User talk:Orderinchaos/Archive 2008 06

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the current talk page.

Archive : June 2008

What John Brumby Will Be Remembered For

Some of the biggest achievements of John Brumby and his predecessor Steve Bracks would have to be a huge waste of public funds. Some of the "success" stories would have to be the woeful state of Victoria's traffic network. Public Transport network has suffered delays and unbelievably high expenses just to implement the new ticketing system, so called Myki. Some of the other achievements of John Brumby and former Premier Bracks would have to be the fact that around 10% of total number of Victorian drivers have lost their licences due to huge pressure from the Victorian government to issue speeding fines for even the minor speed limit transgressions. This means that Victoria Police and hundreds of hidden revenue raising cameras issue speeding tickets for speeding below the +10% ADR defined speedometer accuracy limits. This greedy money grab by the Brumby state government ensures that the Victorian State Government expects the speeding ticket revenue to amount to a massive AUD$1500 million over the next 2 years. ]

John Brumby and his Ministers have also implemented a so called tough new so called "anti-hoon" laws. This is a politically driven decision to appease hundreds of worried citizens that have noticed that Brumby and the Victorian state governemnt has not done a thing to improve the roads around the state.

OK, you tell me orderinchaos what is so badly referenced in here. These are all the issues we know about. Nothing wrong with stating the publicly known facts is there, especially when John Brumby's biography on the wiki is all "roses and smiles" and not so convenient truths are swept under the carpet. You smell to me like a snitch and a state employee mate, you smell pretty bad. Blackspurboys (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's written like a point of view which goes against the WP:NPOV policy and also it's a bio so you must follow WP:BIO. Bidgee (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, ok, maybe it needs work, but it also needs to be stated. My point still stands that a complete bio cannot be all positive. You need to list persons failures. This bio does sound like a political dream bio, which we all know it is not. Blackspurboys (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So fix it, rather than write a bunch of POV-pushing which will be deleted. Also, it is a biography of Brumby, not the Victorian Labor Party. Timeshift (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian tennis bios

Yesterday a number of Hungarian tennis bios have also been moved, also Ágnes Szávay earlier etc. Would you please correct those too?
It's also strange we're having now this and another encyclopedia has this. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know moving pages over redirect is not advised for non-admins. The pages to where we should move back those articles have redirects now. Simply deleting them is OK? Squash Racket (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Prolog already moved the pages. Squash Racket (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

check your edit

..to Giggy's RfA. Did you mean to remove 2,066 bytes of replies? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

jbmurray fixed it. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Proposed page moves (same topic)

Well..., this time at WP:RM (see 4th June). Squash Racket (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate this, I probably wouldn't have dealt with an issue like that during the exams. Good luck btw! Squash Racket (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

for misunderstanding. But I do not see why we should discus further, when diacritics are allowed in English language? We (Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Poles, etc) think that using ASCII-ized names is disrespect for our cultures. -- Bojan  16:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in unwarranted, but I can't help myself. Are you saying ASCII-ized names is disrespectful to your culture and thus should not be used? I'm so not racist but that's just a pile of cow dung, people can name themselves how they want. Creating inflammatory cartoons is one thing, ASCII-ized names is another. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a bit of context helps. Let's say one's name (a Czech one) is Radek Štěpánek. The á is an accent, meaning that's the vowel we dwell on (this is also the case in Spanish and a number of other languages - eg López, Guantánamo. Note Guantanamo Bay is a US facility located at Guantánamo Bay, so the English name for the US facility excludes the accent). In nearly all Slavic and Baltic languages, š is "sh", č is "ch", ž is "zh" (like s in measure). Don't worry too much about the e, that's a peculiarity of Czech. So the name instantly tells us how to pronounce it, "shteh-PAH-nek". Unfortunately, some tennis sites, for reason of convention, do not use diacritics (modifiers above or below the character) on any Latin-alphabet non-English names, so this name becomes Stepanek, or as I've heard on many an ABC Newsradio broadcast, "Step-a-neck" (read as if you were reading those three English words). You can imagine how this sort of thing might be perceived as lazy or Anglocentric. All of this does not apply when the person has moved to the US, naturalised and adopted a name without accents, but if they have done this, it is normally verifiable via the news or their biography if they have one. It's not a given that the moment someone starts playing tennis they lose their national identity. Orderinchaos 04:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock check please

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_federal_election%2C_2007/Post-election_pendulum&action=history Timeshift (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

John Howard Talk page

I take your comment, regarding my pointless post, and reply here so I avoid making another pointless reply. Matilda had already indicated something similar to your sentiments. My reply to Matilda sums up my thoughts. So many people who were regular editors of the JH article up until a week ago have now disappeared and are staying clear of it.--Lester 02:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had almost everyone in mind when writing it, in particular a rapid-fire sniping match which went on yesterday involving two other people which achieved nothing except likely frustration for the two involved (I know I ignored it :P) If you're someone who cares about the reliability and values of the encyclopaedia, it's something that can happen amazingly easily. Regarding the last sentence, I'd say that's been the situation for months now - I was one of the ones who disappeared and stayed clear of it. Orderinchaos 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk archives

Talk archives can't be deleted for G8. [1]. -- Ned Scott 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a talk archive; it was a redirect. Hesperian 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The logic still applies for a redirect, as well as the further explanation given at WP:CSD#G8. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. The redirect is utterly useless. Nothing links to it. No-one will ever arrive at the target page via it. You've restored it not because you think it is useful, because because you are unable or unwilling to step back from the ludicrous absolutes you've been uttering, like "Redirects for talk page archives should never be deleted." I couldn't care less that you've restored it, but please don't try to pass it off as you correcting OIC's error. Hesperian 05:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? As someone who's done a lot of work on other wikis, I can assure you that I have restored because I do believe them to be useful. Forgive me for my earlier comment, as I meant to say they should never be speedy deleted. Redirects are cheap, they're convenient, and we cannot track off-site links. I'm annoyed at the systematic deletion of redirects that are there for these very reasons. If you've taken that as me having some talk page redirect complex then I'm sorry that I gave that impression. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Template talk:Infobox City/Archive 1 might have been a simple mistake, unrelated to moves or redirects. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

tennis names

I did it because moving was blocked by the article under different name already existing. I can see inconsistency Ana Ivanović was moved to Ana Ivanovic but Mario Ančić must stay Mario Ančić, not Mario Ancic. How come? Are they different?--Avala (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed an interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seaham Public School

I was editing Seaham, New South Wales and needed some information from Seaham Public School but you deleted that article on 29 March 2008, before I could save the contents. Is it possible to get access to the contents of that article so I don't have to start from scratch? Regards. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought there was more than that. I must have been thinking of something else. Still, some of it may prove useful. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

name change

Thanks to getting back to me on my requested name change. It was read by a bot which responded thus:

Note:

• The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Due to licensing concerns, this may be a barrier to usurpation.
• User has 24 undeleted edits, 0 deleted edits, and 24 total edits. Requesting user has 4046 edits. ClueBot VI (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Will someone end up noticing that it's one and the same person, or is that the end of the line for me? thanks for any help you might be able to offer. Pippu d'Angelo (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Various

• Welcome back, I hope that you've done well in your exams and that your health issues are resolved.

• I'd like to take you up on the offer you made to help with the Halden article if it's convenient to you.

• To go back to my post at Greetings, I'd like your advice as to the best way to organise these publications on the Lawrence article. I have a bunch by Lawrence and I've also got some others coming that refer to her as a subject. I won't be using all of them as cited references so I was wondering whether a catch-all section "(Some?) Publications referring to Carmen Lawrence" would be in order.

• This (ab)user tampered with the article on the Claremont serial murders yesterday. Unless they've got an inside track I think it's unfounded speculation at best, vandalism otherwise. Have a look at the talk page. Hasn't this character had enough rope? How about a nice fat, juicy permablock? Retarius | Talk 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little overcommitted atm (Responsible government and John Howard are primary priorities atm) but I'll get onto the Halden one soon. Re: IPs, we can't block them indefinitely because while there's a lot of offences on the talk page, unless it's a static IP it's very likely to be many different offenders (and what we can't see is the number of legitimate users who log in and make edits from that IP). Usually blocks tend to be fairly short for IPs, the rationale being that a lot of the people vandalising from them don't have a lot of motivation and will get bored easily if they can't edit, and probably will not return for some time. Orderinchaos 05:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Responsible government

Hi, Orderinchaos. Thanks for the compliment. I've never studied this subject formally, just been exposed to it at the coal face for a number of years. So I can't really recommend any resources, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard 1989 loss

I've done a draft rewrite of the paragraph about Howard's 1989 leadership loss to Peacock. I mentioned the drinking. I actually think it makes him look more human. Shows he's actually got some emotion, which wasn't shown often. I'll see your reply down on the Talk Page. Cheers, --Lester 05:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

Remember we had the whole edit warring on Edelsten article a while back? I find it curious that a recently created account posted this [2] as their first contribution basically supporting Edelsten's personal website (which when you look would hardly pass NPOV, I looked it at this site a while back in research and found some of the positive claims could not be verified) and wanting a complete rewrite of the article... sound familiar? Michellecrisp (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks just commented on your post. There has been no violation of Wikipedia policy nor any Australian law. but well done on your efforts. Many editors have spent a lot of time trying to make this article fair and encyclopaedic. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is worth matching the new editors to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeumic ? --Matilda ^talk 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you already had it listed - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikifactsright - I will make mention there of the previous case. regards --Matilda ^talk 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to how to put the 2 together. You have menioned the Zeumic case. But looking at the Zuemic checkuser request it says in the tag at the top. If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. because the users are the same - I have merged the two - hope you don't mind - you seem to be off-line at the moment. feel free to undo if you think I have it wrong but the template does say Please don't create a separate page with a different name. --Matilda ^talk 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hockey

You are just going to leave Joe Hockey locked, are you? It's been over two weeks. Very, very poor form. --Surturz (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos can answer for himself, but in passing you can always request unprotection of any page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection rather than assuming bad faith on the part of the protecting admin. Euryalus (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I had assumed given the number of admins floating around that it would be unlocked once a consensus was reached on the talk page. That being said, however, I see no discussion beyond where I saw it last time - based on that, am I to assume one has been reached privately? If so, I'll unlock, but I would be very disappointed if I saw an edit war resume over the same content issue. Orderinchaos 08:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a consensus issue, the image is against BLP. There's no way TimeShift9 is going to be convinced that the image should be removed. --Surturz (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the CON issues, and BLP, for that matter, (which incidentally, I agree is sufficient reason to remove this image) this image has been uploaded as a fair use image which requires a rationale for for each page it is on and it can only be used under condition: "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". The image is being used for decorative and illustration purposes with the uploader stating it is a good likeness of him and "It adds a bit of colour and it demonstrates that Hockey was effective enough in his role to be the subject of this sort of subversion". The image isn't being discussed in the article at all and there's not critical commentary on it so I think it violates criterion 8 - significance - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - how does using the image on this page significantly increase readers' understanding of the image or the event, i.e. the election ? Also, there's no fair use rationale for its use on any page, and the uploader admits it is being used for "colour" which I think are all violations of the fair use policy. The WP:NFCC policy states the image should be removed from all pages where it is included without a fair use rationale. This image has no fair use rationale for any page and should therefore be removed from each page it is on regardless of any other issues like CON and BLP. So whether the page is unprotected or not I think the image needs to be removed to comply with the licensing and our fair use policy. I believe it should stay off this bio for BLP reasons but that's another issue. :) Sarah 06:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've commented the image out for now per NFCC and I think it should totally removed under BLP but I was reluctant to do so due to the protection and the ongoing discussion. Consensus seems to be heading in the direction of removing it, so hopefully we'll be able to sort it out and get the page unprotected soon. Cheers, Sarah 11:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this move - I was trying not to take sides by letting it resolve (as the protecting admin I have to follow protection policy carefully, esp on contentious issues) but the removal of the image wouldn't diminish the article in any way IMO. Orderinchaos 11:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. :) I was reluctant to violate the article protection myself but I gave it some thought while I was offline and I think it is justified under the non-free content policy. It can also be removed from the Workchoice article for the same reason until someone writes a proper rationale, but I'll give them a chance to write a rationale before doing that. At least on the Workchoice article it has direct relevance to the text and doesn't look like a deliberate slur on a living person. Thanks, O. :) Sarah 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) I personally think it's pretty useless full stop - things like that float round politicosphere all the time but very few break into public consciousness. Orderinchaos 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I can't say that I'd argue with any of that! :) It certainly isn't anything unique in terms of political propaganda, but if it had to go anywhere I could understand it going on the Workchoice article. On Hockey's article it just seems like a blatant POV derogatory attack. Anyway, glad you're okay with what I've done there. Hope all the exams and assignments went well. Catch up with you soon, Mr O. :) Sarah 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

NCB article

I obviously don't agree. I'm not being rhetorical: What is supposed to be wrong? There's nothing there that isn't common knowledge and fact. It's also eminently provable. I don't give a damn about NCB one way or the other. If I did want to attack him I wouldn't do it here. It just disgusts me that this was a red link to other articles for years and the first effort to correct it is reverted. I can't help it if the guy's been up to his neck in wars. If that's not allowed to be written, what's left to write? "NCB has fine taste in suits and likes playing golf.." Retarius | Talk 05:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Electoral district of Ridley

Thanks for the info, I will add it to the article forthwith. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE

HI I am informing you on the following discussions referring to the usage of diacritics on en.wiki. It seem there is a movement/campaign of some peple (moreover administrators) which try to eliminate them from the usage on en .wiki. Or at least to minimize , even for personal names in Latin script

Since I have seen your name in some discussions I thought it would be nice to inform you. Pay attention to the following pages :WP:UE , Wikipedia:Usage of diacritics and similar ones if you are interested. Anto (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - there truly is a bewildering array of conversations on this issue! I'm on wikibreak at the moment as my content contributions are way behind where I'd like them to be due to off-wiki commitments and I have some library books due back in 5 weeks, but I will look when I have time (most of my sentiments have already been expressed fluently in the existing debates and I'm happy for others to recycle my arguments if they wish). Orderinchaos 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Noel Crichton-Browne

Hello OiC. Would you have any objections to me adding a lot of that material back into the Noel Crichton-Browne article? To do it properly would mean gathering the references to back it up, which would take some time (too much to do today). But before doing so, I wanted to check there won't be any objections. I'll await your response on the article talk page. Thanks, --Lester 02:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Flue and boo

Yeah that started cos when helping oz demographis tagged all the foo of boo cats with demog tag - and then the outsider wanders in and my watchlist slowly shows it being all up for grabs and now we have the noticeboard full of foos and boos - hope it resolves well in the end - :( SatuSuro 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edelsten

thanks for requesting the checkuser on what was an obvious choreographed sockpuppet. I'm sure if we unprotect the article we may see this behaviour reappear. so let's hope they don't come back! Michellecrisp (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

[[3]]. I was hoping I could explain why the Pats1 thing is an incident and not a content dispute. Can I or is your decision final?72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uni law schools

Agreed. Some editors not from Australia seem to think that Australian law schools are like graduate US style law schools eg high profile ones like Harvard Law School. I also think Deakin Law School fails WP:CORP as well. There has to be something significant that puts it above an ordinary law school Michellecrisp (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Monash seems to have it, but as an ex law student myself in a city that boasts *four* law schools, none of which are remotely notable (and UWA's - arguably the closest to meeting the standard - would be on a par with the other sandstone campuses), I'm honestly not getting why people think they are notable outside of the context of the universities within which they wholly operate. Orderinchaos 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've already made the point on the deletion discussion. Law schools in Australia are no more autonomous than engineering schools Michellecrisp (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm concerned about the extensive POV pushing and WP:OWN in deletion discussion, I've never seen one editor write so many counterarguments in 1 deletion discussion. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a few times - although I've been relatively uninvolved in these sorts of discussions for quite a while now. Orderinchaos 10:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading title

List of freeways, highways, major roads and tracks in rural/remote Western Australia

I am feeling really intimidated by the misleading title of this list having just created the Wapet road article - its rubbish - but i dont expect you to do anything about it - just had to vent - will try to resolve the issue - enjoy your latest break :) SatuSuro 12:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WARNING:If using Firefox 3 with Vista

There is a serious bug if you use FF 3 with Vista. Please see this link - Talk:Mozilla_Firefox#WARNING:Vista_users_and_Firefox_3 Kathleen.wright5 10:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Email re copyright

Did you ever get the email I sent you? Are you going to help me? Reply here. JRG (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OM/FT2/KL

Re [4]. I disagree, but don't you think you should follow your own advice? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Why hello

I commented on a comment you made here, you might want to check out (yes I'm being silly). Kwsn (Ni!) 01:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! :) Orderinchaos 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

just remind you to do the pretest as soon as possible. It won't take you too much time. Thank you very much. :)

JnW^talk 09:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. :)

JnW^talk 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks a lot for your help on filling out the questions on the pretest and questionnaire. In order for us to interpret the answers you gave, I have three additional questions to ask you. In the questionnaire, you check ‘free’ for the compensation of answering some questions. Now there are some scenarios:

1. If the users need to pay for asking questions through our knowledge service, will you still answer the questions for free?
2. If the users pay a certain fee for each of his/her questions being answered, will you receive the compensation for answering the question or allow us to donate it to the charitable institutions?
3. For the questions which you may ask the compensation, how much percentage of the compensation do you think it is proper if we want to donate a part of your compensation to the charitable institutions?
4. Do you have any comments on the knowledge service which we plan to develop? In this knowledge service, we will allow users to ask their questions, and the system will forward these questions to the users who edited wikipedia and were identified by our system as the domain experts. Which business model do you think is more proper? The expert can be compensated by the fee paid by the seekers or do it for altruism with no charge.

JnW^talk 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)