User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jimmy Wales)
Jump to: navigation, search



(Manual archive list)

Check Your Fireplace[edit]

Mele Kalikimaka[edit]

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, there's a phrase I learned fom writing Christmas in Hawaii. Rcsprinter123 (remark) @ 22:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like Christmas in Hawaii is a unique experience for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015![edit]

Dear Jimbo, Happy Holydays and the New Year 2015!

Now sorry again that I have a difficult question for you. It is about Draft:Igor Janev. Igor Janev should be classified under WP:NPOL person, since he was Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia in 2002. See more from data base Macedonian Emigration Agency (national government source:"Специјален советник на Министерот за надворешни работи" in eng. Special Adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs) in Macedonian lang. [1] [2]. In any country Special Advisor to the MFA is WP:NPOL by definition of Wikipedia. See Special Adviser status.183.86.209.161 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Good first try at an article. Welcome to Wikipedia.
The entire process for new people creating new pages is fucked up.
If, instead of following 'best advice', you'd made an account, made 10 edits, and waited 4 days - you could have made a live page, then it'd be very unlikely to be deleted.
The easiest answer is probably to do that now. Otherwise you'll be swamped with well-meaning but largely useless advice.
If I had an account, I'd just make it a live page. That means making a user account and 10 edits (to anything) and waiting 4 days, and I can't be arsed. Maybe you can.
Wikipedia politics is bullshit.
Happy Christmas, new person.
Jimbo, in case you read this, please realise that the way 'drafts' (prev AFC) circumvent the prevention of new people making articles (post-Seigenthaler) is killing the wiki; AFC/drafts clearly can't cope with helping new people (check the backlog) - let 'em make articles, and let the (over)keen patrol admin-wannabe's who can't write for shit sort out the mess. Crap gets speedied within minutes because there's a hella lot more people out there who get their kicks from deleting things than making them (and, fair enough, can't write articles). Happy Xmas to you, too; I hope you might listen to this, and make the wiki much more friendly to new users by treating all new articles the same way, instead of the current fucked up 'drafts' v. CSD-warnings etc. 88.104.28.116 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I feel sufficiently strongly about the issue that I've made this account, I'll wait 4 days and copy it over to a live article (WADR to the wiki's perceived acceptable practices of links to prior publication).

Maybe Mr. Wales can think about how to fix this for all case, instead of some random annoyed person butting in.

The way new people get their intro to make new articles is really fucked up. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If new users ask for help, they might get a response in a couple of weeks - and it'll probably be telling them that the references aren't good enough;
There are 2,826 pending submissions in Category:Pending AfC submissions.
If they ignore 'best advice' and make a user account, 4 days later they can make a live article.
Of course it might then be speedy-deleted if it's utter crap, but if it isn't total crap they'll have a chance to fix it - and people will even help try to find sources (in AFD).
Fundamental problem: More people can use clicky-tools to 'tag for speedy deletion' and 'warn user' etc than can actually help 'em make new pages,
Answer: Treat all new users the same. Let 'em try to make articles, and wikipedia can try to help them.
What a wonderful world it'd be. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
This thread from the Wikimedia Stewards Noticeboard archives may be of relevance here: [3]. There were concerns that Janev is not as notable as was claimed. Articles on Janev have twice been deleted from the English Wikipedia. [4] I think it is safe to assume that the sources in any new article on Janev will receive particular scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If it was made live, it'd likely survive AFD. As a draft, the new person just gets a shitstorm of rejection. Do you disagree?
(There is more to this than this article; it's really just a typical example). Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be more likely to survive (as a draft or otherwise) if it had properly-formatted references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly:

I made this account so that, in 4 days, I can copy the article live. Not to really make a point, but because - having discussed the specific case - I feel a need to give it a fair try.

The specific article isn't really the reason I'm intervening here; it's because of the blatant way that new articles are treated very differently from drafts.

In an ideal world, Wikipedia users would help all new users with their early articles.

Real world: there are not enough good editors to do so.

That's fine; that's just the way things are. OK, so, given that...we should at least treat everyone the same way.

Currently there are two very disparate systems;

A) DRAFTS - wait 2 or 3 weeks, get a review. Likely get rejected for 'lack of sources' with spam-template messages. At least you get some idea how to fix it.

B) Make live article. If it's complete crap, it gets speedy-deleted. Fair enough.

The problem I have is, a large number of good users spend their time trying to help A. But sadly, A is snowed-under, and full of spam.

A great many good-potential new users use B and get no real help at all, just spammed warnings (CSD, etc).

Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, It would be more likely to survive (as a draft or otherwise) if it had properly-formatted references - so, fix them! That's easy for experienced users, but super-hard for new ones.
That is the entire point here.
New users need help, not spam templates.
"properly-formatted references" is just wikipedia internal crap. Formatting is just meh. And stops new users getting involved. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot fix references for material I cannot read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(Assuming you mean because it is in Macedonian)
Sure Andy, so, if you came across this as a live article elsewhere you'd leave it to others, right?
That's what I mean about this double-standard;
Live articles are 'good until proven bad',
drafts are 'bad until proven good'. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If I came across this article, knowing as I do that an article on the same subject had already been deleted twice, I'd find someone who could read the sources to see if they supported the claims made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. And that's cool.
But, because it is just a draft, it doesn't get that treatment. It just gets 'rejected', so it is never even evaluated! Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about articles being rejected for inappropriate reasons, why have you just tagged this article for speedy deletion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated discussion, please take it to my talk page if you want. Thanks. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Igor the facetious xmas bunny - NOT HERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You tagged it and another inappropriately to disrupt wikipedia to make a point I think. Then you went off to cry off line to User:GorillaWarfare. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to talk about the way new users are treated. This discussion of my other edits is totally unrelated. I tried to 'hat' it, and you hauled me over to ANI, and I was even blocked for 'disruptive editing'; you've repeatedly removed my attempts to 'hat' this sidetrack discussion.
If you have concerns about my edits, please ask me on my talk. Here, I'm asking about new user articles. Is all. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
'New user articles' include the ones you inappropriately tagged. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start by considering your own actions. Until you accept responsibility, you are in no position to complain about others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You are posting these issues in the wrong place - that's why I'd rather 'hat' this section. If you have questions about my edits, post on my talk page with diffs, and let's discuss them. It's unrelated to the discussion I was attemting to have about new articles in general terms. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You don't get to dictate what gets discussed here - if you don't like your inappropriate behaviour being discussed, I suggest you stop behaving in such a manner in future. Meanwhile, your double standards when it comes to new articles are very much on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the point;

Would it be "disruptive" if someone just moved the 2700 articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions to live articles?

Why shouldn't they be treated the same as the other articles that are being created (and deleted) every few minutes? (*)

Maybe if I move 10 of them. Or 100. Or 1000.

Perhaps nobody will notice; after all, I have just as much au-thor-i-teh to move them as anyone else, right? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that for some reasons Igor Janev is not welcomed on English Wikipedia. Reviewers automatically reject drafts about him. So anyone supporting article on him should just give up. As for case User:Operahome when you look, one can see that most of socs were created on the German Wikipedia. Either person like account creation(s), (less likely) or He/She was constantly blocked, and as a reaction on blocking , operator was actually forced to create new (and new) accounts. On the discussion on Meta, one of German user even gave comment that Igor Janev does not Exists. Now it is obvious that he not only exists, but that he is sufficiently notable.

Apart from that conclusion, he will not get his BLP (by the way Second time, few months ago his Draft was not rejected, but removed probably by Igor Janev himself, after series of page blanking).183.86.209.149 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless to create Account. Whenever someone start creating anything abuot I. Janev, He/She is blocked and classified as sock of User:Operahome. My be the best way to check status of Igor Janev is to send e mail to Macedonian Emigration Agency and see what will their official answer be. Additionally to consult eng. Wiki. Maced user / editor User:Local hero to see what is his opinion. As a Macedonian editor on Wiki he may have some information about Igor Janev.79.101.88.30 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no conspiracy. Reviewers reject drafts with poor/no sources.
It's really not that "Janev is not welcomed on English Wikipedia". It's all about the refs. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When even Arbcom can't be trusted, who else can I turn to?[edit]

Dear Mr. Wales,

I am not posting from my usual account - or even my usual Internet connection - because I fear the wrath of those I criticize.

It has been brought to my attention that there have been several very suspicious goings-on recently related to the ongoing Arbcom case about Gamergate. Most recently, a new user was indefinitely blocked, and appeal denied, as a result of participation in the case. The crime? A single edit to the Workshop page (nothing else pertinent shows up in the user's contribution history) attempting to introduce evidence that that user thought had been missed. The evidence in question is a simple breakdown of number of edits to the Gamergate controversy, by editor, intended to support claims of WP:TAGTEAM.

Now, that would be bad enough on its own, as a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. But then I looked up some of the surrounding discussion between admins about the decision. User:HJ Mitchell is involved in the Arbcom case in question, having proposed multiple findings of fact and not just doing janitorial duties there. User:5 albert square came into the discussion assuming that it must be a sock puppet account, and deciding that it must otherwise be a "troll" with the sole intention of causing trouble for Ryulong. Which, er, really makes no sense to me; the entire point of Arbcom proceedings, surely, is to establish the case that certain of the involved parties should be sanctioned; and it's only to be expected that everyone involved takes sides. That's no different from how anyone else has been conducting themselves, anyway. 5 albert square also personally thanks User:Ryulong (who, as is often noted in these sorts of discussions, has a very long history of Wikipedia infamy) in that exchange, which frankly looks incredibly suspicious.

I have to ask, how can any Wikipedian - or any outside viewer - have any confidence in the system after witnessing such a blatant display of apparent cronyism? How are we supposed to believe that there is anything fair or equitable about the treatment of Wikipedians, when we witness Ryulong get off the hook for everything (including, for just one example, casting aspersions and using profanity in front of Arbcom), even as he brazenly flouts the system (per his own account of events, when he worried about a possible conflict of interest and appearance of paid editing after having raised funds via Reddit, he chose to ask them if contributing to that page was okay, rather than anyone on Wikipedia), while new users are immediately and indefinitely blocked for trying to point it out?

I knew things were bad, but I never realized they were this bad.

69.159.80.46 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

An accurate version of the data had always been available for anyone to add as evidence to ArbCom. [5] What a random new (or 'new') contributor expected to happen as the result of an unverifiable uploaded image being posted after the evidence stage closed, I have no idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
When you say that "an accurate version of the data had always been available", and then call the image "unverifiable", you contradict yourself. Further, it looks to me like the data matches up just fine - when I run the tool, it shows Ryulong as having 18.4% of the edits, NorthBySouthBaranof at 16.2% etc. And anyway, the fact that the data is "available" isn't a reason not to present it. The entire point of Arbcom is to make a case about the parties. The user would not have been allowed to come in and say "WP:TAGTEAM is going on" without providing some kind of evidence. Everyone is allowed to participate in Arbcom cases, per my understanding, and the new user in question presumably couldn't find something to point to on the Evidence page, and perhaps didn't know about the WMF tools.
But more importantly - are you seriously going to ignore every point about the ridiculously unfair application of rules and policy to focus on that? Here we have someone doing what they're supposed to, to the best of their ability, given a presumed good-faith desire to participate in a process they're entitled to participate in, and getting indeffed for it. And you want to defend that on the basis of how they chose to present information? 69.159.80.46 (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is that ArbCom don't need anonymously-uploaded data when they can look at the raw data themselves - all of it, not just evidence picked by one side or the other. Nobody was prevented from entering it as evidence. At the appropriate time. Not after the evidence stage had closed. Though I'm quite sure this alleged tag-teaming has been discussed in the evidence submitted anyway. As for the rights and wrongs of the block, personally, I don't think it was justified - but I don't think that it proves anything much beyond the fact that people are getting heartily sick of new (and 'new') accounts turning up and complaining that the world is conspiring against them. It is all getting rather tedious, and frankly indicates just how warped some people's priorities are. If some poor downtrodden Gamergater got blocked unjustly, it rates about 0.0001 on a scale of 1 to 10 measuring the injustices of the world today. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if AndyTheGrump may side-track this discussion, as he has in the one above.
Arbcom needs to show exemplary openness, and there's certainly reason for concern in the above case. I hope it won't be side-tracked, but this is Jim's page, so it'll probably disperse into unrelated pointless argument and be archived before you can blink. Seasonal best, Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologizes[edit]

My apologizes for the thread above and how it spiraled out of control. I thought it was a funny comic (which I follow online) and was my way of wishing you a Merry Christmas...with a smile. :) There wasn't anything malicious about it, it was just funny. :) An editor obviously took it as a way to insult you, which I never intended and it exploded from there. I, again, apologize to you and to the editors who had to clean up the mess. It was never my intention. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to stop discussing it? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)