User talk:173.23.8.168

October 2010

Wikipedia is not a chat forum. Is your recent edit to Talk:The Gore Effect somehow related to improving the article, or should it be removed? Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well is this a chat forum then?173.23.8.168 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? Yes, I am suggesting that somebody investigate this venue; I would but I don't have the time and I am very slow and pokey with research and such, so I'm not the best person to do it (I think I'm alright or even good at arriving at unique and original ideas, but not so good at following through and of course, Wikipedia ABHORS "Original Research"). I surely hope you are not dismissing my suggestion as "bunk" out of hand just because you have absolute faith that any and all speculation about HAARP is loony conspiracy theory "pesudo-science" and is not "evidence-based", for that would seem rather closed-minded, would it not? I believe I am making a valid (sincere) suggestion for an improvement (an addition, even if very brief) to this article. I believe your reaction was overly hasty and very presumptuous, I mean, it's NOT like I was actually "chatting" or adding something "unsourced" to an article; I know better than that now. Are you saying we now have to have SOURCES just to type ANYTHING on a TalkPage? If so, I'm done, and I'm calling it "AuthoritarianPedia". 173.23.8.168 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a chat forum in any part. It is an encyclopedia. If you want chat forum you will need to go elsewhere. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the tightness on Wikipedia?

Why is Wikpedia becoming so rigid, austere, minimalist, and authoritarian? I can understand why sleeker, more terse and compact discourse can be more effective (& efficient) communication, but why delete all the "unsourced material" (isn't deleting improperly used "Fair-Use" images, "NO-FREE IMAGES", and other copyrighted/patented material more important than making damn sure that every single tid-bit of info. is sourced?), "irrelevant" links, lists, "Trivia sections", and even "See also" sections (almost all TRADITIONAL encyclopedias have them)? Is there some kind of serious shortage of "space" (web-space? cyper-space? my computer teminology is atrocious!); i.e. storage and budgetary constraints? I mean, you all (many editors; most administrators) are acting like this is a paper encyclopedia or something. Or are you all just trying to stay true to the original aims and purposes of Jimbo? (Who really **OWNS** Wikipedia? I thought it was a non-profit public charity) I would really appreciate a non-scolding, non-snobish, yet informative and definitive answer. 173.23.8.168 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its purpose is to provide a free encyclopedia. All policies and guidelines are designed to enhance Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia. If you want something else, you will need to go elsewhere. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I was doing then (on the "Gore Effect" TALKPAGE) was suggesting another line of inquiry for those who might have interest; it was in the intention of improving the article, by making it more all-encompassing; more diverse and inclusive of some alternative viewpoint. What I have been doing since then is trying to explain myself and justify what I believe was a very benign, reasonable action on my part to suggest a small addition to the article in question. It seems to me that you are attempting to make Wikipedia, particularly its TalkPages, far more restrictive than they need to be. And by the way, if what I have been doing constitutes "chatting", then what do you call what you have been doing in regards to me? 173.23.8.168 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

---