text:
White Oak, Georgia

White Oak is an unincorporated community in Camden County, Georgia, United States. The ZIP Code for White Oak is 31568.

History
A post office called White Oak was established in 1894. The community took its name from nearby White Oak Creek.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: White Oak, Georgia


text:
Moduli space

In mathematics, in particular algebraic geometry, a moduli space is a geometric space (usually a scheme or an algebraic stack) whose points represent algebro-geometric objects of some fixed kind, or isomorphism classes of such objects. Such spaces frequently arise as solutions to classification problems: If one can show that a collection of interesting objects (e.g., the smooth algebraic curves of a fixed genus) can be given the structure of a geometric space, then one can parametrize such objects by introducing coordinates on the resulting space. In this context, the term "modulus" is used synonymously with "parameter"; moduli spaces were first understood as spaces of parameters rather than as spaces of objects. A variant of moduli spaces is formal moduli. Bernhard Riemann first used the term "moduli" in 1857.

Motivation
Moduli spaces are spaces of solutions of geometric classification problems. That is, the points of a moduli space correspond to solutions of geometric problems. Here different solutions are identified if they are isomorphic (that is, geometrically the same). Moduli spaces can be thought of as giving a universal space of parameters for the problem. For example, consider the problem of finding all circles in the Euclidean plane up to congruence. Any circle can be described uniquely by giving three points, but many different sets of three points give the same circle: the correspondence is many-to-one. However, circles are uniquely parameterized by giving their center and radius: this is two real parameters and one positive real parameter. Since we are only interested in circles "up to congruence", we identify circles having different centers but the same radius, and so the radius alone suffices to parameterize the set of interest. The moduli space is, therefore, the positive real numbers.

Moduli spaces often carry natural geometric and topological structures as well. In the example of circles, for instance, the moduli space is not just an abstract set, but the absolute value of the difference of the radii defines a metric for determining when two circles are "close". The geometric structure of moduli spaces locally tells us when two solutions of a geometric classification problem are "close", but generally moduli spaces also have a complicated global structure as well.

For example, consider how to describe the collection of lines in R2 which intersect the origin. We want to assign to each line L of this family a quantity that can uniquely identify it—a modulus. An example of such a quantity is the positive angle θ(L) with 0 ≤ θ < π radians. The set of lines L so parametrized is known as P1(R) and is called the real projective line.

We can also describe the collection of lines in R2 that intersect the origin by means of a topological construction. To wit: consider the unit circle S1 ⊂ R2 and notice that every point s ∈ S1 gives a line L(s) in the collection (which joins the origin and s). However, this map is two-to-one, so we want to identify s ~ −s to yield P1(R) ≅ S1/~ where the topology on this space is the quotient topology induced by the quotient map S1 → P1(R).

Thus, when we consider P1(R) as a moduli space of lines that intersect the origin in R2, we capture the ways in which the members (lines in this case) of the family can modulate by continuously varying 0 ≤ θ < π.

Projective space and Grassmannians
The real projective space Pn is a moduli space that parametrizes the space of lines in Rn+1 which pass through the origin. Similarly, complex projective space is the space of all complex lines in Cn+1 passing through the origin.

More generally, the Grassmannian G(k, V) of a vector space V over a field F is the moduli space of all k-dimensional linear subspaces of V.

Projective space as moduli of very ample line bundles generated by global sections
Whenever there is an embedding of a scheme $$X$$ into the universal projective space $$\mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}$$, the embedding is given by a line bundle $$\mathcal{L} \to X$$ and $$n+1$$ sections $$s_0,\ldots,s_n\in\Gamma(X,\mathcal{L})$$ which all don't vanish at the same time. This means, given a point"$x:\text{Spec}(R) \to X$"there is an associated point"$\hat{x}:\text{Spec}(R) \to \mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}$"given by the compositions"$[s_0:\cdots:s_n]\circ x = [s_0(x):\cdots:s_n(x)] \in \mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}(R) $"Then, two line bundles with sections are equivalent"$(\mathcal{L},(s_0,\ldots,s_n))\sim (\mathcal{L}',(s_0',\ldots,s_n'))$"iff there is an isomorphism $$\phi:\mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{L}'$$ such that $$\phi(s_i) = s_i'$$. This means the associated moduli functor "$\mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}:\text{Sch}\to \text{Sets}$"sends a scheme $$X$$ to the set $$\mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}(X) =\left\{ (\mathcal{L},s_0,\ldots,s_n) : \begin{matrix} \mathcal{L} \to X \text{ is a line bundle} \\ s_0,\ldots,s_n\in\Gamma(X,\mathcal{L}) \\ \text{ form a basis of global sections} \end{matrix} \right\} / \sim $$ Showing this is true can be done by running through a series of tautologies: any projective embedding $$i:X \to \mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}$$ gives the globally generated sheaf $$i^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbf{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(1)$$ with sections $$i^*x_0,\ldots,i^*x_n$$. Conversely, given an ample line bundle $$\mathcal{L} \to X$$ globally generated by $$n+1$$ sections gives an embedding as above.

Chow variety
The Chow variety Chow(d,P3) is a projective algebraic variety which parametrizes degree d curves in P3. It is constructed as follows. Let C be a curve of degree d in P3, then consider all the lines in P3 that intersect the curve C. This is a degree d divisor DC in G(2, 4), the Grassmannian of lines in P3. When C varies, by associating C to DC, we obtain a parameter space of degree d curves as a subset of the space of degree d divisors of the Grassmannian: Chow(d,P3).

Hilbert scheme
The Hilbert scheme Hilb(X) is a moduli scheme. Every closed point of Hilb(X) corresponds to a closed subscheme of a fixed scheme X, and every closed subscheme is represented by such a point. A simple example of a Hilbert scheme is the Hilbert scheme parameterizing degree $$d$$ hypersurfaces of projective space $$\mathbb{P}^n$$. This is given by the projective bundle"$\mathcal{Hilb}_d(\mathbb{P}^n) = \mathbb{P}(\Gamma(\mathcal{O}(d)))$"with universal family given by"$\mathcal{U} = \{ (V(f), f) : f \in \Gamma(\mathcal{O}(d)) \}$"where $$V(f)$$ is the associated projective scheme for the degree $$d$$ homogeneous polynomial $$f$$.

Definitions
There are several related notions of things we could call moduli spaces. Each of these definitions formalizes a different notion of what it means for the points of space M to represent geometric objects.

Fine moduli spaces
This is the standard concept. Heuristically, if we have a space M for which each point m ∊ M corresponds to an algebro-geometric object Um, then we can assemble these objects into a tautological family U over M. (For example, the Grassmannian G(k, V) carries a rank k bundle whose fiber at any point [L] ∊ G(k, V) is simply the linear subspace L ⊂ V.) M is called a base space of the family U. We say that such a family is universal if any family of algebro-geometric objects T over any base space B is the pullback of U along a unique map B → M. A fine moduli space is a space M which is the base of a universal family.

More precisely, suppose that we have a functor F from schemes to sets, which assigns to a scheme B the set of all suitable families of objects with base B. A space M is a fine moduli space for the functor F if M represents F, i.e., there is a natural isomorphism τ : F → Hom(−, M), where Hom(−, M) is the functor of points. This implies that M carries a universal family; this family is the family on M corresponding to the identity map 1M ∊ Hom(M, M).

Coarse moduli spaces
Fine moduli spaces are desirable, but they do not always exist and are frequently difficult to construct, so mathematicians sometimes use a weaker notion, the idea of a coarse moduli space. A space M is a coarse moduli space for the functor F if there exists a natural transformation τ : F → Hom(−, M) and τ is universal among such natural transformations. More concretely, M is a coarse moduli space for F if any family T over a base B gives rise to a map φT : B → M and any two objects V and W (regarded as families over a point) correspond to the same point of M if and only if V and W are isomorphic. Thus, M is a space which has a point for every object that could appear in a family, and whose geometry reflects the ways objects can vary in families. Note, however, that a coarse moduli space does not necessarily carry any family of appropriate objects, let alone a universal one.

In other words, a fine moduli space includes both a base space M and universal family U → M, while a coarse moduli space only has the base space M.

Moduli stacks
It is frequently the case that interesting geometric objects come equipped with many natural automorphisms. This in particular makes the existence of a fine moduli space impossible (intuitively, the idea is that if L is some geometric object, the trivial family L × [0,1] can be made into a twisted family on the circle S1 by identifying L × {0} with L × {1} via a nontrivial automorphism. Now if a fine moduli space X existed, the map S1 → X should not be constant, but would have to be constant on any proper open set by triviality), one can still sometimes obtain a coarse moduli space. However, this approach is not ideal, as such spaces are not guaranteed to exist, they are frequently singular when they do exist, and miss details about some non-trivial families of objects they classify.

A more sophisticated approach is to enrich the classification by remembering the isomorphisms. More precisely, on any base B one can consider the category of families on B with only isomorphisms between families taken as morphisms. One then considers the fibred category which assigns to any space B the groupoid of families over B. The use of these categories fibred in groupoids to describe a moduli problem goes back to Grothendieck (1960/61). In general, they cannot be represented by schemes or even algebraic spaces, but in many cases, they have a natural structure of an algebraic stack.

Algebraic stacks and their use to analyze moduli problems appeared in Deligne-Mumford (1969) as a tool to prove the irreducibility of the (coarse) moduli space of curves of a given genus. The language of algebraic stacks essentially provides a systematic way to view the fibred category that constitutes the moduli problem as a "space", and the moduli stack of many moduli problems is better-behaved (such as smooth) than the corresponding coarse moduli space.

Moduli of curves
The moduli stack $$\mathcal{M}_{g}$$ classifies families of smooth projective curves of genus g, together with their isomorphisms. When g > 1, this stack may be compactified by adding new "boundary" points which correspond to stable nodal curves (together with their isomorphisms). A curve is stable if it has only a finite group of automorphisms. The resulting stack is denoted $$\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g}$$. Both moduli stacks carry universal families of curves. One can also define coarse moduli spaces representing isomorphism classes of smooth or stable curves. These coarse moduli spaces were actually studied before the notion of moduli stack was invented. In fact, the idea of a moduli stack was invented by Deligne and Mumford in an attempt to prove the projectivity of the coarse moduli spaces. In recent years, it has become apparent that the stack of curves is actually the more fundamental object.

Both stacks above have dimension 3g−3; hence a stable nodal curve can be completely specified by choosing the values of 3g−3 parameters, when g > 1. In lower genus, one must account for the presence of smooth families of automorphisms, by subtracting their number. There is exactly one complex curve of genus zero, the Riemann sphere, and its group of isomorphisms is PGL(2). Hence, the dimension of $$\mathcal{M}_0$$ is

 * dim(space of genus zero curves) − dim(group of automorphisms) = 0 − dim(PGL(2)) = −3.

Likewise, in genus 1, there is a one-dimensional space of curves, but every such curve has a one-dimensional group of automorphisms. Hence, the stack $$\mathcal{M}_1$$ has dimension 0. The coarse moduli spaces have dimension 3g−3 as the stacks when g > 1 because the curves with genus g > 1 have only a finite group as its automorphism i.e. dim(a group of automorphisms) = 0. Eventually, in genus zero, the coarse moduli space has dimension zero, and in genus one, it has dimension one.

One can also enrich the problem by considering the moduli stack of genus g nodal curves with n marked points. Such marked curves are said to be stable if the subgroup of curve automorphisms which fix the marked points is finite. The resulting moduli stacks of smooth (or stable) genus g curves with n-marked points are denoted $$\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$$ (or $$\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}$$), and have dimension 3g − 3 + n.

A case of particular interest is the moduli stack $$\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{1,1}$$ of genus 1 curves with one marked point. This is the stack of elliptic curves, and is the natural home of the much studied modular forms, which are meromorphic sections of bundles on this stack.

Moduli of varieties
In higher dimensions, moduli of algebraic varieties are more difficult to construct and study. For instance, the higher-dimensional analogue of the moduli space of elliptic curves discussed above is the moduli space of abelian varieties, such as the Siegel modular variety. This is the problem underlying Siegel modular form theory. See also Shimura variety.

Using techniques arising out of the minimal model program, moduli spaces of varieties of general type were constructed by János Kollár and Nicholas Shepherd-Barron, now known as KSB moduli spaces.

Using techniques arising out of differential geometry and birational geometry simultaneously, the construction of moduli spaces of Fano varieties has been achieved by restricting to a special class of K-stable varieties. In this setting important results about boundedness of Fano varieties proven by Caucher Birkar are used, for which he was awarded the 2018 Fields medal.

The construction of moduli spaces of Calabi-Yau varieties is an important open problem, and only special cases such as moduli spaces of K3 surfaces or Abelian varieties are understood.

Moduli of vector bundles
Another important moduli problem is to understand the geometry of (various substacks of) the moduli stack Vectn(X) of rank n vector bundles on a fixed algebraic variety X. This stack has been most studied when X is one-dimensional, and especially when n equals one. In this case, the coarse moduli space is the Picard scheme, which like the moduli space of curves, was studied before stacks were invented. When the bundles have rank 1 and degree zero, the study of coarse moduli space is the study of the Jacobian variety.

In applications to physics, the number of moduli of vector bundles and the closely related problem of the number of moduli of principal G-bundles has been found to be significant in gauge theory.

Volume of the moduli space
Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces.

Methods for constructing moduli spaces
The modern formulation of moduli problems and definition of moduli spaces in terms of the moduli functors (or more generally the categories fibred in groupoids), and spaces (almost) representing them, dates back to Grothendieck (1960/61), in which he described the general framework, approaches, and main problems using Teichmüller spaces in complex analytical geometry as an example. The talks, in particular, describe the general method of constructing moduli spaces by first rigidifying the moduli problem under consideration.

More precisely, the existence of non-trivial automorphisms of the objects being classified makes it impossible to have a fine moduli space. However, it is often possible to consider a modified moduli problem of classifying the original objects together with additional data, chosen in such a way that the identity is the only automorphism respecting also the additional data. With a suitable choice of the rigidifying data, the modified moduli problem will have a (fine) moduli space T, often described as a subscheme of a suitable Hilbert scheme or Quot scheme. The rigidifying data is moreover chosen so that it corresponds to a principal bundle with an algebraic structure group G. Thus one can move back from the rigidified problem to the original by taking quotient by the action of G, and the problem of constructing the moduli space becomes that of finding a scheme (or more general space) that is (in a suitably strong sense) the quotient T/G of T by the action of G. The last problem, in general, does not admit a solution; however, it is addressed by the groundbreaking geometric invariant theory (GIT), developed by David Mumford in 1965, which shows that under suitable conditions the quotient indeed exists.

To see how this might work, consider the problem of parametrizing smooth curves of the genus g > 2. A smooth curve together with a complete linear system of degree d > 2g is equivalent to a closed one dimensional subscheme of the projective space Pd−g. Consequently, the moduli space of smooth curves and linear systems (satisfying certain criteria) may be embedded in the Hilbert scheme of a sufficiently high-dimensional projective space. This locus H in the Hilbert scheme has an action of PGL(n) which mixes the elements of the linear system; consequently, the moduli space of smooth curves is then recovered as the quotient of H by the projective general linear group.

Another general approach is primarily associated with Michael Artin. Here the idea is to start with an object of the kind to be classified and study its deformation theory. This means first constructing infinitesimal deformations, then appealing to prorepresentability theorems to put these together into an object over a formal base. Next, an appeal to Grothendieck's formal existence theorem provides an object of the desired kind over a base which is a complete local ring. This object can be approximated via Artin's approximation theorem by an object defined over a finitely generated ring. The spectrum of this latter ring can then be viewed as giving a kind of coordinate chart on the desired moduli space. By gluing together enough of these charts, we can cover the space, but the map from our union of spectra to the moduli space will, in general, be many to one. We, therefore, define an equivalence relation on the former; essentially, two points are equivalent if the objects over each are isomorphic. This gives a scheme and an equivalence relation, which is enough to define an algebraic space (actually an algebraic stack if we are being careful) if not always a scheme.

In physics
The term moduli space is sometimes used in physics to refer specifically to the moduli space of vacuum expectation values of a set of scalar fields, or to the moduli space of possible string backgrounds.

Moduli spaces also appear in physics in topological field theory, where one can use Feynman path integrals to compute the intersection numbers of various algebraic moduli spaces.

Construction tools

 * Hilbert scheme
 * Quot scheme
 * Deformation theory
 * GIT quotient
 * Artin's criterion, general criterion for constructing moduli spaces as algebraic stacks from moduli functors

Moduli spaces

 * Moduli of algebraic curves
 * Moduli stack of elliptic curves
 * Moduli spaces of K-stable Fano varieties
 * Modular curve
 * Picard functor
 * Moduli of semistable sheaves on a curve
 * Kontsevich moduli space
 * Moduli of semistable sheaves

Fundamental papers

 * Mumford, David, Geometric invariant theory. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Neue Folge, Band 34 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York 1965 vi+145 pp
 * Mumford, David; Fogarty, J.; Kirwan, F. Geometric invariant theory. Third edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (2) (Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (2)), 34. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. xiv+292 pp. ISBN 3-540-56963-4

Other references

 * Papadopoulos, Athanase, ed. (2007), Handbook of Teichmüller theory. Vol. I, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 11, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich,, ISBN 978-3-03719-029-6,
 * Papadopoulos, Athanase, ed. (2009), Handbook of Teichmüller theory. Vol. II, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 13, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich,, ISBN 978-3-03719-055-5,
 * Papadopoulos, Athanase, ed. (2012), Handbook of Teichmüller theory. Vol. III, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 17, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich,, ISBN 978-3-03719-103-3.

Other articles and sources

 * Maryam Mirzakhani (2007) "Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces" Inventiones Mathematicae
 * Maryam Mirzakhani (2007) "Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces" Inventiones Mathematicae

title: Moduli space


text:
Wikipedia talk:Edit conflicts

Concurrent edits
When two users edit an article simultaneously and don't know about each other, it may take some work to integrate the concurrent changes. Wouldn't it be useful to have an alert "user:soandso is currently editing this page" and some means of communication so you can coordinate your work? Don't know if it's technically feasible; do others consider it desirable? Kosebamse 10:33 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is not possible to know whether another user is editing a page, because we don't have spies sitting on their desktops watching what they do. ;) The most we could know without installing spyware is whether another user has loaded the edit page or run a preview recently (ie, with an arbitrary timeout). This would be somewhat problematic for two reasons:
 * False negatives: people taking longer to make their changes than the timeout allows; end result is same as present, another user can unknowingly make an edit, and when the first guy comes back and hits save, he is informed of an edit conflict and must merge.
 * False positives: people hitting the edit link accidentally or just to copy/check out the source of a page, or starting to edit but deciding not to. (Or worse yet, misdirected web spiders hitting every edit page on the site...) Meanwhile, users will be scared off from trying to edit, and may never make that excellent, clean edit that would have taken three seconds to merge. End result: less productive activity on the wiki.
 * I at least don't find it a particularly good trade-off. What might be a good idea though is making a note of edit conflicts at the preview stage. --Brion 11:31 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

If I create a new page, and then make another edit or two, it would be nice if a flag would pop up for 5-10 minutes indicating that Im probably working on the article. Likewise, if I make a series of edits within a short time to an older page, its probably a good guess that Im making yet another edit. It would also be useful if a user who had made 10 edits to a page (without any other user making interim edits) could delete the 9 previous edits, thus making it appear as if they had only made one major edit. Susan Mason

 * Quite so, Susan. That last idea would be really neat, but not very practical from a software design point of view, I imagine. Since I started putting in progress in the comment field when I make the first edit of a series, and then still going (or etc.) as I go, and then done for now for the last one, I don't get nearly as many edit conflicts. Not a 100% cure of course, but worth doing. Mind you, lately I've been working on obscure articles that no-one else much edits anyway, so I guess that helps too. :) Tannin

Ideally, Wikipedia should merge the changes automatically whenever they don't genuinely conflict with each other. There are command-line tools available for this (namely diff -u and patch, which are also used by CVS I believe). This certainly can't be too hard to code? -- Timwi 17:32 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What Timwi suggests just above abt a year ago, or something similar, is now in effect with IIRC MediaWiki 1.3.

Nevertheless, some benefit could still be realized by warning of "genuine conflicts", i think without being subject to the objections stated above. Those of us who do big rewrites may go for an hour or more, without posting an in-use msg, repeatedly previewing, but not saving, for these reasons:
 * the in-use msg permanently complicates the history for a transient purpose;
 * and the conflicts are rare enuf that individual efforts (unneeded saves; adding & remembering to remove in-use msg; history reviews (see below)) to avoid them are disproportionate;
 * but saving more often
 * also clutters the history,
 * both saves and exposes a half-finished version that has inconsistent style and as-yet-unsatisified references (explicit or implicit) to points later in the article, and
 * (where the unfinished nature of the save fails to scream "work in progress" to an editor who's watching Recent changes) increases the chances of an edit conflict in the near future.

The measure i have in mind is
 * giving notice of an edit conflict in the making, whenever Bob previews a page that Alice has saved (between Bob's start of editing and the preview), instead of only when Bob actually saves.

This permits Bob to make choices, including
 * remediating the conflict immediately, instead of later on when his further editing has made the conflict more complicated, or
 * even considering the incipient conflict a warning that Alice (or Charley, who's watching Recent Changes) is likely to edit the article, with still more edit conflicts in prospect when Bob does finally save.

Admittedly, Bob can provide this service to himself by opening another window and looking at the page history periodically, but --Jerzy(t) 17:21, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
 * it's a frustrating discipline, since it's rarely needed (i.e., better work for a computer than a person), and
 * Bob can't easily view the diffs between his unsaved draft and Alice's save, as the save-time Edit-conflict page does, and the preview-time one could.

Wikipedia punishes users who do large edits
I just finished editing Islam and fixing some of the dozens of typos and nonsensical sentences that permeate that article. When I submitted my changes, I was informed that someone had made an edit in the meantime, forcing me to spend another five minutes laboriously scrolling up and down, adding in my changes again. I submitted the new changes and found that someone had wiped out an entire section of the original article in the meantime. I gave up and lost all my edits.

So what are my options here? Either I can submit my changes every thirty seconds, filling up the article history with inane trivia, or wonder why Wiki isn't smart enough to combine simple changes. It could at least have some feature to save the endless scrolling up and down while reinserting my changes. -- silsor 00:16, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is too stupid to merge changes because we don't have enough developers to have them spending time on this sort of thing. So for the time being you will have to put up with it. I should note that sometimes it is easier to merge the other person's edits into your text than to merge your edits into their text. -- Tim Starling 00:32, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * D'oh, I should have thought of that! From looking at the page history it looks like the other changes were just part of the edit war over a couple of links.  I'll try to redo all my edits at home tonight. -- silsor

 * Of course it would still require some developer work, but might the merging code from an open source project like CVS be usable as a drop-in module? If it merges okay, then use the merged version; if not, then still report the edit conflict as usual.  This would at least remove edit conflicts in the cases where two people are simultaneously editing completely different sections of the document. --Delirium 03:43, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * Merging code is similar to merging wikitext -- there are some conflicts which no computer could ever merge, specifically whenever two people edit the same thing. One difference is that CVS does a line-by-line diff, and we usually do a character-by-character (LCS-based) diff. But by all means, submit it to feature requests, if it's not already there. -- Tim Starling 04:54, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * There's something to be said for doing changes in more incremental steps. This makes the changelog rather easier to read and the deltas rather easier to understand (providing you do the changes in a logically partitioned fashion). So one change to fix links, another to fix grammar, another to reorder paragraphs, another to rewrite bad grammar in paragraph one - that makes (for me at least) a more legible changelog than a single megadelta that makes tweaks to every single bit of the article. -- Finlay McWalter 00:49, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Finlay's advice is good. However, if you work this way, please add summaries to each of your changes so that other users can understand what you have done. And also, saving incremental changes shouldn't be a substitute for using the Preview button. There are some users who, for whatever reason, make ten, twenty edits at a time without summaries and just clog up the article history. BTW, Edit conflicts are indeed a royal PITA but they don't happen that often. Except for a few very busy pages (new and/or controversial), you should find you have most pages to yourself. -- Viajero 13:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Nearly all of the edit conflicts I have had have been within the first ten minutes or less of the creation of a new article. It seems to be part of the current culture to make spelling corrections, add stub warnings, change formats etc etc etc in this timescale.

 * This can be a problem. In one recent case a newbie was making his third contribution, the first two had been good minor corrections to articles about which he was well qualified to comment, one was for his country of residence for example. His third contribution was to create a new article, again in a field of his expertise, which he wrote offline. Owing to our performance problems of the time he had trouble saving it, and on his third attempt saved instead just an external link to an information source, which is of course a sub-stub and an innocent mistake. He intended to put up the whole article as soon as he could, he'd already written it after all. Six minutes later the sub-stub was deleted. He gave up.

 * I have contacted this user by email and he says he will be back, fortunately he had also created a user page with an email address. The sub-stub was undeleted on someone else's protest, and is now an excellent article, but the original creator has taken no futher part in editing it, so presumably the text he wrote was wasted. The above is from his account to me, and also my perusal of article history and votes for undeletion at the time. He sees it as quite funny. But I see a problem here, which I have raised before.

 * Everybody acted properly and in good faith. The sub-stub met the criteria for instant deletion. Food for thought? Andrewa 15:50, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Being a sub-stub alone shouldn't be sufficient to qualify for instant deletion (or VfD). Being a sub-stub that's several days old should be, naturally, as would blank, offensive, and nonsense ones, as now. To avoid our forgetting about these guys, it should be fairly simply to cook up a SQL query that selects all articles which are more than three days old and that have fewer than say 40 characters in their body. -- Finlay McWalter 17:32, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that some delay should precede action on any recently-changed page unless the edit is vandalism of some sort. Yes, a query is an excellent idea. What about an alternative version of Recent changes that only lists pages unchanged for the last 60 minutes? Keep the existing one too for the moment, although I suspect that even many vandals would be better handled using the delay.

 * The vast majority of the edit conflicts I have personally encountered would not even have occurred under this rule. Personally I doubt there is any really good solution to edit conflicts, so reducing their number seems a good idea. It saves the time not only of the person originally working on the article, but also of the copy-editor, sysop or whoever else currently jumps in as soon as you hit "save page".

 * I'm about to go away for a few days (not avoiding Wikipedia, another project). I may be ready for a go at updating the current Deletion policy and some related areas when I get back, to address these issues. Or maybe someone else wants to attend to it sooner? Andrewa 00:21, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You can't make changes to the deletion policy based on things like saying articles have to wait an hour or whatever before they can be deleted. Recent changes does not work this way. Unless you can come up with a solution to that, nonsense has to be deleted when it is found, which is going to be within the first few minutes of its creation. Further comments on this should go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Angela

 * There are several possible technical solutions, one of them I described above. An hour is modest, someone else suggested several days. The more challenging problem is the culture shift required. Please note by culture shift I don't mean challenging the underlying goals. I just mean challenging some current practices (such as the instant deletion of sub-stubs, and things that cause unnecessary edit conflicts) that perhaps don't support those goals as well as they might.

 * Please feel free to move this discussion to wherever it belongs. Andrewa 21:16, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * What I do in a case as Silsor describes, where I have been editing at several places in a page, and then got an edit conflict, is to copy-and-paste my version into the edit box, add a warning about edit conflicts in the summary, and hit save. Then afterward I check what the other person has changed, and I will encorporate his/her changes on the page again. If you have done edits at many places, such a 'reverse merge' is usually easier than a standard one. Andre Engels 21:13, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See MergingAutomatically. Martin 20:38, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I have experienced a few times the frustration of doing complicated edits only to find out I have to piece it all together again. So now when I am doing a large edit, I will first add to the top of the article "Please do not edit this page for the next 10 minutes because I am doing a large edit," then save it, and then do my large edit. It seems to work.

Edit conflicts confined to a single section
Is the software clever enough to detect whether an edit conflict is confined to a single section of an article? I ask because Dysprosia and I just clashed heads on this page whilst editing what was at that point the final section. I was explicitly editing that section, but I have no idea what Dysprosia had selected. Whatever the odds, I was presented with the entire page to sort out, just for the sake of about 10 lines at the bottom. Phil 12:06, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh yeah, gotta love that kind of edit conflict. And currently the software is that dumb :)
 * Best bet is to copy an addition ready to paste back if a conflict occurs - if your changes are less monolithic then there's no other really easy way... Dysprosia 12:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Agree. I learned during the many past times when one would save only to be told that page no longer exists. I always block and copy my additions in anticipation of something going South before the save goes through - Marshman 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * See EditConflict and MergingAutomatically for alternatives. See bug reports to suggest them to the developers. See Wikitech-l to volunteer to help develop the software. Martin 00:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Policy on edit conflicts
mailing list post regarding the changes made to this page.

 * This is really a good laugh worth to be posted here. Martin writes: "I have rewritten edit conflicts to specifically deal with this issue. By the powers vested in me by the Wikipedia power structure, I hereby declare those changes to be de facto official, subject of course to overruling by other sysops, mailing list opinion, talk page opinion, and Jimbo's veto." Delusion of grandeur? As far as I'm aware he's an ordinary sysop, and sysops don't have a right to unilaterally write policy. --Wik 01:58, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I support this policy and am therefore reverting to it until Wik can come up with some reason opposing it. Angela 02:15, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I also support the policy. It seems to be basically nothing more than an expansion of what edit conflicts are and some warnings about possible problems. The only guidelines are politeness-based, and should hardly be controversial AFAICT.  Tuf-Kat 02:20, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * I oppose it because it encourages people to override edit conflicts. Why should the one who has been overwritten have to restore his own edit again? It's punishing the victim. The one who causes a problem (even if accidental) should be responsible to rectify it. --Wik 02:22, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where it encourages people to override edit conflicts. It seems to pretty explicitly require the opposite. Tuf-Kat
 * It says the person who has been overwritten can't revert to his edit. So there's nothing that inhibits people from overriding edit conflicts, and let the other person sort it out. --Wik 02:32, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is something. The page clearly says "Bob should not just post his changes over the top of Alice's." Andre Engels 09:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather noncommittal. Why is this a "should not" and the reversion a boldfaced "must not"? Also, people can always claim it was a mistake. This will never lead to any consequences. --Wik 15:04, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
 * A person who consistently does so is certainly violating this policy. The policy protects an occasional, accidental overwriting from being reverted outright, in accordance with Wikiquette. -- Cyan 03:56, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I also support this new policy. -- Cyan 03:37, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I support the proposed policy too. It should be common sense that everybody just understands, but alas, WP allows in the people who failed kindergarten and were subsequently home-schooled because no one else would put up with their atrocious behavior. I wonder if Wik will accept a 100-to-1 vote, or if he will insist on being outvoted 1000-to-1. Stan 03:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik, your objections are noted for the record. Nevertheless, this is now official policy. Naturally, you are welcome to protest this policy in a number of ways: you may appeal to the mailing list, to the community, to influential individuals within the community, or directly to Jimbo Wales. You may also provide arguments against the policy on this talk page, which will influence future policymakers, long after I am dead.

I have no special powers, save those I gain from the power structure, which are sufficient. If you can see why, you may yet become enlightened. Behold, thou art made whole: go and sin no more. -- Martin 18:46, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't see what on the power structure page says you have any special powers. You have no right to set policy and I will not respect your proposal. Nor, by the way, does the mailing list have any authority. Those extra-wiki cliques, and the very idea of "influential individuals", go completely against the spirit of a cooperative project. Jimbo, of course, has the power to set strict policies, but it is up to you to appeal to him if you want your policies made official. They are not official because you say so, and I don't have to appeal to Jimbo to repeal them. --Wik 19:00, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * It's pretty funny to hear you use the phrase "cooperative project", considering that you personally have introduced more anger and upset into the project as a whole than any other single editor in the past month. Stan 19:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are quite correct that this policy is not official merely because I wrote it. Nevertheless, it is official. If you can see why, you may yet be enlightened. In the mean time, your opinion that this policy is not official is noted for the record. You may rest assured that the community does not desire that you respect its policies, merely that you follow them. Martin 19:28, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I am part of the community and therefore this is not "the community's policy". And when I say I don't respect your policy, it means I won't follow it. You should really come down to Earth sometime. The policies are not made by you, nor by a small clique, but by consensus - which we quite obviously haven't got here. --Wik 19:37, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Nauru Bwiema-->Talk:Nauru Bwiema

From article:

Policy from this point is not official. Bob should not just post his changes over the top of Alice's. While we accept that mistakes are occasionally made, routinely ignoring edit conflicts isn't appropriate.

 * So, I suppose...

 * The official policy is that Bob should just post his changes over the top of Alice's. Although we do not accept that mistakes are ever made, routinely ignoring edit conflicts is appropriate.

 * (I know this probably isn't what was intended.) Κσυπ Cyp    20:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I suspect Wik meant to place his disclaimer in a different location, since his point of view, as expressed above, is that Bob should indeed not post his changes over the top of Alice's. I'm sure Wiki will explain if I am incorrect, though. Martin 21:54, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * No, my view is that this is too weak. It should say "Bob must not post his changes over the top of Alice's" etc. --Wik 22:06, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

The change history on this page is getting even funnier than San Serriffe! It seems that Wik's idea of "cooperation" on this edit conflict policy is to revert other people's changes over and over, hee hee... Stan 02:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik, no it is not "absurd to make the language in the second case stronger than in the first." This is what started the whole thing. It is impossible to deny that it is easier to replace one word than it is to replace entire paragraphs. - Hephaestos 02:09, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The quantity makes no difference. The other person can always simply revert to the version with the paragraph and then add the missing word. The point is: how can the reaction to someone's wrongdoing be worse than that person's wrongdoing itself? You could either condemn the original wrongdoing more than the reaction, or at best you can condemn both equally, but you can not possibly condemn the reaction more than the action. --Wik 02:17, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh I certainly can. Often the first breach is by accident; a wilful reaction never is. - Hephaestos 02:39, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * We aren't talking about accidents but about cases where someone who must have gotten the edit conflict warning obviously ignored it and simply copied his stuff over the previous edit. --Wik 02:59, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, what constitutes evidence that makes such an occurence obvious? It would help if you could list edits where you think this has happened to you. Then we can ask the other people involved what they experienced, and come up with guidelines that will satisfy everyone. -- Cyan 03:31, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * If a user gets the edit conflict screen, he can be expected to either repeat his edit on the basis of the previous user's edit, or analyze the diff and repeat the previous user's edit on the basis of his. It may be an accident if a user applies the latter method and misses a part of the previous user's edit, but if he reverts the entire previous edit, he apparently hasn't even tried. --Wik 03:48, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * OK, good. Now riddle me this: how do you know if the other person has even seen the edit conflict screen? Sometimes, if people goes from the edit history to the page, they might click on the wrong edit by accident, and miss the "out-of-date version" warning. This has apparently happened to you at Richard Neustadt, and I hypothesize that it happened to RickK at Bush dynasty (history now located at List of US political families), since his edit there reversing your corrections occurred over an hour after yours. If you can't be absolutely certain that the other person has seen the edit conflict screen, it seems to me that the assuming good faith fosters the best collaborative atmosphere, and a policy expressing that thought is entirely reasonable. (Of course, if a contributor is consistently overwriting others, then it becomes plausible that they're doing it deliberately, and their Wikiquette violation should be dicussed with them on their talk page.) -- Cyan 07:59, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The passage that I'm trying to make as strong as the other is "However, routinely ignoring edit conflicts isn't appropriate." We aren't talking about accidents. Why is "routinely ignoring edit conflicts" merely "not appropriate", while the reversion is "absolutely not acceptable"? --Wik 23:29, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

If we get a problem with people routinely ignoring edit conflicts, then we can consider making the advice stronger. For now, the community is more exercised by the one problem than the other, as can be seen from discussion in a number of places. Martin 13:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I am part of the community and I have had problems with such people. --Wik 23:29, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well Wik, from what I've seen, you haven't acted like part of the community. Instead of talking to other parties when their edits conflict with yours, you simply revert. And I've seen at least one instance when the other party has asked why you insist on reverting, you failed to answer or explain your position. IMHO, that's not very conductive to resolving edit conflicts.

 * Or have I simply seen a misrepresentative sample of your edits here on WP? I'd like to see an instance where you tried to work thru conflicts, & were either successful or unsuccessful. -- llywrch 01:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Where have I not answered when asked? I've had lots of discussions about this. Yes, I reverted when someone reverted my edit first. If I accidentally revert someone, I won't mind if he reverts me either. I would recognize it was my mistake and would simply redo my edit properly, without complaining. Is it so hard to take this simple responsibility? --Wik 02:40, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, perhaps you could point to some examples of people who routinely and deliberately ignore edit conflicts? Martin 02:43, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't remember all the specific cases. One example I can find is 207.179.108.132 (see history of Rusty Schweickart, where that user twice reverted my entire edit). --Wik 03:03, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Seems most likely a newcomer who didn't understand the edit conflict boxes and got confused. Did you try dropping an explanation on hir user talk page? A link to this page should be sufficient, now it's been rewritten. Martin 03:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Your double standard is now more than obvious. For the one side you always find the most far-fetched excuse, the other you want to condemn in the strongest terms. Sorry, if you want to establish that policy take it to Jimbo; until he agrees to it explicitly I will revert it. --Wik 03:23, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * It's hardly far-fetched to imagine that newcomers may not understand the edit conflict screen on first instance: there have been plenty of instances of confused newcomers making this kind of error. On being politely informed that they've made an error, often they change their behaviour for good, and never cause further problems. Martin 23:45, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You chose to say "have I not answered when asked?" Wik, you seem to never ask before you revert, which unfortunately leads to many more angry exchanges. Could this perhaps reveal something of your temper? (Getting annoyed & not entertained over the irony of edit conflicts on this page.) -- llywrch 03:28, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Again, where have I not answered when asked? You said "when the other party has asked why you insist on reverting, you failed to answer". This is not true. And I don't see what I should ask before I revert; if it's the other person's fault, it's up to him to ask if it isn't obvious to him why I revert; if he asks, I will answer. --Wik 03:32, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * The reason you should ask is simple. Reverting an edit without any explanation -- especially repeated reversions -- generates ill will. This leads to an edit war between you & someone else, which forces an admin to lock the article, & thus keeps anyone from making contributions -- thus generating more ill will from even more people.

 * Have you noticed that an awful lot of ill will has accumulated towards you here on Wikipedia? And in an environment, like Wikipedia, where consensus is essential for accomplishing anything of lasting importance, if everyone has an unfavorable opinion about you, it could be fatal to your work here. I suggest you consider ways to be more diplomatic here. -- llywrch 17:48, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Reverting an edit in those cases rarely leads to an edit war, I don't think it has ever led to a page protection. And if you say reverting an edit generates ill will, why don't you condemn the one who starts it? Also, I don't see "everyone" having an unfavourable opinion about me, only those who seem to think this is a social club rather than an encyclopaedia. I'm getting along fine with those who actually want to improve articles rather than wasting time with discussions such as this one. Consensus is essential - indeed, so if you want to change the policy you'll have to convince me, otherwise there is no consensus. --Wik 18:49, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * As an aside, that's not true: many of our policies don't have a unanimous consensus in support - including such basic things as neutral point of view. Martin 23:17, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think I've ever experienced the specific case Wik is talking about, but if that had happened to me, I'm sure I would have just fixed it myself. It's not much use to blame the other person, even if it was their fault. The point is to make a good article, not get protective over your specific edits. Adam Bishop 17:57, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Most likely it did happen to you, you just didn't notice it. I fixed it myself the first few times too, but it gets tiresome fast. --Wik 18:49, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * Wik is carefully not mentioning the situation with Danny on Sarah Edmonds, where his idea of communication was "(rv (Danny ignored edit conflict))" in his second of six reverts, and his idea of answering the question on his talk page was first to make an accusation, then to say "This is pretty clear" and a link to a diff, which was actually completely unclear, because he was objecting to a grand total of two words in the midst of two paragraphs of changes. Instead of simply saying which two words he was objecting to (two words!), he was ready to delete everybody's else work over and over until somebody (Hephaestos I think) finally guessed at what he was freaking out about. Talk about a double standard! Wik expects everybody else to work harder to make him happy, but for his part wants to be able to revert reflexively with no edit summary or talk page entry, because it's apparently too much time and trouble to communicate with the "community" he claims to be part of. Stan 19:08, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is an edit conflict? I thought that if X and Y are reverting to their versions, Z makes a non-controversial change in an undisputed section, and X reverts Z's change, while reverting Y's change, that that would be considered ignoring an edit conflict, but apparently I was wrong. So apparently I don't understand edit conflicts properly. Are edit conflicts limited to the cases, where an edit conflict screen appears? Κσυπ Cyp    21:19, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New legislation enables teachers to better control the class

The senate voted 20-1 today in favour of the new legislation that should solve problems with unruly children in classes. All teachers will be equipped with nuclear warheads, for use against the kids who don't behave in class. Although there has been some criticism from fundamentalist environmentalists about the effect on the environment, and certain human rights activists have voiced their concerns, there is a general consensus that teachers should be allowed to react with nuclear retaliation against misbehaving kids. After all, noone could possibly condemn the teachers' reaction any more than the bad behaviour of the kids. Preliminary reports indicate that the new legislation is effective, as thousands of disruptive kids have already been vapourised in the resulting fireballs. Sure some may be innocent, but it's the price we must pay for justice. There have been some minor protests against the new legislation, but all the protestors were somehow vapourised. A stray nuclear missile is suspected to be the cause.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that there's an edit war over the page on edit conflicts? --Delirium 23:28, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * No, I find it quite amusing too. Martin 23:34, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm the one who gets to ruin the joke. I took one look at who's involved & protected the page. (So much for trying to be a moderator.) -- llywrch 00:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Oops. I didn't look at the time stamps. I guess I'm just adding to the joke. -- llywrch 00:45, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Undoc'd Bug or Feature in Edit-Conflict handling?
(What i've written below is long; when you get bored, consider jumping back to the top of the page, and linking via the ToC to the next item.) This edit and this one may reflect something new, if someone was testing out relevant new code late-ish Friday UTC. Or it may have been there a while (i assume since 1.3 came on line), waiting for me to get bold in my big-page editing technique. And in either case it may be a bug ("Wow, it never occurred to me that could result.") or a feature ("Hey, anyone pushing the envelope that far deserves something just like that happening to them."). I'll rap my own knuckles in the second case. But in either case, i'd hope we could get the danger (of unexpected and unnoticed results of saves) documented somewhere that's linked from edit conflicts and how-to-edit articles. I don't know which of the following practices (or what combinations of them) occasioned the outcomes of the two edits already cited, but i'm pretty sure i engaged, during that sitting, in all of them. (I was using MS IE (v 5 or 6, i think, but ask me later, if it matters).): (Why would i save both clones? Don't think i set out to do that; and while i remember cloning, probably several times, only in one case do i even specifically suspect i saved both clones. The first clone (or is that called the original?) saved would be this edit and the second (the original's clone) would be one already cited: the 2nd done and 2nd cited of the edit-diffs i've cited in my first sentence of this section. Generally when i clone a window, it's either to get a new window for a search, to view a bookmarked location, etc., when i don't have a link for it that i can Open-in-New-Window via; several times in the sitting in question, it was to recover a window i wished i had Open-in-New-Window-ed from. I probably saved the "original" prematurely by hitting Enter after starting the summary for the incomplete edit, said "OK, i'll have to remember to come back and finish that when i know the page size", and (an hour later) serendipitously found i had a suitable edit for that still in progress (probably created for a purpose that i forgot to pursue). I think i realized it was a clone of one that had been saved, probably by seeing the same summary already in the page history, expected no worse outcome than an Edit Conflict screen (despite the 1st-cited unexpected result, which would have occasioned the history inspection), and proceeded to finish the edit and save.) While i don't presume i have as much insight as those who are familiar with the code, i note for developers to at least consider ruling out relevance, that one of these glitches involves adding text following section N, where replacement of section N +1 was intended (in an edit that began its life described as an edit of section N), and the other involves replacing a different section than intended, where the section numbering had also been changing. --Jerzy(t)
 * Using "Open in New Window" (or, rather, the equivalent Shift-LMouseClick) to start one section edit on the page in question, and then using it again to start an edit of another section, before saving the first edit. (This operation "follows a link into the new window", leaving the old window as it was before linking.)
 * Using Back to get back, in the Address pane, the URL for a section edit that has been closed by a Save, calculating the change in section numbers resulting from that Save, and editing the section number (or leaving it alone, where the old section number of the first coincides with new one of the desired other section) in order to edit a different section.
 * Using File|New|Window (or, rather, the equivalent keyboard command Ctrl-N) to clone a window that displays an in-progress section-edit, and eventually doing a Save from each window. (The "cloning" creates a second window with the same URL, the same fill-ins of the form-panes, and the same Back "history" (and i suppose the same "forward history"!))

 * So, if I understand the long explanation, you were editing a section of an article, and when you saved, the wrong section got overwritten? I believe that this is a known bug.  —AlanBarrett 13:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the above is worth documenting, along with the following. It occurs to me that i left out one form of risky behavior, which may specifically apply to my approximately-doubled-section case. Whether or not it is functionally equivalent to cloning an edit window, i am unsure:
 * I may also have used Back to get to the pre-save state of already-saved edit, then changed it, rather than getting the second copy by the explicit cloning i described above. (In terms of how i work, that technique is more likely to explain that instance of that phenomenon.)

I also note that just now, i reached a point in editing where i said "Hey, if i save that, i bet i'll duplicate the other case." (The replacing-wrong-section one). Yup, i did. Scenario: The server's behavior corresponds to what you would expect if it is matching the section number mentioned in the section edit URL to the current section numbers, to decide what to replace with the new text. (If you can't work out your own recovery strategies, for the point where you notice you're on that road, i'll probably put some on a user page if someone asks for it.) --Jerzy(t) 20:17, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
 * 1) Open edit of section N.
 * 2) Open edit of section N-M; insert one heading (presumably with or without other text); save.
 * 3) Save the edit of section N.
 * 4) The contents intended for section N replace section N-1, while section N remains unchanged.

Could use standard wheel rather than reinventing
Utilities such as diff3 already exist, and CVS and other revision control systems quite happily merge different edits made from a common base automatically.

Surely in most cases Bob could be presented with not just his version and Alice's version but also an automatic merge of the two with respect to the common base version? Similarly for removing vandalism that occurred other than on the latest change to an article. -- Sleepy42 12:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Edit conflicts


text:
Wikipedia:Village pump/November 2003 archive 2

Editing One's Subsequent Editors (and a proposal for "locking in" mature entries)
There's a fine line between obnoxiously restoring one's "golden prose" after it's been subequently edited...and honestly improving an article that's been degraded by reintroducing legitimately better commentary...which happens to be one's own previously posted material!

Where do Wikipedians stand on this call? Firmly against persistent "ping ponging" (i.e. post it once and let it go forever)? An anarchic "go ahead" shrug? Simply use one's judgement?

This is a facet of a larger issue which I perceive as Wikipedia biggest fault: past a certain point, articles don't get better, they just get different (or, just as easily, worse). As a given entry ages to a certain point where' it's been worked over by many participants, might it not be intelligent to introduce a "vote to seal" feature, where viewers who think the entry is at a really good point can temporarily freeze edits and call for a vote to permanently seal the entry (or at least a vote to impede subsequent editing, e.g. by requiring additions to be approved by vote)? Otherwise, absolutely terrific entries can and will be degraded and washed away like sand castles in the tide.

I realize that many entries are temporal in various ways and therefore benefit from unended editing. Obviously, they should stay ever open.

I suspect my solution can/will be picked to death...but the problem I'm raising is a serious one, and there may be more intelligent/effective ways to address it. Or maybe I'm just being unwikipedian....? O. Pen Sauce 08:09, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's the eternal debate, which has been (is being) discussed as the Sifter project, "1.0" or in many other forms. The discussion flares up regularly with no clear answer. So people keep chugging along. :) --Fuzheado

 * I'm very interested in previous discussion of this 'Sifter project', where would I find it? I've found Jimbo's 1.0 discussion page. Andrewa 13:42, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * O Pen is absolutely right, and Fuz is also right to say this issue has been raised before, even in the short time I have been contributing. And it will go on being raised, because it should be obvious that this is indeed WP's crucial weakness, much as I love it. At the moment WP's primary role is as a playpen for writers and editors and pedants and know-it-alls (like me), and not as a service to readers. At the moment if WP tells me that the capital of X is Y, and my Funk & Wagnalls tells me it is Z, I will believe F&W, and so will most other people.

 * My view is that once the groups of genuine contributors to an article (as opposed to vandals and propagandists) are satisfied that it is as good as it is going to get, then it should be declared complete, and after that it can only be edited with the approval of the original authors or some panel of editors or reviewers. For 90% of articles, this won't be a problem. Turtles of the Upper Orinoco will be declared complete without fuss. The remaining 5% (God and Zionism and George W Bush is Evil Incarnate can be fought over for a few months, and then some sort of arbitration process can take place. I know this is all very un-Wiki-ish, but at the moment process is being privilges over product, and in the long run this will not produce an encyclopaedia. Adam 09:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I suppose it comes down to a question of the ultimate goal of Wikipedia: creation or creating? To produce an encyclopedia, or to produce the production of an encyclopedia?

 * An idealist might say that since perfection is unattainable, there's no reason not to endlessly refine in more and more subtle strokes. However Wikipedia has no mechanism to ensure or even encourage increasing subtlety as an entry ripens and matures. The credo is "be bold!", period. So over the lifetime of Wikipedia, great encyclopedias may arise and disappear. This will be nothing more than an amazingly ambitious and intelligent grafitti wall.

 * And the revisions archive will be too huge and noisy for even a collaborative network to make use of.

 * Someone (or some group or some function) must watch the zillion typing monkeys, lest Hamlet, The Secret of Life, and The Grand Unifying Theory of Everything be discarded underfoot along with the mountain of randomness. --O. Pen Sauce 18:16, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The reason why evolution creates better things is because advantageous mutations are retained, while disadvantageous mutations are removed. The wiki process that creates an article is somewhat analogous, so there is little danger that articles of true quality will disappear entirely, although they may undergo superficial alterations. It's not quite as bad as all that. -- Cyan 19:35, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * An idealist speaks! :)
 * The monkey analogy is imprecise, and was added mostly to be amusing. The graffitti wall is a much more apt analogy. Human creativity always involves a destructive impulse, that is patently clear from any look at our history. Also, to preserve quality one must appreciate quality. Such appreciation is by NO means a given. I think you're wrong on this, Cyan. --O. Pen Sauce 20:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * No, appreciation of quality is not a given. It is however an observed fact. In my evaluation at least; and I personally would like to believe I appreciate quality. Who are those in the "majority" which in your opinion do not appreciate quality. I just don't see it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 14:50, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm with the idealist, Wikilover POV. From my point of view Wikipedia is an ecology of ideas. I sympathise with the desire of you Encylopediasts, but I think [Wikipedia 1.0] will serve your needs in the long run, so don't worry.

 * Can anyone direct me to a major article that people have cared about which has detioriorated over the long term? Say three months. I would be interested :ChrisG 14:08, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Despite what I wrote just above your message, I think some rare examples of such articles might be found (see Dark side of Wikipedia). Some subjects just inhabit a Lorentz-attractor type of existence within Library-space.

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 05:31, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

A plain and simple question
Has anyone tried to delete the deletion log page? Does it just create itself again? Poor Yorick

 * It should recreate itself, although without the header text. IIRC I tried this recently with the block log, which shares the same code. -- Tim Starling 11:26, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

Diacritics
I'm sure this comes up regularly - but where to start looking for answers? I want to use extended character sets to display diacritics for Sanskrit and Pali terms. Things like 7747 = ṃ (an m with a dot underneath = anusvara). Trouble is that it degrades to a square gliph without specifying a unicode font. I can get vowels with macrons OK, but it's the retroflex consonants and the anusvara that are problematic. Is it possible/desirable to specify fonts in Wikipedia? I think it's important to have the diacritics, although some general works leave them out, but without them the words are different! Mahaabaala 12:40, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it just depends on individual people's browsers. I can see the m with a dot thing in Mozilla, but it is a square in IE. Angela 12:57, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * fyi, it works okay in Opera 7 and konqueror, but (naturally) shows up as m- in links(cygwin) and lynx(cygwin), and I imagine visitors with screenreaders will hear a rude noise. So one shouldn't rely on it. -- Finlay McWalter 13:45, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Formatting question
Why does this not make a bolded italic? Also, either break this page into smaller sections, or start adding new stuff to the top so people don't have to load the whole page in order to add something. Please respond on my talk page, this page is not something I can access easily. Lirath Q. Pynnor

 *  does' seem to produce bold italics to me. Where have you had problems with it? If you find this page too large to edit, you can use this edit link, which allows you to post a new section. This means you don't have to load the whole page. In fact, you don't even need to come to the page. Angela 02:08, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * The this you placed there certainly is in bolded italics on my screen? - Marshman 02:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Mine too. I'm IE5 on Win98SE. Andrewa 08:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Apparently this was solved by changing the font type. Angela

Mythology Stubs
I have noticed that there are a lot of one-sentence stubs for mythological figures, especially non-Greek myths (but even then there are a lot). Shouldn't they be merged into the respective mythology articles? Limu, for example. Limu is listed on Polynesian mythology, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to write about him on the mythology page. Adam Bishop 07:20, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think so because, eventually, these will be expanded. Nikola 07:51, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * And if you merged them people would be less likely to think to expand them. Stubs are a Good Thing. CGS 09:41, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC).

 * What if there is just nothing more to add to them? I tried to find more for Limu before posting it here, but all I can find is that he is a god of the dead. I guess that is probably because every other website has copied from Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Mythica, which both only have the one line. I know stubs are good, but what if they don't have the possibility of being expanded? Adam Bishop 16:56, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I ran into a similar problem with characters in the Bible, especially but not only from the Old Testament. Many of them will never be more than stubs IMO, we just don't know any more than two or three sentences about them. So, I'm now thinking seriously of creating some articles along the lines of Minor characters in the book of Judges (and another for Samuel, probably put Kings and Chronicles together as there's so much overlap, similarly Ezra and Nehemiah). I'd then make the names themselves redirects to these, or disambiguation pages where necessary. This is a similar approach to what is already recommended for fictional characters (I'm not suggesting that these are or are not fictional characters, that would be POV either way, just that the same format seems likely to work). Other opinions very welcome, it's very early days in my thinking on this.

 * If we do find more material on any of these later, then nothing is lost, they can and should become an article then.

 * Anyway, a similar approach would be a Minor characters in Greek mythology article. Andrewa 20:08, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * There surely is much more to say about a god of any culture, it's just that the information isn't online. Nikola 08:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * BTW there are more than 1100 of those stubs. -- User:Docu

Strange behaviour of link -- bug?
Could someone help me there? I feel really puzzled what is going on. Steps to reproduce: What went wrong there? Przepla 23:34, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Go to List of political parties in Poland
 * Find string Unia Wolności (in section alphabetical list of parties)
 * Click this link
 * Observe that edit page is opening, even though this page contains properly done redirect. <-- Strange behaviour

 * That's not a legal link; use a plain "s" in links on this wiki. This wiki, and most of the western european language ones too, are encoded in ISO 8859-1. Characters not in that range won't work in titles here. --Brion 03:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Images on UseModWikipedias
Quite some time ago I stumbled upon images uploaded by User:Renato Caniatti, when I noticed that all of them are orphans here. Later I found that those images aren't real orphans, but are used in the italian wikipedia included with html, not the image links I know here. I asked Renato about it, and today he answered that it is not possible to upload images on the italian wikipedia, and thus he uses the english one for storage. As I had no interaction with the old software - is that true? I don't think that the way he includes images to it: is a good one as it will break when someone checks the orphan images here, or once the policy of not using external images in wikicode is enforced, but what is the better way? Wait with images till it: gets converted to MediaWiki? andy 21:49, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes it is true. I do the same with Simple - just link to photos that exist here. I'm aware they might break but I don't think it's a huge issue as they will be replaced once we get the new software and a broken image link is hardly the end of the world. Angela 21:53, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

calling all sysops, brush up on the limitations of your powers.
I noticed that people are getting seriously sloppy with the guidelines on protecting pages. We are all human (Ghu knows I have made my share of mistakes). Please remember that protecting a page should always be done by an uninvolved party (even if it is your own user page); I'll try to remember that too. Just ask someone else to do it for you. As you likely have a good case for the protection of the page, getting another sysop shouldn't be so hard. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 23:57, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. User:Viajero's protection of the ever controversial Mother Teresa article to stop User:Aplank's edits (which others were reverting) is a case in point. Viajero had been a participant in the debate over weeks and so was not a neutral person to do the protecting. FearÉIREANN 00:04, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Sysops have be desysoped for doing as much.  The only time when I've protected a page I was actively involved in editing was when it was being repeatedly blanked (vandalism) and I wasn't one of the main parties involved in the edit war.  Use your common sense, people.  Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * On this I have to disagree most strongly. No sysop has ever been desysoped for making an honest mistake. And I would thank it if no-one suggested it was a policy to do so. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 21:26, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * I wasn't actually talking about honest mistakes, but repeated bad behavior. (I was replying to Viajero's comment, perhaps that helps.) Daniel Quinlan 23:32, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I protected my User page, and intend to keep it protected. It was the subject of far too much vandalism. I don't think anyone but the User should be able to edit their own User page anyway, but that's my opinion, YMMV. I agree in principle to not protecting pages you're involved with, but I believe doing it to your User page is different. RickK 23:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ancient wiki history question
I have an ancient wiki history question. What does it mean when the Conversion script is listed as the first author of a page? Was the actual attribution to the original author lost forever? Maximus Rex 05:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The "conversion script" was the script which converted Wikipedia from usemod format to the current phase III format. This conversion occurred in Februrary 2002. Originally, no history could be seen from before the conversion occurred -- every article which existed before phase III appeared to have been started by the conversion script. Brion has now managed to extract most history from usemod and has added it to the database. However, the conversion script entries in history remained, in most cases appearing to perform whatever was the last edit prior to the conversion. See also Usemod article histories. -- Tim Starling 06:09, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia at lightspeed!
wow, I commend whomever was involved in the latest magic that gave us such great speed on Wikipedia. I've been around these parts for nearly 10 months and this is by far the greatest access-speed I've ever experienced. thanks again to all involved! Kingturtle 18:59, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is now unbelievably fast, and it's all thanks to Brion. Some pages are served from pliny, some are served from larousse, and no-one should notice the difference, except for the blindingly fast response. -- Tim Starling 03:47, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Great, great magic. Shall we vote on a title to bestow upon Brion? Kosebamse 19:37, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An aside: google notices. But worth it. Martin 19:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think I do notice. Sometimes I need to refresh to see new information in an article. For example, after I wrote Wikipedia at lightspeed!, I changed computers, and came back to this metapage, Wikipedia at lightspeed! was not on the metapage. But then I refreshed and it was there. I am guessing that this is because of the dual server action? It is a small price to pay for these incredible speeds, though. Kingturtle 19:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * This notoriously unreliable popularity index seems to notice, too. Kosebamse 20:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Doesn't remember password
Darned thing doesn't remember my password, nor does it remember that I told it to remember my password. Why????? Tualha 05:16, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Now it does. Who knows... Tualha 05:52, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ah. If I close all windows and come back, it keeps me logged in. If I close the browser (Opera 6), it doesn't. Tualha 05:54, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've been tweaking the login cookie system for the last few days trying to get things to not interfere with each other due to the en/en2 thing... It should work at this point. It may or may not help to clear out any old cookies from *.wikipedia.org first and try again. --Brion 08:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That would explain why I had to login again at the beginning of the session the last few days, much more often then before. But of course this little drawback is more then countered by the massive speed gain that come with it (thanks Brion). andy 09:01, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, IE and  Mozilla remember the password across even reboots. But once in a while (maybe in 2 or 3 months), it loses the password too. Nothing is perfect. --Menchi 06:56, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The saved password cookie expires after 1 month. --Brion 08:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nope, it's still doing it. I tried clearing out the cookies, didn't help :( It's not clearing cookies between sessions; they were there, and LWN, for example, works fine.

FWIW, the cookies listed in my cookie manager seem to be empty... Tualha 21:44, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, now there are cookies there. wikidbUserID and wikidbUserName. Still doesn't work, though. Tualha 21:54, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I checked the "keep password" box in the login page and now everything works fine. I kept overlooking that one. It's the one in preferences that's broken. Sorry for the wild goose chase. Tualha 22:24, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

 * My system (IE5.0, Win98SE, dialup PPP line) seems to forget my password whenever I view a cached page while not connected. For example, say I'm logged on to both the Meta and the English Wikipedia, with "remember my password" checked on both. I disconnect the line, but later absentmindedly click on my local home page link to English Wikipedia main, or on any link to an English Wikipedia page that I may have left open when I disconnected. IE gives me the option of staying offline and viewing the locally cached page. But if I do this, when I later reconnect to the Internet, I'll now find I'm no longer logged on to the English Wikipedia. Assuming I've viewed no Meta pages while offline, I'll still be logged on to the Meta. At least that's how I think it happens. Is that consistent to anyone else's experience? Andrewa 00:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just occurred to me, there's a bright side: my password is now firmly embedded in my memory :) Tualha 14:48, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Log In
How can I stay logged in for longer than (whatever the default) is? I'm finding that I'm editing articles only to later notice I'm not logged in. I dislike this because it makes me less accountable. orthogonal 17:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * If you aren't already, and you are using a private computer, ask it to remember your password. Κσυπ Cyp 18:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but won't that just make logging in a bit easier? That's not what I want, exactly; I want not to be logged out in the first place. orthogonal 18:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It'll make login automatic, not just easier. It will appear as if you never get logged out. (Under the covers, you'll get logged out, but then when you visit any WP page, it'll automatically log you back in.) It should work just like you want it to. Axlrosen 19:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm oblivious to the actual way this all works, but it seems plausible that if you do relatively frequently "Show Preview" clicks, your login "timer" will be refreshed on the server. A server sysop can probably confirm or correct this assumption. - Marshman 18:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It's vaguely possible that the old cookie is somehow interfering with the new cookie (but it shouldn't be). Clear out any cookies you may have set on 'en.wikipedia.org' or 'en2.wikipedia.org' and try again. Check your cookies for one named "enwikiSession" set for the domain ".wikipedia.org". Have you got one, and what's the expiration date look like? It should be ~an hour in the future. Could anyone with cookie problems check the date & timezone settings on your computer? If it's off (for instance a daylight saving time glitch) that could expire the cookie early. If that's totally off base, I'd like to be able to strike it off my list of things to check. --Brion 05:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Where is that? I am using Windows XP, and only found 3 files in my \cookie, one is called "administrator@wikipedia[2].txt" which is modified 3 mins ago. :? --218.19.141.3 05:56, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * If you open that file in wordpad (not notepad! notepad gets confused) you'll see some gobbledegook inside; looks like the expiry times aren't in human-readable format though, unless you understand seconds since January 1, 1970... I've changed the cookie to expire at the end of the browser session instead of at a time offset. Does this help? --Brion 05:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It works now!! Thanks! --Samuel 05:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Awesome! (By any chance, can you check that your computer's clock and timezone are set correctly?) --Brion 06:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Right then. Any chance the cookie expiration could be set to, say +12 rather than +1 hours? orthogonal 19:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't know why are having this problem. WP never logs me out, even after I reboot. -- Viajero 20:16, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Also be aware that some internet privacy programs, browsers' privacy options, or privacy and ad-blocking software (such as Zonealarm) have options that either block wikipedia's cookie altogether or expire it prematurely. It should be possible to configure whatever it is you might be using to cut wikipedia.org more slack than you would doubleclick.net, for example. -- Finlay McWalter 23:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * That was routinely done: all three cookie blockers in my chain admit Wikipedia's cookies. (although javscript cookies are still blocked.) orthogonal 11:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Link to video?
Is it possible to link to a non http external link? I want to link to rtsp://rmv8.bbc.net.uk/news/olmedia/n5ctrl/events03/uk_pol/cons/leadership/nb_newsnightiv.rm (a video clip) but the Wiki parser doesn't like it... Evercat 02:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * My two cents: linking directly to a video will perturb people who click on the link, thinking it's a page, and immediately find they're downloading a video. (As in my case, wheree I intentionally got rid of all software able to play RealMedia files). It's also likely to perturb whomever hosts that link, and many sites use the "referer" (sic) HTTP header to refuse to serve linked files except from requests via their own pages. It's probably better all areound to link to the page that links to the video. orthogonal 17:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Legitimate page that looks like nonsense
It's interesting...the article on the Dogon, at first glance, looks like blatant nonsense. People named the Dogon, whose religion involves Sirius the Dog Star? And their neighbors are the Bozo? Trash it!

But a little googling reveals that there is indeed such a tribe living in Mali, with that religion and those neighbors. Thousands of pages found.

Goes to show...

Tualha 02:46, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes this is common as there are so many cultures in the world and so many interests represented by different editors. That's why I usually ask here at the pump if an article looks suspicious to me. The talk page of an article is also a good place but it may not get as much attention. Dori 04:43, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute banners
Daniel Quinlan is adding loads of "Accuracy disputes without explanation. I think he is using an automated script because of the speed - is this vandalism? -- 213.122.126.91 09:32, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * He's noting that those are the works of this person, who is now banned: User:Khranus. --Menchi 09:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I've been found out! Seriously, though, I'm adding accuracy disputes to selected articles edited by Khranus (see User:Khranus/ban for more information which should explain why I felt the need to add the banners).  Some of them may be okay, but I am not an expert in all areas so when I was not sure whether a Khranus addition was okay, I added the banner.  I felt it was better to err on the side of caution.  Perhaps I  should add something to the talk pages as promised.  Daniel Quinlan 09:42, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

If Khranus has been banned for posting ridiculous articles, doesn't it follow that those articles should now be deleted? Does anyone really think that Reptilian humanoid can be turned into a useful article? Delete the lot, I say. Adam 10:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The Dogon is a valid concept, take a look at the above header. Khranus contributed a lot of material to the page. It should not be thus blindly deleted. If there is issues with the content, it should be discussed and offending material removed. That is the process here Dysprosia 10:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think something interesting could come of it - perhaps an examination of the role that reptilians play in some peoples belief systems. I'm personally interested in the 'reptilians as jews' idea - there are large similarities between the two sets of conspiracies. Secretlondon 10:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Er. I don't want to appear to be defending kookery, but I note that pages such as Reptilian humanoid are at least somewhat self-coherent (as oppossed to a completely unintelligible ranmblings, and as opposed to any coherence with any objectice reality). As such, they usefully document these unlikely conspiracy theories. Perhaps they could be carefully marked as examples of, and moved to subpages of/links from, a Conspiracy Theories page? orthogonal 10:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I think the reptilian article can be NPOVed (it's being tried right now) and it may offer some insight, perhaps into the phenomenology of mental illness (or whatever one likes to categorize these beliefs). And once it's NPOV it might help in debunking some particularly nutty ideas when they come up again. Kosebamse 10:23, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


text:
User:George Kontopoulos

You can find my contact info at geoland

I can also be found to hang out in tikiwiki as gio.

I could not find a way to edit my contibutions page so i decided to include the link here. History_of_Turkey changed page as 216.164.158.27

 My personal NOTES :

meta wiki thing

title: User:George Kontopoulos