# User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 37

Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38

## Good Evening...

...or morning, depending on when (or if) you read this. Just wanted to say hello to you (and every other editor who has this page watchlisted.) - Hello *waves*. Thank god for wikipedia, or I would have nothing to do when work gets slow... ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Work is still slow, well, i just can't decide whether i want to serve the person waiting, or leave it to my colleague. So instead I thought i would give you my newly created award:
 The WikiHaggis I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines. Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someones talk page!
← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

## Imagine a world

FYI: That stupid old quote of yours is now being translated to Aramaic (Assyrian), currently the 174th biggest language of Wikipedia, see User talk:Chaldean#Re: Translation. --LA2 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

## Purpose of user discussion page

To All: Please note that this discussion page is meant for suggestion and discussion of improvements that can be made to Jimbo and not to crazy people (or at least crazy people not named Jimbo). --Lemmey talk 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There I've made him bold. Thats better. --Lemmey talk 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was the initial reason for the page. Now it's more of a beehive for crabby IP's and trolls. What a shame. :-( --KojiDude (C) 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It has always been a bit of a circus here. I sort of enjoy it. :) And there is often useful stuff in amongst the weirdness. And a lot of nice people!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
True-er words were never said - and I have to add that I find it problematic that intelligent people like Seth can't seem to accept that people can do things partly because it benefits all mankind and partly because it benefits oneself. Really Seth, must morality be binary? You are smart enough to see that reality is not black and white. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
AHEM!AHEM!AHEM! ... I hate to pull rank, but after more than a decade of involvement in Internet freedom-fighting, which cost me a small fortune and many other personal sacrifices, please consider that I do indeed have a well-formed basis for my views. That is, it's not that I don't understand, but rather that I understand all too well. I'm somewhat constrained from going further, as Jimmy Wales has raised certain concerns, and I've elected not to push the matter too much. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unquestionably this is one of the most useful pages on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Seth, you are not pulling rank; you are merely offering evidence of your bona fides. If you did that more often, we could call it promotion (a necessary task in capitalism). If you then combined that with a few interesting speeches on freedom (a crowd pleaser in America); instead of costing you money, you could be making money. Doing well by doing good. Why don't you see if Jimbo can hook you up with some friends of his and you can help provide additional leadership to the free culture movement? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, each to his own. Not every one is cut out to be a free-content rock star. For myself, I like being able to walk down the street and not be bothered by anyone; or dump a girlfriend and not have it make the news. Anyway, for what its worth, I hold you in high regard, Seth. Cheers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

## Imagine A World, In which every...

Hi. I am the host of the new Radio Wikipedia, a community news radio broadcast. I was wondering whether I could use your voice saying "Imagine a world in which...", in a broadcast. Could I take it from one of your videos. I would like to have an appeal for donations at the end. StewieGriffin! • Talk 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. StewieGriffin! • Talk 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC) You are the best.

## Barnstar

 The Original Barnstar You are the creator of Wikipedia a.k.a. my life. Thank You.RETIRED 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

## LoJack content dispue and social (ir)responsibility

If you don't mind, please look at the following content dispute (all related):

Thank you. Finell (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the AN/I thread. While I have no particular opinion on this specific case, I did want to back you up on the general form of argument: it is valid to take into account things like public safety when working on editorial judgments about what goes into Wikipedia, and simply saying "Wikipedia is not censored" really misses the point. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I hope my comments are helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Finell (Talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The generic blanket statement that many editors use, citing Wikipedia rules, that "Wikipedia is not censored," is obviously not completely true. Wikipedia cannot publish content that violates the law. Such is not the case here, though. Wikipedia editors typically debate issues such as verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, and possibly legality. That is, is there a reliable reference, is the information important, is there an agenda being pushed, and does publishing the information violate the law. The editors in this case have not made any such challenge. They have merely made the "what if" argument. Free speech and free press require a "clear and present danger" of harm to individuals in order to be restricted, for example "yelling fire in a crowded theater", or committing libel or slander. The challengers would have a very difficult time making that kind of argument, given that the information is already widely available. So if they want to fight the information, they need to offer a challenge that involves other grounds such as I've mentioned here: verifiability, notability, and neutrality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Then you disagree with Mr. Wales, which is your right to do. In the United States (but not in GB or Continental Europe), based on the freedom of speech and freedom of press clauses in our First Amendment, government may not prevent others from publishing anything except in case a of a clear and present danger or a few other, narrow exceptions. But as Wikipedia editors, we can and should take other factors into consideration, such as social responsibility, decency, and good taste, in exercising editorial judgment over what we ourselves choose to publish. Wikipedia's standard is not and should not be, we publish it unless the government stops us or unless we are sued. This principle is broader and more important than the particular dispute about the LoJack article. Wales concluded, "You can't simply dismiss concerns about ethics by saying "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Talk to the legal department". We are better than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)" Some editors, apparently, do not want to be "better than that." Please re-read what Mr. Wales said above and at WP:ANI. Then please tell us if his position, like mine, is "bogus" (to use your word). Finell (Talk) 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he's right. But since the information is widely and routinely available (e.g. at the Radio Shack stores), none of the factors that he lists apply in this case. Feel free to argue about notability or neutrality, though. Preferably on the article's talk page, as it's getting hard to follow the various places you've posted this complaint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## : - )

Hello everybody! Hope y'all are having a good day : - ) 24.184.46.196 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I initially reverted the above. That's up to this page's user to decide. Sorry. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Either way.  :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo.
Cheers!
J.delanoygabsanalyze 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, on AN/I you say "The real issue is with the violation of NPOV all over Wikipedia due to POV pushing in article space. Of course, harassing another user (even me) is a blockable offense, but whatever, I am a pretty easy going guy, so I would recommend that everyone just relax. :-) The best response to this is to fix the neutrality problem in Wikipedia." which I agree with 100% as I'm sure every good-faith contributor to wiki does. But can't you see that's exactly what some people may see as a problem is with your userpage? If you are an easy-going guy, which I think you are, couldn't you just change the wording a tiny bit so everyone is happy and it adheres with what most WP:RS say? No offence meant or anything like that, and I hope I don't get reverted by anyone watching this page as 'trolling' as that is not my intent, and I expect you to respond amicably to my comment, as that's the kind of person you are.:) Sticky Parkin 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to apologize for not letting you know. I deserve to leave Wikipedia Forever. *Imagine a giant ogre with blonde hair getting ready to cry with his arm over his eyes* Away I go. Well not really. But again sorry. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## A letter to Mr. Wales, saying thank you

Mr. Wales,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am enjoying myself immensely. I think I should clue you in to what it has done for me, and let you know why I should write to you. I am not ostentatious; in a crowded room I'm the person who sticks to the back in near-darkness. I prefer to watch people. It sounds creepy, but it's what I like to do. You can call it shy or socially inept, but it is the same. Every once in a while, though, I approach someone to thank him or her for doing something I admire.

Wikipedia gives me an opportunity to express my intense interests though I am no authority on them. I have so far written six Featured Articles and few Good Articles on topics that move me. I'm on my way to writing more. Most of the subjects of articles I have written are ones for which I have also stepped out of the dark corner to say thank you, if possible. These are not mere fleeting interests, these topics. The subject of my first edit and my first Featured Article, Ann Bannon, is now a personal friend of mine (I'm stupefied). Barbara Gittings' surviving partner and I have a correspondence. I wrote to Harper Lee when I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, though I knew she would not write me back. If I could find an address to write to David Lynch for making Mulholland Dr., I would. It's something I believe in: telling someone you appreciate what they have done, even if if comes from a complete stranger. It's good energy that should be shared.

Today I visited your user page for the first time. I don't know why I hadn't before. I also don't know why I haven't written to you. But what you have created is more than code. I'm sometimes overwhelmed that someone who is completely plain and unremarkable such as I am, shapes knowledge that is read by millions. So—thank you for making this outlet for my personal passions, and for giving me the opportunity to be a better writer.

Sincerely,

Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## hi there Jimmy Wales

I'm the so-called troll who beens vandalising your page. Firstly I would like to apologise for calling you a hypocrite, that was uncalled for, secondly I wanted to let you know that I love Wikipedia I believe in Wikipedia and I believe in you, as the de facto leader of wikipedia do the right thing aknowledge larry sanger or make A compromise. :)Wannabe Wiki (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Stepping away

To Mr. Wales,

I grow tired as I write this, so I'll be brief. I am stepping away from Wikipedia, at least for a time. I have a logjam of final work to do for college before the term ends in July. And I notice I have been less and less well, more eaisily tired as of late. Perhaps it's stress. But in short, I have resigned from editing, at least for now. I'll return in time, likely when summer break is finally come. Until then, God Bless you brother. ForeverSearching (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ForeverSearching is a suspected sock puppet of ESCStudent774441, and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Look at this

Wikipedia:Retitling of positions--Serviam (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the drawbacks go I think we'll be ok now that Germany has been accepted to the european union. Would this mean that each of the projects would now be a sort of city/state?--Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

## Jimbo

Hi my name is wikieditor222 and I am a big fan of you. do you think i could make you a custom sig.SexySeaClownfish 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

here is the sig. tell me if you like it.JimboWales

Here's the link:[[User:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:gold;color:silver">Jimbo</b>]][[User talk:Jimbo Wales|<b style="background:silver;color:gold">Wales</b>]] .SexySeaClownfish 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I like to try to leave everything set to the default. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

## where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information?

• where is the policy on deliberately divulging others' personal information on Wikipedia via email, in conversation with and about other Wikipedians? If there isn't a policy against it, there certainly should be. It... is disgusting. Potentially dangerous. Possibly illegal? I can't say. It is the lowest of the low. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:Oversight<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. doesn't look the same. That talks about *removing* the info. I mean, where is the policy that forbids it? Plus i corrected my question above. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
There isn't one. And realistically, it could only be enforced on-wiki, if at that. The huge number of Wikipedia editors who provide their own personal information on and off the site (whether deliberately or without thinking about it) would make it impossible to enforce. Remember that, except for oversighted information (which must meet a certain level of privacy violation), anything written here is retained. See this essay for further thoughts. Risker (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But think, then. Imagine you have reason to want to hide your private info. Then imagine you and I become great and good friends, and you share that info with me privately. Then we have a falling out, and i email-spam everyone I know and say user:Risker is really Phyllis Diller and lives at 123 Elm Street!! There should be on-wiki consequences, such as desysopping without need for process, and banning non-sysops from ever becoming a sysop anywhere on Wikipeida, Wikiquotes, Wikimedia, wiki-anything. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Erm, User:Dihydrogen Monoxide? :(<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Of course. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* If you really want to get more opinions/policy notes, I suggest take it to WP:AN/I or the sort instead of Jimbo's talk page. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course that's true, but where are the consequences if that does happen? I copied this thread over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Ling.Nut (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Aside from some social ostracism, probably none. People are personally responsible for what information they choose to share about themselves. This is the internet, the electronic equivalent of the Wild West. Very few of us know each other as complete human beings, we know each other as keystrokes on a screen revealing only what we choose to reveal. I urge you to sit down and really think about this. Risker (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." (Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment, see that policy page for context). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"particularly severely."... And yet I have admins telling me I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are. It does not apply to information voluntarily given out. Risker (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To make things easier and out of respect for the user's talk page, can the discussions be held at WP:AN?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Permission was not given for the info to be broadcasted. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. What's the purpose of the AN thread? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent). Ummm, my last comment meant, "I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. permission was not given for the editor's personal info to be broadcasted by the second party" Ling.Nut (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I understand, but this is a User's Talk Page. There is already a thread at WP:AN, I think any subsequent comments should be made there, that is all. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to report that I do not know the specifics of the case in question at all. So I can only offer some general thoughts. I think that good judgment should be used and that in general it is wrong to broadcast people's personal information without their permission, whether it was given our voluntarily or not. Having said that, it is also important to realize that some people will violate personal trust and so it is also wise to not give out personal information in the first place. Context matters, and I think there is no easy rule. Efforts to treat others with dignity and respect, even when there has been a conflict, is always admirable.
I agree with Tinkleheimer that other than asking me for some general thoughts (which I have given and I am happy to elaborate upon if anyone asks), this is not the best place for this discussion. If this is about a live dispute, it should move forward in the dispute resolution process. If this is a question of changing current policy, well, I am not about to intervene and change policy unilaterally, so that, too, should go through the usual process. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

### lack of clarity is a ticking bomb

To answer the original question, I don't think this is that complicated. Violating someone's trust, such as disclosing the private information, is the matter primarily of ethics, not policies. It is not, and has not become, a matter of policy for the same reason as the rules of ethics do not make it into laws, such as criminal or administrative codes, at least not directly.

Someone guilty of unethical conduct usually faces the ostracizing in the society and loss of trust of his peers but usually not direct legal consequences.

In some cases, the trust violation can bring real life consequences and the victim can pursue the grievances in RL courts of law. I can imagine that this may be possible if the person suffers a demonstrable damage by having his/her info whose privacy s/he could reasonably expect under circumstances violated.

If this is done by a Wikipedia editor (or even an admin) the Wikipedia or the WMF do not fit into all this. By far more important is taking the precaution that such info is not disseminated by the person acting on the foundation's behalf, that is by arbitrators, checkusers and whoever has access to the info protected by the legally binding privacy policy.

The (possibly deliberate) opacity of who has the checkuser access and the rules of handling such info is a ticking bomb. To this day there is no (that I am aware) document that Checkusers have to sign where their responsibilities as well as consequences of violating them are outlined. To this day, the process of giving the checkuser access remains murky. To this day, there is no even clarity on whether the checkuser is the policy issue, ArbCom issue or a foundation issue. It is made look like it is a little bit of all three and there is no way that I am alone in recognizing the grave dangers of this situation.

As for the original question and the incident that prompted it, violation of trust by the RfAdm candidate was an ethical issue, not a policy one. --Irpen 16:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## Notability question for you

After participating in an Afd I was curious if this deletion follows some notability guideline. While it is an older edit; and being a non-admin I can't see the original article, I can't find anything that says "high school athletic conferences are not notable". I know many editors watch this page, so if anyone knows where the guideline is at please jump right in! Thanks for your time. §hep¡Talk to me! 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No clue. In general, though, I would guess that such information can not be verified or confirmed by other editors and should therefore be omitted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

## IRC

IRC, w00t!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why IRC is w00t?! /me thinks I'm missing an IRC joke ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he was identifying himself on IRC for me (Warpath), too many fake Jimbo's around :P .....-- 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia

I think that for starting wikipedia, you deserve a cookie. It's the least I can do.

Candleguy1994 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm, coookie! Me like cookie!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Is it a cookie!? Oh my goodness... Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

## majority rule

Dear Jimbo Wales,

I have noticed that your word has rather a lot of influence on wikipedia (which makes sense to me, since you founded the project). Looking at this remark, I would like to ask you to clear something up :

In the NPOV policy we (the wiki community) agreed to give significant minority viewpoints fair coverage (but no undue weight). Do you feel this should be done even when we "know" that the SigMinView is "wrong"? Or should wikipedia then take the majority scientific viewpoint?

Example 1: Terror attacks of September 11: What if several former Ministers of major countries, as well as members of Congress, and several retired US Generals, appear to be holding such a "false" Minority-view ?

Example 2: Homeopathy: what if millions of people use these treatments; what if countless studies have shown effects beyond the placebo effect (and countless studies have found no effect)? Should wikipedia take the majority scientific (industry) view, that homeopathy is silly? Or should it remain neutral, and risk being laughed at, as for instance Haemo is said to fear

Haemo: What matters is the effect on the encyclopedia, and that's the same either way: the encyclopedia is compromised, corrupted, made to look ridiculous, or even all three at once.

I would appreciate to learn your thoughts on this matter !

(just for your information, I am topic-banned from 9/11 articles)

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statements and questions here would indicate that in your opinion a scientific viewpoint should be black and white, cut and dry and it usually isn't. For instance, choosing example 1 what if I where to tell you that I believe that both sides are scientifically true..and heres why. The reasons we went to Iraq (to find WMD's) turned out to be false, BUT there was very good evidence that he had the capabilities and even if he didn't there are several neighboring countries that for a fact do and he had friendly relations to them. With that said now that we are there we MUST finish the job or else the entire country would tear itself apart and we WOULD be to blame. On the otherhand the generals, ministers and others that you speak of also have compelling arguments against the war in Iraq and they are right too. But which is more right, do we stay or do we go? Both have positives and negatives just as science has protons and neutrons, in the end the science of should we stay outways the science of should we go because from a simply humanitarian aspect if we leave before we build the infrastructure back up we are worse or at least as bad as than the regime we replaced. If not in act in complacency. Just because you can prove something scientifically true, you can also scientifically prove that its not. There are entire buildings of physicists who study these paradoxes and even then seldom can they make sense out of them for the rest of us.--Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nations at war do not tell the truth. As Wikipedia is about providing sourced relevant claims in an encyclopedic format, this need not concern us. We merely report who said what when in an encyclopedic format. "According to Source ____, on date ____ President Bush said ____." and so on. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, and others, would you please reply: does knowing which view is right overrule WP:NPOV, yes or no?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It is in response to this "But I know the Truth!" attitude that we put "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth" in the WP:V policy. On the other hand, if there is a consensus that some claim is unreliable because it is a typo or is out of date or some such thing, then it is entirely appropriate for the editors of that article to not use that claim in that article. Consensus here does not mean majority; it means that you actually convince the other editors, not drive them away or outvote them. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

## Playmate Statistics On Wikipedia

The playmate statistics (measurements, age, place of birth, etc.) listed on the article entitled "Stephanie Adams" have been repeatedly removed by a group of rather "unusual" users as an attempt to inadvertently and indirectly harass the person being written in the biography. If you can review the article and place the statistics back again, it would be consistent with every other playmate's article on Wikipedia. Best Regards, 66.108.144.201 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that someone already added it back a few times, including today, and each time, it gets removed again. Perhaps if you make a note somewhere in the discussion or add it back yourself, they might realize that it is a form of vandalism and leave the article alone. Have a good night. 66.108.144.201 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, virtually all such statistics should be removed with extreme prejudice as being from unreliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And what would count as a "reliable source"? Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While fact boxes are inappropriate for questionable data; it is common in the text to provide information from questionable yet notable sources; such as saying "According to the Playboy edition in which she was featured as a playmate, her statistics were as follows: ____" with a source. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Providing the information that way seems to me like it almost begs having it tagged and/or removed as trivia. Whereas if its in an infobox, it's less likely to be culled out. After all, isn't the purpose behind a infobox to provide common information in one place? Most biographical infoboxes provide details such as birthdate, birth location, real name, image, etc. In the case of the Playmate, it's placing a common piece of information in one location. Tabercil (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some bio facts are notable, don't change, and are not usually exaggerated for commercial reasons. These belong in an info box. If you think it may be deleted as trivia, then add a sourced claim for why it is not trivia: "According to ___, her breast size, claimed to be ___, was a key marketing point in her career as a model." WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but unless they are removed on EVERY playmate's article, they should not be discriminately removed from just one. 69.22.240.169 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As a former blind wikipedian, I'm reposting the following part of a conversation from my talk page, in hopes that it will raise more awareness of wikipedia's major accessibility problem. Requiring an admin to create accounts for a user who can't see the captcha is not an okay solution. It says that blind people are third-class users who are not welcomed to the website at the same level as "regular" users. It also says that wikipedia does not believe we have the same rights as other users, IE the rights to indipendantly create accounts and edit pages. As well, on a blocked IP (like a school, small country, or workplace) it might not be possible to ask an admin for help creating an account. So: are audio or text captchas ever coming to wikipedia? If not, why not? For that matter, why don't we have them already?

begin conversation snip.

If you post to User talk:Jimbo Wales, I'm sure he - or one of the army of admins who watch his page - will create an account on your behalf, if the captchas are causing a problem. (I'd do it myself, but I've never understood how.) For all its many faults, Wikipedia does at least try to be inclusive. iridescent 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, in this case, not even trying to be inclusive. Many, many open source, accessible audio captchas exist. Wikipedia admins and developers have been asked, repeatedly, to use them. Plugins for the mediawiki engine that create accessible captcha solutions have been written. Wikipedia refuses to use them. Until Wikipedia stops treating me like a third-class user, I will not edit on a regular basis, and thus don't need to worry about accounts. When the captcha becomes accessible, I will begin editing wikipedia once more. I still have an account from the days before captcha. However, I won't use it until other blind folks who didn't sign up before wikipedia put up its giant "no blind editors allowed" sign get the oppertunity to create accounts, as well. The only reason I edited at all tonight is because it looked like a quick, easy change that would take half a minute, and was requested by someone else. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Needless to say, I do not donate to wikipedia, and have no plans to until this is fixed. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

end conversation snip. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As a "troop in the army", I just wanted to clarify that, as you point out, it is not only blind users who are subject to this. Wikipedia:Request an account exists for those users unable to create an account for themselves because of blocks, firewalls, or other technical restrictions and includes ways to contact administrators and account creators via e-mail or other means. So while I think you have a valid concern, please don't think that this is being done to single out blind users or, indeed, any single group of potential Wikipedia users. --jonny-mt 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully support that we should be as fully accessible to blind people as we practically can be. I recommend raising the question with Brion Vibber. Someone up above suggests that open source audio captcha's exist, although he or she incorrectly attributes our not using them to "not even trying to be inclusive". I do not know the reason some solution has not been implemented, but I am sure that Brion has one. I will raise this issue with Sue Gardner when I am better informed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Having audio captcha's sounds like a good idea and the fact we don't have them is far more likely to be an oversight than a lack of care about the disabled. I would point out in response to the suggestion that this community is unwelcoming to the blind and does not accord them the status of "regular users" that to my knowledge at least 2 administrators on the English Wikipedia are blind. WjBscribe 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Starling seems to think that audio captcha are infeasible, (User:Tim Starling/Weekly reports/2008-W09), and Brion has said that the only reason there aren't audio captcha is that no one cares to work on it ([1]), he has also pointed out that captchas on wikipedia are should be a relatively rare events ([2]). 89.138.74.123 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, please remember that we're not just talking about wikipedia. Captchas happen on all wikimedia projects. Captchas happen when signing up for every wikia wiki. Captchas lock blind users out of any mediawiki website using the default captcha extension. 206.126.88.124 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the information from this section is now on my user page. I am 206.126.88.124 and have recovered my account for this spacific purpose. I will update it if/when anything changes or I find out anything more. Fastfinge (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

## Birth names of porn actors

Any chance you'd care to weigh in here? David in DC (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In the cases in question, the claim that the names are "well-sourced" appears to me to be wrong. The sources do not look very good at all to me, one of them is a random blog as far as I can tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot

Just in case you have not noticed this discussion. We would like to hear you opinion about this -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 08:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I support continued discussion, and it seems like the discussion is mostly going well. This is a Big Deal and proceeding slowly and thoughtfully sounds to me like a very good idea. I am not the best person to decide, so other than offering my usual advice to seek compromise and a middle path which addresses the concerns of everyone as best we can, I have no particular thoughts. I would be opposed to randomly unleashing a bot which generates 2 million articles overnight without a HUGE amount of community oversight. I would also be opposed to simply saying "no" to the whole project. So, other than those two extreme positions which I think no one is advocating, I think there are many valid options in the middle and trust that the community will work to figure out a decent compromise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 Zebra Stripe Padlock To Jimbo Wales, I present to you a super snazzy, totally razzy, zebra fur padlock! I've awarded this to you because you have a cool userpage and because you are literally Mr. Wikipedia ...and because it's furry! Who can resist soft plush fur? Don't worry, it's not made from real animals, of course! --.:Alex:. 17:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (The manufacturer does not guarantee that no fat striped zebras were harmed in the production of this padlock)

## WP:ACC

I noticed you (or another user claiming to be you) have recently requested an account for the ACC tool on the toolserver. Please can you verify that you did make this request, by replying here, or on my talk page. Thanks. :-) Stwalkerstertalk ] 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(The toolserver tool referenced is [3]) SQLQuery me! 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Must be a fake. Was not me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, locked out (I doubt you'd need access to that tool, let me know if you do, I'll rename that account) SQLQuery me! 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

## Gsnguy

Mr. Wales,

Sockpuppets of Gsnguy, who received an indefinite block in October 2006 for initiating a spree of incorrect slogans for American television stations or slipping profanities into user talk discussions between users who acted on his vandalism, and has resumed the same behavior in February 2008. He was unnoticed before that month with a new behavior before connections between these socks were made, which was adding irrelevant articles about network imaging slogans that have almost universally been taken to AfD and subsequently deleted. The vandalism of the sockfarm created by TheInvisibleMachine is likely also from the same editor.

It was believed that Gsnguy may have been neutralized, as he used an IP belonging to Indiana University of Pennsylvania to vandalize and attempt to use the password forget option to unsuccessfully 'hack' accounts of other editors. The IP was reported to IUP's abuse department as a violation of the school's Internet Use Policy on March 21, 2008, along with the backstory of Gsnguy's vandalism. The abuse director with IUP responded on March 24 that appropriate action against the IP (likely Gsnguy) would be taken. However with the end of the school year, Gsnguy has resumed activity in the first week of June 2008 through either home IPs or other means.

Please ban Gsnguy from editing wikipedia, lock his sockpuppets, protect his talk pages. Please ban Gsnguy. CrazyKid2000 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Only contribution from this editor... Must have done a lot of reading and research before committing this one post to Jimbo's page. How lucky we (dur komunartey) are that these one time posters chose to inform us all regarding some other individuals naughty deeds upon this project. It makes one humble. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the account has been indef blocked anyway... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

## Ban Request

Resolved: user blocked for harassment & impersonation --Rodhullandemu 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting that the user coolio98 be banned for copying my name and tarnishing wikipedia articles and my pages and calling me a f*g. Coolio 01 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly hate to be called a "fig"! ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In some languages, even the most innocent-sounding words can be extremely offensive; for example, to call an Italian a fennel is much the same insult, although most English-speakers wouldn't get it. That's why Admins need to be aware of these things sometimes, because otherwise they'd have to take the word of an allegedly insulted party on trust, and we've all seen where that can go. --Rodhullandemu 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and how constantly grateful I am for the erudition of WP's Admins! Next thing you know someone will call someone else a "butterfly" and we will have to hope for a Spanish-speaking Admin. ;-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol, and indeed that is a vulgar insult in Spanish. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

## Email

Hi there, I emailed you about May 29 concerning a news story I am writing. Just wondering if you received it? ~ Viennan U T @ 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't remember that. Try again?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## HI!!!!

Hey, man. You're the best. Please let me know you knwo I exist. You've made this 6th grade nerd with no life happy! Shapiros10 WuzHere  23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

## Proposal

Hello!I don't think you know me.(There's too many Wikipedians for that to be possible) But I'm here with a little proposal. Original proposal [4] here

The Basic Outlines of the Proposal are:

• Require people editing for the first time to create an account. Basically when they click the "edit this page" button for the first time they should be prompted with the "create a new account" page. Normal users will continue to log in as normal, but they'll have to log in before editing to prevent being prompted with "create a new account".
• Autoconfirmation status will still be required for creating a new page or editing a semi-protected one. This serves as an additional barrier and source of frustration for vandals. New users should automatically receive an automated message with the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia, the pillars, and info about blocks,bans, and protection of pages. This will reduce the number of "test" edits and pages. A reduction in test edits means new users are less likely to be "bitten" as they will know more about Wikipedia.
• Pros:
1. Privacy/Safety: IP addresses are not shown reducing the risk of peoples' computers being compromised. In addition an IP address can be traced to an address. Not showing it reduces the risk of harassment/problems for Wikipedians in real life.
1. Far Less Vandalism: Most vandals (i.e. bored school kids) likely have a short attention span. Being prompted with a "Please choose a nickname/create an account" page will discourage most vandals letting the main task of Wikipedians;article building, to continue uninterrupted.
1. Easier Blocking: IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely. This results in headaches for admins who can only block IP's for so long. And there's the IP's that change quickly(the actual address,not behavior) or keep coming back to vandalize. Forcing new users to register allows admins to easily block any obvious vandals and protect Wikipedia.
1. Users Receive Credit for Work: Why edit as an IP address(a stinking number) when you can create your own nickname(like a lot of sites),have your own userpage and receive things like barnstars as credit for your work?! It's somewhat of an obvious thing.

Thanks for your time!!!Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs) 01:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. This is a discussion brought up a lot that has never been implemented for reasons you can see in that link. Metros (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## My page

Several IPs (92.2.101.94, 92.3.33.48, 92.4.223.217) have vandalised my user-page. Can you do something about these attacks? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week. After one week the page will be automatically unprotected.. The funny thing is, I just came from WP:RFPP.... --jonny-mt 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## Press screenings of upcoming films

Jimbo, I hve question. I work for a market research company that conducts screenings of films prior to their release, and naturally, I have the opportunity to see films in this manner now and again. Yesterday, I attended a press screening of The Incredible Hulk, and added the plot synopsis to the article, feeling that the movie was the source I was citing. I'm an editor and administrator in good standing, and I think that should go to Good Faith reliability that the source is valid, since it's coming out in a week. I had a feeling someone might revert it, and sure enough, someone did, saying that the movie isn't out yet. Do I really have to wait until the 13th to add the information from the source I indeed viewed? Are press screenings not valid? What about midnight showings of films that occur prior to the day of release? While I wouldn't cite a research screening, since those are held months or years before release, and the film is still considered a work in progress at that point, and subject to change, press screenings are presentations of the final product to the press, and are common in big cities (I live near Manhattan). At what point is it considered believable that I saw the film in question? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you are an expert with a conflict of interest (your job depends on communicating information about movies) doing original research. I should ban you right now. - Fawn Lake (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (joking, of course)
Adding information that can not currently be verified from a published reliable source is a violation of the WP:V policy. After the movie is available to millions at the price of a ticket, it is considered "published". But it is also a primary source, and must only be used for obvious claims and not for original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting and important question. I do agree with WAS, and I fear that much of what we have in some categories (episodes of series) veers very very far into original research. But a basic plot synopsis should not be problematic. So then we are only left with WP:V issues. And I don't know where the cutoff should be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Rarely is any film shown for the first time at pre-premiere press screenings; there are almost always film festival screenings, even for Hollywood films. So there should be something from a festival catalog or festival press coverage to cite. (Films that debut at festivals have their publicists ask for "capsule" reviews, and to hold full reviews for theatrical premiere). Additionally, for theatrical release press screenings, there should be press releases and presskits that have a plot synopsis to cite. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There were no press kits that I was aware of at the screening. If there were, I didn't not see or receive any, since I'm not a member of the press. I was a guest of the market research company that the studios (in this case, Universal) hires to arrange the screening, and to recruit citizens to fill seats. Moreover, the synopsis I wrote has a bit more detail in it than would be found in a press kit. So should I restore the material, or not? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is reasonably clear: if you cannot cite reliable sources that others can check, then the material is OR, and not appropriate for an article. Your word, my word, even Mr. Wales's word, in and of itself, is not a reliable source. In short, "no, not yet". ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll wait until the 13th. Nightscream (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Does Nightscream's market research company not have signed non-disclosure agreements with its client companies? -- Fawn Lake (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, the screening wasn't conducted by the company I work for; it was arranged by one of our competitors. Because I'm friendly with the recruiters from that other company, I managed to get them to allow me to attend. While there is probably some type of nondisclosure understanding, implicit or explicit, no one can prevent a civilian respondent attending a screening from revealing anything in the film, and I was attending the film in that capacity. They even stopped having the respondents sign such cards stating as much years ago. Second, nondisclosure is more important when a film is in the research stage. Research screenings are held months or years before a film comes out, the film is still a work-in-progress, the respondents are given questionnaires regarding their reaction, and the final cut is determined in part by this. This was a press screening, in which the final cut has been determined, there are no questionnaires, and the film is screened for the press just prior to release so they can write their reviews. So my describing the plot in Wikipedia, with only minimal details, a week before release, would hardly trouble anyone at Universal or the m.r. company in question. Nightscream (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to consider posting reviews of movies at our sister project http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page. They allow original research. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream, your story still sounds amiss. So, this competitor market research company was somehow engaged to facilitate the press screening? What kind of market research company (supposed to be neutral, unbiased) also engages in promotion and public relations (by definition, non-neutral and biased)? It just sounds like you're acting unprofessionally, to assume that what you're doing would "hardly trouble anyone" who has put millions of dollars behind the product. Were the members of the press in attendance asked to embargo their stories until the day of the release? If so, you jumping the gun on Wikipedia is just unethical. -- Fawn Lake (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis, as I made clear above, and as can be seen by clicking on the relevant version. While I have posted my personal reviews on my MySpace page and Nitcentral.com, I don't know how to go about doing so on Wikinews, as a search for "Incredible Hulk (film)" turned up no results, and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.

2. The company in question does not handle promotion or public relations, and I never indicated that it did. It simply recruits civilian respondents to fill seats at research and press screenings. At research screenings, they're recruited in order to give the studio/producers/director pre-release feedback that can affect the final cut or some aspect of their approach to marketing it. This is market research, not public relations or promotion, because market research is conducted privately and quietly, before a final product is decided, and is therefore the opposite of "public". At press screenings, they're recruited because the press likes to see the film in a "natural movie setting" in order to see how the public sitting around them reacts to the film, as this is something that critics like to factor into or mention in their reviews. While I would not add a plot synopsis when a film is still in the research stage, I see nothing unprofessional about describing the plot within a week of release if I was one of the guests viewing it at a press screening. The only considerations would be spoilers (now a moot point, since Wikipedia itself did away with spoiler warnings some time ago on the grounds that readers can gauge for themselves the danger of reading a spoiler), and verifiability, for which I acquiesced to Jimbo and WAS's admonitions above. As for critics, I know of no practice of "embargoes", but keep in mind that critics write reviews, not plot descriptions in encyclopedias. I very much doubt that studios want them to hold off publishing their reviews, especially if they're positive, since the studios want such publicity. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

1: You said "The material in question was not a review, WAS. It was a plot synopsis [...] and I'm not that familiar with contributing to that sister project.'" I know. I was suggesting that you do something different. Sometimes that requires learning something new.
2: The people giving you money are promoting the film, whether you know it or not, and whether that was a part of what they said they paid you for or not. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fawn Lake is banned user User:MyWikiBiz. DNFTT. PouponOnToast (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence, Poupon? As for Nightscream, thank you for your added clarifications above. - Fawn Lake (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Okay, thanks, but I'm not interested in expanding my Wiki activities at this time. I just recently began uploading files to the Commons, and I think that's enough for now. I already posted my review on my MySpace page and at nitcentral.com. If you want to read it, it's here. Spoiler warning bookends are placed around any spoilers, and are formatted to be hidden unless you highlight them.

2. The people who fill the press screening with non-press (what I understand you meant by "promoting the film") are not "giving me money", and have never "paid" me for anything. I do not work for them, and never have, as was made clear in two different posts above. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

## No big deal?

I'm sure you remember your "Sysop is no big deal" remark. It's often quoted on User pages (usually admin's) and it's a nice, refreshing idea. That's what the Wiki community should be like. I came across that quote a while ago, after reading some requests for adminship. The gap between theory and Real Life could hardly be bigger.

As far as I can see RfA requests have turned into an exam where candidates have to answer numerous questions and where their edit histories are scrutinized as if we're nominating a Supreme Court justice[5]. In my opinion the general atmosphere there is elitist and slightly arrogant, and some of the stuff the candidates are asked to go through borders on the ridiculous [6]. And then candidates still fail because 67 "yes" votes against 28 "no" is not enough [7]. That's "no big deal" in action?

In the same quote you say you sometimes consider giving out admin rights semi-random, just to make the point. As far as I know you haven't done that yet. If that's the case, may I suggest that you do it? Just to balance things a bit?

No, I haven't had an RfA fail and no, this isn't some sort of revenge against admins (some of my best Wiki-friends... etc). I honestly believe the RfA proces is turning into a monster and I'd like to know what you think about it. Kind regards,  Channel ®   14:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to observe how the process has evolved since this, which is around 4 months after the "no big deal" comment.
Regarding my view, I think of Wikipedia as the tree of knowledge - in a garden where all its visitors are entitled to be gardeners. Thus administrators are not janitors but groundskeepers, that's all. They just have a slightly bigger toolbox. Being a sysop is surely only a big deal to the extent that one is responsible. Should it be decided that someone might capably and trustworthily carry the keys to the proverbial bigger garden shed, then per no big deal, anything that helps hand them over as undramatically and smoothly as possible is a good thing in my book.
I have never participated in RfA more than commenting on someone's candidacy. I understand the above editor's sentiment but I don't think we can inherently label it a hoop jumping process, even if it might feel like it. If it can be improved, great, but we must realise that Wikipedians ultimately want good administrators and recognize and respect the community's wish to choose them discerningly and carefully. I agree that such methods should always be proportionate, but I'd wager that this will always be the evolving lynchpin in the process. Those are my musings anyway. Regards from WilliamH (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be pretty helpful if you could go to WT:RFA and clarify your thoughts on the process now, so your "no big deal" statement will be cited the way you intended it to (however that is).--KojiDude (C) 17:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a few 'crats should "Be Bold" and go and give a few hundred rollbackers that they know personally adminship without discussion. That out to teach us that it is no big deal. (note this is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point because they are following Jimbo's command "no big deal".) Zginder 2008-06-07T18:05Z (UTC)
Not entirely without discussion! You would have to get the permission from the user involved first, as not everybody wishes to be an admin. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
"command"?--KojiDude (C) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Fellow editors, it has long been my view that the remark, made (as noted above) when Wikipedia was in its infancy, needs to be better interpreted than we sometime see.
• Being an admin is no big deal - i.e. bragging about it is hardly likely to win you friends down the pub.
• The actual admin tools, however, are a big deal, as the technical ability to replace the main page of the 7th/8th most popular website in the world with a giant phallus is not handed out lightly.
However it would be nice for Jimbo to actually state this (or state this assesment of mine is utter tripe) due to the repeated valueless discussion the quote has generated. 21:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• With all due respect to Mr. Wales, once the community feels adminship is a big deal, the fact is that it's a big deal.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
To Pedro: Thanks for calling my question (and other people's contributions) valueless. Very kind, much appreciated.  Channel ®   21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed Pedro's point. He was agreeing with you that the quote has to be re-visited by Jimbo. By "valueless discussion" he meant the times it has been used as an argument in RfA.--KojiDude (C) 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Koji, that was exactly what I meant. Channel R, my apologies that evidently my remark was not couched correcly and seemed offensive - it was not your comment that was without value - indeed a clarification of the "No Big Deal" comment is long overdue and I thank you for this thread. I was referencing the many, many times the quote has been ill-used (IMHO) at WP:RFA and WT:RFA and the debates that inevitably follow. Again, my apologies for presenting my input in a way that you took offence from. 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[Hitting the strike-through button] Thanks for the explanation, both of you, and sorry for misunderstanding. I must admit I'm a little touchy when it comes to this subject so I guess I jumped to conclusions. Apologies from this side too.  Channel ®   21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The advantage of the current system is that people have to be pretty motivated to want to become an admin, and random giving it out to "trusted" users would not, IMO, be in any way a good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a bigger deal than it used to be. That has some good points and some bad points. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the ethos of the RfA process has changed even in my short time here; on the one hand it could be argued that these things move in cycles abone an underlying trend and it certainly isn't easy to analyse the process; on the other hand you could go by impressionistic evidence and claim that RfA is more political than it used to be (and I can't say that); that it's tougher than it used to be (and I could, given time, support that); that it's more of a beauty contest than it used to be (in the sense that you have to tick the right boxes, and if you miss a few with the wrong people, you are doomed); that it's harder to rebound from one error of judgement in that context, since all your conduct is under the microscope, etc. All in all, I would not be happy going through the process again right now, and I know great editors with the proper attitude and capacity for judgement who would make great Admins, but don't want the stress of the process itself or what might follow a successful RfA. That's a great loss of talent to the project. We are incorrectly seen by some as whippers, and by others as whipping-boys. I have no idea at present how and in what direction this should progress, but I think it should be looked at. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, realizing that you want to avoid giving a statement that people start taking as the new law "because Jimbo said...", your original statement has taken on a life entirely of its own over at RfA. I think everyone has qouted it at least once in some context (which is probably a little spooky). Bearing this in mind, the RfA process would probably benefit greatly if you could just give it a look, and make your opinion of it known. Something as basic as "this seems really dumb" or "eh, this doesn't bother me" would do. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Poor Jimbo "Brian" Wales. Jimbo has said "Don't use that I said something as an argument." Wikipedians chant in unison, "Write that down, we must use that as an argument." The Lord's Prayer in the New Testament is the most ironic example I know of that illustrates the human desire to be told what to do (so long as they are not being told to think for themselves). The disciples want to know how to pray. Jesus says don't just repeat words like a magic incantation or formula. They say well give us an example. Jesus does. Now that example is repeated like a magic incantation or formula. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We're on the same page WAS. The problem is that this is exactly what has happened already. The People's Liberation Front of Big Deal is fighting the No Big Deal Liberation Front. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It is my humble opinion that anyone who doesn't think that being an admin is a big deal, doesn't truly understand what they do. The admins have a lot of tools and access that can do a lot of good or harm depending on how they are used. I understand the work they do and I still failed my RFA. I think that the comment that Jimbo made is OBE and should be revised if not overwritten (no offense Jimbo). With that said I do think that the current RFA process needs to be seriously reviewed and replaced with a better, less arbitrary one. It is also my personal opinion that not everyone who wishes to do administrative tasks need be an administrator. I believe a lot of good would come form unbundling the admin package and allowing experienced users to request those tools rather than the mop as a whole. It worked for rollback and didn't cause the mass chaos that was feared I believe it will work here too. Additionally, as wikipedia grows you should have different tools available to different users who intend to perform only specific tasks. This will also relieve some of the burden from the admins. Just me 2 cents.--Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## What do you think of this picture (the left one) compared to the current one (the right one) on your user page?

LiteralKa (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this one captures his personality more:
Looks just like him.--KojiDude (C) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm serious LiteralKa (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never liked the one on the left, but it is popular in Asia for some reason. The one on the right captures my personality more, I think.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that the colors, and the rounded edges on the left one look amazing; And without the "O Wiki" caption, it would be serious too! LiteralKa (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
...So that's a no on the Chuck Norris idea, then?--KojiDude (C) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's a no according to BJBot. BradV 03:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The one on the left is more popular in Asia because you're wearing a blazer. Seriously. If you'd like to know the reason, I'll try to explain Asian culture to you as much as I understand it, from having lived over here for over seven total years. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it have something to do with authority? I'm an Asian, but the only thing I fancy wearing is a longcoat.
I think the right picture looks better; that "O WIKI?" text on the left image puts me off completely. In addition, Uncyclopedia seems to like using that image as well. I mean, just look at this... -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

## Economist

I see that The Economist knows you exist. But they think you made your money from Bomis. Are they confused or am I? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11484062 is the article in The Economist. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Economist is confused on that point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

## HumanBeigns

I am sorry if (on that wiki) my comments seem bad, however are you a member of this wiki. Is a vandal pretending to be you? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not him. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. --StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

## Jimbo's got a gun?

Hi Jimbo,

So for whatever reason I just got it in my head to take a trip back in time and look at your earliest contributions and, well...is there something you want to tell us? =) --jonny-mt 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Jimbo used to work articles! Jon513 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Tells me that if 5 monkeys can create an encyclopedia, then 1,000,005 can create quite a good encyclopedia.  :-) 63.3.15.1 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
So Jimbo, why don't you just take a day or week to chill and edit some articles? ;-) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
After the Mzoli's farce who could blame him for not doing so, and besides the point of wikipedia is to get the rest of us to edit or play other roles (administrate etc) in creating this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

## Hey dude

Man, I cant believe you founded this joint. So you would know some pointers. What should I get involved with so that I am ready for a RFA.Gears Of War 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get an admin coach. I am not advertising, but you may have a better chance if you sign up to other wikis (or have you?) StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I've already gotten some advice if you want to add more advice do so or copy the old one you just posted here.Gears Of War 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Work on other wikis is not a factor of consideration for becoming administrators here. This is especially true of some of the "nonsense" wikis that are cropping up a lot lately. Metros (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nor should one come to Wikipedia with the goal of becoming an administrator. You should be here to contribute to benefit the encyclopedia, not to seek adminship. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## Wales (surname)

I created this little dab page today. I remember on this page you said a while back that you saw your role on wikipedia as somewhat like that of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in the UK. What I only yesterday realised is that you actually share your surname with the 2 illustrious Princes, William Wales and Harry Wales, both of whom use the Wales surname in their current roles as UK military officers, eg Cadet Wales. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

## fair use in Korean Wikipedia.

Hello Jimbo, How are you? Whatever, can i request? My request is that Fair use of Korean Wikipedia. They doesn't agree fair use.(because i heard that Korean Law doesn't agree the fair use) But I heard that EDP passed all Wikipedia. How do you think that? And can you agree fair use in Korean Wikepedia?--Abigail alderate (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The EDP is a minimum standard, in many cases its advisable to go stronger, especially when "relevent country copyright laws" make the default unsuitable. Jimbo probably doesn't know Korean copyright law that well, if you're truly concerned, you should talk to a Korean lawyer. WilyD 15:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Korean law doesn't really go for generalised fair use but a multitude of exceptions which would be tricky to try and build into an EDP.Geni 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

## Autograph

A bit of a long shot as americans say but would you like to sign my Autograph page? I am well known in the transport areas of Wikipedia partically for starting up WikiProject London Transport which has grown to include nearly 650 articles. I have also started up many articles and have contributed to hundreds, mainly to do with transport, and I have uploaded many photos and diagrams. With thanks, UNI|SOUTH 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

## A bit fed up with some spanish sysops

Una de las peores cosas de la wikipedia es la élite de bibliotecarios (sysops) que se ha formado, mientras aquellos que intentan dialogar y negociar terminan abandonando, el número de bibliotecarios "radicales" y "autoritarios" aumenta. Un ejemplo claro del daño que pueden hacer es el siguiente:

Manuel de Lekuona (o Juan Antonio Moguel y otros muchos) era un escritor vasco y que dedicó su vida el estudio de la literatura vasca, pero llega su biografía a la wikipedia y de protno una información que era importante para entender su labor y tarea (es decir que era un escritor, poeta, etnógrafo vasco) desaparece, deja de ser vasco, para ser simplemente español. Entendiend que su nacionalidad legal es la española se rogó al CRC que sentará jurisprudencia y permitiera incluir su pertenencia a la cultura y el pueblo vasco, pero esté se desentendió. De manera que ahora, a hurtadillas y esperando que nadie lo revise, debemos añadir la coletillas "de origen vasco", para clarificar, pues no se entendería a un catalán escribiendo sobre literatura en euskera, un gallego haciendo lo mismo con la catalana o un andaluz sentando las bases de las gramática del euskera.

Y a pesar de ello no nos dejan ni siquiera añadir esa coletilla de "español de origen vasco", no hay manera, quieren que esa información (importante y útil, sobretodo en el caso de escritores en euskera) desaparezca. Es por eso que recurro a ti, pues en la wikipedia en inglés se permite escribir scottish cuando un escritor ha nacido en Escocia, porque no se puede hacer lo mismo con los escritores vascos? por favor, haga algo, una recomendación (no hablamos de eliminar su nacionalidad legal, pero incluir la cultural, recordemos que el Estatuto de Gernika reconoce la nacionalidad vasca), una sugerencia al debate, no lo sé.

Muchas gracias / eskerrik asko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.202.27 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Por qué!?--KojiDude (C) 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the Spanish wikipedia doesn't have an ArbCom? You should be able to list someone's nationality without it being removed constantly. Huh. §hep¡Talk to me! 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
es:Wikipedia:Comité de Resolución de Conflictos.Geni 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Its a bit more controversial than that, Steps, Pais vasco is one of the great conflicts in the Spanish speaking world and it is understandable that some Spaniards would want to see him as Spanish and Basque liberation supporters would want to see him called Basque. There is simply nott eh same controversy surrounding whether a British person is Scottish, Welsh, English etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay...I was comparing with the Scottish to British idea without doing my homework. §hep¡Talk to me! 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Northern Ireland is more similar. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

## Sorry, my mistake!

Hey sorry about my editing of the quotations, bit.

Was my mistake, i didn't mean to do it, and didn't even realise! - oops!

I have not undone the edit, so it should be back to normal!

Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred.bradley (talkcontribs) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

## Email

Hi, me again from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_37#Email. I sent another email a few days ago. Thanks. ~ Viennan U T @ 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No clue, can you send it again with Viennan in the subject line?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks. ~ Viennan U T @ 10:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

## Hello

My name is Ben, i've had some trouble on wikipedia, i've seen the video on how wikipedia came about, the admins who i have recently encountered are young 16, 17 year olds that pretty much take over wikipedia like on that video on youtube. It is pretty amazing how wikipedia came about. At the end of the year in december, my friend will post you a message. Thanks for your time. ;)

Cheers... BJinsect (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PS.Here is my EMail so you can give me a note.....G_unitBenny　|AT|　hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by BJinsect (talkcontribs) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I refactored your e-mail address to save you from the spambots. And if I recall correctly, I ran across you at WP:CHU--I didn't realize my online communications betrayed my youthful spirit :) --jonny-mt 08:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks

From my friend(because anonymous users can't edit this page and we can't register on the school network): Wikipedia is really helpful. Thank you so much for this amazing website. From Sami and Yupei--Faizaguo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

Sorry to spam your talk page but I would be grateful if you could make a few articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, the project which tackles systemic bias. Your articles have a greater chance of surviving AFD than a normal editor and dont get speedy tags and prods like everyone else. I don't want to embroil you in another Mzoli's incident but the deletionists are attacking the noble endeavor to improving wikipedia coverage. Cabal111 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem...just because he's Jimbo (and we love you for that, Jimbo!) doesn't mean that he can bend/break the rules.
For example, if he created an article on my science teacher (throwing something random out there), it would be deleted via WP:CSD#A7 like all other articles of the sort.
To prove my point even further, Jimbo can't vandalize, or make sockpuppet accounts. If he did, he would be blocked.
The point it, Jimbo's just another editor, not some being at a higher level. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

## Cannabis versus Hibiscus

I was just reading Wikipedia (I tend to do more reading than editing unfortunately) and I noticed something which perhaps demonstrates some of the problems of Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring it to your attention, so that maybe it could get fixed. At the very least, perhaps it's interesting.

Compare the article on Cannabis with any other article on any other plant. As an example, we'll use Hibiscus. This is an especially good comparison, because hibiscus is often mistaken for cannabis by police. These shouldn't be obscure articles, because both are pretty broad subjects.

The article on cannabis has a peculiar redirect mentioned at the top:

"Sticky Icky" redirects here. For the song by the same name from Pitbull see the album The Boatlift.

Is "Sticky Icky" actually a sensible redirect to make and is this band's song notable? Their own article mentions that their most popular song made it to #50 on the music charts and it wasn't "Sticky Icky."

The cannabis article has 78 references cited, largely internet sources, while the hibiscus article does not have a single reference. This isn't due to a lack of available internet sources, though. On Google, hibiscus has 12.2 million hits [8], while cannabis has 19.8 million hits [9]. Cannabis wins the Googlefight, but not by too much.

The taxonomy section in the cannabis article is several sub-sections long, containing a large amount of information unrelated to taxonomy. In fact, there's an entire section -- containing images -- on how the Founding Fathers used cannabis. Some of the information doesn't seem to be sourced at all, while some of it (such as the info on the Founding Fathers) seems to be poorly sourced. It also contradicts itself, saying in the "popular usage" section that Sativa, Indica, etc, isn't an official scientific classification, but then uses these same terms elsewhere in the article, in a very scientific sense, identifying them as actual sub-species rather than customary terms without necessarily any root in reality.

Worst of all, some parts of the taxonomy section are so technical that they were likely plagiarized or at least horribly paraphrased. An example:

In his doctoral dissertation published the same year, Hillig stated that principal components analysis of phenotypic (morphological) traits failed to differentiate the putative species, but that canonical variates analysis resulted in a high degree of discrimination of the putative species and infraspecific taxa.

Is this doctoral dissertation notable? There are quite a few new thesis papers every year, but they do not make it onto Wikipedia because of the WP:SYNTH rule. Encyclopedias themselves generally don't reference them either, since an encyclopedia is a compendium of general knowledge, not merely collections of facts, regardless of how truthy they might be.

The sub-section, "Various strains of cannabis," contains a number of slang terms for alleged strains of cannabis which is both inaccurate and redundant. The factual information about alleged sub-species is already in the previous section. Almost every slang term mentioned has its own article devoted to it. Then the section mentions an obscure jazz performer. Finally, the last sentence in the section (about drug-dealers engaged in branding) is likely true, but it is original research.

A long time ago, Portal:Cannabis looked like something which had been thrown together by stoner vandals. Thankfully it was fixed, but now there is a lack of content there.

The problem, in case it isn't apparent, is simple: There is a lack of good editors where they are needed (i.e. the article on hibiscus), while on certain articles, usually the more popular ones, there are clusters of bad editors. It's because of articles like this that I don't think we should really call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia."   Zenwhat (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

## wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii

Could someone please have a look at the dicision on this case? The admin who decided he was innocent admitted to not looking at the original evidence or reading the whole discussion. If you look at the diffs, which he did not do as they are part of the original evidence, you will see why I am pretty upset about this. The admin seems to think because he owned up to using an IP when the case was brought against him he is innocent. Does this mean I could get away with using a sockpuppet as long as I confessed when I knew I was going to be found out? I would be grateful if one admin at least could look at all of the evidence. Thanks! Jack forbes (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

## Hellboy2hell Barnstar

I, hellboy2hell, hereby award you the Hellboy2hell Barnstar for being a very good, kind, just, fair founder. Good Day!, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

## RFR

Resolved: Archived, conversation is stale

Hi, please review Talk:Wilmington_Insurrection_of_1898 for totally unnecessary, racist language. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Two and a half years ago. It doesn't need to be visible now and it's way too late to sanction the editor. Archived lest others get the message that this is acceptable. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

## Finally an introduction

Mr. Wales,

Kudos for your revolutionary advancement of public information. You may or may not have heard of me, but I am one of the most prolific editors on all of WP. I would like to call your attention to something that is quite alarming. I believe I am being blackballed for some unknown reason. I understand that I am suppose to exhaust all avenues, but if the effort is as concerted as I believe, I am sure there will be a lot of chain jerking at Help. I think you should be aware of this issue. Sorry to make my introduction under such circumstances.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Am_I_being_blacklisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

## Bonjour

Comment ca va? ( i saw that you like foreign languages, so theres French) (in case you dont know what it says, its "Hello! How are you?") Reply on my talk page if you will. >|<T'ratos theGreat>|< —Preceding comment was added at 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

## Captain Jimbo!

jimbo gets caught whilst on sekrit mission for the Cabal

At least we all know what you do in your free time now ;-) [10] Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Jimbo really the sekrit model for pirate admin? Does this image contain sekrit messages for the Cabal? Inquiring minds want to know!

Poss, that makes me wonder if Jimmy was the model for pirate admin! The artist refuses to identify her source but after looking at your picture I feel quite convinced that it was Jimmy and that this image was really sekrit communique to mobilise ze cabal. Hehe. :) Sarah 19:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

## "From each according to his ability"

I think John Hospers once attributed this aphorism to Ayn Rand. Do you think it could serve as Wikipedia's motto? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Michael... to see more about this phrase, see From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course. And Ayn Rand would not have endorsed that second part. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed both as un-Rand like as you can get but also, in terms of suitability for wikipedia, a very off putting leftist slogan. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall Hospers said Rand used the expression to mean one should not expect a person to appreciate a written work that exceeds his ability to understand it. But nonetheless, "From each according to his ability" seems to be what we find on Wikipedia more than anywhere else. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting, because while the whole quote is leftist and un-Rand like the first part is indeed a credible objectivist statement. After nearly 4 years editing daily I find my own sklils as an editor have improved enormously and it is that opportunity to improve one's abilities while at the same time increasing one's knowledge (this is an encyclopedi after all) is what makes this such a worthwhile project to contribute to. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The non-Randians among us will forgive you for using "credible" and "objectivist" in the same sentence.  :) 6SJ7 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
"...leftist...", Comrade? How very NNPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol, 6SJ7, you are the first person ever to confuse me with a Randian. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Randians among us will be having a right laugh at the unquestioning credulousness of the above conversants; the quoted Rand in the original comment omits Rand's reworking of the altruistic, life-destructive slogan linked above to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". You will appreciate the subtle change in emphasis. Yours with tongue in cheek, Skomorokh 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, did Ayn Rand really write those word's you put in quotes? Where, specifically, do you find it in her writings? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

## Congrats!

Hooray for your generic mini barnstar!!! Wheeeee!

Wyatt915 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

## Board elections

Now that the WMF Board election voting is closed, do you have a public wish for whom you would like to see elected and seated, from among the 15 candidates? Of course, multiple choices are acceptable! - TwinkMonitor (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given that he'll have to work with them, answering this wouldn't be very diplomatic! WilyD 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I trust that the community will have made a wise choice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you Mr. Wales

Sir,

My ISP was blocked as was my accounts. I believe my accounts still are but if it was you who unblocked my IP address, I thank you for your kind act of mercy. May I ask your authorization to create a new account to start over again with?68.236.153.166 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You would have known me as ForeverSearching before. May I have your blessing to create a new account and start again on your authority? If so, could you notify User:Metros and User:Scientizzle I have your okay? It'd help me avoid problems. 68.236.153.166 (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

## Thanks man

Your the BEST website creator hit me on my talk page User: SPBLU (added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

## Happy First Day of Summer!

(Added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

## Hallo

Hallo Jimmy,

Erwidern Sie wenn möglich

Am besten, Mww113 (talk) (Added timestamp for archicing purposes Fram (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

## Arbitration Committee discussion

You might want to be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

## You'r a great role model.....

Good work on wikipedia and thanks for making wikipedia..........

 The Rosetta Barnstar for your work in trying new languages on wikipedia......danke! BJinsect (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 The history barnstar for TIRELESS work on wikipedia

## heated discussion

As the de facto head of Wikipedia, I cordially invite you to join in here. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

## Discrimination against young editors

Lately, a 12 year old editor was denied Adminship because of his age. One editor commented: "how can I trust an editor who has a bedtime to be an admin". I find that horrible and so now there is a active discussion going on and I want you to join in. The discussion is taking place here.Gears Of War 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur a policy must be made concerning this issue. It should not be ignored as taboo or something.In a addition discussions also exist on the RfA talkpage and my own talkpage.--Xp54321 (Hello!Contribs) 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's hoping the kid admin supporters one day learn the difference between the articles "a" and "an". - Cool as a Cuke (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

## Edit summary usage... broken?

Hi, I was reading your nice user page when I've tried to click on this link: edit summary usage. But... it seems broken :-) Maybe it's just temporary problem, so there's no need to delete it, but I thought that it should be better to let you know that ;-) --Filnik dimmi! 11:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

## The summary of a long needless dispute

In the end of the situation of the kids vrs adults, a cabal was formed to hopfully rebel against the discrimination. Eventualy it was deleted and a user retired because of the stress. I nearly retired and so did aother memeber. A WP:RFA, we closed the discussion deciding that it was getting way out of hand. I have lost many friends because of this refute but it is finnally over.Gears Of War 13:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

## Greetings from a fellow Wikipedian!

I just happened across your userpage while looking at userboxes. So I just thought I'd say "Hi" and tell you how much I enjoy Wikipedia and being an editor here. I know you're busy, so I'll be off.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah man. Again. You've done humanity a great service by starting this project! We love you. Und ja, we do.xD Germans a pretty good language. I know a little, but... i've allways hard a hard time pronouncing words right. I'll THINK i'm saying it right, and then find a person to speak german too, and they'll tell me its all wrong. Anyways. Just dropping by... I wonder if you check this page... Cindy Flynn (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## Board election complete

Well, Ting Chen has wrapped up the victory. Congratulations! Thank heavens that idiot Thekohser did not do well. LAST PLACE, in fact. HA HA HAAAAHHH!!! -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really not at all necessary to insult Thekohser like that. SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Were you a candidate? Did you take the time analyzing problems and constructing solutions to them? Did you "out" yourself? I have the highest regard for ALL candidates, am glad an "international" candidate made it as wikipedia IS international. I do think there are quite a few "idiots" on the en.wiki. --Jacina (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## Barnstar

 The PCHS-NJROTC Abuse Report and Antivandal Barnstar Here's to the most well known vandal fighter on Wikipedia! GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

## Request for comment

Sir, I'd be honored to receive your quick comment, if poss...here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can a proposal be made by an opponent to gauge the sense of the community? :^) — Justmeherenow (   ) 02:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

## It would be incredible if you offered insight into WP:NOTE and WP:FICT.

Absolutely incredible. I realize you get requested for comment on a lot of things here, but this is pretty important to a large portion of the project and involves the core fundamentals of Wikipedia. There've been discussions going on about the subject of what should or shouldn;t be included int he encyclopedia for months, possibly years now and they haven't really gone anywhere. As the owner and creator of this site I think it's your duty to do something here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

## Not sure if you have answered this.....

But what is YOUR view on minors becoming admins here on Wikipedia? I'm just curious as to what your opinion is. Other editors, please allow Jimbo answer himself. Thanks and happy editing!! DustiSPEAK!! 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no very strong opinion about it. There are people who behave in petulant, ill-mannered, and immature ways. They should not be admins. Whether there is a strong correlation between bad behavior of that kind, and age, I don't know. I do think that, in general, most of our admins should be college students or graduates. Some gifted and profoundly gifted young people would be equally qualified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Out of curiosity, what are your "requirements" per se for an Administrator here on Wikipedia. I understand that you don't !vote much in an RFA, but I would like to know your thoughts and views on this. If you wish, I do have email enabled on my account. DustiSPEAK!! 20:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this correspondence should be conducted through e-mails; I don't think this will help the situation surrounding RFA. —Animum (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That's why I offered that above Animum, the first I think should be here publicly with the conversation going on at RFA, the second is just for my general curiosity. DustiSPEAK!! 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Careful, young man; us mature and experiences grouches are also able to contribute with the sysop bit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.....not too sure what you mean by that...DustiSPEAK!! 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my long experience, the best admins tend to be: smart, thoughtful, kind, slow to judge, slow to anger, understanding, always sure not to overestimate their own knowledge of a topic or a situation, firm about quality, serious about the project. Some of those qualities tend, I believe, to come with age. But there are a great many exceptionally gifted young people who possess them as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think older people also make the best long term non-admins. Many people think to be an effective contributor you need to be an admin whereas I personally think I can be a more effective contributor without the tools. At my prep school some were given leadership responsibilities at 11, and that is great, and I think the same should be the case here. Most admins are young enough to be my children adn that is great. Keeping under 18s anonymous is more of a concern though actually wikipedia does an excellent job here too. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jimbo, and have a great weekend!!! DustiSPEAK!! 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This is awesome. Someone who doesn't oppose preteens and teens as admins! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 11:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

<-- That, I believe, is part of the greatness of Wikipedia in that it's not what or who you are, it's how you behave. Jimbo is largely correct and I might argue with a preference for college students or graduates; that's not necessarily an indicator of wisdom, in my experience. Actually, my experience is that college graduates can easily cause massive amounts of disruption here, to the detriment of the mission; the reason being that they "know" how things should be and don't fully understand the parameters in which we work here. Yet I have been pleasantly surprised, and heartened on several occasions, to discover that some respected admins are in their teens. I repeat, it's not age; it's attitude. I would be wary of supporting a pre-teen as an admin because it can be a rough ride; OTOH, if they can get through the roller-coaster of an RfA, I would guess that they're pretty much clued up. Fair play to them, I say. --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

## Page that's likely of interest to you

WP:JIMBO. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

## Rich Latimer

Hi. I was chatting (via email) with an old friend from Bell Labs, Rich Latimer, and he said he knew you from NIF out in Illinois. Rich and I have chatted a lot over the years re: Ayn Rand and epistemology. I have ended up inventing a new language, mKR, based on Rand's work. Even closer to home, I am currently working on putting it up on Wikipedia:mKR (programming language).

I used to see Rich occasionally when I visited my kids in Glen Ellyn area. But Rich & Lynn finally took the plunge and moved to Wisconsin.

Rich tells me you're still an Ayn Rand fan. Maybe we could chat about it sometime. Rhmccullough (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For your further information, Rhmccullough's article can be found here mKR (programming language). ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin

Hello Jimbo, I would like to direct your attention to the above case and the following WP:AN threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Orangemarlin and other matters. This has the makings of getting out of hand very quickly, and it seems that there is a lot of confusion on how the Arbitration Committee acted, and whether the above linked case is actually sanctioned by the Committee. If you have any details on this matter I am sure your opinion would go a long way in finding a remedy to this situation. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At the request of retiring Lawrence Cohen I have moved a draft from his user space and brought it live. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. A statement from you would be a very welcome and stabilizing influence. With respect, DurovaCharge! 01:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I am talking to the ArbCom about it, and encourage calm. We'll figure it out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As you probably know, Jimbo, this has been in draft since March. Although I would have preferred to wait a bit longer than this in the hope that it might be avoided or at least to present it with all the formality it deserves, this was a departing Wikipedian's final request. I cannot call this hasty; he had delayed this long at least partly because of my request and I managed to delay it a couple more hours. The concerns about the security of the Committee's mailing list are not trivial, and there are procedural issues that deserve open discussion. What is the scope of ArbCom's authority? What is the scope of their mandate to hear cases privately? Or to deny established editors who come under scrutiny fair opportunity of defending their actions? The arbitration committee may take action in matters where the community has been unable to form a consensus, but can or should that extend to matters in which the community was not consulted? What method or means is appropriate to announce Committee decisions? When the Foundation Board restructured without consulting the communities for input I opened a petition. Now the Arbitration Committee apparently redefines its role without input from the community, and two arbitrators send very mixed messages about what is happening. DurovaCharge! 02:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has not redefined its role at all. Indeed, my own view, is that the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here. It is absolutely unacceptable that anyone would ever be sanctioned by the ArbCom without the opportunity to defend themselves. If the ArbCom ever did such a thing, I would very much consider that to be the sort of thing that my reserved powers for people to appeal to me to encompass. However, in the current case, this seems to be much more a case of a miscommunication that is getting sorted out rapidly, so there is no need to panic. I see no support in general from the ArbCom for any alternative view than that people sanctioned by the ArbCom of course must be given the chance to defend themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that thoughtful reply. Please bear in mind that this RFC was not structured around the events of the last week or two. It was composed four months ago around concerns that had been long in development even then. For instance, the arbitration committee is supposed to be the final step in dispute resolution. Yet non-emergency cases have been accepted where no prior formal dispute resolution had been attempted, or had not been underway long enough to have any real chance at success. Because informal interaction has been accepted as substitute for actual dispute resolution, Wikipedians who were essentially passers-by have found themselves dragged into cases, sometimes as named parties, and in the worst instance were even insulted in the case itself by a sitting member of the Committee who has never withdrawn the personal attacks. Non-emergency cases have gone to voting in as little as 12 hours. In the eyes of some observers this month's events are not isolated instances but the culmination of pernicious trends--for which the Committee neither sought nor received an extension of its mandate. These and other serious concerns are longstanding. When the Arbitration Committee was conceived in 2003-2004 Wikipedia was a much smaller website. It had nowhere near the volunteer base, readership, or prominence it has today. In fairness to the Committee and its very hardworking members, it faces challenges that could not have been imagined more than four years ago. It is time for the community to play a role in solving these new challenges, since ArbCom's mandate derives from the community. DurovaCharge! 10:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking with my journalist hat on (sorry, Jimbo), can I suggest as this unfolds that someone provide an ongoing attempted-NPOV summary of the players and the issues? As in, pretend you were writing a Wikipedia article on "The ArbCom Controversy of June 2008". That would be beneficial for everyone. As it is, I find myself having to go read A Site Which Shall Not Be Named in order to find out what it's all about, and I suspect I'm not the only observer in that position. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, and effectively a party to the action. . dave souza, talk 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Like Wikipedia, it can be helpful in finding reliable sources. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't mean article literally, rather like "capsule summary of relevant facts" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Seth, it is online politics in an anarchy arena. The anti-creationist group (aka ID group) which is a subset of the pro-science group is fighting with a coalition of the pro-fringe-science and pro-free-sex group (LGBT etc). Both sides are mostly made up of people trying to help wikipedia in a reasonable fashion. A minority of both sides uses whatever means will work to make wikipedia better in their estimation. There might be one or two of those not trying to make wikipedia better, but I doubt it; I think they are all sincere. Our rules include "Ignore all rules" so they are not breaking our rules. Drama is a product of how we do things here. Arbcom just the other day had a ruling about WP:BLP that included extremest absolutist language. Thoughtfulness is in very short supply - everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that's a start. N.b., let me stress that here I was merely making what I hoped was helpful suggestion in generating better coverage. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
At the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design which is still in progress, there has been general agreement that labelling people by groups is uncivil, and a significant cause of these problems. Please don't do it. This case is more complex than you suggest. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested it was that simple. No introduction introduces all the complexities, else it would not be an introduction. And that no group labeling thing is old. "Don't label me a "female"!" etc. Please. What nonsense. Please don't use the concept of civility as an excuse to censor ideas. And the idea that wikipedia has groups is an idea you are trying to censor with your claims of incivility. Stop it. Perhaps I should accuse you of incivility for a bogus charge of incivility? Then we could get more popcorn. :) WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, I've been paying attention to this more or less from the get-go and haven't noticed any claims or evidence prior to this of their being a "pro-free-sex group" involved. Do you have specific difs or evidence of this? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
WAS, have a look at [[View by User:Rocksanddirt. It made sense to me, if you prefer drama ok, but some people seem very touchy about such things. My experience is that it helps to avoid prejudging people. As you say, people who share common interests differ considerably from each other. . . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Real journalists don't involve themselves in stories they are writing about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Gonzo journalists do. MessedRocker (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
[11] so seth's secret identify is out. :P Seddσn talk Editor Review 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Think of me as akin to an embedded reporter :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, a little AGF, please!! I don't think it is productive to speculate in this manner. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your post Jimbo. « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 02:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. DurovaCharge! 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo, well said. . dave souza, talk 14:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, you encouraged the ArbCom to move slowly and thoughtfully, but already they've announced a rushed RfAR with a novel and unrealistic timetable offering no hope of a proper detailed analysis of the evidence, or time for analysis of FT2's argument which has not yet been fully revealed. The arb making the announcement has already decided to accept this tainted case without reviewing community input. This is not helping the reputation or credibility of Arbcom, or any hopes of a legitimate outcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is enough time to present evidence that more time is needed. I expect they believe they already know what the defense is going to be. All that needs to happen is to demonstrate there is a significant defense that is different from what they anticipate and I'm sure added time will be provided. What defense do you think will be provided that they do not anticipate will be provided? Any? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
So you've prejudged it when already it's clear that FT2 failed to understand the lack of reliable sources supporting claims that intelligent design is not religion, and on that basis misconstrued Orangemarlin's reference to the Kitzmiller trial? It was a significant enough point for FT2 to make it a part of the summary of evidence, but it's wrong. That's just at a first glance. Of course if the arbs are going to ignore valid evidence, then it's pointless spending the time needed to prepare a fair analysis. And from the 48 hour rush to get the case under way, have they already made their mind up to accept the case before reviewing the community input? I'd have been pleased with a RfAR presented in the normal way, but this really looks disappointing. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin has a statement on his talk page acknowledging that he has behaved in ways that need to change. So we can skip this whole thing if he will also agree to someone chosen by Arbcom to help him accomplish what he says he wishes to accomplish (act better). Please don't drag this out. Let's move on and all try to be better towards one another. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## Another page of interest to you

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. Please allow me to be a messenger from said discussion who invites you, per the community, to voluntarily announce a relinquishment of all your right to personally intercede in community workings and policy creation. JeanLatore (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

and permit me, from the same discussion, to urge that you continue it--we need an independent layer of review and protection, and you can provide it. DGG (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes DGG, exactly right. And Jean, please be careful with phrases like "per the community"...that can easily be misinterpreted. Doc Tropics 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks for commenting on one of my proposals on the above Request for Comment, even if it was to oppose it! :) Are there any of them you would support? I would be particular interested in your views on expanding the Arbitration Committee to four tranches of seven arbitrators, not three of five, and reducing the term to two years. I think the current base of arbitrators is getting overworked and underappreciated - this is probably due to all the additional responsibilities they are getting, and the fact Wikipedia's scale has increased hugely since you appointed the first Arbitration Committee back in. Increasing their numbers would reduce the pressure and probably help open arbitration cases move a little smoother, making it a nicer place for everyone. Best, Neıl 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, I respectfully suggest that Neil's ideas or suggestions should be given some serious consideration. Cla68 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## Azeri wikipedia - no one did anything on meta in this matter, please take a look

Hello Jimbo. The things that are going on in Azeri wikipedia, are just ridiculous - and sad that no one in Meta is giving a damn about it. Please check http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Azeri_wikipedia

A Turkish editor was complaining to me that he was banned from azeri wiki because he demanded the speedy deletion of about a 8000 (!!!) EMPTY pages opened by User Vüsal, who is now being promoted to be checkuser! [12] The admins in azeri wiki are not willing to delete these completely empty pages that are only opened to boost article count, and reverted useful edits by this Turkish editor without reason. I would't have believed these if I haven't seen those empty pages with my own eyes. And the admins are now voting for this empty-page creator user to be checkuser.... I mean, shouldn't someone keep an eye on what is going on in azeri wiki and at least give them a warning that is really an outrageous way of behaviour. I wouldn't mind of the admin bit was taken back from some of the admins over there. Or at least - someone should take a deeper look into this matter at Meta. These guys in azwiki are breaching everything that Wikkipedia is about. Could you please take some time to check this situation as no one in meta cares??

Thank you in advance. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## maybe time to "suggest" a correction on a media website that is extending kudos

I found, at http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/free_software_heroes_stallman_google_list_inspiring_individuals_who_made_everything_ a place where it is giving a tribute to various heroes such as Richard Stallman, Bram Cohen, and several others... including Jimmy Wales.
But wait!: in the section about Jimmy Wales, I think it has an error. Where it says:

   Wikipedia’s software is available under a free license (GPL).


shouldn't it say under the "GFDL" instead? My first impulse was to click on "" and fix it; but then, (Doh!) it is not a wiki.
So maybe someone (you?) should send a suggestion to fix it. I think the appropriate e-mail address would be [input@freesoftwaremagazine.com]. $Thanks$ for all you do,
(and -- feel free to just forward this) (save on typing?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the software is GPL. The content is (mostly) GFDL.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

## WikiAtlas

How would I go about requesting or proposing a new project for Wikimedia... a WikiAtlas. This is a divison of Wikipedia (or not), where the WikiAtlasians (work in progress), would contribution with geographical places. I would be willing to create and admin this wiki. How could I do this?

Something like this is actually afoot. I forgot what it was called. MessedRocker (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Like commons:Atlas? pfctdayelise (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
We have m:WikiMiniAtlas.-gadfium 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't WikiMiniAtlas just a tool for current projects. I mean an online atlas. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And no. Commons:Atlas is for images and stuff. I mean basically the Wikipedia articles on a seperate project. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

## Demopedia, not Dictapedia...

I am not sure if this subject has been brought up before, but it isn't Wikipedia supossed to be controlled and governed by the editors and the editors only? If so, I think it is a little bit wierd that Jimbo Wales, who's the founder of Wikipedia and its sister projects is also allowed to mannage the the way wikipedia is supossed to run. This kind of controll much more resembles a dictatorship with its allready chosen ruler and king, than a free democracy where the people chooses its own leader.

I know that governing of this wiki isn't of as much importance as the goverment in a real country, still, I think it is a neutrality issue which should be dealt with, in one way or another. --Nabo0o (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not supposed to be controlled and governed by the editors and the editors only. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is not a social experiment. It is a serious effort to create a high quality encyclopedia. There are democratic elements to our governance structures. There are anarchic elements. There are consensus elements. There are aristocratic elements. There are monarchical elements. It is difficult to cleanly characterize, but most of all of this flows from tradition and history and exists for a very good reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
How much power Jimbo actually has here is unknown, even to him. We'll probably never find out unless he tries to exercise it beyond its limits. In practice, however, try and find the last thing Jimbo did from a special position; it's been a while. WilyD 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo's powers on Wikipedia are two. First he is a board member of the Foundation that owns the servers and has from that the powers that he shares with all the other board members. Neither the Foundation staff nor its board as board members control content other than making sure the laws are followed because its immunity from prosecution rests on being a service provider and not a publisher (we the contributors are the publishers and have full legal liability for our actions here). The second power Jimbo has is the same as any editor here, the power of his reputation (which has waxed and waned and differs from person to person and drama to drama). For example after the Essjay fiasco, Jimbo suggested that the foundation verify claims of expertise but the Foundation chairwoman immediately said we could not because there was no funding for such a thing, so various policy proposals were put forward and all rejected by a wide margin by the community. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification/Straw_polls. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy is a core policy here, in case you hadn't noticed, the influence ou have was given to you by jimbo wales. Of course, you can leave if you want, we can all do that, and then wikipedia would no longer exand, but sitll, I don't know why you've made this post. He hasn't done anything I view as wrong.--Serviam (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

## Arabic Wikipedia

Arabic wiki is run by a majority of Sunni fanatics, which turned the administration to their objectives. I understand that wiki should be free, but any respected democracy has RULES, nd the admins over there, do interfere with them. I've an answer, by putting 3 0r 4 tough bureaucrats (Christians or Atheists over there, to balance to judgment). I'm blocked now, for 14days again. Imagine that i translated the article of the Caliph Othman form the English wiki, and it got locked, they want to hear what they like, so to put Wikipedia weight on the blink. Regards, Jimbo. Stayfi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayfi (talkcontribs) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not going to happen; but maybe someday when the Foundation has enough money and influence, they can organize a proper academic review of our articles using major universities around the world to help us create stable version articles in every language that comply with verifiability and neutrality standards. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Halo Was,
So what suggestion to this issue,u surely understand the non neutrality here. Thanks --Stayfi (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

## Question

I've never fully understood whether ArbCom is supposed to be a simple dispute resolution commitee, or something more general, could you please clarify this?--Serviam (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia governance is constantly in transition. We are always becoming. What it was, is, and will be are all different. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A very good question, Serviam, and I see you're already looking at the venue where ideas are being considered. In my experience as a quasi-arbiter, arbitration is about dispute resolution, but ArbCom has the role of a high court, handing out sentences. The focus needs to be reviewed. . . dave souza, talk 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So it has some form of governmental role as well? Ah. I'd still like a reply from Jimbo though.--Serviam (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put my thoughts on this here. My feeling is that an Arbcom policy of "as much as possible, do no harm" and a focus on dispute resolution rather than trying to change Wikipedia culture by exemplary punishment would have meant that these recent problems would have been resolved peacefully and professionally. The end result for the individuals concerned might well have been the same, but the issues would have been settled amicably, and Arbcom's honour and reputation would have been enhanced rather than being damaged. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "as much as possible, do no harm" is good advice to us all. DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

## Question, Mr. Wales

If one should merge articles without at least a discussion and not putting up a merge tag, it is considered disruptive and malicious, correct? ZeroGiga (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. bold, revert, discuss is one of our core policies. Merging a number of short or deficient articles to one more global article is standard editorial behaviour and can be done without preliminary tagging or discussion. Even not merging but redirecting can be done in this way. It is only disruptive and malicious if you do it with the wrong intentions, or if you continue to do it despite reasonable objections. Fram (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

## Hallo

Hallo, wie geht's dir? :) Mallerd (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you...

I'm sure you hear it all the time, but I'd like to thank you for your time and involvement in Wikipedia. Even with all the vandalism and internal strife, Wikipedia continues on and (seems to) get a little better each day. Also, if it weren't for you, I would have nothing to do all day, and probably just sit around surfing eBay... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way - it's better than killing people (eBay, that is.) - Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL... yeah, 'til I come across that mint 1999 3000GT VR-4, selling for $20,000, and I wonder for a moment who Imma kill to get that kind of money... ;) - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC) To the OP..quit being such a brown-noser and go edit some articles! JeanLatore (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) ## Dear Mr. Wales (re: Metapedia) I'm not sure if you have seen this, but there is a website called Metapedia, which is a quite nasty white supremacist site masquerading as an encyclopedia. Since the Wikimedia Foundation already runs Meta-wiki, would it be possible to sue the operators of Metapedia for trademark infringement or some similar cause of action? Thank you for your time. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Regardless of the legal issue (personally, I don't think they're violating anything, but that's just me), their article is currently at AfD if anyone either thinks it should be deleted, or can dig out the sources to keep it. – ırıdescent 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) ## How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel (Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ## A question about a phrase you have used What does "apologize where beneficial to do so" mean? If someone has made a mistake - they should apologize. Apologies aren't about making judgements on their usefulness or otherwise, they are about being honest and letting others know that one has recognized one's failings. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Based on this discussion. —Giggy 10:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC) "I am sorry if my words were unclear." This is an example of an apology one could make even if not completely convinced of having made an error. Obviously, you are correct: if someone has made a mistake (with negative consequences for someone), then they should apologize. And if you are absolutely convinced that you are right and have done nothing wrong at all, then a pseudo-apology can often just make things worse. But there is a very broad middle ground in human interactions, in which you are not sure. You did your best, but something went wrong somewhere. Fighting to prove that you were right is often just annoying and pointless, and the source of further friction. An apology in such circumstances, even a conditional apology like my example, one which acknowledges the complexity of judging various situations, can be quite beneficial.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Can I just note that Jimbo, in his infinite wisdom, didn't use an edit summary - tut, tut, tut ;-)...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC) See Non-apology apology. Like a white lie; it can be both a social lubricant and an excuse to dissemble. 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)WAS 4.250 (talk) To be clear, I am not talking about a "Non-apology apology". I am genuinely sorry if my words (above) were unclear. They don't seem so to me, but I respect you, and so I acknowledge that they must have been to you, and that the fault could well be mine. A non-apology apology would be closer to "I am sorry you misunderstood me." :-) I hope this is helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Still no edit summary :P...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Jimbo, in cases like this, I think the difference lies in the intentions and perceived intentions rather than in the words of the apology. I think the words you gave could be said as a good faith attempt to communicate and bridge a gap of some sort; yet be perceived by some as as a deliberate non-apology apology. I know that I have honestly said nice yet bland things and was misread as telling a white lie. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ## Edit Summary Usage Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Quite frankly - you're supposed to be a role model to the community, and this is disgraceful. I would have thought better of someone whose job it is to set a good example. I won't be liked for this, but you shouldn't be treated any differently...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Heh - only joking!...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Bah, humbug. When I was a kid, we didn't even HAVE edit summaries. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Good to see a sense of humour when the whole project is falling apart. Heartwarming, in a way. --Rodhullandemu 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I think it's pretty silly to say that the "whole project is falling apart". Are there isolated problems? Sure. But the whole project falling apart? I think you might want to step away from some of the drama hotspots and take a look around. Lots of great stuff going on, lots of great people doing great things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree, Supreme Overlord Master Sir. Your holiness's light blinds me, I am not worthy! <serious>The project is not falling apart. I know many people who use Wikipedia for information (including myself), and helping others with free information is what this project is all about.</serious> Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not falling apart. Sure, there's too much meta-drama, but we're going on strong, eh Jimbo? Shapiros10 contact meMy work 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC) All your articles belong to me! User:Agent008 I just came back from a leave of about a year. People were saying the same thing a year ago. However, as you can see Wikipedia is still here and as strong as ever. Those IP users didn't destroy us, after all. --mboverload@ 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is useful and every year is more useful; and the Foundation has improved in assets, professionalism, and accountability every year. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Not to mention the public who uses the encyclopedia by and large doesn't know about the wikidrama and doesn't care, so it's hardly failing in that respect too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ## Promotional Photos of current musical groups The use of Promotional Photos of current musical groups has been an long on going debate that seems to have died off, but the core issue remains. It is still your belief that the use of Promotional Photos to represent musical groups in Wikipedia articles about those groups should not be use simply because the group is still in existance and because of that fact it just might be possible for someone to aquire a free use photo of the group? Is Wikipedia actually better for having articles like DAT Politics with no photo of the group? Would it not be better to allow the use of promotional photos (as was the case in the linked article until the image was deleted due to "current policy"? Promotional photos are issued for the purpose of presenting the group in the best possible light and in a why that the group would approve of. On the other hand, any free photo would in many cases be of a nature that the group would rather not have used in an encyclopedic article about the group. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel (Talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Expanded statement: Basicly what current policy seems to be saying is that unathourized free use photos of current musical groups are a better representation of the group that authourized promotional photos. This makes no sense to me and make Wikipedia a very poor source for photographic information on current musical groups. Dbiel (Talk) 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) It's a comprimise between free and encyclopaedia. With respect to bands, in most cases you can talk them into licensing a few press images freely, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll expedite any OTRS emails if you go about it, just ask me. WilyD 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) WilyD is right. We have the ability to get free photos, free authorized photos. We just need people to take up the project to do it. I am very much opposed to using "fair use" photos when we have other options. I personally think 99% of what we have on the site today under fair use should be deleted. Not because it is invalid fair use... I think these are valid uses of the law. But rather that I think we create disincentives for thoughtful people trying to create free content.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to share your POV. Dbiel (Talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) While I agree with your position on the use of photographs of living people (including bands), a lot of the 99% you would prefer to be deleted are either pictures of dead people (where a free alternative may be available if someone has it in their archives) or artwork (which can for the most part not be replaced by free alternatives). So, for all clarity, do you think that fair use images which can not posssibly be replaced by a free alternative (but which can of course be omitted) should be, in your personal opinion, be deleted as well? Fram (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I am not setting policy in these remarks, just chatting. Yes, I think most of those should be deleted. Take a look at Elvis for some great examples. Iconic album covers? I would grudgingly say OK. Concert pictures? No way. That's ridiculous. There must be millions of these out there in people's photo albums. We should be asking the public for help in finding them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC) For other examples, see Serge Gainsbourg, Bob Marley, Joe Strummer, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong or the (incomplete) Commons:Category:20th century deaths - some as donations of professional photographers, some from the usual sources such as USGov-PD, some indeed from the albums of music fans, which is a great way for older people to contribute something really valuable to Wikipedia (makes them feel proud of their memories, too). It is a shame that the incentive for this is largely destroyed by the "images of dead persons are unreplacable" default assumption on en:. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC) See this page for a parable on this very point. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Jimbo, re your note: thanks, glad you like it! —Angr 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Hello. You aren't meaning to say 99% of the work artists create can be redone "close enough" for free, are you? I was taught to think that everybody can be an artist if they want to be. So far there's only one of each person, and so far most persons need paychecks on which to live. Sorry to ramble--story well done, Angr. Thanks for posting the link. —SusanLesch (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I'm concerned about something said about the use of fair-use images: "I think we create disincentives for thoughtful people trying to create free content" -- but fair-use is free content. Fair-use content isn't second class, it is a vital and rich part of the commons. I accept that there are disadvantages to fair-use material, in particular the question of proving it is fair-use, but I fear that discouraging fair-use material simply lowers the value of the right to make such fair-use. It's only a right until it is taken away, and the less value -- particularly economic value -- we as a culture give fair-use, the more likely we'll lose the right to it. Limeguin (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I believe your point is a valid one. It does not outweigh the other points for me, but I do think it is valid as one of many competing factors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ## Please ban pt:User:Ukbjjf in all Wikimedia projects. He should receive that for being a serial spammer. Take a look with his activity: starting off with this spam edit, he created his now-deleted talk page with the same. After being blocked here in the English Wikipedia, he created his userpage in the Portugese Wikipedia with this. So far, all of his edits were in Portugese. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 1. This is a matter for Portuguese Admins 2. The Sandbox is an area for testing. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Rather, his earliest surviving edit is at this meta page. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ## Are you even an admin? Are you an administrator, or perhaps some secret high class above all others that allows complete control? Don't be afraid to admit it. I created an MSWLogo-based program called infsrv.lgo (the InfoBase Server) and created level rhinoboot (for the name of the high-level loopback on Netzero) as level 6: the highest level that anyone can take. Alas, any requests to set to this level are only temporary, as after the commands following the SYS ACCESS clause are executed, the level is reset to its previous state. I feel so uninformed, like I'm asking a stupid question... Graham (talk, contrib) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Jimbo is and administrator and in addition he is also a "founder" which gives as much access to Wikipedia (including all other languages) as the mediawiki software allows. This includes editing any page, remove or granting any right, checking IPs of editors and striking out votes during Board elections among other powers. In practice Jimbo rarely uses these ability without community consensus. Much of this is explained at Wikipedia:User access levels#Founder. Jon513 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I believe there is an inaccuracy or two in the descriptions on that page. Board elections are conducted by a third party organization, and as far as I am aware I have no technical ability to do anything, and I am quite certain that I have no authority to do anything at all special in them from a moral/legal point of view. Wouldn't want to, anyway. :) Board stuff is quite different from community traditions. Do we even use Special:Boardvote anymore? I think no, but I try to stay as far away from election stuff as is practical.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Aren't you [Jimbo] the Chair Emet... or something. And do you actually vote in W BoT elections? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I am, but that honorary title gives me no special powers of any kind, particularly not with respect to board elections. I generally do vote, as an ordinary user, in board elections. I think I did this time, as well. :) But I just follow links and do as I am told... so I am a bit fuzzy on the technical aspects.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This discussion reminds me of a scene from The West Wing: BARTLET: Well the President of Turkmenistan just officially extended the date of adolescence to twenty-five. So, things like that. LEO: I think he also renamed the month of January after himself. BARTLET: That's just greedy. Real power is knowing when to leave a little something on the table OK, maybe I'm just obsessed with the writing of Aaron Sorkin, an alumnus of Syracuse University. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) <--- For the record, Jimbo has no ability to strike votes during board elections. While Special:Boardvote still exists, it's just a forward to a third party site hosted by Software in the Public Interest. While there are a VERY few people who have the ability to strike votes on that site (I'm one of them, for the record) in order to prevent fraud during the elections, Jimbo is not one of them. Also for the record, we report on the number of votes struck, and the reason why (in general) to the community on foundation-l. Speaking informally, but as a member of the election committee, - Philippe 00:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks Philippe! Yes, I would not want to have any such power, as it would inevitably give rise to insane conspiracy theories. :) Jimbo has been to China. There is a new board member who is Chinese. Therefore, OMG JIMBO SOLD WIKIPEDIA TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Ha! It suprises me how informal you are. Well, what should I expect? Anyway, everyone here has gone above and beyond my original question, but this is still an interesting discussion. I might watch it :). Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) PS Check out my new SIGN HERE link in my signature! Please consider it. Um, I appear to be an alias for a "tell the truth" message on my talk page. Remember, don't shoot the messenger...please...Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ## Hey Hey, I would like to know if you are going to come to India again?. If so when and do you have plans to come to Bangalore any time?. I would like to meet you. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I will be in India in December. In Kerala. I am not sure exactly when yet, but something like 4-12 December.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Kerala is a very nice place. I was born there. Currently iam not in Kerala iam studying in Bangalore. Any plans of visiting Bangalore?. Also if i can ask what are the places you will be visiting in Kerala?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ## How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Just wanted to be sure you were aware of this unwritten administrative policy which is being followed my many administrators. see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#How to respond to Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed Simply put, Admins do not need to respond to Template:hangon or Template:Di-replaceable fair use disputed, they only need to review the reason stated and act accordingly. - This is a very poor policy from my point of view. When a user posts a dispute tag, such as the above, they expect some type of response or acknowledgement. But administrators do not feel that users deserve any response and that it is fine to effectively ignore the tag (as long as they have read the reason posted). If you agree with this "policy", then I will see to it that the actually policies and templates are updated to reflect this POV. I simply find it impossible to believe that this would actually be Wikipedia policy, but then I am only one simple user. Looking forward to your reply. Dbiel (Talk) 12:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Copied back from the archive looking for a reply, I hope. Dbiel (Talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Who do you propose deletes them, handles it or makes the final decision? (This is very similar to disputed speedy deletion tags as well which are very often not addressed either). Say theoretically administrators had to address ever time disputed fair use was disputed, the problems would never get addressed because they were so caught up in the red tape. The fact is that fair use has to do with copyright and at least in my opinion, it is better to err on the side of caution regarding copyright. If there is too much red tape, editors would just add disptued tags to the images just to be annoying or keep the pictures around longer. The fact is most administrators who follow the disptued fair use categories generally have above average fair use knowledge and are trusted to make the right decision regarding the dispute. If you question their action, you can always stop by their talk page as well and ask for more detailed information as to the decision they have made. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and I read the AN archive thread and agree that if you have a problem with an admin decision, take it up with them or take it to deletion review. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I am not saying that an admin needs to respond and wait for a reply. but there should be at least some note in the deletion log that the dispute tag was reviewed and the decision was to delete, not simply some statement that completely ignores the tag as in the following case: 00:24, July 2, 2008 Melesse (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Datpol.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD I7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. using TW) which totally ignores the reason stated on the dispute tag and ignores the fact that a valid fair use rationale was added after the upload had been notified and prior to the deletion and the fact that the deletion was not because of an invalid fair use rationale but was because the image was of a living group which might possibly be replacable with a free image and is therefor not allowed in Wikipedia. This is what I mean by ingoring the dispute tag and failing to address the reasons stated. It has nothing to do with "Who do you propose deletes them, handles it or makes the final decision?" The action should/may be taken, but the deletion reason should address the issues raised in the dispute tag. Dbiel (Talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) ## Clarification of GFDL on Help Desk Thank you for the clarification on the history requirements of the GFDL. I'll admit that the history requirements of the license is one of the most confusing aspects of it. You were right that I'm hardly alone in this regard, even to point that everything in WP:VERBATIM having to do with the history requirements on verbatim copies is stamped "(legally questionable)". There are many parts of the GFDL I sincerely wish were more clear. At any rate, I appreciate the time you spent in making the clarification. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ## Arbcom terms revisited A while back[13], I asked you concerning the terms of Arbcomm members. You were pleasantly codial in your response that you'd take it under consideration[14]. I've noted in the recent RfC (which is already starting to be a "mess" to try to read, much less, edit) that legth of term has repeatedly come up. Have you discussed this with anyone since the last time we discussed it here? And is this something you still would consider? I think that this alone might help quite a bit, since I think most of the concerns (besides the ones concerning secrecy/transparency; precedence/"binding" resolutions; and perceptions of "power") are about the activity/communicativeness of arbitrators. And I think shorter terms might be key in helping promote at least the "appearance" of activity. (And probably assuage some of the other concerns as well.) Personally, as I said then[15], I also agree with what you noted previously[16], and in particular, considering the current "climate" , think that there should be a protection of the arbitrators from reprisal from the community, similar to the situation of sysops/admins. So in this case, the terms should be "long enough", without being "overlong". (As an aside, I also personally think that they should have any and all tools necessary to "do the job", and going along with that, meet the requirements of using those tools, and, if they wish, be able to help with tasks associated with those tools.) And I'm concerned that this may turn into a "witch-hunt" of some type, where others' privacy may end up being "violated" in order for someone to defend ones' self. Or where we make the system impotent, and "shoot ourselves in the foot"[17]. Thank you in advance for your thoughts/responses. - jc37 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ## unfair treatmant of a friend hello. i am friends of BJinsect, someone who has been unfairly blocked by a user named J Milburn. Bjinsect claimes he was stereotyped and cyber bullied. he thinks he has been unfairly treated. he would like his account back and possibly the cyber bully j milburn blocked. i am not him on a differnet account, i promise you. thanks for your time. -Sector311 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC) His best bet is probably to email unblock-en-l AT wikimedia.org or arbcom-l AT wikimedia.org and request a review. WilyD 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) thanks. i also look forward to Jimbo's advice on this. -Sector311 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I would not want to waste Jimbo's time on this one. User:BJinsect was created on June 9,2008 with the first post bing a request to create a new Bot - InsectBot. This was followed by a request to change the user name from BJinsect to InsectBotdiff and no indication of any previous account(s) which one would assume would exist for someone interested in creating a bot account. Not the normal actions of a first time editor. There also remain unanswered questions at User talk:BJinsect regarding additional accounts. The bot request was denied, as expected, since that was no acknowledgment of any previous primary account. Dbiel (Talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) BJinsect (talk · contribs) is blatantly the indefinitely blocked Bjaco18 (talk · contribs) - similar names, same writing styles, same wasting time with pointless meta-rubbish, same editing of stick insect pages and he clearly hasn't learnt anything from his block. Further evidence for who he is is shown by the fact Sector311 is appealing for help- he also originally contacted me trying to get Bjaco unblocked, and it is interesting that Sector appeals to Jimbo, when Bjaco had an obsession with Jimbo. This is fairly clear-cut- for anyone interested in the history, Bjaco is only around 12 years old, and I worked with him for a long time trying to help him settle in to Wikipedia. He ignored my advice and the advice of many other experienced users and admins, and eventually we ran out of patience and he was blocked for a variety of reasons- messing with bots and adminship, uploading copyrighted images, being aggressive... We have told him that it may be worth him coming back at a later date, but, characteristically, he ignored our advice and has attempted to come back early. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I told you already I'm not BJinsect. Check my talk page. And also, we edit VERY different articles. We have very different interests. BJinsect told me on msn messenger who I could contact to try to get him unblocked after being cyber bullied by J Milburn. -Sector311 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I realise that you are not BJinsect. If you remember, it was actually through me that you met Bjaco18; after our discussion over an album I forget the name of, Bjaco thought that adopting you would be a good idea. You refused, but got chatting anyway. Now, could you please tell us whether you believe that BJinsect should be unblocked as he is not Bjaco18 (I'll tell you now, you're not going to get anywhere with that) or whether you believe that BJinsect should be unblocked because the original block on Bjaco18 was unjustified? J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I know he is(was) also Bjaco, and believe he was blocked unjustly and was bullied and discriminated.-Sector311 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC) There were a significant number of admins involved in this- after BlueBoy96 blocked Bjaco, the block was extended by Gwernol. I offered advice throughout. Sandstein declined an unblock. Tiptoety declined two unblocks, and hung around to offer advice. FisherQueen declined an unblock, and talked to Bjaco at length. Stephen declined an unblock. On top of these admins, JGXenite and Nk.sheridan, two respected users, were offering advice and trying to reason with Bjaco throughout. Despite this, Bjaco continued trying to make deals, badgering for unblocks and just generally ignoring advice. This is on top of the way that Bjaco had been continually disruptive before the indef block, despite warnings, blocks and advice from many respected users and admins. Seriously, why do you think he deserves to be unlocked? Do you have any evidence of this bullying/discrimination? J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I guess the only evidence I have is what he told me, and he isn't the kind of person that will lie. Don't unblock him if you don't want to, but I know who you are and what you do, J Milburn, so let that stay in your mind as BJinsect remains blocked. Thanks and have a great day cyber bullying. -Sector311 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That remark by -Sector311 at 21.04 sounds very much like a threat to J Milburn's RL identity. Should some action be taken? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Hmmn, on looking at J Milburn, it would appear that everybody knows who he purports to be and where he is, so it is the implication, rather than the facts, that is disturbing. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I don't think action against Sector311 will achieve anything at this point- I'm open about who I am, and I've certainly received worse threats than that. Sector, all communication I have ever had directly with Bjaco has been on my talk page, and his talk page. I have mentioned him in various other places- here, noticeboards, the talk pages of other involved users. If there has been any bullying, the evidence of it will be here- you are welcome to search my contributions and the various talk pages to try to find evidence of it, but, I assure you, unless we have vastly different definitions of 'bullying', you will find nothing. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Hey guys I wanna say two things: One: I did not mean that to be a threat, I used the wrong wording. I don't want to hrut anyone and I didn't mean to sound like that. Two: I guess I overreacted now that I've looked into things I see maybe he was justly blocked. I am stupid. Sorry. I'm not even being sarcastic. I wasted everyone's time. I never knew until now that it could be read so yeah I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector311 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ## FYI http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ## Genetic project in Wikipedia Hi Jimmy, I asked some questions about the Genetic project in English Wikipedia here. I am curious for the anwsers and they might be interesting for you as well. Regards, Simplicius —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplicius (talkcontribs) 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) ## You You are trully amazing. God bless you.--I Am The Great Editor in Chief (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ## A matter of interest Jimbo - there's a discussion over at WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone_wording that you might be interested in looking at (and I don't mean to imply anything by that; I really just think you might find it an interesting read). it's getting at some very core aspects of Wikipedia policy, and may have some broader impact across the wikis regardless of how it pans out. --Ludwigs2 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) (I don't know why, but this didn't get archived: added timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)) ## Request Mr. Wales, please see this. If you want to lead Wikipedia, then lead. Otherwise, please step out of the way. Kelly hi! 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) What, precisely, are you asking me to do? In what way am I standing in the way of anything with respect to that case?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I think she means that your not participating in the Arbitration Committee (spelling?). I thought you made it quite clear to me that you weren't interested in that stuff anyway on one of your previous archives (June, what was the heading?). Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ## Mr. Wales... Mr. Wales you are a gentleman and a scholar. I look up to you so much that I added your name to my list of role models at school. Thank you for all that you have done. --Vhoscythechatter-sign 18:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ## Little technical question You are close to all the hardware that drives Wikipedia, right? If not, can you refer me to a place where someone is? Anyway, my question is: How much total space (in the whole Wikipedia project, all name spaces, etc.) is taken up by Wikipedia:Requested articles and all subpages (as two raw values, maybe with a percentage)? Also, how many links are present in Wikipedia:Requested articles (et. al.), and, assuming the size of the "average page", how much space would it take up if someone (some completely godlike person) created all articles at the same time? Thanks! Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) While you are waiting for an answer, you may care to read Wikipedia:Statistics. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, I am not close to the hardware and I am particularly useless for questions of this type. I would recommend asking Brion Vibber. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC) ## McCain vs. Obama Hi - I've been watching both John McCain and Barack Obama for a week or two and it's pretty obvious both of these articles are being edited for partisan purposes. To the credit of many of the people involved, most of the partisanship is being confined to the respective talk pages, but there's a tremendous amount of clearly politically motivated bickering going on. I'm curious what you would think about replacing these pages until the November elections with very simple soft redirect pages (fully protected) along the lines of: <x> is the presumptive candidate of the <y> party for the forthcoming U.S. presidential election. Please see <campaign site> for more information. Wikipedia was not as well known in 2004. I certainly don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of the parties are paying people to try to slant these articles in their direction (with negative and positive spin). Paid or not, there are certainly plenty of folks apparently trying to do this. I'm not sure if this is the best solution, but there is definitely a problem. Another admin, user:Clubjuggle, was trying to moderate the Obama talk page and has given up (in exasperation). The Obama page has been protected off and on, but leaving both of these pages openly editable seems to make them irresistible targets for political POV-pushers. Perhaps there are enough reasonable people around to keep these pages NPOV, but the amount of effort involved seems to me to be quite herculean. As I say, I'm not sure what the best solution is but I suggest you watch these pages for a while and ponder. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Just redirecting to a campaign site defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. Just undo everything written with a Non-neutral point of View. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I know you were directing this at Jimmy, Rick, but just wanted to respond to you anyway. I don't like the idea of a soft redirect to the capaigns. People come to Wikipedia for unbiased information, not to be directed to campaign material. And there are plenty of reasons for people who don't care about the US elections and don't want to read campaign material to want to read biographies about the election candidates. If we did this we would be accused of being US-cetric - why should non-Americans who want to read a biography about a candidate that hasn't been filtered through partisan pr teams want to end up on an American election website? Seriously, we'd become a laughing stock and our critics would take great delight in pointing it out and claiming it's a sign of Wikipedia's failure, that we're unable to provide neutral unbiased articles on the election candidates. Then there's the whole point about web traffic. If the articles are being over-run by partisan people, perhaps you might post to one of the noticeboards and ask for more people to watchlist the pages in the lead up to the election. Sarah 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I don't think that Clubjuggle is an admin, FWIW, and if he isn't he probably needed admin support if the pages are that bad. Sarah 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Yup - Clubjuggle's not an admin (sorry, thought he was). I'm about at the point where I've had enough. ANI reports have previously been filed about the Obama page, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. I'll ask for more admin support, but the point remains how much effort dedicated to keeping these pages NPOV is reasonable and whether there's some other alternative. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Sigh. You roll with the punches. You undo everything innapropriate for the article. You don't say, "there's too much vandalism here! I give up!" and give it to a campaign site wit POV problems. That defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. If your opinion was the law, we'd just redirect to official websites of things and become Facebook Jr. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The political pages are always very difficult to manage on Wikipedia and especially so with a forthcoming election and so I understand and appreciate Rick's concerns, I just don't agree with his proposed solution. Can I suggest, if you think it's just a matter of "rolling with the punches" that you might consider helping keep those pages NPOV? I'm sure assistance would be gratefully appreciated in that regard. Cheers, Sarah 10:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC) ## Recent deletion of my talk page Do you agree that one of the last two sections of my talk page, as of July 2008 (preserved on this Google cache) were BLP compliant? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC) ## :)  The Socratic Barnstar You actually answer my emails and provide great points. Danke Herr Wales. Undeath (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ## Propaganda films category Hi, Jimbo. Do you think there should be a category "Propaganda films", at least for any film other than those whose identity as such is undisputed by any sizable group? Categories is not an area I'm very well-versed in, and I can understand categorizing work by Joseph Goebbels or Nazi filmmakers as such, because there is no mainstream group that would disagree, but the addition of such categories to the articles on the films The God Who Wasn't There, Sicko and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has been a source of conflict. Me, I've usually removed them, but some seem to feel that they belong, and that my removal of them is an indication of my own POV. It is not. I think that Michael Moore's films, for example, are obviously propaganda. But I don't think that such a category should be added, since it clearly smacks of POV. The best compromise I can think of is renaming the category "Films accused of being propaganda", or something similar. I know it's more clunky, but it would satisfy NPOV. What do you think? Nightscream (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Whatever you do, do not even think about considering the possibility of contemplating calling the category "Accusations of propaganda film-making"... Seriously, now, there are a great many commercial films (which is what Michael Moore makes) which might fall under such a category - like "In Which We Serve", "The Green Berets", or "Battleship Pumpkin (I know that is not its name...)" rather than the Government financed and free to distribute creations per "Rosie the Riveter". I realise that this might be a discussion for elsewhere, but simply making a film from a certain political viewpoint does not necessarily make it propaganda. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC) What do reliable expert sources say about each film? Professional film critics should be aware of the genre, and we should look to them for assessment rather than relying on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. In my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Less, I didn't say that films told from a particular viewpoint are propaganda, and indeed, that wasn't even the point of my post. If anything, you seem to be arguing my point for me (at least in part). The point of my post was to ask what should we do about that category? Doesn't the inclusion of the category raise POV concerns? One person's documentary is another person's propaganda, and vice versa. Personally, I don't think any film should be categorized as such, unless it's a film on which that label is completely undisputed by anyone in the mainstream. Nightscream (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC) My point was that there would be films, such as those by Michael Moore and the examples I gave, that would be placed in such a category, even in good faith let alone to make a point, and it would be a cause of dispute - so, yes, I am supporting your argument. Renaming the category to "Government propaganda films" might be more accurate, so you exclude anything that was commercially released and stay to those films that were produced with Government money and were shown in cinema's (or on television) by decree and without the theatre being obliged to pay for it (any two of the three would also qualify). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC) That would exclude Mrs. Miniver, for example. It's a film genre, not a statement of how good or bad the film is. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC) As I stated before, the only type of film that should be excluded would be films who have supporters/fans/advocates in the mainstream who dispute the label. Whether the film is a government-made one or a commercial one seems beside the point. Moreoever, is it true that some of Moore's films, like Bowling for Columbine received partial funding from the Canadian government? If so, that would complicate the line that you suggest. Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ## Certainly, I'd like to correspond with the founder of Wikipedia I am certainly interested in discussing with you via email the reasons for the office action removing the photograph I uploaded, but I will have to look into getting an anonymous email account established on Gmail first. Several friends and relatives have been encouraging me to set up a Gmail account for over a year. But I am very busy with work and with personal matters at the moment, so it will take several days before I put aside a few hours to sign up for Gmail and figure out how it works. Anyway, I suppose you and the Board are presently busy with Wikimania in Alexandria. I will let you know when the account is established.--Coolcaesar (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Why don't you simply use your normal email account, the one you used to vote in the board election?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ## Guestbook Mr. Wales, could you please sign my guestbook. It would so be great for the founder of wikipedia to sign my guestbook. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please! Cheers have a great day! Thankyou so much for your time. 06:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ## Minhaaj Hi Jimmy. I seem to be having some problems with a user from Pakistan called User:Minhaaj who I believe labelled us bigots, xenophobics and the whole works. He has accused us of being corrupt and unwilling to give the thrid world a chance. I told him he is wrong. Despite this and trying to reason with him, I keep getting uncivil messages like this. It is not pleasant to log in and receive such a message. What would you suggest we do about him? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000? 08:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to me as if Minhaaj is sensitive about his third-world country and viciously defends his heritage, interpreting even gentle requests as insults. If only there was a gentler way to say "lighten up, man"... Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 06:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, when you say he as called "us" bigots and called "us" corrupt, whom are you referring to? Yourself and who else? Everyone who edits Wikipedia except the person who used that language? Or some specific users? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course some of our most experienced editors are either from or in the third world so this us and them mentality is a bit silly. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully endorse the views of SqueakBox. We all are here with a common goal - to build the best encyclopedia in the world. BTW, I have missed all the Wikimanias though aspire to participate in the event next year :) --Bhadani (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Blofeld, I don't think you are helping when you make comments like this "A lot more than you'll ever do in your life. Please contribute something which will benefit people or get lost. Thankyou" whatever User:Minhaaj may have said. I understand that you may have found the comments offensive, but particularly since the comments weren't directed at you in particular I suggest you cool off and tell this user you no longer wish to communicate with him/her unless it is vital (e.g. regarding an edit to an article) and leave it at that. If the user continues to contact you unnecessarily, file a harrasment complaint. If this user's behaviour gets out of control, other people can deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

## OMG!!

You've made 3905 edits as of 15:18, 20 July 2008! How I envy you!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS

Evidence here.

That's not actually many at all - see WP:WBE. Hut 8.5 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The person with the most edits is Bearcat (talk · contribs), with 181,749 contributions. However, I'm sure Jimbo's edits are of higher quality! :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, that editcounter link is broken, [18] works tho :) SQLQuery me! 21:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Higher quality? I would not say that, Bearcat is an excellent editor, but not lower quality either. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It was sarcasm! Bearcat is indeed an excellent editor, and had this been his talk page, I'm sure I would have said his edits are higher quality. Lighten up. ;-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds a little like the cliché "the effect of the cymbal clash in in inverse proportion to its' frequency". :P Actually, I have 6347 edits, and not too many of them are the best quality. :| —  \$PЯINGεrαgђ  02:42 21 July, 2008 (UTC)
For god's sake! He has more than me! WTH guys, 'that's not really much at all!' IT'S ALOT TO ME! Please stop grumbling. I'm wikiholic and he has more than me! OMG!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
He also has far more maturity. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was just plain out of hand. Glad it's archived, but I'm never forgiving Daniel for that comment.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

## Thank you

 The Original Barnstar I award you this barnstar for co-founding this amazing project. Thank you for providing free knowledge to the world. EoinMahon (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

## Hello Jimbo

I am Dylan Borg from the Maltese Wikipedia. I edit on both the Maltese and the English Wikipedias. I am proud to be a Wikipedian and I also want to thank you for founding Wikipedia. I am currently doing chemistry realted work on the Maltese Wikipedia.

From the Maltese Wikipedian: Dylan Borg (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My existing User Pages: en · mt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgdylan (talkcontribs) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

## Unwatched pages

We have a special admin-viewable page for unwatched article. Such a report would be incredibly valuable for finding subtle vandalism, or vandalism that slips past RC patrol. It would be especially useful if we could filter for pages that need extra scrutiny, like articles with the BLP category.

Unfortunately, this special page only lists the first 1000 articles in alphabetical order, and is only updated perhaps once a week. It's therefore been nearly useless. Since it debuted over two years ago, we've actually moved backwards in the alphabet. We can only see a small tip of the iceberg.

Some admins have proposed various ways to make the page more useful, but it's apparently not a priority. I think that's unfortunate, and I hope you could use some of your influence to help make this special pages as valuable as it ought to be. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Special:UnwatchedPages#Suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time the English Wikipedia got on the Twitter bandwagon. Thus, I've created an account called @ArticleoftheDay (it wouldn't let me create @Wikipedia, even though there seems to be no one actually using such an acccount) to broadcast the featured article from the main page every day. I've emailed the general info address of the Foundation about this from the email account created to register it (wikipediatwitter [at] gmail [dot] com), but I thought I'd drop you a line as well. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiPedia and WikiMedia content is copy-left. But certain terms like "Wikipedia" are trademarked. Don't use them except where fair use applies or the Foundation says it is ok. We use trademark status to generate money needed to run the servers. You like that we are ad free, right? Well, respect the options left to us to pay for the costs of this free service. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

## Guidance from da Boss

Hey Jimbo...can you take a look at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buster7/Wikiknights and tell me what you think. And, if you think it has potential, how and where should I develope the idea? In the short time I've been editing, it just seems that I run across many, many editors that have called it quits. Also, I see the knights as a way to implement support for the overwhelming majority of good faith editors that wind up "going down the rabbit hole".--Buster7 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

## Errors in Wikipedia?

I just added a "disputed" tag to Wikipedia's article titled error. How many points do I win for unintentional humor? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The photograph at the beginning of the article is amusing. Check it out if you've never seen it. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Humour is all very well and is a valuable safety-valve here. However, there is a serious point to be addressed. I have, say, 500 articles on my watchlist; I also have a list of articles that I would like to improve, to the point of taking to good article if not better. I think that is what we should be doing, producing a free and reliable encyclopedia; however, I spend a lot of time dealing with utter nonsense on those 500 articles, and that is why I support "approved versions". I go further:

It's no great problem in principle to have accredited/trustworthy editors to certify and freeze articles as to meet policy and guidelines and only permit major edits when they are justified by WP:RS and WP:V. In a sense, we have this with page protection, but Admins are not supposed to protect on the basis of content. However, in an accountable and volunteer community, the authority to freeze an article in an acceptable form is, although attractive in pragmatic terms, likely to be politically unattractive. I've committed my last few remaining years to transferring my expertise on to this website, because I suppose, for what it's worth, I choose it to be my epitaph. Not much, perhaps, but it matters to me. If it had been around thiry years ago, however.... --Rodhullandemu 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not trying to be negative here; but obvious vandals are obvious. Subtle vandals are so much more trouble, and we don't have much defence against them. In the last month, for example, incorrect changes were made to French Indo-China, not an article I'd normally even be aware of but for impact on my watchlist for other articles by the same editor. How many other editors would have picked that up in a timely manner? --Rodhullandemu 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

## Deutschkurs

Hallo Jimbo, ich find's richtig gut, dass du Deutsch lernst! Eine interessante Seite gibt es hier: [19]. Sorry, der Beitrag ist etwas länger geworden. Ich hoffe, du verstehst trotzdem, worum es geht. Grüße aus Dresden (no, it's not near Frankfurt, it is near Berlin ;-)) --Brutus Brummfuß (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

## 'Bout Bedford

Hiya Jimmy. Which was the MySpace blog post of death for Bedford's administrative privileges? --harej 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Never suffer fools gladly", the update. I can send you the link if you cannot find it from that, email me.
Btw, I was not online the last two days and missed the mess, I would simply like to say I do appreciate you stepping in and saving the community the trouble of Yet Another ArbCom, Jimmy - thanks and kudos. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
^ For he's a jolly good fellow :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a better process for de-admining admins. Also, a required one month per year vacation from admin tools might be useful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this instance, at least, prompted your comment, WAS. That particular admin seems to have been de-adminned quite effectively (although admittedly he shot both feet full of holes and sank himself.) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be nice if all our de-admin cases were handled as fast and with as minimal drama as this one. Our processes seem designed to create maximum drama, although I know that was not the intent. They should be rethought. Perhaps by a bunch of people specifically elected to rethink our admining and de-admining processes. Perhaps the Foundation could pay for a dispute resolution expert to assist such an elected group. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is fine up until a desysop is fast tracked that you have qualms about (and I am not referring to any opinion I have on the current case). Then it may be a case of, "Hey, couldn't youse guys'n'gals waited a while and discussed this before rushing to deadmin?" If someone does (appear to) abuse the trust by which they were granted the tools, it behoves the community is most cases to see how that trust was misapplied so the same mistake may not be made in future. Unless the consent of the community is removed in the awarding of the bits, then it is the community that ultimately needs to be involved in the removal of same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. This is a difficult issue. Everyone paying attention knows there are issues. No one has a slam dunk solution. We need honest discussion of the issues. At WikiVersity I and others are trying that. I don't know how successful we will be, but we are trying. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo,

## An Essay Im working on

Hi Mr Wales,

Would you please give your point of view on users who whine about issues on your user page with complete disregard to the processes set in place to deal with those issues? Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't like whining, but I also don't mind constructive discussion here of relevant policy issues, nor do I mind people calling interesting goings-on to my attention. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What about people who start of with something like "Wikipedia is so corrupt" or "i was blocked for nothing at all" Do these types of whineing bother you?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

## Bedford

Neither desysopping him, nor "dictating" the terms under which he can be resysopped again, is your decision to make. All authority properly rests with the community. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Last time I noticed User:The Community was blocked -- with his consent. In that user's absence, the defacto chair is Jimbo. It is long-standing common-law procedure that the chair of an organization may make ad-hoc decisions according to his or her perception of the welfare of the organization, subject to appeal to the sovereign. And who is the sovereign? There are actually several: there is the Foundation, there is the community which supports the Foundation (this is what Kurt insists upon, but that community has allowed its authority to remain with the Foundation and with Jimbo); and there is the legal sovereign for the state that granted the organizational charter. In any case, Jimbo's decision was a common one, which he certainly had the authority to make. Don't think he has the authority? Take that bit away from him. That might be a tad difficult, especially since he, in this case, exercised his authority exactly as was appropriate, as shown by community response. (I've seen other, far more questionable actions, creating much, much more fuss. But everyone makes mistakes. It's what happens later that counts.) --Abd (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Kurt and I'm going to make it known to him. Kurt, you have no right to tell Jimbo what to do. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The community solidly supported Jimbo's action at ANI. DurovaCharge! 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder, desysoping should be done at meta, not locally. Hope you don't mind this, 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Then the community should have been the ones to take the action, and it should only have been done after the community assented. The Outlaw Jimbo Wales has no authority to do it on his own initiative. And Elkman, it's Jimbo who has no legitimate authority to tell anyone else what to do. He's nothing special. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
He did take the action with the community's consent. And in the beginning, Jimbo had absolute power. It's only through voluntary devolution on his part that the ArbCom exists and the Foundation has a wide range of powers. In a sense, his presence on Wikipedia is like the monarchy of England - once absolute, but with most powers deferred to the elected and the populace, but still possessing a Royal Prerogative (hell, Jimbo himself cited Queen Elizabeth II in the creation of ArbCom). Sceptre (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Your first sentence is false. At the time of the action, there was no evidence at all of a clear consensus to desysop. It doesn't matter what happens after the fact; to be legitimate, all such actions must follow consensus rather than precede it. What's so difficult to understand about that?
And I'm quite familiar with the history of Wikipedia; probably more so than you. That doesn't make it right. His "voluntary devolution" is not necessary, since he has no legitimate authority to be devolved in the first place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't he have legitimate authority in the first place, then? Sceptre (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Because he called it a "community project" from the outset. While I certainly recognize his (or rather, the WMF's) moral right to do what they wish, and so would never dream of taking anyone to court over this, that does not mean that I am obligated to personally like or not object to whatever they choose to do. Blatant hypocrisy is blatant hypocrisy regardless of whether one has the right to engage in it or not, and while the government has no business interfering, that doesn't mean I can't try and put an end to it so long as I do so through persuasion rather than coercive force. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Kurt, if you're so much against Jimbo having power/authority, leave the project.--KojiDude (C) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"If you don't like everything, then you should leave instead of trying to fix what you don't like" has never been a particularly compelling argument, and is generally just the last resort of someone who can't make a better counterargument but is too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a compelling argument to me. You've got no power to change things here, and bitching about it doesn't help. If you dislike how Wikipedia works so much, really, why stay? Maybe try and answer this time, instead of turning it around to insult me.--KojiDude (C) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Who's bitching? I'm working to persuade others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And you still haven't answered.--KojiDude (C) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What is there to answer? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps because he sees it as mostly moot? Really, is this helpful? --Abd (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jimbo is a trustee of a kind, as are all admins, in a lesser way. Trustees are empowered to use their tools as they see fit in the interest of the community. They not only may ignore rules, indeed they must, they are not mere robots. We see this every day with an efficient chair of a meeting. They bypass rules of procedure routinely. However, any member may appeal at any time, after the fact. If I had an employee who insisted on asking my permission to do something obviously necessary, before doing it, and delaying it when delay was harmful, I'd probably fire him. Depends. Kurt has a private fantasy of "legitimacy." Jimbo has the authority to use his tools as he did because (1) He began with it. (2) Nobody took it away. (3) He has not relinquished it. It's a fact that the community, awakened, would have the power to take it away if it were to so choose. But (1) the community is not awake to the necessary degree and (2) it is far from obvious that, were it awake, it would take the power away. Why take away the power of a servant? It's only shooting yourself in the foot. Speaking, now, for that community that isn't awake yet, and thus unable to confirm or deny what I'm saying, we would not take away anyone's power unless it became blatantly necessary to do so. Surely a libertarian would understand that, in theory. --Abd (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd put it better than I could. All I can add is that "community project" is not the translation of "ἀναρχία". Sceptre (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this ludicrous strawman built by people who are so lazy that they would rather jump to ridiculous conclusions about what they think I said, even though they're not supported by any sane interpretation of the actual words I wrote, rather than pay attention to what I actually did write. This isn't the only instance (really, I challenge anyone to show me how any sane interpretation of what I actually said would indicate that I view Wikipedia as more important than someone's life, or that I opposed Gwynand's RfA because of his choice of username, etc.), but it's the most persistent and the most frustrating. I do not, nor have I ever said anything even remotely indicating that I, oppose authority in the abstract, and I defy anyone to show me where I have. Authority is fine, so long as it stems from the community. And someone claiming authority and the community failing to counter it is absolutely not the same as the community positively and explicitly granting that authority. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
[36]--KojiDude (C) 00:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You did it again--drew a conclusion that's not supported by any sane interpretation of what I actually wrote. Tell me, how does one go from "The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority" to "There is no such thing as a legitimate authority"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually with Kurt on this one. Wikipedia can never be a community project until the status of Jimbo is something other than "benevolent dictator". (Sorry, Jimbo, no personal offence intended.) While Jimbo has indeed performed less dictatorial actions of late, there is still the looming presence, like a Big Brother without the obvious evil connotations that go with that name. People also need to stop overreacting to Kurt's comments. Assume good faith, please. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know what your getting at here, Do you think the de-sysop was unjustified? No I don't think so. Then what your trying to get at is that Jimbo saved Wikipedia alot of dicking around with Arbcom to get this guy de-sysoped. Jimbo wales has every right to intervene where he see's fit and usually has VERY GOOD REASON TO (in this he did also). Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. The only thing worse than a "benevolent dictator" (not that i agree with the term) It a person telling another how or what he should do and when, or in this case NOT DO.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, Kurt Weber you need to cool of a little, I'm sure everyone here knows that your slightly agitated, its showing in your posts   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to call me jealous of Jimbo? I cannot, and do not want to, have the responsibility that Jimbo has, and I don't want absolute power, anyways. I know I'd probably get way out of hand with ultimate power, as would many, and I respect Jimbo for not going power-crazy. However, just because he has not yet made a major mistake with his power, it does not mean that he necessarily should have such power. The smaller population to whom power is distributed, the greater chance there is that someone makes a bad mistake and is not caught. Community consensus is the best way to make sure that the best decision is made for the community. Would you be agitated if every single time you made a perfectly legitimate post, you were viciously attacked for it? I know I would, but maybe you're above a jealous person like me. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I regard my special position here as purely a community matter based on our longstanding traditions and customs. It has evolved organically. It is my intention that it fade over time to become purely ceremonial. At the present time, I think it serves a useful purpose, and I am very mindful of the theoretical problems with it. It is quite proper for people to assist in a constructive way in thinking about governance issues for the long term, including suggesting ways that we might change our existing structures. I find it less helpful to have attacks on me personally for doing exactly what our policies say I can and should do.
We do have a problem, as pointed out by WAS up above, with a lot of our processes seeming designed to create maximum drama, unintentionally of course, but there it is.
And finally, I just wanted to throw in that "the Community" must never mean "whoever happens to show up". "The Community" must always mean "the community of good editors who are dedicated to our mission."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for your action on this matter. Through your deed, you've reminded me once again of the value your unique position in the community provides (on-site I mean, no one needs reminding about the merits of your RL advocacy). From the bottom of my heart, thanks Jimbo. Steven Walling (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

## http://uz.wikipedia.org

Dear Jimbo Wales,

In Uzbekistan there is no access to uz.wiki. People believe it is banned by the Government. I'd like to know your opinion about this problem and also would like to know does the Wikimedia Foundation have a power to overcome such problems. Thank you. Gülməmməd Talk 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)