikipedia quickly, only science with interest to public or science whit sufficient PR effort becomes quickly part of wikipedia. The example of GFAJ-1 shows clearly that not the quality or importance of a discovery makes it into wikipedia, but media coverage. The claim the wikipedia does crowed sourcing is not right but it is right that only if a crowed is interested the exchange and publication of knowledge on wikipedia is fast. The no original research rule of wikipedia also slows down the progress. Scientists are also not aware that wikipedia might offer them a good way to make their findings available to the public.

An example for the problems of scientists with wikipedia might be the Zimmermann of the Zimmerman–Traxler model. He was not aware of the rules and guidelines and got into some trouble because he was insisting on certain things he new but text books said it described it wrong. This is clearly original research and the textbook quote has more relevance that a personal observation. With this method it is easy to block or ban people from wikipedia although they are high class scientists.

This is also partly true for edits from your project. Your project violates some guidelines of wikipedia, this will come to you after you put your articles from the sandbox into article space. I will try to do a wikibased review of some of the articles.

Also, i have read a couple of articles claiming that the amount of editors is declining. Would you say this is true and if so, why is this happening?

The number is growing down a little, but this reflects the maturity of the project. In the beginning every edit was an improvement, because most articles were short and any new detail was an valuable addition. Now it is harder to add something useful and people think that their edits might not come close to the standard of the already existing articles and therefore do not start editing. Another point is that some established editors act not that friendly to newcomers. It is always hard for people who fight vandalism of "their" (ownership is forbidden, but it is a fact that it exists) articles everyday to be friendly to a new editor who is destroying more than he adds valuable material because he is not aware of the rules and the guidelines.

This is also partly true for editors from your project. Most of your class mates will vanish without coming back although they could offer a valuable help for wikipedia. It would be nice to ask them why they do not contribute to wikipedia any more.

What do you think is the future of Wikipedia?

I am optimistic that wikipedia will grow and become a good source for quality information. There will be always other ways to distribute knowledge, like peer reviewed journals and books. The project is based on the consensus which makes it hard to change the project in any major way.So there will be no sudden changes, because the crowed is slow to move and most of the crowed is likes it the traditional way.

Wikipedia is also not monolithic. Wikipedia Germany is a very different environment to the English version. It is very liberal (In Europe liberal is a very positive word with the meaning of giving freedom of choice to people and not opressing them) system. It was possible to but the article vulva onto the mainpage (21 March 2010) without any major discussion. The founder of wikipedia tried to get German wikipedia to withdraw the featured article from the main page , but he had no sucess. So although the founding father of wikipedia said something and a lot uf us-wikipedians tried to influence wikipedia Germany nothing happened. The notability guidlines are a other big difference between the two wikipedias. Here nearly everything is keep, German wikipedia is very fast in deleting according to the much stricter notability guidlines. This might lead to a further split and even a very ripping apart of the project.

--Stone (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Today's motto...

→ On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair...

Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).