User talk:Jimbo Wales

Correction

Hi Mr. Wales, I had made some comments in the Wikipedia talk pages. These are the talk pages I have commented in: Sasanian Empire, Parthian empire, Achaemenid empire. Now I want to correct those comments.

I had no intention to make the comments in the talk pages. I am not so good in English. I just wanted to include some maps in some of the articles. But then the other editors said I must have a consensus to include my edits. So I had to make those comments. But then I realized it was a mistake. There are many mistakes in my language. So I want to correct those comments.

Mr.Wales, I have made three accounts for this edit. This is the fourth one. It will probably not be possible for me to make a new one. The other editors are not allowing me to do this. So I have come to you Mr. Wales. You are the owner of Wikipedia. You have the power to let me edit the comments. So please let me do this a bit.

I don't have the capability to write any article in Wikipedia. I am not so good in English. I just want to correct my comments. I will only do some grammatical change. I have to correct the comments, I have to correct them at any cost. I am feeling very uncomfortable about the comments in the talk pages. This is the last thing I want to do in Wikipedia. After doing this I will quit Wikipedia. So please mr. Wales, let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy isn't the owner of Wikipedia. He is a founder and on the board of trustees of the Foundation, and an editor. Consequently he gets a certain amount of respect, and flack, and requests to intervene.

If you have grammatical errors in your comments, don't worry. As long as the meaning is clear it is fine.

As to the maps, it is a complicated situation. I have cleaned up one of the maps of that area we have on Commons, but I can't remember if this used on any of those pages.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

Wow, Arman, it seems you sure know how to get blocked. And even lose your Talk Page access too. Most people just try and stick to one account. I guess your current account will soon be blocked too. Which may be unfortunate, as you seem to want to just correct what you see as mistakes that you've made. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that would be unfortunate. I haven't reviewed his edit history but he seems to be wanting to make things right and then stop. I see no harm in letting him try to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr. Jimbo Wales for understanding it. I just want to correct my comments. I just want to do some grammatical change in my comments. I want to do this because this is an encyclopedia. The people of the world will watch this. If they see my incorrect comments there it will look very odd. This is why I want to correct the comments. If you want to block my account after this I am ready to accept it.Arman ad88 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Arman, assuming (as I do) that you are editing here in good faith, I recommend that you switch instead to improving the Wikipedia articles in the language(s) in which you are more fluent, all of which need new editorial participants. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No no it is not possible for me write any article in Wikipedia. I don't have the skills to write any article in Wikipedia. I just came in Wikipedia as a novice, then I saw some problems in the articles and then had to make those comments. The problem here is that, I don't think my incorrect comments should to be there. These are very important articles. Many people of the world will watch them. I don't want people to see my incorrect comments. That is why I want to correct the comments. That's it, nothing more than that. So please let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly, about correcting obvious mistakes, you could actually log out and correct them anonymously. I'm sure no-one would complain about that. If they are just Talk Page comments, I'm really not sure they will be read by "many people of the world". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK if I log out and correct my comments anonymously, will it be accepted? There is a problem. I had tried few times to correct my comments. Other editors have reverted my edits. And finally they even blocked my IP adress. I fear that this kind of thing can happen again. So please tell me what can I do about that.Arman ad88 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the best course of action is for you to discuss the things you want corrected at the Talk Page(s) of the relevant article(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I discuss about the edits in the talk pages they will be more messy. The other editors may be more angry with me. They may even block my account. So I don't think that is a right idea.Arman ad88 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Arman, I have reviewed the talk pages that you mentioned, as well as some of the past history - sock puppet investigation, etc. I did not review whatever behaviors led to your first block, as you have admitted to mistakes in the past, so I see no reason to go into that. Here is my warm recommendation to you, and I hope you will take it. The standard offer strikes me as your most useful approach, and I would encourage you to follow it, and upon your return, let people know that you are sorry for what happened before. It seems to me that you do have something to offer the project if you remain calm and take suggestions from others as to how to improve and compromise on various map details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you don't trust me because I have made many mistakes in the earlier times. I admit that I have done many mistakes. But it is also true that the articles I was trying to improve were at very poor condition. So I wanted to improve them by any means. You can consider it as inexperience of a newcomer.

I just want to correct my comments. Mr. Wales, it is a very minor edit. It will only take few minutes. Then the problem will be solved. This is the last thing I want to do in Wikipedia. And then I will leave Wikipedia. So please let me do this a bit.Arman ad88 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK I think we can solve the problem another way. I don't want to edit the comments myself. But can someone of you help me correct the comments in the talk pages? Then the problem will be solved. Can some one of you help me improve the English in my comments in the talk pages?Arman ad88 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo

Will you let <your daughter> edit Wikipedia? If so, what would you say about child protection? Because harassment is rampant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Eron Quinn (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is <removed>? There isn't a <name removed> registered user with this name. Some possible explanations here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am guessing that <name removed> might be the name of one of Jimbo's daughters, and if I am right, he would possibly not appreciate questions about his parenting on WP. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This article might give us a few clues, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support our policy on Wikipedia:Child_protection and indeed would not mind seeing it strengthened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What specific changes would you see as strengthening the child protection policy? I think it's adequate and reasonable as is, but would be interested to know what you have in mind. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a specific proposal in mind. My point was: the implicit hostility in the question (bringing my own children into the discussion for no reason) appeared to me to be an attempt to suggest that I'm somehow reluctant on this issue, when in fact I'm quite hawkish on it. I think that harassment of all kinds, and particularly that involving sexual harassment of children, is to be fought vigorously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem some of us who are 'hawkish' about these things face is that the administrative corps (as a group) and Arbcom are incredibly bad at dealing with child protection issues. In some cases this is a justified 'We dont get paid or trained for this' response, the worse cases however are the 'shoot the messenger' responses that are all too commmon. The most notable one being an editor who repeatedly brought up (with evidence from editing history) where another editor was advising a minor to circumvent his parents prohibition on contact with him. The reporting editor was blocked, and it was a significant time before the problematic editor engaging in inappropriate contact was globally banned by the WMF. A significant time I might add in which repeated complaints were made to the WMF and the local police authorities about the editor. Did the original complainent ever get an apology or even a thank you? I think you can guess the answer. This clearly has a chilling effect on editors in general, as it encourages turning a blind eye in case you get sanctioned. Why report something you know is wrong when you will end up blocked for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd love an email with the details of this case, and especially timings. My understanding is that the situation has significantly improved fairly recently, due to the Foundation investing more in this area. If there is still a problem, I will advocate for spending more. Responses to concerns like this should be prompt.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest asking Kiefer Wolfowitz for a timeline but he is still banned. It was on your page in August 2013 and Demiurge1000 was banned in December 2014. You might want to ask the foundation directly regarding the details. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, I noticed an editor who is underage, but on their userpage lists their full name, city and schools attended/attending. I am very wary of this and not sure if it's actionable or not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If they are a minor (and I mean under 16 by that) - remove the info, drop a polite note on their talk-page to not post personal info with a link to Guidance for younger editors, and submit a rev-del/oversight request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Why under 16? In any event, it was taken care of by an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Personally speaking because that (give or take a year) is generally when most children stop being children and society considers them ready and competent to make adult decisions and give informed consent to things like: who they sleep with, to fight for their country, get married, drive etc. It varies by country depending on the various rights, from 14-21. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Children may face potentially very serious problems (e.g. sexual abuse), but it is easy to go overboard with protective measures. Well meant measures can lead to disruption, interfering with normal everyday activities. Cases like this are deeply troubling. When I was 5 years old, I used to walk a lot farther to Kindergarten alone. Today, this is taboo (at least in the US), it's not even good enough for a young child to be accompanied by a ten year old. You have to wonder how children raised this way will turn out as adults. Count Iblis (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't have to wonder. Just look at college campuses today with their safe spaces, trigger warnings, prohibitions against microagressions, and other efforts to protect students from any kind of intellectual or emotional discomfort. Deli nk (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

What is your familiarity with this phenomenon? Do you work or teach at a college? Or do you have a child who attends college? Or is just an notion you got from reading blogs? There are thousands of institutes of higher education in the U.S. alone and it's a mistake to think an outlier or two is representative of the majority of colleges and universities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with this phenomenon. It's my own experience as a student. If your college experience didn't involve these things, consider yourself fortunate. Deli nk (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I wondered about the same user page to which Sir Joseph refers. In that case, the child identified his age on ANI in a comment to an Arbitrator, and shortly afterwards the user page content and ANI comment were gone, presumably oversighted. The problem was addressed quickly and quietly, an example of the system working, IMO. EdChem (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• On a side-note. What is the policy on articles about minors? See for instance this diff on the Azealia Banks that cites a crude remark about Skai Jackson. Question is, should the same reference be included on that page? Karst (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Jimbo.

Howdy, I think you need to change the image policy, Im from the NIWA (Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance) they allow non-free images, but not Wikipedia, and I heard also on the Wikias, you allowed them to use non-free images also. Knowing you are one of the founders of Wikipedia, can you allow Non-free images? I wan't a non-free image as a Personal Image. And please only allow non-free images allowed for Personal Images if they are NOT intended for a article. Thanks! DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DatNuttyWikipedian. Wikipedia allows limited use of non-free images, within articles only, and only when the image is irreplaceable. Please read WP:NFCI. In my personal opinion, the chance for a dramatic liberalization of this policy is negligible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

.......even though it would make for a far better encyclopedia and would represent extremely minimal legal risk to WMF. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that legal risk has very little to do with it. Reusability - a core principle of software freedom and of Wikipedia - is the primary reason. Keeping the website safe is only a part of our responsibility - we want people to be able to take our work, follow the license, and reuse it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes "free to use" gets in the way of using things that are freely usable. For example, there are lots of CC-by-NC videos from major universities, foundations, and museums that we would like to be able to use - that would greatly improve the encyclopedia, but just don't have a chance to appear on Wikipedia. I suppose the argument is that if we "hold the line" and don't allow marginally less free material, the institutions will eventually come around to our view and start using CC-BY-SA. But practically, that's not happening. Please consider allowing these, at least on an institution-by-institution basis. Another example of where "total freedom" gets in the way of "practical freedom" is with MP4's. Putting videos on Wikipedia in a "totally free" format, limits the number of people who can view them. Is there a real hangup about using MP4s or is the lack of freedom purely theoretical? People do get carried away on this stuff. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

GMO's and concerns about corporate influence

Hi Jimmy,

Previously I expressed concerns about how the GMO articles appear to have the hand of the GM industry in them. There is discussion about the rules of a soon to be launched high stakes RfC regarding language of GMO safety that is in the lede of many GM articles.

FYI, I made the following suggestion here to address concerns of possible influence from industry:

Choice of Closing Admins

COI concerns: It is hard to ascertain whether anyone involved in GMO articles edits with a financial motivation. As we saw with WifiOne ([1][2]), anonymous paid editors can be very crafty in avoiding scrutiny and gaining positions of power at Wikipedia.

With billions [3] at stake, the GM industry spent ~$100 Million fighting U.S. GMO labeling laws ([4][5][6]).

The industry could easily afford to hire a team of full-time anonymous Pro-GM editors like WiFiOne to make sure the articles reflect their views in each article lede, in the same way that BP was able to write 44% of its article, including the Deepwater horizon oil spill [7].

Wikipedia's policies of anonymity combined with WP:AGF and ArbCom's GMO ruling protect editors from criticisms for similar behavior.

In this high stakes RfC, I suggest that the three closing admins make a declaration that they have no direct or indirect financial or fiduciary conflict of interest (COI) by participating in this RfC. Such COI might include, for example, employment or contracting for a GM company, holding a GM patent, doing GM research, or working at a PR firm.

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Jimmy, I second David's concerns. It appears to me that the proposed Rfc on GMO's is largely an attempt to silence those with legitimate concerns and questions regarding those editors who edit relentlessly in favor of corporate interests. Under the rubric of "casting aspersions" which can be used as a chilling effect to threaten editors like David, the impression I get is that some editors seek to inoculate themselves from any scrutiny whatsoever. In my view this is a recipe for turning Wikipedia into a PR machine that serves industry interests. I have suggested the proposed Rfc be scrapped. Jusdafax 13:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally hate using quippy internet slang but LOL. Most of the editors that favor the wording you oppose have been here for years and have tens of thousands of edits across a spectrum of subjects but it's your contention that they're paid sleeper-shills embedded by food companies years ago just for this moment? If there's anything WP has to worry about it's the newer anti-GMO SPAs that cyclically crop up much the anti-vaxers do. Capeo (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The irony is that we see these aspersions all the time from those trying to dispute the scientific consensus referencing "corporate interest", but they never seem to be engaging in this inappropriate behavior against corporate on the other side of the issue. That includes the organic, "natural" foods, etc. lobbies that have been actively campaigning and pushing often shoddy research to claim the food is unsafe to create marketing to sell their own products. There's a lot of money on that side too (not exactly David and Goliath if you pit the two groups of companies against each other) That's why at least editors keeping clear of behavior issues are sticking to scientifically reliable sources that reflect the consensus of academics and focus on content instead of resorting to shill gambits, erroneously claiming the research was just bought off on one side, or raising these boogeyman specters to try to sway content.

Editors really shouldn't be complaining that they can't interject this stuff into the RfC anymore. It's like a kid on the playground complaining because they got caught putting ice chunks in their snowballs when no one else was even throwing even regular snowballs. The situation would be worlds worse if editors like myself started slinging aspersions that editors disputing the consensus are favoring the organic industry's interests. I've seen no evidence of anyone on any side having that kind of COI or advocacy connection, and I'm not aware of anyone like me who's been characterized as the "pro-industry" side (that irony astounds me as an equal opportunity scrutinizer of industry) going anywhere near claiming that. It's interesting what "side" the chaffing at our ArbCom ruling on aspersions solely comes from in this dispute with that in mind. I'm hoping the ArbCom supervised RfC helps excise that distraction so we can solely focus on content, and the current admins seem to be doing a good job of weeding out distractions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Luckily it appears the admins watching the RFC draft page have already dealt with this appropriately. Further shill gambits will be removed and editors repeating them will be removed as well. Capeo (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The problems here should not be construed in terms of COI. What does happen from time to time is that a COI editor edits in some dark corner of Wikipedia with little scrutiny leading to a POV article that can exist for many years. Then this is discovered by the wider Wikipedia community, people with the opposite agenda jump on that fact to try to get their way by invoking COI as a systemic problem even when there is a lot of scrutiny. But that's a false assertion. It's impossible to get away with one biased, one sided POV edits in a controversial topic with half of the community looking over your shoulders. The real source of the dispute lies elsewhere. The core of the dispute is that the anti-GMO activists evaluate things by assuming a priori that every aspect of GMO technology is extremely dangerous and then update this prior assumption using scientific evidence. Mainstream science, in contrast, will base their prior assumption on the totality of all of the prior existing evidence, here some safety margins will be build in, so there is then still a bias toward assuming potential danger, but it's not as extreme what the anti-GMO movement is doing. Count Iblis (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is worth noting: [8], [9], and [10]. And I agree entirely with the supervising admins, who, after all, are simply acting in accord with the ArbCom decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• It would fun to see a fork of some GMO articles written by David alone on his userpage. A rigorous peer review of such articles by uninvolved editors and David's reply to that should keep the whole lot busy for quite a while. But this would at least focus all the discussions on the actual topic. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I believe the crowd here is trusting the wrong voices. KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder. Like this. petrarchan47คุก 07:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia shrinking?!

Few years ago I was reading in Wiki an article about USA history describing anti-interracial marriage laws in USA against Asians, Native Americans etc, it has a map showing difference between different states and so on. But now I could find only Jim Crow laws, an nothing else, no mention of Asians, Native Americans etc. As I guess the article that I was reading was deleted by ashamed racists, or by other kinds of deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.23.54 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to answer this without more specific information. Maybe the article was merged or deleted. Also, article content changes over time, and some articles are considerably different from how they looked five years ago. It's unlikely to have been because of a racist agenda.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We have Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I also wondered whether this had been mentioned in response to Loving v. Virginia, which is the subject of a new film, Loving (2016 film) which has just been released.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 volunteer stats

Once again we find that reports of WP's demise have been greatly exaggerated... April 2016 stats show a count of 3,309 Very Active Editors (100+ edits/mo.) at English Wikipedia, an increase of 5.1% over the figure for April 2015. This number surpasses the same-month figures for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. New Articles Per Day is up slightly, from 804 last year to 834 this year.

The count of Very Active Editors across all the language Wikipedias is flat at the 10,000 mark — basically 3 times more than the En-WP total. There were 15 language Wikipedias with 100 or more Very Active Editors in the month, with English, German, French, Russian, and Spanish being the top five in sequence. Some 59% of Very Active Wikipedians participate through these five projects. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you uploaded any images?

Hey Jimbo, I suppose I could just check through the proper links but, have you ever uploaded any images and if so, do you still take pics and upload? If not....can you be talked into it. LOL! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo's upload log is easy to find, for goodness' sake. He hasn't uploaded very many images and they date mostly (apart from the deleted ones) from the period 2004-6.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)