User talk:Jimbo Wales

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)

Wikipedia and Captcha

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)

Also just wanted to add that a bug report has apparently already been submitted about this (Bug 13938). --jonny-mt 08:22, 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)

I wouldn't say that captchas on wikipedia are "rare". They happen if you want to sign up. They happen if you forget your password or make several (three, I think?) failed login attempts. They happen if you want to post a link. They seem to happen if you want to edit semi-protected pages. This is not what I would call rare. Also, if I understand how account requests work, requesting an account from an admin means the blind person must give that unknown and untrusted (by the blind user anyway) user private information: the email address of the account, the username/password of the account, and the users IP address (if the request is made on a talk page). 206.126.88.124 (talk) 14:50, 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)

More updates on this. Captchas are required after just *one* incorrect login attempt. Also, it appears the password is autogenerated in the case of an account request (or does the account creator just make it up?). Admins still get the username and email of the requester; I don't know if they get an IP address, as I can't tell what, exactly, the provided form does, and they may no the password of the new account if they set it rather than having it generated. As well, apparently without an account I can't create a user page for my own IP address; this is, thus, another limitation placed on blind users. I'd be happy to move my captcha updates to my user page, but I can't create it, as I just said. I've been trying, off and on, to get wikipedia to fix this captcha problem for something like a year now, with no results. I've got free time all summer, so I'm going to try and stay on top of this for the next three months, anyway. Is there anything more official than posting on this talk page that I should be doing? 206.126.88.124 (talk) 15:32, 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)

Press screenings of upcoming films

Jimbo, I have 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)

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)

Random Padlock Award

		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. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(The toolserver tool referenced is [3]) SQL^{Query 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) SQL^{Query 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)

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[4]. 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 [5]. And then candidates still fail because 67 "yes" votes against 28 "no" is not enough [6]. 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).--Koji†Dude ^(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"?--Koji†Dude ^(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. Pedro :  Chat  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.--Koji†Dude ^(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. Pedro :  Chat  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)

Thanks man

Your the BEST website creator hit me on my talk page User: SPBLU