User talk:Jimbo Wales

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Question on Marc Lemire

I'll have to respectfully disagree in regards to your comments on Talk:Marc Lemire.

There are {{fact}} tags everywhere on Wikipedia, and can be with facts that could be construed as insulting depending on your point of view(since there are an infinite amount of povs, everybody is insulted by something).

It seems more like trying to hide something by just removing it because some povs consider it to be inflammatory. I think it would be better to put up a {{disputed}} tag and let people know that this view is an outside and possibly untrue view. If the consensus thinks it best to remove the portion, then it should be removed. If it isn't presented as fact, it cannot be libel, and if it isn't libelous, it isn't scholarly to hide information.Just H 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hold ourselves to a much higher standard of quality than that. Just because the man is a far right-winger, that is no excuse for linking to random web forum posts (at stormfront, no less!) as if it proves anything about him. We need SOLID SOURCING for ALL statements about living persons. The problematic statements WERE presented as fact, but even if they were not, it would still be problematic from a moral point of view... it is possible to libel someone through "false light", you know...--Jimbo Wales 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty though. Just because it was presented as fact before doesn't mean it is cast in stone. This is a wiki after all! It's best to tone down the words, show that the sources of information are likely to be faulty, but until there's something better, to keep it there and be transparent about that. If the information is incredibly poor, it eventually will be replaced rather quickly, and if it's false, it will be removed per WP:V.Just H 02:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We can all collaborate on that article to make it safe both for Wikipedia, for the subject, and for those who wish to understand the topic. At least, that's what I believe. I'm one person, and one person does not make consensus. Until there is a consensus there, i'll leave it be. If we don't act by consensus only in difficult situations, I guarantee that this website will eventually fall apart.Just H 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are just mistaken here. When we are talking about a biography of a living person, it is mandatory that poorly sourced negative material be removed IMMEDIATELY. We have an ethical obligation here to get things absolutely right. Please understand that whoever put the information there, whoever puts information anywhere in wikipedia, had better be prepared to stand behind it personally, because we are all individually responsible for our own actions here... not just legally, but morally. Simply tagging some horrible crap with a fact tag is absolutely unacceptable when a real person might be hurt by it... and this remains true no matter how unsympathetic the person might be.--Jimbo Wales 02:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not saying what I said because the subject is unpopular. I'd say the same thing for any topic, irregardless of how it may be viewed by some.

I am somewhat disappointed however that you as the co-founder of Wikipedia are so reactionary in how you percieve information, in what I thought was a place where all information was presented for the good of everyone's understanding.

I'm also disappointed that you think so subjectively rather than objectively. If I think something is "crap", does that mean it is "crap" to you? What do you consider to be "crap"? What does the general public to be consider to be "crap"? In the end, it's just a slippery slope towards censorship unless all subjectivity is removed and is replaced with objectivity.Just H 03:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you think attention to quality is the same thing as censorship, or that I am "reactionary" you need to find a different hobby.--Jimbo Wales 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to find a different hobby? I thought we could have an intelligent and respectful debate here(particularly over what you consider "quality", since I'd beg to differ with the vast majority of the articles on Wikipedia in comparison to what you'd find on Britannica, but I guess not. I wish you a happy new year, despite our disagreements(I assume there are more), and my apologies if I offended you, which was not my intention. Just H 05:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm absolutely blown away by this decision to sub an entire article. The only thing I agree with is the removal of information where Stormfront is a source. Since it only deals with Marc Lemire's birthday it's can't be too difficult to find a better source. However, I fundamentally disagree with you statement that sources found on the Nizkor Project website is not acceptable. Most of the information from the Nizkor Project clearly show the provenance; government documents, newspaper articles, magazine articles, and primary sources (email correspondences). Even excluding the Nizkor Project, the majority of sources provided WERE government documents (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) or from other legitimate sources such as B'nai Brith and other similar sites. Warren Kinsella's book, Web of Hate is well-known to accademics and law-enforcement agencies documenting the far right in Canada from the early 1980s (actually, before then as well) to the mid 1990s. AnnieHall 03:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One additional thing. Although I agree that Stormfront is not a legitimate source of information, Marc Lemire did indeed post a meassage in the thread in question. AnnieHall 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of proof that it was actually him? No. That's why we don't do original research here. We must have reliable sources. In this case, it should be easy enough to find reliable sources, and if there are none, then this guy is clearly not notable enough to have a wikipedia biography in the first place. (As it turns out, I think there are some.) --Jimbo Wales 03:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case I do have proof but I really do agree that any reference using Stormfront still isn't appropriate. Be that as it may, I have a copy of Mr. Kinsella's book at home. I'll add some direct quotes once I return home from the holidays. I do understand why you would be concerned with some Nizkor sources given your explanation, however I think that those used in the Lemire article are appropriate. Perhaps it would be possible to re-examine the Nizkor sources to determine which ones could be used and which ones should not be? AnnieHall 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, read the article... It reads like crap and isn't, in my opinion, suitable for an encyclopedia in it's current state. I really have no idea who Marc Lemire is, but I can tell you I didn't find out by reading this article. An encyclopedic biography from the world leading encyclopedia should contain more than a slur campaign as the basis for an article? Please use a little wiki-love and write an article fitting for Wikipedia, the authoritative source for information content, not information generation. Have a great day!!! 209.244.16.221 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's your ball, and you can go home if you want."

To paraphrase the old saying though, it's your website, and you can go home with it if you want to. Just H 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Or you can follow long-established policies. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom and patents

I didn't think Richard Stallman's concerns about patents subverting copyleft licenses applied to Wikipedia until I read this. WAS 4.250 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. It's just something about artificial intelligence. Anomo 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The company intends to patent algorithms that use Wikipedia's internal links as a source of data so that we ourselves at some future date would have to pay a royalty to expand our own encyclopedia's software (example: searching) even if we wrote the code from scratch ourselves. Anyone familiar with existing software patents, for example on using a single click to buy something, can see the implications of this. See Transcript of Richard Stallman speaking on GPLv3 in Torino; 18th March 2006 for background. WAS 4.250 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One possibility is to create forums on a Wiki site to brainstorm future possible uses for all our data and discuss algorithms for implementing them. If all the ideas are "prior art" in the public domain, then they cannot be patented. The Wiki would be a record of the idea being released to the general public. Any company applying for a patent would have to prove that they had the idea before it was posted on the Wiki. Maybe this should be Wikifree.org? A site for free ideas. (I just bought the name to protect it). Has something like this ever been discussed? --Samuel Wantman 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What if the idea was discussed on some obscure Wikipedia talk page somewhere? Could that prevent the patent stealing the idea, or do we have to follow up with the idea ourselves? I support the idea of a free brainstorming wiki to come up with ideas - and Samuel, maybe you should set it up as a Wikia anyway, and get people participating. Carcharoth 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a patent lawyer, though I do have a patent in my name. My understanding is that all patents must reference "prior art" (which is all the ideas that are closely related to the patent) and demonstrate how the idea is novel and not a derivative of the old ideas. Prior art includes previous patents, and ideas in the public domain. By disclosing an idea before a patent is applied for, you put the idea in the public domain. As for Wikia, I would feel very uncomfortable setting this up in Wikia. Wikia is not a non-profit corporation. -- Samuel Wantman 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of news media photos for historic events

In case you weren't aware, there's an interesting battle going on at WP:IFD over a number of fair use photos that have been taken from news media sources. See [1], for instance. Basically, a question which is coming up that the community is having a hard time deciding is this: WP:FU counterexample #5 specifically mentions that it's not fair use to use a news media photo to illustrate an event, unless the photo itself is significant and that is being discussed. However, {{historicphoto}} is directly at odds with this, and claims that it is fair use to use a photo of an unreproducible historic event. Care to comment? I know this kind of thing is important to you. Mangojuice^talk 13:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the {{historicphoto}} template is a reasonable one, if used in an extremely sparing way. For example, any random picture of Elvis is in some very stretched sense historically unique, but we should be able to get plenty of freely licensed photos of Elvis. Surely someone saw him in concert or took a picture. This is different from a photo which is really the only possible illustration for an article, like if there was some unique historical event, and the article is about that event, and there are either no photos or so few photos that there is just no way we will ever get a free one.--Jimbo Wales 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would there be some kind of threshold for the importance of that historic event? In other words, how unique is "unique"? I think it clearly helps justify fair use if the event is at least an important one, as opposed (say) to something like Uma Thurman attending the 2005 Oscars.. which is arguably unique, and no free images may exist for it, but we don't need to cover that. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as well. Even in the case of something like a photo from the war in Iraq where it's almost certain that we will not find very many free photos, how we claim fair use on a current-day news media photo (when the article is not about the photo itself)? The photographer/news agency makes money on royalties from that photo and we would be using the photo in the exact way that they intend to profit from it. Obviously, I will respect your wishes and not submit any such photos to IFD unless they are the more obvious case you mentioned (a random photo of Elvis), but I must admit that I'm scratching my head a little bit on it. --BigDT 19:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo in signatures

There's an An/I thread going on (User EaglesFanInTampa using nickname of 'Jimbo' in signature) about the use of "Jimbo" in signatures other than your own. What are your thoughts on this? Hbdragon88 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are other people in the world who are named / nicknamed Jimbo, so it's not necessarily an attempt to impersonate Mr. Wales. However, perhaps it would be better if they added an initial or something to their sig to disambiguate; I once used "Dan" in my sig, but changed it to "Dan T." after I got some complaints of confusion because somebody else who had been around earlier and was more notable in the community was using "Dan" as his sig already. *Dan T.* 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Emergency!! Invitation from Business Weekly Magazine in Taiwan

Hi Jimmy:

My name is Hung-ta Lin. The senior reporter of Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan. I really have an emergency here. People in Academia Sinica told me you agree to interview with us on March 10 in Japan. But we don't know the time, place and other details of this interview.

Before we fly to Japan for this interview, we wish to discuss all details with you. So we really need to know how to contact you.

This interview is different. We let you decide which topic you want to talk. It will be a special report or cover story. The report may contain 10 pages or more. So, it takes some time for us to discuss the detailes. I sent my proposal to you jwales@wikia.com and wikispeaker@gamil.com account. The subject is "An invitation from Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales".

My email account is hung@mail2000.com.tw. My another email account is hung@bwnet.com.tw I really need to contact with you!! Please send me an email as soon as possible!

Thank you very much

Hung-ta Lin

Business Weekly magazine: the most popular magazine in Taiwan.

I've decided to bring this to your attention

Hi. My name is PL (DB). I'm rather pleased to actually speak to you. I really love Wikipedia and I can't spend more than a week without editing it since it's so enjoyable and educational. Now then, I want to have your authorization about one thing: If I continuously remove warnings/comments, etc., from my user talk page, will I not be warned, blocked or anything? I really want you to say that I can since you're the mastermind of Wikipedia. Now, the only warnings I won't remove right off the bat are those that I deserve for vandalizing and whatnot recently (also those given to me by an Admin.) I shall only remove Admin. warnings/comments given to me only after some time has passed. So... Is there such a template of yours that says This user is cleared to remove warnings/comments, etc., by my authorization, Jimmy Wales. Or something like that... do I have your authorization, sire? PL(DB) 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just archive everything up to a week ago? Everyone is authorised to remove old comments from their talk page, including warnings, so long as the warnings aren't recent and their problematic behaviour isn't continuing, so you really don't need the founder's blessing. There should be no problem if you just move old comments to a subpage (User talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)/Archive) and link to it at the top of your user talk page. If you do that and someone reverts you saying "you removed warnings", I'll revert them myself. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing! I don't wanna archive everything (even though I already have an archive). I wanna just refresh my entire talk page. I mean, it is my talk page, right? I have been told that I can blank my talk page but two bad things will happen to me, One: I will be frowned upon, Two: The arbitration commitee will do something about me (which is kinda scary when ya think about it) Besides, Lord Jimmy Wales is head of that department, right? I mean, he is the co-founder of Wikipedia. I really need him to create a template for me or something showing that I can refresh my user talk page without getting warned or harassed for refreshing it. Also, the past warnings, comments and all will still be in my history page, right? And like I've said before, THE ONLY WARNINGS I WON'T REMOVE ARE THE ONES THAT I JUST RECIEVED ON THE SPOT. I'LL ONLY REMOVE THEM AFTER SOME TIME HAS PASSED AND I HAVE BEHAVED. Ok? (Me | The Article) 17:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MR. WALES!!! IF YOU'RE ONLINE, PLEASE, please, I need to know if I can blank my user talk page!!! Thanks. (Me | The Article) 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been dealt with; result was page successfully blanked. Yuser31415 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademark infringement on Adwords

Hi Jimbo... You guys might want to do some trademark enforcement. It's getting silly. I saw one that was "en wikipedia org" and it was a website selling prescription medication or some such. It's getting silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The third one appears to be a weird feature of Google more than anything else. As to the others, I wonder whether anything can actually be done. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure either... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with current events in the German Wikipedia

Hi, I want to point out on an issue in the German WP, on current events. During the last months there's a rather rigideous faction of wikipedians -- many of them are adminins -- which consider any articles on current events as not encyclopedic and as a result such articles get deleted or have to go survife a raunchy request for deletion discussion (the German nick for that page is deletion hell). The latest instance is de:Mordserie in Ipswich 2006 (the English equivalent is 2006 Ipswich murder investigation) but another was the German version of 2006 Qana airstrike which got deleted in August and even the article about the last year's war in Lebanon as a whole had to survive the deletion hell. I don't expect any specific (re)action, my intention is rather to determine what really WP wants. Is it correct that -- since WP is flexible and can be changed at any time -- articles on current events are welcomed (similar stated in the German rules for deletion) or is it true, that according to that faction, writing articles about current events isn't encyclopedic, because about such events can be written only the event settled and books (!) have been written about it, i.e. newspaper or online sources, even serious, like the New York Times or Germany's Der Spiegel or BBC-News aren't reliable sources for writing a wikipedia. That faction's main argument is, such stuff belongs to wikinews.

Of course many first attempts of covering a current event are badly written, unsourced, biased, or worse. OTOH, many people are interested in the topic, they all do research. It's much more difficult to write an article one year later or two when sources aren't available anymore. Search in newspaper archives are not for free and not every contributer has access tp public libraries. As a result, for instance, the German WP still doesn't have an article about the elections in Venezuela. It also doesn't have an article about the 2006 Thai coup d'état. Why? -- Would you like to work for the rubbish can?

IMHO, many new wikipedians are joining the community during major current events and because of fluctuation, because of people are unhappy, they leave -- so new wikipedians are needed all the time. I also think that most new users are joining the community during and because of a (major) current event occurs. It's highly frustrating if you start to work together with some fellow writers about a topic which is in the news and then some people come and tell you that your work is worth a s nothing, because it just happened and is in the news and we should go and write it at Wikinews.

During the last six months I made some 2,000 edits in articles (w/o discussions) and I think that 1,800+ of them had been in articles about current events but I have to tell you that I reached the point where I am fed up with that attitude. Since the topic reappears at the AFD discussions peiodically, like a broken record, I also am nearing the point where I'll question myself, if it's to stay or to resign. Please don't misunderstand, this is no ultimatum or whatsoever, it's only my frustration about the question, wether I am wasting my time here, or if the result of the time I am spending is welcomed in general. It's only the just and simple question: is writing about current events welcomed or not? (And maybe more complicated: Even in the German wikipedia? How much it can decide on its own and does that make sense?) It's the question if an article like Battle of Baidoa can be written now or only after 2008 has finished.

I hope I didn't waste (too much of) your time. Have a nice day. --213.155.224.232 20:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

I'm starting to wonder if I may becoming out of step with the rest of wikipedia and would really appreciate your input. The reason I'm asking you instead of other editors is I have been accused by other editors of censorship for making a couple edits, one of which was a deletion of an image you had deleted earlier. It all started after a quick look at the top 100 viewed articles which ended up in a deletion of a double penetration image and removal and shuffle of redundant photos in the breast article. When I first saw the double penetration image, I noticed the style was different from the others so I went through the history logs to see if it was added by a vandal. After going through the logs, I noticed you deleted the image [2] but it was later added without any discussion so I deleted it as well stating "as per jimbo the style is different from the others - Definitely more pornographic than encyclopedic - Please use tact". [3] The image was then added again a few hours later stating not to remove the image without discussion. [4] I then deleted the image and asked to use talk to discuss why your deletion should be rv. [5] The image is added again but this time user Doc Tropics proclaims the wikipedia is not censored. At that point I gave up as the censored word was being thrown around. After the incident I was accused of censorship for an edit to the breast article and haven’t had much support from other editors so I'm second guessing my edits for fear that I may want wikipedia to be too perfect. Now I look up my watch list and see the image below has been added to the article with the double penetration image but no one has rv the image [[6]]. I wait, and still nothing. I have tried communicating with other editors after being called pro-censor but it seems no one really listens after you’ve been labeled a censor. You have done a tremendous thing for mankind and I believe your opinion is sincere so I'm looking for guidance from you on this issue and because you removed the the double pen image as well. Seriously, this isn’t a gripe or whine, just looking for guidance as I'm really not a censor.

Here is the first image you deleted that was rv and is still in the article.

File:Doublepen.png

Woman being doubly penetrated by two men – one in her vagina and the other in her anus

And the new image added today. --I already forgot 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the copyvio image and handed out a couple of blocks for trolling. The other picture, the one in a different style, is a problem, but I consider that a legitimate editorial dispute. But re-inserting a blatant copyvio on the grounds that removing it would be censorship? That's just wrong.--Jimbo Wales 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with using a different style, in fact to keep to using the one same narrow style of pictures could easily be argued as not NPOV. That image isn't the only one in that "style", there are others done exactly the same way. Also you claim it is pornographic, however nothing could hardly be further from the truth as for a reason for it to not be included. Remember this image is on a page which is a list of sex positions, you should expect to see images there of any possible sex position. Which is one of the reasons among many others why wikipedia is not censored. Also if you look at the image, I'd suspect it is created based off a master image which was a photo? Or at least that would be one way I could create similar images. This means it has been made very much so not porngraphic in comparision to the original photo due to it's conversion to a drawing. Mathmo ^Talk 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who said the image look pornographic. In the professional sense there are certain things pornographic directors do to set regular sex acts from the professional ones. For example: looking back at the camera as if looking at the viewer showing pleasure, money shots, etc. is an example of professional pornographic artistic ability. When you watch a pornographic movie you notice these types of things as I noticed it in the image (looking back showing pleasure). Pornography is not a bad thing for certain individuals, but if you are familiar with the style, its obvious when presented to you. I was merely pointing out that the image look pornographic do to my observation. That’s it. I dont remember reading that jimbo thought the image was pornographic.--I already forgot 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not making sense to me here, for some reason you are saying that looking at the camera and showing pleasure is pornographic? Don't know about you... but for me it is very normal to be showing pleasure during sex! And likewise, when a picture is being taken of me (any sort at all) I'll look at the camera! Is not the norm to be looking away from the camera when a person is taking your photo. (unless you happen to be an extremely shy person etc...) Mathmo ^Talk 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the attempt Jimbo. I'll continue to be a wikinomad and walk more carefully through the ever increasing villages and tribes growing within wikipedia. Though the response was confusing, it has also been enlightening. Thanks again for everything you have done.--I already forgot 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have talked about the use of linkimage on the Guidelines page, but that refers to "Photographs or video of sexual acts ". This artwork does not fit that category.

I can appreciate that some may view some images as pornographic. I mean no insult, but a characterization that it reminds a user of pornographic style is irrelevant. The context of the image is everything. (per Miller test) In this encylopedia, the section is a description of multiple penetrations. The image shows precisely that. The image does not meet the miller test of pornography, and should not be censored.

Also, editing images because the participants "show pleasure" in a sexually explicit image, in an article about sexuality is nonsense. The whole purpose of sexuality is pleasure.

You describe being suprised to see a drawing of penetration when looking at the sexual positions article under the sub section titled "multiple penetrations"? Hmmm. We need more images like this, not less. The more people become used to normal, healthy sexuality, the more they will perceive it as no different than someone bowling, or driving a car. It is the lack of exposure to normal behavior that makes people, in the manner describing your reaction, view this kind of thing as "pornography".

Again, my apologies, I did not mean to have been so blunt, as I respect both of your views. We should avoid trying to offend anyone. But, my opinion is that here is yet another attempt to censor something because of your viewpoint about sexuality, not a viewpoint shared by everyone. Regardless of rhetoric, it appears to me to be yet another example of trying to censor undesirable content when our policy is clearly "Wikpedia does not censor". I'm fine with discussions regarding the licensing status of images, or of the editorial decisions necessary to have a high quality article, including what images would improve, or decrease the editorial quality of an article. It seems that in this case, the image illustrates artistically the topic of the article, and the sub-section incredibly well. So well that people with sensitivity to sexually explicit content are bothered by it. If we are going to censor based on sexual content, let's just be honest about it, establish clear policies and guidelines, and firmly adhere to them, and not try to find some rhetoric to censor whenever an image is too honest or frank. If we aren't going to censor, then let's continue our discussion on developing guidelines for content, per Guidelines (or similar) and reach and maintain consensus. Atom 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have owned pornography, know people in the business, and respect it as a valid trade. I deleted the image because jimbo had deleted it earlier and it was re-added without discussion. Not sure if his rv of the removal was intentional vandalism or not so I rv to reflect his change. It was a mistake to add my pov in the edit summary which I apologize but that has nothing to do with the constant addition of an image he has removed and no discussion about re-adding it. I did not plan to use his talk page as a platform for the dispute or to expand on accusations that I'm a censor so I apologize to jimbo for using his talk which is now being used for other reasons than I intended. As for making people accept double penetration as "healthy sexuality so they can perceived it as no different than bowling"? I think each user should make that judgment for themselves and not wikipedia. That is why I asked for guidance.--I already forgot 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware the Mr. Wales had removed the image at any point. I see from comments above that it was for editorial/stylistic reasons. When I re-added it, it was because an anon IP had recently removed almost the entire article, and I reverted that. I know that you have, and continue to make your edits with good faith. IMO I believe that sexuality articles should be frank, honest, and cited and sourced as much as possible. Sexuality is normal and healthy, and no one should be ashamed with expressing that part of themselves. I agree that we should let every individual decide for themselves what range of the very broad sexual spectrum they are comfortable with. None of us should disparge a person because their range of sexuality is fairly narrow compared to another, nor should we disparage or try to limit those with a much broader range. We should offer a broad range of facts and citable views on sexuality, in accordance with our NPOV and non-censorship guidelines, and allow people who desire to participate and view Wikipedia (in accordance with our disclamers) to choose for themselves. If we were to try and limit sexual content to a range, it would have to be an arbitrary range. Would we choose to provide content only compatible with the official position of the Catholic church? With those comfortable within Sharia law? With those subscribed by a panel of orthodox jews? The intersection of that set? Maybe the views most commonly agreed upon as "normal" by most Americans? North Americans? Native English speakers? Well, to keep it simple, we have agreed to not censor, but to provide content that is considered to be factual, and citable. That is going to shock, offend, and surprise some people, hence out dislaimers. Atom 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. We do need to present a broad range of options to people. Thus, citing sources from different views is very good.

In the same vein, the linkimage is a good tool to allow people to either see or not see photographs that may offend people.

However, I disagree with you about the idea that making decisions about what range of material we present is somehow an arbitrary decision. Please do not confuse making a judgement call with making an arbitrary decision.

The world is not black-and-white. We continually must make judgement calls when we edit articles. Ex: Is this a reliable source or not? Is this statement important to the ariticle or not? Is this image more shocking than it absolutely needs to be? Every single one of these are judgement calls.

Just because reasonable opinions will differ does not excuse us from making these hard decisions. Neither does it make our decision arbitrary once we have made it.

The answer is not to say we must allow every single image - to do otherwise is POV and constitutes censorship. That is treating the world as black-and-white and amounts to advocating an extreme position. What we must do instead is recognize the shades of grey and to chart a middle path. Johntex\^talk 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. "Arbitrary" means "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference. Not based on necessity, reason, or principle." I agree that there is always the need for editorial discretion and judgement. We've decided to make the tough calls based on discussion and consensus. I also would not advocate allowing every single image, although, in the area of sexuality, as long as the image does not violate the law, erring on the side of more information rather than less would do less harm, even if it squicked more people. In the case of an opinion of fact, the statement needs verification. In the case of an image of "ejaculation", not much verification is needed.

• Is this image important to the article? I agree. Good criteria for judgement.

• Is this image more shocking than it needs to be? Not our call. Present the facts. If we make a shocking statement, factual and cited "An estimated 5 to 6 million Jews, including 3 million Polish Jews were killed by the Germans during WWII" we don't pull it because it is shocking, it is a fact. If we have an image of a man ejaculating, we don't pull it because someone might be shocked by it. Men do ejaculate. I agree that the use of linkimage, under some circumstances might have some value. Debatable is whether an image of every describable sex act needs to be shown in order to accurately document. Pulling an image because someone might be have very sheltered views about sexuality should not happen, though.

Let's keep working together on the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality#Work_in_Progress:_Guidelines_for_images_in_Sexology_and_Sexuality_articles.Atom 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Child Wikipedians

Now that the wiki-drama has died down a bit on this (and the nasty e-mails have subsided) I'd like to talk to you about my concerns on how it was handled. Issues like this one get messy because of the tendency to make simplistic responses or to fail to separate out intermingled questions. In this case I see three streams:

1. The speedy deletion of the category itself,
2. The paucity of discussion on the category, and
3. The "Foundation's work" argument.

With regards to the speedy deletion of the category, I know you've come out and supported it (while wearing your "mere mortal" hat) so I understand your view on this decision. But more generally, you've come out strongly against wheel warring and demonstrably one admin (and probably more) had seen this category and failed to delete "on sight." Isn't there some internal contradiction there, and doesn't supporting the deletion give some justification (?) for reversing other admins decision based on being extra-right?

With regards to the discourse itself, do you look over this debate and see the kind of dialog you'd like decision making to be based upon? I recall your ire at a similar debate for Category:Living person where real debate was thin on the ground.

Finally, there's often "coded talk" about people doing the foundation's dirty work to avoid media exposure. (Citations available upon request.) What are your feelings on having your name taken in vain, as it were? My understanding was that Office et alia were there to prevent any confusion with matters like this, and that the "foundation work" was to be very clear when it was being done.

Thanks mate, brenneman 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re IRC: Duo Penotti?

Hi Jimmy, on #wikipedia-nl you asked about a product. Could it be Duo Penotti (nl), a bi-coloured chocolate spread? As an alternative, I'd like to suggest stroopwafels (nl). Cheers! Siebrand 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I bet that is it. --Jimbo Wales 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's making me famous!!

Take a look at this, read all the threads! thought you might think its funny! At least someones making me famous! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, we deleted the listing for Rock Slope? My favorite band? AfD really is broken. ;-)--Jimbo Wales 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad quarrel spilling over

Jimbo, A bad quarrel centring on a sockpuppet case is spilling over to Orkut and is threatening the image of certain Wikipedia admins and of the community in general. I made a request to Raul on this [7] but he didn't seem to have responded or acted. An Orkut community named Viva Wikipedia with over 12000 members which remained dormant until recently has become the pivot of quarrel (and certain other related communities also). The community is moderated by an admin, user:Deepujoseph. He seems to have acted in haste to ban certain members who raised some criticism of the project. His actions have given rise to stringent criticism and he has become the target of much personal attacks on various communities on Orkut. There is enough to supsect that he acted not in entirely responsible manner vis-à-vis some criticism posted on his talk page relating to content he added. [8], [9], [10]. In any case, it would be a good idea if some senior admins intervened to diffuse a scandal and save user:Deepujoseph from being a target of personal attacks all over the web. Sameera Bhat 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I am being accused of sockpuppetry. Llama Man and Metros232 are saying I am a sockpuppeteer and Bowsy is my sockpuppet. This is not true. From their evidence, they should have found out that we live in the same house. They are saying Bowsy is my sockpuppet because his account was created 4 minutes after mine and I do a little then he does. This is because, as we live in the same house, we must take turns. They are sayinghe is my sockpuppet because he was the only delete for cruft. This is because he saw me nominate it. They are mentioning the edit war. Bowsy dropped out of this after contributing once. As you can see, they are using unreliable evidence so can you please end this as we aren't sockpuppets. Henchman 2000 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try other channels first, such as WP:ANI. Jimbo rarely involves himself in disputes like this without you trying other methods first. --Deskana (request backup) 13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No degree in Marketing

However...

• 
  Talk 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NinaOdell | Talk 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales

Mr. Wales, you can't claim npov on this matter, unless you do not believe in rules that you made, which would be hypocritical.. Of course, if you wish to be hypocritical, that's your choice.

However, despite the fact that you basically own this encyclopedia, I consider the mission of this encyclopedia superceding even you, and I will not change my opinion due to anyone's position, but facts and consensus.

In the Larry Sanger article, he is also seen as a co-founder, which would also make you a co-founder, IMO.

Due to the sensitive nature of my opinion, I have reached out to try and engage towards the consensus edit on the talk page of that article here and [11], and a few more times.

If you would like to continue discussing this matter, please feel free to get back to me on my talk page. Just H 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is controversial, then i'm sure there will be no problem with the {{disputed}} tag on both articles until both are no longer controversial. As you said on your edit summary to me, NPOV is mandatory, so I ask you to follow it -- nobody can be %100 NPOV about themselves without ceasing to be themselves, and you are no exception. Just H 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You can be offended if you want to be, that's your issue, not my intention. I'm here to write an encyclopedia. I apologize for any psychological harm you may have incurred from my opinion, which unfortunately, is a part of being a famous person such as yourself.

I'm curious how other notable people, or for that matter, other users have felt, in situations similiar to yours right now. There doesn't seem to be alot of structure on here, and even then it seems to be ignored. Fixing that would seem to be the key thing from preventing this and balancing the reputations of people on Wikipedia with the presentation of all facts, and the best thing you can do as "King" is to set an example and follow them. Just H 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Telephone

Thank you for the offer, Mr. Wales. However, I am more able to express my thoughts on a computer than on a telephone, so I would prefer to continue our discussions here. Just H 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO. Please know that I do not have anything personal with you, and if I offended you, I apologize. You weren't really a factor in my opinion, and like I said on the talk page, I have no problem with compromising to get all viewpoints in, all Wikipedians should compromise. I also believe all Wikipedians should agree to follow the rules that we've all agreed upon(or seem to have agreed upon), or nobody will follow them and there will be chaos. You are a wikipedian, I assume, so I included you into that expectation.

However, I did also feel somewhat intimidated since you are pretty much the "King" of Wikipedia, and I construed your comments as "agree with me or else". However, I know that probably wasn't your intent, so I tried to assume good faith the best I could and not bring that up in there.

My objective is to make that article, and this entire encyclopedia as good as possible, and that in my opinion includes providing as many opinions and sources as possible and presenting them as neutrally as possible. Just H 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If It Helps At All

I've done many things in my life I don't like looking back on either, at least that's my guess in regards to your take on the Sanger issue. That you look back on that time with regret and you want to bury it.

If it helps, you're not alone, Mr. Wales. Just feel proud that even though this website can dredge up old memories that can harm us, in the end it has a noble purpose and it wouldn't have happened without you.

Out there in the articles, it's not about me or you, it's about information. But as they say, the truth can hurt sometimes and I hope we can work it out outside of the articles so we can forego our egos for the good of this project. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to alleviate that hurt without compromising the project.Just H 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Esperanza

Mr. Wales;

As you are undoubtedly aware, Esperanza has recently been deleted and transformed into a simple essay. I was fully behind this decision, though I had supported deletion and protection, as did the nominator, Dev920. We fear that the program will be revived and put back to it's corrupted use. The debate seems neverending; discussion of the first MFD and post-first MFD was amazingly lengthy and heated, and the second MFD and post discussion was the same. It was suggested that discussion be delayed for a month; this, however, has been misinterpreted as though law. I personally see no value in this; undoubtedly the arguments will come back in full force. Many of us are sick of the debate and wish to see a final decision made upon this. Mr. Wales, I hope this is not overly presumptuous of me, but I would request your input on this in order to meaningfully establish a decision. Thank you for your time. DoomsDay349 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to clog up your talk page too much, so I'll try to be brief. The disagreement in the MfD was not really over whether or not Esperanza should remain active or be closed down - by the end, that decision was clear. The disagreement was over what "closed down" actually means. Some people argued that all its pages should be deleted and salted, and that it should never be discussed again. Others felt that its pages should be tagged historical (so that anyone can access the "primary sources" regarding its history, not just admins) and that people should still be free to openly discuss its good and bad points. In the end, a compromise decision was made. Some projects were spun off as independent pages. Some sub-pages were soft-deleted (blanked and redirected to main page, but with page history intact.) Other sub-pages were hard-deleted.

IMHO, what's needed is a consistent method of dealing with failed proposals, as well as active projects that are closed down. There's currently a discussion about this very matter at:

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#MfDs of policy/guideline/essay and organisation pages

I'm sure any comments you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Quack 688 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation with Esperanza, Mr. Wales, is becoming ridiculous. Most users hung out on the MfD for a bit and then got on with their lives when the decision was reached. However, there's a hardcore of users for which Esperanza is not dead but merely dormant, and they are trying to keep that flame alive as long as possible. What it has resulted in is two battlelines, as it were, with me, Doomsday, and Moreschi, on the opposing side and Quack688, Geo.plrd, and Ed on the other side, with Carcharoth pursuing a "historical" policy in between. Additionally, Geo.plrd, why1991, and Zacharycrimsonwolf are trying to get together various ideas to bring Esperanza back on their talkpages. Neither side can back down for fear that the other side will sneak in and get their way. From Quack's rapid reply, it seems obvious that we are all watching each other's talkpages and possibly contributions, and both sides are not afraid of trying to change the terms of the debate to suit themselves. This endless struggle has dragged in all kinds of editors, admins, and now you. I, for one, would like to be free to get on with improving the encyclopedia, but as mentioned before, I can't let this one go lest Esperanza come back yet again. This debate is nothing to do with failed policy ideas, because Esperanza was a unique organisation with a unique goal. While I don't want a binding decision on the matter from you, Mr. Wales, I would appreciate a suggestion to deal with this arms buildup that we have found ourselves in and cannot get out of. Neutralising both sides is the best policy I think (though I wouldn't object if you simply said "Burn it all and never sugegst anything of the kind again" :) ). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to fuel the sitution more, but the best thing to do in these situations is to back down, since that indicates maturity and judgement for you and your supporters. I am certain Esperanza will not be revived, as any editor who did so would be going against the consensus displayed in perhaps the biggest MfD in Wikipedia's history. Just my two cents. Yuser31415 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia integration

Hi,

nice wiki.

i just have a problem with the interaction of it like, when i type a word in english in the hebrew wiki it will not lead me to the translation in the english wiki. it would me very cool if people will not need to change language just to get a resault in theyre language when tey are using other languages.

Best Regards, Moran

Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.0.188.171 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for the awesome signature and comment! SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in PDF available?

I have this new idea, to have a link on every page and when you go there you'll see the article as PDF. What do you say Jimbo? Do you support my idea? Thanks, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't ask me! But I think because of the nature of this project generating PDF without any general review (for vandalism, POV pushings, and false information) is not correct. From technical aspect generating new PDF for every single edits on articles is nothing more than imagination (at least for now). This is what I think about it and might be incorrect. Hessam 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should face better vandalism, POV pushing...I agree that something has to be done quickly before competition will emerge and make something better than Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea, Jimbo what do you say? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, does it not? And there is no competition for Wikipedia, as it is a free project. I can't see many of its editors leaving because there is competition. Yuser31415 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is like this: how can one read more easier Wikipedia? As HTML or PDF? Many of us think that it's better HTML. But there are some people who would prefer as PDF. Imagine some books or chapters in PDF from Wikipedia...or CDs, we speak about a lot of money here. I estimate to about 10,000,000 $ bussiness in the first year.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PDF isn't a very open format. Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I take that back after reading PDF! Computerjoe's talk 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, all the good articles can be included in a PDF version, one can sell those CDs for a lot of money..--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who would pay a lot of money for articles that are free on the Internet? Anyway, I find HTML better than PDF for viewing on-screen, though PDF can be good for printing. Wikipedia pages generally print fairly well on browsers that support print stylesheets as Wikipedia uses, so I wouldn't see much use for a PDF version. *Dan T.* 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if PDF is much better for printing that means Wiki will have a greater impact. This will lead to a different status. Much better one. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PDFs are a bloated version of what is much smaller and faster in a web browser. PDF means a slow load of Adobe Acrobat and if it's on a website (instead of offline) it means a chance Acrobat could crash (there's also some security hole recently I heard). You can save Wikipedia as HTML only and view it offline. For printing, don't both with the "printable version" link and just see in "print preview" how it already makes a printable version automatically. PDF is only good for if someone photographically scans a computer game's manual. Anomo 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning

I fixed a couple of things, but some little arguments annoy me, and I won't touch them. Is there anything else making you cranky today, or is that the end of it? If it we're me, I would avert my eyes and hope for the best (see any Wikipedia article related to Buddhism, for example). Again, good morning. NinaOdell | Talk 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I put my answer on the article's talk page

My opinion is eschew(spelling?) "founder" altogether and just put "internet enterpreneur" in the lead and then we can have a section about Bomis and Wikipedia and so on and put both views in those sections where applicable. I think that's pretty fair, how about you? Just H 15:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page move request

Hello, Jimbo. I just thought I should bring the Main Page move discussion to your attention here. Please make your opinion about the issue known, as your opinion is very important and it would really influence the discussion one way or another.--Tom^{I edit my userpage too much}, 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dos lingo

Hello Mr. Wales, My User name is Dos lingo I have been accused as being a sock puppet of Piratesofsml this is totally unfounded.I have tried to leave messages on the [Current Evidence page]but user Patstuart or Natalya has takin them off.See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Piratesofsml&oldid=100252289/ Where I left a message on the evidence page]] . There was also this Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser that says I'm most likely a sock puppet of Piratesofsml.If this is the case then every one who dials up where I do will face this.Is there any thing that I could do? Any thing that could be done? Respectfully Dos lingo 63.3.11.130 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, Jimbo! Just sayin' hi. --66.218.15.162 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

6 years

6 years of excellence. Thank you for co-founding this encyclopedia and demonstrating its goals, Mr. Wales. Yuser31415 00:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Vandalism

I have a question? Since you are the main person of Wikipedia. I would like to know why page move vandalism is taken so seriously in Wikipedia? Why isn't the user given at least one warning before the user is blocked. Also why is the block permanet? It should only be for 24 hours. Is it really that hard to fix or undo page move vandalism? Why is it taken so seriously? I would like to know this. Thank you.King Lopez 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

because the level of knowlage requied means that the vandel knows darn well what they are doing.Geni 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jimbo! --Oden 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy King Day

"There is a spirit and a need and a man at the beginning of every great human advance. Every one of these must be right for that particular moment of history, or nothing happens." - Coretta Scott King

• 
  Talk 13:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well dang it.

My card's messed up. I can never figure out how the inter-wiki links work. Anyhow, all quotes come from Wikiquotes, and the image comes from Wikimedia Commons. Please take a moment today to reflect on the lives and work of these two extraordinary people. Like all great thinkers, there is a quote for every occasion. NinaOdell | Talk 15:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

After some thought, I have decided that being a Wikipedia editor is no longer for me. I first joined in 2006 and since then it's just gotten too stessfull for my tastes. It's no longer about building a knowledge base as much as it's about determining policy. Newbies get bitten while perfectly legitimate articles and pictures, representing doubtless thousands of person-hours of work, get deleted because "policy wonks" think it doesn't meet the right guidelines or its not good because they disagree on it - be them "notability" (an open-ended sham), the horrifically exclusive new fair use policy on pictures, or whatever else. Meanwhile, editors who continually add nonsense , unsourced and bunk get a blind eye turned to, while legitimate editors are scorned. This is no longer a project I want to be associated with. --Markhamman 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

My page is under attack again. Please take a look and help fellow floridian best piotrek dr piotr blass

Antivandalbot

Hi Jimbo, found another funny edit which Tonywalton pointed out to me. User:Rideburton2424 (who has now been blocked indefinately) accused antivandalbot of having no life apart from wikipedia [12], I hope antivandalbots feeling weren't hurt too much by this! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1994 foreign-currency speculation

Wired Magazine reported in March, 2005 that you made enough money speculating on interest rates and foreign currencies to support yourself and a wife for the rest of your life. [13] My question is, were these trades part of those 1994 trades cited by Malaysian prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammed as immoral, and which were implicated in crashing several southern hemisphere economies during and around 1994? A second question is, if you know so much about how to get rich betting on the value of money and if you believe speculating on money is a moral way to earn a living, why have you shared so little of your knowledge in wikipedia articles, where residents of those African countries who you say will benefit from the free knowledge they get from wikipedia could use your knowledge to get rich and start their own Internet projects, which might advance their ideals rather than inculcating in their youth the ideals of Western capitalists with computer access and time to spare? Mergerlomanica 06:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The pro-speculation bias of this Web site is especially evident in some articles about the practice. [14]Profeta verdadero 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass second request

More attacks on my page by non mathematicians. This is a form of vandalism Please help! Dr Piotr Blass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.189.9 (talk • contribs)

Appeal

Jimbo, I've requested an appeal from the ArbCom of my two-year arbitration penalties (which I am 14 months into now) on the grounds that I haven't done anything that anyone has complained about or considered controversial in six months. The ArbCom agrees that I have not done these things, but says the restrictions should remain simply on the basis that I believe certain things about what happened in the past that the arbitrators don't believe (which is to say that I maintain that all the arbitration cases against me over the last two years were complete junk, while the ArbCom insists they are the gospel truth). The ArbCom says that if I don't agree with them about these past events, that means I will do things that it dislikes again; I on the other hand point to my uncontroversial record over an extended period of time and say that I intend to continue to avoid controversy and act with moderation due to prudence, pragmatism, and the wisdom of experience about how best to deal with difficult situations. I think it is preposterous and a violation of basic principles to punish someone simply for holding an opinion about who was right and wrong in old, long dead disputes. I request not that you necessarily hear my appeal personally, as I know that you are unwilling to do this as a matter of practice, but that you at least talk to the ArbCom about this and urge them to deal fairly with me. Everyking 08:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

Once again we have non mathematicians calling my work non notable without any understanding of it and recommending not just deletion of my piotr blass page but also salting---term they use. Please help me and make sure we do not sponsor a kind of cultural revolution mao style here. let florida shine your friend dr piotr blass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.189.9 (talk • contribs)

piotr blass

please look at the deletion discussion of my page please step in to rectify the situation thanks dr piotr blass