As in The Guide < [http:www.h2g2.com/user/U228046] > I stranded here just following the guidelines.

<erm> My first remark will be: browsing through this encyclopedia I stumbled upon an entry about h2g2. Curious researcher as I am, I clicked on several of the links. Some resulting in an invitation to write an article about the chosen topic <??>.

Anyway without any request for me to login before writing such articles I did write some text on GuideML. As I have some experience with this subset of HTML, I can have my say without even having to check for the references as they are available in The Guide.

< http:www.h2g2.com/GuideML-Clinic > is about the base of the documentation available on the topic, jet currently it appears Aunty Beep is off line!

Another <erm>. I do not suffer from something like a writers block, it is more the opposite, once I have started I can not stop writing. And I will read the Wikilines (rules and regulations specific to any contribution) on the fly as I go.

That is if I manage to get through as not only the TeleBeepSeeEye but also Wikipedia seem to suffer from some kind of 'unreachable illness' today.

A locked filing cabinet in the basement.

A sign on the door: Beware of the leopard

I am a True Researcher:
8+3+16+3+1-4-3+2+16=42 (See The Myth of 42 at HooToo)

you can leave me a message, though it would probably be more helpfull (for everyone) to comment about any changes I made on the respective Talk page.

Traveller in Time <tit> on his head < Chrono Static Area> 83.163.143.216 (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, H2g2, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A source ? <huh>

Well you could refer the whole Guide, Edited raw and conversations as a source.

I know what I wrote, _is factual_, I would not mind giving references to the site.

Conversations on the site are static (unchangeable and lasting for over 15 year, so far) and citing enough should be proof.

By the way it nearly feels like an insult to see H2g2 instead of h2g2, even though I know it is the wiki naming convention (wiki with deliberate undercast)

<tit><onlinetoolong> 83.163.143.216 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what I see in your other contributions you mainly tried to prevent vandalism. However, by not even glimpsing the history and or the comments, you are are the one vandalising this site. I made some well thought additions, tried to restore malformed links and what do I see, all my effort is thrown away with a lame excuse about citing.

<sadface> <tit> 83.163.143.216 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of finding a site to cite I found the internet to be an ulimately unreliable source of information. This site manages to gibber the name incorrect! They do make some funny quote in the respect between wiki and HooToo however <evilgrin> <winkeye> http://www.bl.uk/100websites/top100.html This site represents:

British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, Bodleian Libraries, Cambridge University Library and Trinity College Dublin Sounds as impressive bunch of literate institutions

<tit> 83.163.143.216 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the backlog on the Talk page I get the impression the wikipedia does not deserve a more or less complete discription of h2g2 as the Guide. The 'reliable external (third party) source' bit makes it near impossible to write anything sensible about h2g2.
Perhaps it would benefit all people most if we reduce the entire article to

h2g2: Mostly Harmless

<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From wikipedia citations:
This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

I am afraid we will have to rely on the site itself for now, I remember some universal study project about the site several years ago but I doubt if the pdf of that research is still available. At the time I was not impressed by their work they failed to show the fact many Researchers see it as a place to be, not a WEB site of any kind.

The Talk page suggests what you have done has happened before I recognise several Researchers trying to improve the article in similar ways as I did but got undone by some kind of friendly but overly bureaucratic wikipedian.

<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please remove the more prominent BBC from the artice and talk pages?
The BBC left the current owners with various malfunctioning pieces of software, the current technical volunteers have not jet managed to completely hunt out all the BBC related bugs. The BBC does not deserve anymore to be referenced regarding h2g2.

<tit> <zzz> <onlinetoolong>83.163.143.216 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it a <boing> tomorrow, apparently there still is no 'announce me of new converstions/ changes' functionality on this site.

<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring (a short summary of) this to the article talk page and then redo my undo. If nobody objects, I won't object either. Cheers and good luck. - DVdm (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way (1): You get "new converstions/ changes' functionality on this site" by getting a username. See wp:SIGNUP and wp:WATCHLIST.

By the way (2): I really have no idea what you are trying to communicate. - DVdm (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply to (0) and (2) I know, but it will not work, one of your colleages will come and reduce the page again to 'Mostly Harmless'. My point is we should find a way to make and keep a usefull encyclopedic entry about the site on wiki. Even though the site is hardly referenced to from anywhere (valid, I found numerous passionate discriptions in blogs and personal sites) on the internet. I also invited John, if any undo should be done it is their changes.

reply to (1) I know, just can not remember pwd

<simpost> now if forgot the 83.163.143.216 (talk) 21 April 2015, at 11:35

____________________Copy from John:Talk____________________

______h2g2____

<boing>
HooToo needs some help h2g2
83.163.143.216 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<sadface>You could as well reduce the entire article to
h2g2: Mostly Harmless
That would be a compliment for the HooToo Society and as informative for the world reading wikipedia
<tit>83.163.143.216 (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. We cannot use material unless it is independently verifiable. --John (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________

<wow> I wish I had such strong faith, I do not need to prove reality to exist by asking (a) God to verify.

I think you are taking this too far. In the article backlog I found something new about the alabaster skin I myself did not even know. (I have 'lived' on the site for more then five years, reading everything, and I know many datails) The name would have been porcelain or alabaster as it reminded U6 about toilets.
For most it may be just an anekdote not worth even mentioning Post 31 however it is very unlikely any newspaper or whatever will publish such information.
My point is you can not prove a living (and breeding) society as h2g2 if we have to rely on external documentation for everything.
The state John reverted it from was a collaborate effort, for a large part written by the inhibitants, be it from their own experience and knowledge.

On HooToo we have a page netiquette a Guide to netiquette on h2g2, here on wiki that page seems to be deleted, and I start beginning to get the impression 'john' has indeed deleted any form of etiquette. (Notice the BBC reference ahlf way the page on that link? It will stay there until she (she was one of the italics, I have nearly met her) changes it) Many people have this same impression about wiki, and therefore do not or no longer contribute.

One of the things I expect to find in any encyclopedia is _more_ information. If all information must be already published elsewhere most people will already have that knowledge and therefore wil not have to use the encyclopedia.
Come on, try to give me some faith in wiki, for me to go and search for the Sociological essay by some students on an American University. (I think it was them also to misspel the name.)

h2g2: Mostly Harmless <tit> 83.163.143.216 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to h2g2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I have removed this unsourced part. If you have a reliable source, then we can add the content. Otherwise it does not belong on Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the rules and as I read them the small exception that there is a community on HooToo does fit within them.
However I changed the URLs to the site and removed the BBC references as far as appropriate.
I stay with my opinion the set in stone rules about 'reliable third party reference' is not constructive for wiki at all.<tit>
83.163.143.216 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Rules

Well according to the page reliable sources the h2g2 WEBsite is published and archived (be it offline by the librarians that can not get the name right).

______________Wikipedia Identifying_reliable_sources_______________
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Shortcut
wp selfsource

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

____________________________________________________________________________
And there we go!!! The article about h2g2 is trying to discribe a website not its content.
<tit> reading on
83.163.143.216 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Traveller in Time, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

Having seen your article at GuideML, I made some changes. You might find Wikipedia:Guide for h2g2 Researchers useful to understand the style differences between h2g2 and Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. But sign comments on talk pages rather than in articles.

Again, welcome! - Henrygb 15:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nomination of GuideML for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GuideML is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuideML until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]