Kafkaesque

[Mancunium]

Franz Kafka’s photos Franz Kafka biography wikipedia
Holiday Press, 3 July 2013: link

Kafka biography wikipedia
By admin on July 3, 2013

Franz Kafka was on Google home page after tonight. we will write here all about him. so who is Franz Kafka wheree he lives and where Franz Kafka died. All informations about Franz Kafka life you will read now.

Now we write topic about him:

Did you feel OK when you woke up this morning? Spare a thought for Gregor Samsa, that most unlucky of literary heroes. “When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed … ”

[Hex]

Ahh, spam farms. I wonder how much of that was glued together by a human and how much by software.

James Gandolfini is died James Gandolfini is dead ?
By admin on June 20, 2013

Famous actor James Gandolfini is dead in vocation. wo we will be adding here James Gandolfini life James Gandolfini biography wikipedia details on this topic.

I guess they're taking advantage of people trying to search for "whatever wikipedia".

[Mancunium]

Trading the Bachelor’s thesis for … Wikipedia
NetProphet, 1 July 2013 link

Typically, university students are warned to avoid citing Wikipedia in essays.

However, a few particularly forward-looking universities in Poland and Ukraine are urging their students to write articles for Wikipedia, rather than employing Wikipedia quotes for essays that would probably just ‘gather dust’ once they’ve been graded, according to the Global Post.

Poznan University of Medical Sciences in western Poland is hoping to do away with the Bachelor’s thesis, preferring to encourage students to instead post Wikipedia articles. Poznan joins four other universities already working in co-operation with the Jia Education Program.

Who wouldn't want 100 know-it-alls to edit your thesis before the prof ever sees it? Remember, medical students, original research is strictly forbidden. Just as pocket calculators did away with the need to study maths, Wikipedia does away with the need to study anything.

[DanMurphy]

Franz Kafka’s photos Franz Kafka biography wikipedia
Holiday Press, 3 July 2013: link

Kafka biography wikipedia
By admin on July 3, 2013

Franz Kafka was on Google home page after tonight. we will write here all about him. so who is Franz Kafka wheree he lives and where Franz Kafka died. All informations about Franz Kafka life you will read now.

Now we write topic about him:

Did you feel OK when you woke up this morning? Spare a thought for Gregor Samsa, that most unlucky of literary heroes. “When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed … ”

Reminds me of my favorite blocked editor/stupid admin interaction of all time.

Blocked editor Hullaballo Wolfowitz (T-C-L): "I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked." Administrator Theda (T-C-L): "You say you are Kafkaesque. If you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this (sic) account name."

[EricBarbour]

Holidayspress.com is absolutely a linkfarm. The "About" page is utter bullshit.

Administrative Contact:
Demir, Hamit forumhane@gmail.com
ksadoooas sadsad
adasasd, 3243
Afghanistan
+93.322343434

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia's 'Human' Entry Is Charmingly Alien
Motherboard, 17 June 2013 link

The proverbial Wikipedia blackhole just got a lot more, well, cosmic. And turns out it event-horizons (because that's a verb now) right under our noses. By which I mean the article for Human is written entirely in the third-person, as if by some alien race looking quizzically down at our pathetic and fragile little species stamping around in dervish warpaths of self importance.

Have you ever noticed this? It's pretty hilarious, actually--and is at turns poignant and sobering. Here are some choice excerpts from the one Wiki article most assuredly written by either extraterrestrials or our reptilian, shape-shifting overlords. Or both.

I am using the word Kafkaesque here in the sense of describing a nightmarish situation which most people can somehow relate to, although strongly surreal; and with an ethereal, evil, omnipotent power floating just beyond the senses.

[Mancunium]

Newham student quizzes Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
Newham Record, 5 July 2013 link

Wikipedia boss Jimmy Wales gave students the chance to quiz him on running the world’s largest collaborative website

Nikin Kamothi, 20, from Newham, was one of three Barking and Dagenham College students invited to interview the Internet entrepreneur.

For 20 minutes they had free rein to get the lowdown on everything from what the word ‘wiki’ means to how the company makes money.

The students also put their own business ideas past the entrepreneur to see what he reckoned of them.

Adnan Mahmood, entrepreneurial coordinator at the college, said the students were “incredible”.

He said: “Their energy, enthusiasm and willingness to seek out and exploit every opportunity is to be commended.

“They had the opportunity to learn from the best in business, rub shoulders with leading entrepreneurs and develop their networking skills.”

Students also heard from from Betfair co-founder Ed Wray at the Q&A session on June 27. last week.

And that's it. The entire story. Was this audience granted on the condition that the God-King's words must remain a mystery?

[Vigilant]

Newham student quizzes Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
Newham Record, 5 July 2013 link

Wikipedia boss Jimmy Wales gave students the chance to quiz him on running the world’s largest collaborative website

Nikin Kamothi, 20, from Newham, was one of three Barking and Dagenham College students invited to interview the Internet entrepreneur.

For 20 minutes they had free rein to get the lowdown on everything from what the word ‘wiki’ means to how the company makes money.

The students also put their own business ideas past the entrepreneur to see what he reckoned of them.

Adnan Mahmood, entrepreneurial coordinator at the college, said the students were “incredible”.

He said: “Their energy, enthusiasm and willingness to seek out and exploit every opportunity is to be commended.

“They had the opportunity to learn from the best in business, rub shoulders with leading entrepreneurs and develop their networking skills.”

Students also heard from from Betfair co-founder Ed Wray at the Q&A session on June 27. last week.

And that's it. The entire story. Was this audience granted on the condition that the God-King's words must remain a mystery?

My guess was that they reported on everything said of value and stopped.

[thekohser]

My comment:

The students waste time asking questions about "what the word 'wiki' means" (ever used a dictionary before, kids?) and "how the company makes money" (that's info all available in a federal form 990, youngsters); and then their entrepreneurial coordinator calls this vapid Q&A "incredible". If anyone wonders how and why our educational system is going down the tubes, here is yet another example of leadership by mediocrity.

[Poetlister]

My comment:

that's info all available in a federal form 990, youngsters

I think that's a little harsh. These are children in one of the most deprived areas in Britain; probably most of them do not have Internet at home and many of them will have immigrant parents who are not fluent in English. Yet you expect them to know about an American federal form and even to be able to look one up?

[thekohser]

I think that's a little harsh. These are children in one of the most deprived areas in Britain; probably most of them do not have Internet at home and many of them will have immigrant parents who are not fluent in English. Yet you expect them to know about an American federal form and even to be able to look one up?

If they are that deprived and ignorant, then having them chat with Jimbo might be one of the worst things you can do, other than to give them false information ("founder" of Wikipedia) and false encouragement ("incredible").

I mean, "yay", they got an opportunity to meet a real-live global celebrity like Jimmy Wales. But, really, wasting their time asking him questions that they should already know the answers to... not going to cheer that. Would they ask the CEO of ExxonMobil what "petroleum" means, or "how much kerosene is there in a barrel of crude oil"?

These were not children asking their questions. Two were 20 years old, and the other was 19.

[lilburne]

I mean, "yay", they got an opportunity to meet a real-live global celebrity like Jimmy Wales.

Is he a 'global celebrity'? In my experience few know who Jimmy Wales is.

[Zoloft]

I mean, "yay", they got an opportunity to meet a real-live global celebrity like Jimmy Wales.

Is he a 'global celebrity'? In my experience few know who Jimmy Wales is.

He's an 'oh ok' celebrity.
"Who's Jimmy Wales?"
"He invented Wikipedia."
"Oh, OK."
"According to Wikipedia he owns the world's largest earthworm ranch, too."

[Poetlister]

If they are that deprived and ignorant, then having them chat with Jimbo might be one of the worst things you can do, other than to give them false information ("founder" of Wikipedia) and false encouragement ("incredible").

I don't disagree.

But, really, wasting their time asking him questions that they should already know the answers to... not going to cheer that.

Yes, but it is totally unreasonable to expect them to have even heard of a federal form 990, let alone be able to access the one for WMF. Would they even know to look for WMF rather than Wikipedia? You are, I believe, a little older than they are, certainly far wealthier and probably with better Internet access. Would you know how to get financial information about a partnership based in London?

These were not children asking their questions. Two were 20 years old, and the other was 19.

You called them youngsters. Maybe I'm getting to be an old fogey (my oldest is 36) but I find it difficult to thinlk of people under 21 as adults.

[EricBarbour]

I mean, "yay", they got an opportunity to meet a real-live global celebrity like Jimmy Wales.

Is he a 'global celebrity'? In my experience few know who Jimmy Wales is.

He's an 'oh ok' celebrity.
"Who's Jimmy Wales?"
"He invented Wikipedia."
"Oh, OK."
"According to Wikipedia he owns the world's largest earthworm ranch, too."

This is why you heroes should be writing books and essays about Wikipedia's shortcomings, not hanging about on a forum bitching.

[Wer900]

I mean, "yay", they got an opportunity to meet a real-live global celebrity like Jimmy Wales.

Is he a 'global celebrity'? In my experience few know who Jimmy Wales is.

He's an 'oh ok' celebrity.
"Who's Jimmy Wales?"
"He invented Wikipedia."
"Oh, OK."
"According to Wikipedia he owns the world's largest earthworm ranch, too."

This is why you heroes should be writing books and essays about Wikipedia's shortcomings, not hanging about on a forum bitching.

Anything we can do, besides "hanging around on a forum bitching", to help you in your investigations?

[Zoloft]

One thing we are doing is providing our own buzz to slightly counteract Jimmy's and the WMF.

[EricBarbour]

Anything we can do, besides "hanging around on a forum bitching", to help you in your investigations?

Lots of things:

--analyses of New Pages to figure out what they are: bot-generated stubs, copyright violations, outright garbage, or good content.
--analyses of Good Articles and Featured Articles, by subject area, author(s), how many people are responsible for writing a well-rated article, etc.
--analyses of Recent Edits to see how many are good, how many are crap, how many are vandalism, how many are reverted properly/improperly, etc.
--analysis of the User Creation Log, figure out how many sockpuppets are created each day and how many are then blocked and how quickly.

Just grab chunks of the logs and databases and make up spreadsheets, go over them, then generate graphs.

There's nothing stopping anyone from doing these things. No one else is doing this (except me, and I'm sick of doing it).
You could make yourself famous by publishing the first serious in-depth statistical analysis of Wikipedia's insane little world.
Having already done some of my own analyses and charts, we could combine our work for greater impact.

[SB_Johnny]

One thing we are doing is providing our own buzz to slightly counteract Jimmy's and the WMF.

Yup. If you spend all winter storing up snowballs and don't throw them when the opportunity knocks, you'll just end up really annoyed when springtime comes and melts them all.

[Wer900]

Anything we can do, besides "hanging around on a forum bitching", to help you in your investigations?

Lots of things:

--analyses of New Pages to figure out what they are: bot-generated stubs, copyright violations, outright garbage, or good content.
--analyses of Good Articles and Featured Articles, by subject area, author(s), how many people are responsible for writing a well-rated article, etc.
--analyses of Recent Edits to see how many are good, how many are crap, how many are vandalism, how many are reverted properly/improperly, etc.
--analysis of the User Creation Log, figure out how many sockpuppets are created each day and how many are then blocked and how quickly.

Just grab chunks of the logs and databases and make up spreadsheets, go over them, then generate graphs.

There's nothing stopping anyone from doing these things. No one else is doing this (except me, and I'm sick of doing it).
You could make yourself famous by publishing the first serious in-depth statistical analysis of Wikipedia's insane little world.
Having already done some of my own analyses and charts, we could combine our work for greater impact.

I should. But how is it possible to find out which of the thousands of new daily users are socks on a large scale?

[EricBarbour]

I should. But how is it possible to find out which of the thousands of new daily users are socks on a large scale?

You really can't, because the majority of them, at least 60%, never do ANY editing. Some of them are marked "created by a bot" or somesuch, and
some of them are obvious if they edit, by their patterns. It will take some effort. (So get to work!)

[thekohser]

Would you know how to get financial information about a partnership based in London?

I'd certainly figure out how if I were selected to chat with one of London's most recognizable partners, if I determined that one of the things I thought important to ask them about was how they obtain their revenues. I guess I'm just more conscientious than today's "youths" (or "yutes", as Joe Pesci would say), in that I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

P.S. Would I go to Companies House?

[Wer900]

I should. But how is it possible to find out which of the thousands of new daily users are socks on a large scale?

You really can't, because the majority of them, at least 60%, never do ANY editing. Some of them are marked "created by a bot" or somesuch, and
some of them are obvious if they edit, by their patterns. It will take some effort. (So get to work!)

Eric, do you know of any way to find the total number of edits made to a page? I don't know of any tool that works with over 50,000 edits...

[EricBarbour]

Eric, do you know of any way to find the total number of edits made to a page? I don't know of any tool that works with over 50,000 edits...

You must be joking, no one's yet made a tool for more than that. No one cares.
Why do you ask, looking at user creation logs? It's hopeless. All you can do is take random samples over a period of time.
This is partly why academic people don't do such studies, it's "too hard" and it's a "moving target". And they're lazy too.
Plus, a good number of the people doing these studies, like Lih, Reagle, and many others, are blind Wiki-fans who don't
want to rock the boat.

[Wer900]

Eric, do you know of any way to find the total number of edits made to a page? I don't know of any tool that works with over 50,000 edits...

You must be joking, no one's yet made a tool for more than that. No one cares.
Why do you ask, looking at user creation logs? It's hopeless. All you can do is take random samples over a period of time.
This is partly why academic people don't do such studies, it's "too hard" and it's a "moving target". And they're lazy too.
Plus, a good number of the people doing these studies, like Lih, Reagle, and many others, are blind Wiki-fans who don't
want to rock the boat.

I found a way, although it is imperfect. If you go into the history you can find the number of intermediate revisions, though there is no analysis possible as with the X! tool for under 50,000 edits. So far, I have found the number of edits to some important pages like AN/I and AE, but have not tabulated all the edits for RfA, RfB, RfC and such because those edits are balkanized across numerous subpages.

[EricBarbour]

I found a way, although it is imperfect. If you go into the history you can find the number of intermediate revisions, though there is no analysis possible as with the X! tool for under 50,000 edits. So far, I have found the number of edits to some important pages like AN/I and AE, but have not tabulated all the edits for RfA, RfB, RfC and such because those edits are balkanized across numerous subpages.

I've been making rough estimates of noticeboard sizes, because they are so damn shredded up. I figure that AN/I is at least 500 megabytes of archives,
not counting the "special sections", which are not indexed anywhere that I can find (they're "seekret"!)

I've even offered money to people to write scripts, just to process noticeboard and talkpage archives. No takers yet.

[HRIP7]

I should. But how is it possible to find out which of the thousands of new daily users are socks on a large scale?

You really can't, because the majority of them, at least 60%, never do ANY editing. Some of them are marked "created by a bot" or somesuch, and
some of them are obvious if they edit, by their patterns. It will take some effort. (So get to work!)

Eric, do you know of any way to find the total number of edits made to a page? I don't know of any tool that works with over 50,000 edits...

The highest number of edits you can show on a single screen when checking a page's editing history is 5,000. If you step back screen by screen, 10 screens will take you to 50,000. Then you just keep counting. The pages are a bit slow to load, but it's doable.

[Mancunium]

Wiki Wormhole: Dive into the wild world of Anime bath scenes
A.V.Club, 8 July 2013 link

With over 4 million articles, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, whether you're throwing a term paper together at the last minute, or looking up horrific disease pictures to see if it matches what you have. But follow enough links, and you get sucked into some seriously strange places. We explore some of Wikipedia's oddities in our 4,272,039-week series, Wiki Wormhole.

[Mancunium]

Hebrew Wikipedia Celebrates 10th Anniversary
Arutz Sheva, 9 July 2013 link

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia stated, "I congratulate the Wikipedia on this milestone. I thank all the writers of Hebrew Wikipedia who contributed their vast knowledge."

All glory to the Wikipedia!

[Poetlister]

Would you know how to get financial information about a partnership based in London?

I'd certainly figure out how if I were selected to chat with one of London's most recognizable partners, if I determined that one of the things I thought important to ask them about was how they obtain their revenues. I guess I'm just more conscientious than today's "youths" (or "yutes", as Joe Pesci would say), in that I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

P.S. Would I go to Companies House?

If I were you, I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

[Mancunium]

Being Human 2013 Features a Glimpse into the Future of Humanity
WatchList News, 9 July 2013 link

Beinghuman.org has announced that the upcoming Being Human 2013 event on Saturday, September 28, 2013 will include a tantalizing exploration of the future of humanity in a segment entitled “The Future of Being Human.” The segment will feature acclaimed neuroscientist David Eagleman, philosopher/technologist Natasha Vita-More and information designer Jer Thorp at the day-long event taking place in the newly renovated Nourse Theater in San Francisco’s theater district.

Offering a deeper understanding of what it means to be human from a variety of scientific, philosophical and evolutionary perspectives, the second annual Being Human event is being presented in collaboration with KQED, the Long Now Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation. The “Future of Being Human” segment will follow other segments that will focus on “The Biology & Psychology of Ethical Behavior,” “Human Emotions,” and “Love & Sex.”

I can save the Wikimedia Foundation some money.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.
-George Orwell

[thekohser]

If I were you, I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

In this case, I wasn't addressing anyone of real significance, so it wasn't a major worry.

[Poetlister]

If I were you, I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

In this case, I wasn't addressing anyone of real significance, so it wasn't a major worry.

That's a superb way to cover up your mistake. Well done!

[thekohser]

If I were you, I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

In this case, I wasn't addressing anyone of real significance, so it wasn't a major worry.

That's a superb way to cover up your mistake. Well done!

How, pray tell, is asking a question ("P.S. Would I go to Companies House?") making a "mistake"? I wasn't making a statement of fact. I was asking a question. If the answer is "No, you wouldn't go to Companies House," then that's fine with me. There still was no mistake made.

Now, will the smarty-pants who is afraid to use his own name or other identifying information (probably because his life has clearly not amounted to much) please inform the rest of us where one would go to obtain financial information about a London-based partnership?

[SB_Johnny]

If I were you, I'd try not to ask a prepared question that shows a clear lack of preparation.

In this case, I wasn't addressing anyone of real significance, so it wasn't a major worry.

That's a superb way to cover up your mistake. Well done!

How, pray tell, is asking a question ("P.S. Would I go to Companies House?") making a "mistake"? I wasn't making a statement of fact. I was asking a question. If the answer is "No, you wouldn't go to Companies House," then that's fine with me. There still was no mistake made.

Now, will the smarty-pants who is afraid to use his own name or other identifying information (probably because his life has clearly not amounted to much) please inform the rest of us where one would go to obtain financial information about a London-based partnership?

I'm pretty sure Taxwoman would know. You're asking the wrong puppet.

[Reaper Eternal]

I figure that AN/I is at least 500 megabytes of archives,
not counting the "special sections", which are not indexed anywhere that I can find (they're "seekret"!)

Special:PrefixIndex (T-H-L) is your friend. Here are the admin noticeboard subpages.

To find out the number of revisions in a page's history, go to the page and append ?action=history&dir=prev to the URL. Copy the oldid parameter of the first revision. Then change the URL parameters to ?oldid=<your copied oldid>&diff=cur. For example, ANI has 709,823 unoversighted revisions. (The early history is missing....)

[SB_Johnny]

I figure that AN/I is at least 500 megabytes of archives,
not counting the "special sections", which are not indexed anywhere that I can find (they're "seekret"!)

Special:PrefixIndex (T-H-L) is your friend. Here are the admin noticeboard subpages.

Or more specifically here.

Seekret?

[Poetlister]

How, pray tell, is asking a question ("P.S. Would I go to Companies House?") making a "mistake"? I wasn't making a statement of fact. I was asking a question. If the answer is "No, you wouldn't go to Companies House," then that's fine with me. There still was no mistake made.

No, your mistake was to make fun of youngsters from a deprived background in England for not knowing as miuch about American federal documents as you do.

[thekohser]

How, pray tell, is asking a question ("P.S. Would I go to Companies House?") making a "mistake"? I wasn't making a statement of fact. I was asking a question. If the answer is "No, you wouldn't go to Companies House," then that's fine with me. There still was no mistake made.

No, your mistake was to make fun of youngsters from a deprived background in England for not knowing as miuch about American federal documents as you do.

You apparently managed to properly comprehend about 12% of my point in addressing this topic. Congratulations. That's about double what I would have given you credit for.

[Zoloft]

I figure that AN/I is at least 500 megabytes of archives,
not counting the "special sections", which are not indexed anywhere that I can find (they're "seekret"!)

Special:PrefixIndex (T-H-L) is your friend. Here are the admin noticeboard subpages.

Or more specifically here.

Seekret?

My favorite subpage: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Give_us_your_fucking_money (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

Special:PrefixIndex (T-H-L) is your friend. Here are the admin noticeboard subpages.
To find out the number of revisions in a page's history, go to the page and append ?action=history&dir=prev to the URL. Copy the oldid parameter of the first revision. Then change the URL parameters to ?oldid=<your copied oldid>&diff=cur. For example, ANI has 709,823 unoversighted revisions. (The early history is missing....)

You make it sound so simple. Now, show us how to automate that process for a list of articles. And how to find obscure or hidden pages.

My favorite subpage: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Give_us_your_fucking_money (T-H-L)

Most of those "special sections" look like that. Semi-hidden, because they're utter shit.

[Wer900]

I didn't even consider how many revisions Teh Communitah™ made to the "seekrit" AN/I subpages. After 710,000 revisions to the main AN/I, they're still going strong. Excellent.

[SB_Johnny]

My favorite subpage: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Give_us_your_fucking_money (T-H-L)

Most of those "special sections" look like that. Semi-hidden, because they're utter shit.

I'm curious why these particular sections get the "special" treatment.

[Hex]

Or more specifically here.

Yowza, what a find.


There's drama in them there hills!!

I'm curious why these particular sections get the "special" treatment.

I've seen it happen once, and it was completely arbitrary - some admin got tired of seeing an argument on AN/I and decided to plonk the whole thing on a subpage. No basis in policy or guidelines. If I recall correctly, at the time my suspicion was that the admin in question's* sympathies lay with the person on the receiving end of the original complaint, and that they would have benefited from killing it by starving it of attention. I suspect it is almost always thus. Even if not, the action by a well-meaning incompetent of creating such a subpage (e.g., for a matter I was tangentially involved with, and a discussion I would have benefited from seeing - this is the first time) will almost certainly kill it.

Just thought I'd note that discussion should continue, and to disregard my edit summary of "archive". This is not an archive. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No more posts were made to the discussion. Thanks, Eagle101.


* I have no idea who, or what the argument was, any more.

[Hex]

Here's something with a bit of contemporary value...

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse (T-H-L)

Related to the moronic IRC page arbitration of 2007. (A couple of clicks away from that I find Wikipedia:IRC/Personal views regarding IRC (T-H-L). The more things change, the more things stay the same.)

[mac]

Didn't they pull this during one of the AN/I (or AN) events involving Wikipediocracy? I can't find it now, but that was the first time I had seen this tactic used.

[Hex]

Didn't they pull this during one of the AN/I (or AN) events involving Wikipediocracy? I can't find it now, but that was the first time I had seen this tactic used.

Oh yeah, that was it! Only back in March. And er... starting with a post from me. :/ Man, my memory sure is great!

There's been so much hoo-ha and bullshit in this area that I really do struggle to remember it all.

You couldn't find it because it had been named in an inconsistent way:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveExternalSites (T-H-L)

There were only three pages named like that, presumably due to people getting confused with the "Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNNN" format for the standard archives. I've moved them to be subpages of /Incidents like the rest, so they'll show up in that search now.

[EricBarbour]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse (T-H-L)
Related to the moronic IRC page arbitration of 2007.

You couldn't find it because it had been named in an inconsistent way:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveExternalSites (T-H-L)

One wall of shit after another. Now you see why I've given up trying to calculate how much argumentation is on WP servers?

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse (T-H-L)
Related to the moronic IRC page arbitration of 2007.

You couldn't find it because it had been named in an inconsistent way:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveExternalSites (T-H-L)

One wall of shit after another. Now you see why I've given up trying to calculate how much argumentation is on WP servers?

Doesn't it make you wonder whether there is more editing in article space or drama space?

[EricBarbour]

One wall of shit after another. Now you see why I've given up trying to calculate how much argumentation is on WP servers?

Doesn't it make you wonder whether there is more editing in article space or drama space?

If you added up all the old revisions for both article content and talkpage/noticeboard crap, the article-content count might
be larger. Maybe. Because it's almost impossible to find all the argumentation, and so many things were rev-deleted
or oversighted anyway, making even a rough estimate is probably impossible.