User talk:Jimbo Wales

Signature

Hi Jimbo Wales. Now, there is a little matter which I would like to have it improved. Many users want your signature in there sign-books (even I do), but I am not very sure if you would be willing to sign all those sign-books; so, I come with a proposal. There is this transclusion sub-page called Universal Autographs, where users can post there autographs and share it with all who have got the transclusion code on there sign-book. So, if you were to sign there, then you would, in a way, be signing lots of sign-books in just 1 shot!

“ You keep asking how they [signature books] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to WP:EA. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. ” —Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what do say?

--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gee, why not just copy it to your page...it would mean the same thing. See look, the coding is quite simple: --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]

Wouldn't that work? If you want mine, you can copy it from here also...all the bits, only half the calories. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn´t sound very traditional. The user should sign his name, not have it copied.

--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But you're OK with transcluding? Maybe if I saw the point of the pages I would get it, but I don't. Transcluding doesn't seem any more "traditional" than copying the signature to your page—in either case, the user didn't actually sign your autograph page. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a way yes, because the user agrees to make his autograph available to all when signing in the transclusion; the user signs lots of them in one shot... --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but like I said above, you can copy my signature...so I'm agreeing to make it available...no? BTW, I like your previous signature better—per WP:SIG, "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." —Doug Bell ^talk 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of your signature yes, because you are agreeing with sharing your signature; but Jimbo Wales is not telling me that I can copy his signature... I suggest that either he signs Universal Autographs or that he himself states below that I can copy his signature, of which either option will certainly take less than a minuite...

(As for my signature, I just changed the font, I didn´t use any big tags) --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your signature, try removing size="4" from it—that has a similar effect to <big> and is covered under the such as qualification in the guideline regarding markup. Then you'll get TomasBat, which is less disruptive. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this?: TomasBat (@)(Sign)

Anyways, Jimbo Wales I await an answer... If you sign, it will certainly take less than a minuite... TomasBat (@)(Sign) 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets make it simple, Jimmy Wales, all you have to do is type the letter a right below this message if you give me permission to copy your signature to Universal Autographs; the procedure is extremely simple and it will certainly take less than 1/2 a minute, this way you will use up extremely little time and make many users happy... TomasBat (@)(Sign) 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I still await an answer...TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, you think maybe this is getting ridiculous? You're creating an argument here for deleting these pages. The community consensus in the recent deletion discussion was that while the pages might be OK, canvassing or other wise advertising to get signatures was discouraged. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose so... Yeah, this is getting ridiculous... I apologize to Jimmy Wales for making such an argument for such a minor matter.

But, ive got an idea which could be a logical solution to this situation: If Jimmy Wales does not reply before this post is archived, then I will take his silence s a yes, I am willing to let my signature be copied into Universal Autographs; but if he does reply before this post is archived stating that he does not give me permission to copy his sinature to Universal Autographs, then, of couse, I will take his answer as a no.

This way, if Jimmy Wales hasnt got any problems with letting me copy his signature to Universal Autographs but just is too busy to respond, then he auctually can respond without wasting any time! And if he has got problems with letting me copy his signature to Universal Autographs, then he can reply stating so if he is so concerned.

Now, I will stop posting here unless someone else makes a comment and I feel the need to respond to that comment.

Happy editing... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive proposal failure

Jimbo, I don't know if you've been follwing this whole thing very much (I sure hope you have been though) but so far, just about all proposals relating to credentials seem to be failing, with the sole exception of the proposal to require ID for users with CheckUser access. The general consensus seems to be that we don't need a radical new policy, we don't need to appease the media, and existing content policy should be adequate. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Credential_Verification#Perhaps_the_best_proposal... for a current discussion about this. What we are asking is: Please don't override consensus just to appease the media. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think there are reasons why this has happened. Strong articles are built only through rigorous citation back to reliable and verifiable sources. Although I think your initial proposal about lightly vetting CVs on userpages was helpful, I've come to believe that banning the assertion of CVs altogether on userpages, along with making the assertion of a CV in an edit blockable, like a legal threat, is the only way to mix anonymity with article reliability. Cheers! Gwen Gale 16:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what I am proposing could possibly fail. It would require a policy change to allow people to be blocked for doing voluntary credential verification. The only things that are failing are ideas which I am not proposing. I was on a family trip for the last 2 days, so I haven't kept up with the discussions since then. --Jimbo Wales 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some policy changes would be helpful. Don't you? Or have I misunderstood? Are you saying no policy changes are needed? Cheers! Gwen Gale 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jimmy, you are mistaken. People have a number of problems with your proposal (yes, yours), including that it's completely unworkable/unscalable, will not address any real problems, and will have the negative effect of creating another class of editors. Mak (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your original proposal for the voluntary verification of credentials has inspired many alternative proposals, and virtually all of these proposals have been rejected by an overwhelming majority of those participating in the discussion as being inconsistent with the egalitarian philosophy that is at the core of Wikipedia's value system. As such, the only way that any system of credential verification could be up and running at Wikipedia in a week, a month, or at any time in the foreseeable future would be if Wikipedia were to rename itself Citizendium. As an alternative, I humbly offer the proposed policy of Ignore All Credentials in the tradition of one of Wikipedia's core policies Ignore all rules. // Internet Esquire 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In general agreement with the above, I do think a ban on credential posting and on asserting them in edits would be more than helpful. Gwen Gale 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as a ban goes, see Wikipedia:Credential ban. However, the only idea that is getting support in decent quantites is a proposal on meta to require users with CheckUser access to have their ID on file with the Foundation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I inadvertently made my last edit to an earlier version from the history. Apologies for that. What it said was the following: I'm still not in love with the proposal for reasons I've articulated in the past, but I've sent you [i.e. Jimbo] an e-mail (since there is confidential information involved about my real-life identity) asking you to carry out an exercise that might confirm the workability of what you are proposing and give you an idea of how flexible it would need to be. I'll be interested in your response. I think that some (not all) of the criticisms of the proposal are unfair and not seeing the bigger picture. Metamagician3000 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wales should offer to resign

The Essjay embarassment to Wikipedia was 90% a result of administrative non-reaction (poor judgment) by Jimbo,Angela and Brad Patrick [1] and 10% a result of Essjay's misdeed. Policies can never prevent willful bad behavior nor administrative inaction when made aware of bad behavior. It's quite disturbing that even the Bush Whitehouse is taken to account more for its acceptance of wrongful behavior. The appointing of Essjay to ArbCom ( AFTER Essjay advised Jimbo of his misdeed) shows not only poor judgment but an overt acceptance of Essjay's misdeed; and to do so without even instructing Essjay to correct or delete his fabrications from Wikipedia exacerbates that acceptance. That is the obvious crux of the issue before the Wikipedia community, and debating credentialism proposals does nothing to address that. I'll be straightforward; I propose that Wales offer his resignation forthwith and that Brad Patrick be replaced as General Counsel unless he can show he took some action when Essjay advised him of the misdeed. 70.48.205.216 22:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. Irrelevant. --Rednblu 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A lesson learnt

I think the major lessons that have come out of this for the Foundation are:

1. Don't vouch for someone's credentials to the media when you have no idea who they are.
2. Don't announce to the media that we'll be implementing a credential verification policy without telling the community.
3. Don't be surprised when they reject proposals that would effectively divide the community into "editors" and "authors".

Why would anyone have their credentials verified unless they were going to use them to railroad other editors? Just last night someone tried to revert my edits to English Reformation because he is a parish priest and I have no identifying information on my userpage. This encyclopedia, as I am sure you are well aware, is largely written by students and amateur enthusiasts. If they feel made to be inferior, they will leave, and Wikipedia will collapse. All of these policies that have been proposed has an unwritten implication that having your credentials verified will allow you to assert your "authority". If someone is really reading an encyclopedia because it was written by graduates, they can go to Citizendium. We insist on references. I cite almost everything I write and where I don't, I provide sources whenever challenged. Whatever qualifications I may or may not have thus does not matter and should not matter. Any step towards a Citizendium style hierarchy will end in disaster. I hope the community's resounding rejection to these proposals will swiftly bring an end to any further steps. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any resounding rejection! I think a few people are completely hysterical about proposals which have not been made. I think voluntary credential verification is going ahead promptly. As with many things in Wikipedia, if you don't want to do it, don't do it. But don't get in the way of good people trying to do something useful, either.--Jimbo Wales 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy, have you been able to review the responses to your proposal on its talk page (+ the archives)? I don't think you can classify the number of people expressing sincere and severe concerns with the proposal can be described as "a few people [who] are completely hysterical." It's a pretty wide subset of editors and administrators. That isn't to say you can't go ahead with your proposal, of course, but I'd certainly appreciate you not dismissing them and their reasoning completely out of hand as "hysterical". Yes, the proposal is voluntary. That doesn't mean it won't affect more than those who choose to participate — it will affect everyone, as has been discussed extensively. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a handful of reasonable concerns but I see no developing consensus against the proposal. I see a lot of hysteria, and a lot of support. I think it will go forward successfully in any event, and at that point those who are opposed will begin to see more clearly why this is a simple and overwhelmingly positive thing.--Jimbo Wales 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for classifying the many comments by long term editors, including myself as "hysteria." You are seriously out of touch with the community here. Absolutely no consensus to go forward with it was made. Of course you still may do it by fiat, but you are sadly mistaken in thinking the community supports this. pschemp | talk 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How about if he just quoted pschemp's own classification of the many comments of long term editors last week, and called it a "hysterical bloodlusting lynch mob"? 150.203.2.85 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since that was not made in reference to this proposal, but instead to the actual lynchmob running around, that wouldn't be a correct thing to quote. Glad to see I have a fan club though. pschemp | talk 08:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the main discussion: I see no problem with those who want to give links to verify their credentials on their userpages, but a policy to say that they can is unnecessary. As long as we generally take credentials with a grain of salt, we don't allow them to be used in place of citations (we already don't), and the use of them in debate is discouraged or possibly banned (which may require a minor change to talk page policy) I see no reason for drastic change. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason Mr. Wales is referring to "hysteria" is that the majority of the opposition is in opposition to something that isn't actually being proposed. Namely, nobody is proposing that "I have a Ph.D. nyah nyah" will replace citing of reliable sources and rational debate; obviously it can't as a fair number of editors in fact do have Ph.Ds (at least, I think so, given they are telling the truth!). Nonetheless, when I read through all the comments, many people seem to think this is what is being proposed. Thus, I think Mr. Wales' interpretation is on the mark. In my honest opinion, the confusion is due to the fact that the proposal is really quite mild...in fact, some may even consider it ineffectual to address the "real issues" (whose existence is not yet firmly established).

As far as I understand it, the proposal is meant to address certain, perhaps very uncommon (but still occurring) situations when there is an extensive debate requiring some level of expertise in judging which sources are more reliable, standard, etc., or when some person, group, or organization is notable. Additionally, when there is already rational debate going on, people are generally willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when s/he says in his/her extensive professional experience such-and-such is true. Mr. Wales seems to be proposing that in those cases, we should verify that that person does in fact have such experience, when it is possible to do so. This is why as I said, some may consider this ineffectual. Generally, people take such comments with a grain of salt, and based on the editor's history, determine whether this person does in fact appear to be such an expert. Such determinations are made daily. The majority of times, probably, such determinations are easy to make correctly. So it seems likely to me that very little will change if this proposal is implemented.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a definite PR advantage. The person who only knows about Wikipedia from the newspapers will learn of this policy and feel it is more reliable as a result. In the end of course, we really have no good idea as to the reliability of Wikipedia before or after such a policy, nor really how it compares to other resources (I am aware of the couple studies comparing to Wikipedia to say, Britannica, but I'm skeptical of the methodologies not to mention the validity of comparing apples and oranges). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

"Hysterical" sounds about right to me. And User:Chan-Ho Suh above provides about the right explanation in saying that "the majority of the opposition is in opposition to something that isn't actually being proposed." If I look again at the proposal, I find: "This policy will be coupled with a policy of gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up." There you have it. As User:Chan-Ho Suh says, I see no proposal that the editor's credentials would be given any weight at all in deciding whether the editor can insert credential bias to override neutral point of view. So there is no good reason for the "hysteria" or "sincere and severe concerns" or whatever we want to call the opposition to this proposal. This proposal looks like an effective step forward in dealing with our situation here. Nevertheless, we as a community have a lot of work to do in defining in clear and consistent policy text what NPOV means operationally in "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." But as User:Chan-Ho Suh says, that work cannot be addressed in the very limited scope of this proposal. --Rednblu 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So, would someone like to clarify to me why people would verify their credentials? Because someone in apparent opposition to me said "Additionally, when there is already rational debate going on, people are generally willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when s/he says in his/her extensive professional experience such-and-such is true. Mr. Wales seems to be proposing that in those cases, we should verify that that person does in fact have such experience, when it is possible to do so" which seems strangely like saying because people are already asserting their offline authority over edits, and we are merely giving them the means with which to officially do so. It seems to me that credential flashing needs to be discouraged rather than enshrined in policy.

Additionally, these proposals make the assumption that people who hold such credentials are more objective than those who do not. This is not necessarily true. If this credential verification idea goes through, Kurt Wise is perfectly capable of coming to Wikipedia and setting himself up as an expert on evolution, as he holds a Phd in paleontology from Harvard. However, he also believes that the Earth is ten thousand years old. People would, as previously mentioned, defer to him in such matters, but the question is, should they? Similarly with David Irving; he has written thirty books on history but should we trust his opinion on Hitler? People like that are the reason we insist in citations, not qualifications. I really cannot not see what benefit this policy will bring to Wikipedia other than to set divisions between us and appease the media, all of whom use us to abuse us anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this policy has the following basis -- "gentle (or firm) discouragement for people to make claims like those that EssJay made, unless they are willing to back them up." That as I see it is the only argument in this proposal for "why people would verify their credentials?" I see nothing in this proposal which would change how we treat the edits of people 1) with or 2) without credentials. Can you quote the part of this proposal which would change how we treat the edits of people 1) with or 2) without credentials? --Rednblu 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Three words, the Essjay controversy. The reason Essjay was fired was because he used his credentials to win content disputes with other editors. He won those disputes because people deferred to his qualifications. Most people who push their qualifications in such a way are generally asked, firmly but usually politely, to not do this because we have no way of proving their qualifications. If this proposal goes through, and people can genuinely prove they have the qualifications with which they seek to smack around the heads of other editors, it's inevitable, like we did with Essjay, that we will defer to their views, whether they provide references or not. This will happen whether we write it down or not, and at all costs it should be avoided. Wikipedia is run by the collaborative power of millions, utilising the power of crowds, such power should not be harnassed by "experts". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal would not change how editors treat people who actually have the credentials that EssJay claimed. Is that right? --Rednblu 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would. It's not written into the proposal, but that is the intended effect. Otherwise why would it matter whether someone actually had those credentials or not? Who gave a toss that Essjay lied about being a doctor in canon law until it was discovered he had used false credentials to railroad other editors? Jimbo didn't. I didn't. Few people considered Essjay's lie to mean he should leave or stop editing, so who cares if other people lie? The issue at hand is that he used his credentials to browbeat other editors - which he shouldn't have been doing anyway. It doesn't matter whether someone who claims to hold a doctorate in canon law actually does or not, because they shouldn't be using it for anything other than as a point of interest and maybe to provide sources if they have access to a reference library. Thus the whole credential verification thing is only of interest to people who intend to say "Look, I have a doctorate in canon law, I know what I'm talking about, stop arguing." Which is a very, very bad thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, and I do not intend to say anything like that. You must have missed the lengthy discussions in the archives of harmonious and constructive uses for credentials. btw, Essjay did not "railroad" or "browbeat" in the diffs I saw. Derex 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Why does it matter to you that people know you actually hold such qualifications? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't; I'm not interested in me having credentials. I'm interested because I'd sometimes find it useful to know when someone else is an expert. There are examples scattered all about the various debates on related pages, which someone should gather. But here's a few. [2] Derex 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons provided largely down to being able to ask advice from people with certain expertise. I do so regularly, such as asking people proficient in other languages about translations. However, credential verification is not needed for this - someone being asked about a historical period on which they falsely claim to hold expertise will quickly come unstuck. And relying on someone purely on the basis of their academic qualifications rather than the sources they provide is a bad thing anyway. So that does not provide an adequate answer as to why this time-consuming policy is needed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP gets its editors for free and has no incentive to save them time. Mind, this is not meant as scathing criticism but only as an observation. Gwen Gale 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some do, and I think it's valid. But that's not the reason I personally gave in that section. Here's another, more to your point. [3] Derex 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your troll anaology works only if credential verification gives experts the right to "rule" on certain sourcing issues. Which is a very very bad idea. Go to Citizendium if you want to do that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

False, as discussed in the link. Derex 08:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you typed it with invisible ink then. In any case, my discussion with you have clearly rebutted the guy above, because he said that the policy would not result in a two tier system and your attitude clearly shows that it will. And the fact that no-one can agree on that is only a recipe for further chaos. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your remark. Derex 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I have the vaguest idea what "no original research" and "must be attributable to a reliable source" are driving at, then credentials here (attached to usernames) are irrelevant: if you are indeed a credentialed expert and have something to say on a subject, say it elsewhere, in what can be cited as a "reliable source", and then cite that source when saying it here. Your name and credentials can be part of the content quoted here from the reliable source; they should not be something you wave around in any other context. Nothing in the encyclopedic content should be based upon anyone's say-so here, no matter what credentials they claim. Am I anywhere even vaguely close to the underlying concept?

This shouldn't even be restricted to academic credentials -- though of all people in the world, degreed academics should know how to cite sources and not base things on "Well, *I* say so" -- but should extend to any claim of special knowledge or expertise. You interviewed Dr. Sir Lord World-Renowned, PhD x 12, and he said THAT? Very nice; where did you get this interview published, so you can cite it as saying so? Hey, I've started the fire, by traditional means, thousands of times over my life, and let me tell you, the best way to do it is -- hold on, I'd better cite Firelighters' Guidebook for this....

What I've done, whom I've met, what they told me, what I've learned over my lifetime, and what I've got the paperwork to prove I know -- and you too, bub -- are all wonderful things to paste across our userpages.... but when it comes to putting it in articles, you and I had better be able to cite a reliable source in support, and our own say-so ON-WIKI won't cut it. Do I repeat myself? Very well, I repeat myself. I am a small entry on this page; I contain a single idea. (Walt Whitman fans, please wince in unison.) -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Ben. Perhaps these sentiments should be added to What Wikipedia is Not. // Internet Esquire 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. Yours is no single notion. This is spot on what I've been getting at. Gwen Gale 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, Ben. I share those concerns.

* But this proposal does not give editor credentials 1) more or 2) less influence than they have now. Hence, we should approve this proposal for just what it is, says, and does in preventing the EssJay problem from happening again. --Rednblu 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

* Notwithstanding all of my support for this proposal, I also agree that currently certain editors, because of their credentials, are able to organize a pack that rips out the NPOV that their original research denounces as "wrong." But that is a separate problem; I can see that EssJay tried to do that; from the history record, I don't think that EssJay was successful in doing that. But that problem of editors using their credentials to organize a pack to rip out the NPOV that they would like to "relegate to the dust bin of history" is a problem that we should deal with -- not here -- but in straightening out the murky and self-contradictory text on the current NPOV policy page. Would you agree? --Rednblu 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,Ben,for clearly expressing reality . I agree with you 100%. 64.229.185.22 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to verify their claims is a reasonable request. Experience outside the so-called Wikipedia community can be just as informative and to most reasonable people far more informative of a person's capacity to compose text in a particular subject area. If usernames are intended to establish a wikireputation, wikipedia alreay has a de facto system of credentialling, and the debate seems primarily focused on whether or not to recognize any credential other than wikipedia edit history and social cues related to community standing here.

That said, let's ask Mr. Wales to verify his claim that "good people" are advancing the proposal and that those who oppose it are "hysterical". Since he can bring no signed order from God (not a minor god-king, but the actual co-creator of the known universe) that says the people advancing this proposal are "good" let's just say "people" are advancing the proposal. The problem is that Wales is attempting to slip in another de facto set of credentials based on Wales' ostensible authority to declare people either "good" or "hysterical." This time it's not college degrees, it's moral posture. Such characterizations -- even in the affirmative such as referring to one's allies as "good people" (a widely used mob moniker, I might add) is an ad hominum attack that implies the respondant is unqualified to challenge the ideas of "good people" because the respondant is morally inferior. We've seen this enough from you, Jimbo. You slither around the world characterizing anyone involved with your project who happens to be on your good side at the moment as "good" while systematically demeaning your critics. When you do apologize, it seems more an attempt to silence criticism than to acknowledge and account for error.

Just one question -- why are you still here, Jimbo Wales. You're not wanted here. It will take several years for some to realize how they are caught in the web of your flawed ideology writ as Wikipedia, but your immediate exit would start things rolling. Instead of cramming another of your wild ideas down the throats of people already choking on your misguided desire to craft the world in your own image, why don't you just butt out.

Bye now.

Ornizo 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ornizo 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just felt like saying hello to the man who started it all. Thanks for Wikipedia and all that.--SUIT^양복 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too; hi! TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some help..

Hello, I am a high school student with an assingnment to right a analytical research paper, but the thing is I can't use Wikipedia.. and I think Wikipedia's information is the most organized and correct I can find. My teacher says that your site is not a credible or reliable source. I would like to write my paper on how Wikipedia works, like if there is a screening process or what happens when someone puts false information on the site but I don't know where I can find the information I'm looking for without using Wikipedia itself. This isn't that big of a deal I can always find another topic, but if you have anything I can use to prove that your website is credible then I'm all ears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanke09 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey Jimbo, I answered this question myself as best I could, as I sensed he might have needed an answer quickly, but I'm sure you can provide a better answer for him when you next pop in.

And hi! Haven't left a message with you before. Nice to meet the maker! SGGH 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

<< I would like to write my paper on how Wikipedia works, . . . . >> (citation)

In my opinion, writing a paper on how Wikipedia works is a bad idea for you. I think it is a bad idea because there are not today enough reliable sources who have published analyses of how Wikipedia works. Could we have a short discussion about picking a good topic for your paper, perhaps on your TalkPage? --Rednblu 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to use google you can find stuff. For example using http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=-blog+Sanger+Britannica++wikipedia+wales+wikimedia+GFDL++foundation+law+freedom&btnG=Search I found http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:btMdgief8QkJ:www.sciencepub.net/0402/14-0142-mahongbao.doc+-blog+Sanger+Britannica+wikipedia+wales+wikimedia+GFDL+foundation+law+freedom&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us which is not only an interesting read but also contains sources that can be used for further investigation; and I know there are some Harvard studies. WAS 4.250 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be used as a very good source. Even if you think the article might be a bit sketchy you can always look at the bottom of the article for footnotes. Very often the article will cite footnotes from very credible sources including books, magazines, and additional news media that you can use for your paper. Wikipedia used in this way should be a great help to any paper. Now, if you see, "George Bush is a ****," I probably wouldn't quote that particular section of the Wikipedia article.  :-) Have a great day! 63.3.15.129 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly how Wikipedia should be used, as a resource for finding sources that CAN be cited in your paper. Many of us work very hard to make sure that there are good footnotes, and request that sources be found for the sketchier claims, or get them out of the article. The main reason that Wikipedia is not considered "reliable" is because you can never guarantee what is going to be in an article at any random moment, since anyone can edit it. But for finding good sources on any topic, it really can't be beat. - Crockspot 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers are having fun with our unreliability, but I think the average wikipedia article is more reliable than the average newpaper article. WAS 4.250 08:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD on Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales,

An AFD on my Bio Rajkumar Kanagasingam is brought only to distract the offences at wikipedia after stealing my e-mail address and thereafter my wiki passwords by Netmonger and his/her group and nothing else. How this user can bring this AFD before he clears himself from the offences which is now under investigation under an Administrator’s supervision and the details are here.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I found there was a detetion tag over the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which I founded. My own bio was nominated for AFD just two and half months ago, after heavy dispute over some issues on Anton Balasingham. The AFD was placed once again. Now I feel, I can't have my Bio(which was originally created by Wackymacs) like thisand same time be a Wikipedian also. My wishes for you ever. Thanks Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia reliable?

In light of recent dicussions on this page, you might be interested in the thread forming here [4] Giano 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea to utilize the Wikipedia framework in a new way. If it would be possible to setup a more private form of correspondence, I'd be more than happy to share it with you. --D 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is self-correcting and is only as reliable as concerned humans collaborating on a project can be. An ultimate authoritative comprehensive source of information, The Truth, is unattainable. paradoxos 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145

Hey, I noticed you recently redeleted this archive, saying not to restore it unless asked. My guess is it was deleted due to trouble with homeontherange (I am unfamiliar with that stuation other then basic information), so would it then be okay to restore the archive, minus section 92?--Wizardman 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I am trying to be as courteous as possible with someone who I would like to walk away with dignity... with the emphasis here on "walk away". Let's be kind to him so he can be shut of us. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, would you mind if I (or another sysop) restored only the first nine edits (the ones not pertaining to HOTR)? Or would you just prefer it remain entirely deleted Glen 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Any variant which leaves him out of it would be most appreciated. I do not know if this will be successful, but I am hopeful that by doing him this courtesy, we will be done with this sad episode.--Jimbo Wales 10:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

International Symbol of Access and licensing

I apologize for asking this here, but I believe that this is the only place that it can be brought up, since it was you that made the decision to not allow "with permission" licenses. I also apologize for reposting this; unless I missed it, you did not give any indication that you had read it. Here's the issue: the International Symbol of Access (that wheelchair logo you see everywhere) is copyrighted. Its conditions of use essentially make it a "with-permission" image; the only place where fair use applies is on the International Symbol of Access article itself. At Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead? I discussed this with other users, and made a free replacement - - that the uses of the copyrighted symbol have been replaced with. I do agree, however, with many of the people that commented that this seems pretty silly: the symbol is an international standard that people recognize. Can you please offer your view either here or at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#The wheelchair logo is copyrighted; what should we use instead?, or at least indicate that you have seen this and are OK with status quo? Thank you. --NE2 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If you will lead a quick project for people to compose an email to the people who own the copyright, I will be happy to email it to them under my name, asking them to release the logo under a modern free license. It seems likely that they would be happy to do that. Where are people wanting to use it at Wikipedia, though, other than places where fair use would work fine? --Jimbo Wales 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I don't think our fair use policies would apply here: the image is "replaceable" (as has been done), and every use of it would require a rationale on the image page. As for free licensing, I would assume that the ICTA thought about the issue in 1968 and decided to copyright it to ensure that it is not "misused". Trademark protection might provide the same effects, but I do not know whether it would have as much "teeth" and whether it is too late for them to register the trademark. The issue is that, unlike media companies, they have nothing to gain by releasing it under a free license for our use, and possibly a lot to lose if others start "abusing" that license to mark non-accessible things with the symbol. If you think about it from their point of view, we can already use the image; it is just our policies that prevent us from doing so, and they have no reason to change their license for our benefit. --NE2 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1968 is a long time ago, though.--Jimbo Wales 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So is 1928, but I don't think we'll have any luck there. So can you clarify your position with respect to the current license and the replacement? Thank you. --NE2 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Life

I've just written to Linden Lab in the following terms (slightly edited):

"Over at Wikipedia, I have been one of the people trying to bring the article on Second Life and also the article called "Resident (Second Life)" to the highest possible standard. As part of that, I created some images in SL - a couple of avatars that I created plus a shot of the Linden Gallery.

I'm being told that those images will probably be deleted as I do not have copyright in them and thus cannot give it to Wikipedia under the GFDL or to the public domain. The rationale for this is that all intellectual property in Second Life stays with the creators of elements in the virtual world, and I am not the creator of all elements of the snapshots that I took. This seems odd to me - it seems like saying that I do not have the copyright in a photo I take in my street because other people own the houses and cars that appear in my photograph. Still, that is what I am being told: if other people have created stuff that appears in my snapshot (even a skin that I bought for my avatar) then I don't have copyright in my snapshot, or, rather, everyone else who has been involved in creating content that appears in my snapshot shares in the copyright.

This also seems to have the inconvenient result that it is almost impossible for us to (legally) put snapshots taken in Second Life on our own blogs, websites, etc. Surely that can't be the intention of Linden Lab?

I've been wondering whether Linden Lab can help me in making these Wikipedia articles as good as possible. One way might be if you contacted the Wikipedia office (not me ... I'm just one of however many million editors and would have no easy way of proving it came from you) with some kind of definitive advice about the copyright status of snapshots taken in Second Life - that's assuming that the interpretation being adopted by Wikipedia is not correct.

If we can't get around this, might it be possible for Linden Lab to upload some in-world snapshots in which it unequivocally has copyright onto Wikipedia? It does seem to be in everyone's interest to have the best and most attractive Wikipedia articles. I'm hopeful of getting the actual Second Life article to Featured Article status, in which case there is a good chance of getting it featured on Wikipedia's main page, but this is a real glitch.

Please let me know what you think."

Perhaps nothing will come of my inquiry, which will be one of many received by Linden Lab on all sorts of topics, but I can imagine more situations in future where there will be copyright issues about user-created content involving snapshots taken in-world within Second Life or other such virtual realities, so I thought I'd at least draw the issue to your attention. I'm baffled by the intellectual property regime of Second Life, but I'm often baffled these days. Metamagician3000 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clearify, IANAL but for your own personal use you don't need to worry too much about copyright stuff. Problem is Wikipedia is not your average blog or website. We are a free content project, and in order to release something under a free license you must first have the copyright to it. For most games this is pretty straight forward, the game developer have the copyright (and have in some rare cases agreed to allow screenshots to be used under a free license). In Second Life however there is the additional complication that most of the content in the world is created by the users themselves and not the developers. So unless there is some sneaky copyright transfer agreement you have to agree to you probably need to get in touch with the people who created the objects (isn't that what they call it?) you snapped a picture off as well... Then you can start questioning who created all the textures they used, but at this point I tend to develop a bad headace, and I believe the consept of De minimis comes into play at some point, though again IANAL. Let's just say copyright gets complicated when multiple anonymous people create something colaboratibely, wich is part of the reaosn why Wikipedia needs to be so hardcode on insisting that the license status of contributed material is clear and verifiable in the first place... --Sherool (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential libel

Dear Mr Wales,

I'm writing to notify you of a situation which has developed in the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. I and others consider that material in the entry is potentially libelous. Perhaps the chances are this situation will not develop into an actually litigious one, but I thought it best that you were at least apprised of the facts of the situation, in case you wished to intervene to minimise Wikipedia's exposure to this problem.

Mr Langan is of minor note: a "high-IQ" auto-didact who worked for 20 years as a bouncer and has developed some ideas of his own about the relation between mind and reality which he considers to be original and important. The grounds on which his notability is finally established, warranting an entry in Wikipedia, is, however, more likely the fact that he became the object of interest of various articles and television segments, and more particularly the subject of a television program directed by Oscar winner Errol Morris.

Mr Langan considers his ideas to be important in potentially bridging the gap between evolutionary scientists and proponents of intelligent design. He became a fellow of an intelligent design society, gave a paper at an intelligent design conference, and contributed a chapter to a book of papers largely concerning intelligent design. For all that, he continues to deny that his theories amount to intelligent design, on the grounds that his theory is not a scientific theory, and as such is not susceptible to scientific verification or falsification. Whereas, of course, intelligent design proponents explicitly seek to prove their ideas scientifically. I, for one, do not consider him a proponent of intelligent design, at most a fellow traveller, though even this is doubtful.

For various reasons, Mr Langan has incurred the ire of others. These reasons include: his association with proponents of intelligent design (which incurs the wrath of those who feel intelligent design is a threat to science); his own ideas (which some people judge to be incomprehensible or pseudo-science, and hence unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia); and his claims regarding his IQ (which annoys some people who doubt the validity of such high-end testing). Additionally, Mr Langan has made himself unpopular by editing his own entry under a pseudonym (Asmodeus), and refusing to finally identify that the operator of the pseudonym is in fact Mr Langan. His wife also edits, under the name DrL. Both are now banned from editing the entry on Mr Langan (for reasons I am not convinced are sound, but that is neither here nor there). It is my opinion that because of the feelings generated by all this, a group of editors is behaving very poorly in relation to this entry.

The potential libel, however, does not concern any of this, but rather a lawsuit between Mr Langan and a high-IQ society. The lawsuit was uncontested by Mr Langan, and thus only one side of the evidence was presented in court. Nevertheless Mr Langan argues that there are indeed two sides, and that the insistence on portraying one side of the dispute without portraying the other is potentially libelous. He has been supported in this assertion by at least his wife, DrL, by the user Sheerfirepower, and by myself. He has requested that the lawsuit not be included at all in the entry, on the grounds that including this section is libelous. This is supported by the above users. These requests have been ignored and ridiculed. The court record has been treated as a statement of fact with no regard to the reality that it reflects one side of the evidence. Many failures to apply the official policy on living persons have occurred.

It is my opinion that the circumstances of the lawsuit resemble very closely that given as an example in the policy on biographies of living persons concerning a "messy divorce." The dispute was indeed a matter of a divorce between two groups of people fighting over the spoils of a high-IQ society. The dispute is not notable or important in any way. It is being included in the entry for no reason other than to attack the credibility of Mr Langan. It is possible, although I do not know this, that some of the editors involved in the entry are parties to the other side of Mr Langan's legal situation. I strongly believe there are no grounds for including the legal dispute in the entry on Langan.

I feel compelled to add that I do not have any association with Mr Langan, do not know him, am not a proponent of his ideas, nor a proponent of intelligent design. I know of him through Mr Morris's television program.

Mr Langan's request that the section be omitted, and his account of the circumstances of the legal dispute, occurs here.

My arguments that inclusion of this section, and the editing of this entry generally, has violated official policy regarding the biographies of living persons, are presented here.

And finally, a summary of the events, listing more of the relevant diffs (including the above two) has been presented at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard here.

I hope this is of interest or use to you, and that it is taken in the spirit in which it is intended, that is, as an expression of concern, both for Mr Langan and for Wikipedia. Thankyou for taking the time to read this. FNMF 07:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time to consider the matters raised above, and thankyou for your clarity and decisiveness in relation to these matters. FNMF 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I also feel compelled to inform you that the immediate response of the editors to your decision was to delete all the references the article contained which were sourced from Langan's website, hosted from the Megafoundation which he founded. See the deletion here. The argument was that because the lawsuit must be removed, therefore all references to Langan's own association must be removed. I am unable to explain their logic any further. The article itself contains no references to the foundation. The effect is to delete the supporting evidence from the general information contained in the article. The insistence on this deletion is vindictive. Apologies for burdening you with this, but thought it may be of interest as it is a direct consequence of your own, entirely justified, edit. FNMF 14:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article did' contain mention of the foundation. WP:BLP with respect to the Mega Society demands that we note they are not affiliated, even if we cannot source that fact. Most of the rest of the megafoundation references were removed because of WP:SELFPUB; we may only use them to support statements by the subject of the article, not about the subject of the article. I think the disclaimer is required even if we only point to the Foundation's site, though. And you're both wrong about WP:OR, as the section describes the primary souces clearly. However, I'm not going to appeal to the board, as the section may be removed as it doesn't have reliable secondary sources, and is only marginally relevant to statements made in the article. If the article is rewritten to include any statement about CTMU as fact, CML's alleged intellectual dishonesty in claiming control of the Mega Society and its trademarks becomes relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Per this comment, I take it that you are saying that we must remove everything drawn from primary sources? And don't you think that such a radical redefinition of OR should be taken up at WT:ATT first? Guettarda 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP used to suggest that material from primary sources should not be listed unless there was a secondary source discussing it. The example of Bill Gates's mug shot seems appropriate; if no reliable source mentioned it, we couldn't include it; but if a reliable source mentioned it, correctly or incorrectly, we could include it. I can't seem to find that anywhere, so maybe it's not in our guidelines any more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mr Wales, just wanted to reiterate that your intervention was clear and decisive, and to inform you that the dispute which followed in the wake of your intervention is ongoing. A summary was made here. Thanks again. FNMF 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Main Page alternative for DYK

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page_alternative_(Next_DYK)&action=purge
Follow the above link. Besides the discussion tab of this page you will find article. I would wish to move it under the main page as a sub page because it is not an article. One more thing, who is essjay. Sushant gupta 09:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I know this isn't much...but I just wanted to say thank you for creating Wikipedia. Being an editor actually helped me out of my depression, and I have gotten a decent number of people hooked on it as well. I know you probably get thanked a lot...but I just wanted you to know how much I appriciate Wikipedia. It is one of the most valuable resources out there. *hugs* Have a wonderful day!
Saber girl08 11:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy clarification

Thank you for clarifying policy. People have been misapplying it for a long time, to the detriment of the project. Oversimplying wasn't helping.

In fact, that's one of the biggest problems in the intellectual arena: the attempt to boil things down to their essence (prematurely). Somethings are just plain complicated.

In particular, I hope this clarification will help our articles on scientific topics which touch on controversies over public policy. I would like to see Wikipedia provide neutral treatments of all points which have a significant degree of minority disagreement. I'm not sure how large a "minority" has to be to merit inclusion, though. Is a single peer-reviewed scientific paper enough? In some cases, perhaps not, but even if the minority is large enough to be included we must make sure not to make it appear larger than it is, any more than we should make the majority appear larger than it is. Guidelines for how to do this will help. --Uncle Ed 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Sorting out WP:RS etc. Putting everything into Attribution made the talk pages unworkable besides anything else. BTW it kind of isn't obvious that nofollow is working at all, going loads of little comments about the place (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Mar#No_follow.3F_No_problem) so some better way would be good sometime. I started User:BozMo/whitelist but ran out of energy. --BozMo talk 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources was never a policy, it was always a guideline. Both it and the talk page have been fully protected so there is no way for a casual editor to replace {{policy}} with the previous header {{guideline | [[WP:RS]]}}. SchmuckyTheCat 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. I am not intending to change policy, just to prevent people from pre-emptively declaring a major editorial shift without consensus.--Jimbo Wales 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On WP:V and WP:A you made two distinct edits [5] and [6]. It is not clear to me that there has ever been a consensus on WP:A, as shown in its archive talk pages and those of WP:V, so I prefer your first edit to your second. Indeed the tone of "canonical" WP:A seems to be moving towards "don't make any statement unless you attribute it" when the original sense of WP:V was "only include statements which are accurate and are capable of being fact-checked". It is the latter which seems to be the general practice of most editors and was the consensus when WP:V was first labeled as policy.[7] --Henrygb 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re post

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. re [8]. This post was rather unbecoming, and quite disappointing. Seems a vio of AGF as well. Feel free to block me if you wish, but Wikipedia should not be held hostage to the whims of its primary personage. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I seem to have badly misunderstood something. Guetterda is saying that I am claiming something that I am not. I don't know where the confusion is, exactly, or I would try to correct it.--Jimbo Wales 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is that you seem to have removed a well sourced section, and people don't understand what parts you specifically you objected to and why. I think I understand the part you actually objected to, and have a proposal here: Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan#Proposal that should hopefully satisfy it. If that's not it, then I'm confused too. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I think the issue here is a disconnect in communication: it's quite possible that we're all talking past each other. Nonetheless, the fact that a number of experienced editors have noticed at least the perception of a seemingly out-of-process change to an article, should be cause for concern: who knows what newbies or the folks gunning for Wikipedia might think (I can guess, but I won't). I've read AnonEMouse's proposed change and it seems reasonable to me. The lawsuit is as much of value as is anything else Langan has been involved in, and removing it just seems like either giving in to the objections of FNMF (who may be associated with Langan in some way -- linguistic forensics seems to lead in that direction, as does the likely meaning of the acronym FNMF), or else a form of censorship (albeit likely unintended) that can only serve to hamper our efforts to write articles about living persons.
As for Guettarda, I cannot speak for him, but I understand the frustration. On the positive side, I'm pretty sure we can all get past this as we all care deeply about Wikipedia and want it to succeed. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see no reference to any of that stuff which is not heavily original research, I think that all of it should be omitted. Wikipedia is not the right place for people to be doing original historical research. Has there been a book about this? A magazine article? A newspaper article? Or are we simply picking up on some web fight and lawsuit of very dubious importance and trying to do original historical analysis on what it was all about and how important it is?--Jimbo Wales 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the confusion you're asking about, that you seem to be saying that any use of primary sources, even without synthesis, is original research. The section (at least my proposed condensation) is just stating what the decision of the court is, no synthesis, no position advanced. Its importance may not be much on a global scale, but it is important in relation to Langan; he's only notable due to his prominence in high IQ societies, that's what the first article on him was about, and it is a big deal in that small world. [9] [10] [11] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough. As I alluded to earlier, the court case is as notable as is Langan. If the court case has no value, well, you can draw the conclusion.

See the following from WP:NOR "...However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." I don't think any of the editors violated this policy, but I do think the removal of the case from the article was. Sorry, Jimbo, but Wiki should be a level playing field, and the rules should apply to all. Otherwise, we might as well be Conservapedia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

That page serves no encyclopedic purpose. I think it's inhumane to maintain it and would urge you to use your execute ability to delete it.--CSTAR 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning and Blocking

Hi Jimbo Wales. There is nothing big going on, but I would like to know the difference between and ban and a block. Thanks, Pikminlover^Meep! € 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A Ban is a removal of editing privileges from all or part of Wikipedia. There is no technical action to ban, it is just saying "You are not allowed to edit anymore". Sitewide bans can be enforced with a block, which prevents editing. Prodego ^talk 01:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also confused

Greetings. For the past few weeks, I have suddenly been in some kind of strange personal dispute with User:Guettarda. I think it stems from his misunderstanding, but it could be also that because of my inexperience here, I misworded something that he rightly sees as a personal attack. Unfortunately for me, he has or had many allies, and I'm having trouble getting objective feedback. For instance, I asked User:SlimVirgin for some advice, but either because she is very busy or because she doesn't view my request in good faith, hasn't responded. Another admin I know has had their own disputes with Guettarda and so I doubt that admin could help. The only other editors I know are otherwise very busy in their own mediation disputes. Can you please point me in the direction of an admin who is completely neutral and has no significant ties with User:FeloniousMonk or with User:Guettarda? --Otheus 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I just found out that a big source of the ill-will there is due to the fact that at least FeloniousMonk (and probably the others) think I'm a sockpuppet of several banned users. Viewed in that light, yes, my actions seem, less than honest. [12]. It's probably best if I wait for the checkuser to clear my identity (as much as it can) and then proceed to mediation or some such. But if you still have someone in mind.... --Otheus 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found an admin who is willing to help me. Thank you. --Otheus 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

Trampton 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Peace for you, I come in peace, can you please delete Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article and block it, please. All for good and peace of the world, the world will be thankful of you.--Towaru 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision of history

Six years ago I said this was an interesting experiment, two or three years ago I pointed out fundamental problems causing Wikipedia to distort and conceal facts from the public. You ignored my suggestions then, perhaps you think we Xanadu people are too old for you and don't have any good ideas - I don't know why you've allowed this to devolve into a social club for self-righteous and those with a vested agenda.

Transmigration

Transmigration program they didn't like someone mentioning that six million settlers had been relocated under the government scheme, so the remove that detail and say its 2.5 million, not that they bothered to access any reference to support their claim; they just felt 2.5 looked better than 6. I provide a reliable study and update the figure to the study's 6.27 million; the group again remove the figure.

I add references showing the claim that the Indonesian Transmigration program ended in 2001 was not correct, so they remove that or wish to ignore it. I provide multiple studies talking about transmigration in social terms, these sources also get removed.

Every minority subject is squashed by Wikipedia's most editors principle; the general community refuse to edit a subject they do not know about - refuse to read the sources - allow the references and citations to be removed. Just because Indonesia can afford to have a half dozen editors keeping Wikipedia in line; Wikipedia is not Open Source, that would allow input.

Have you seen Special:Contributions/Hu12? multiple edits per minute, looks more like a BOT, do you think he/it cared that it was deleting references? Has Merbabu found another tool to to keep information about Indonesia hidden? 58.107.15.245 12:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its time to let go Jimbo

If you think you should still be unilaterally overriding consensual changes of policy, perhaps its time that Wikipedia and yourself parted company, as you are showing the classic signs of failing to understand that a child is growing up. Wikipedia is now run by a foundation, and foundations are not supposed to be personal playthings. I don't see much sign that you are prepared to accept limitations on your self-conferred arbitary powers, so the best thing you can do for Wikipedia is now to move on and hand over the reins to new leaders who won't regard themselves as god-creators with unlimited powers. Osomec 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read my messages on the mailing list to better understand what I believe. I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised.--Jimbo Wales 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But then, as Osomec exhibits so well, there is a vast difference between what one believes and what by their presence they induce others to perceive. C.m.jones 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am exceedingly appreciative of the contributions of leadership and common sense that Jimbo still donates here. We would be in far worse shape without it. 150.203.2.85 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, SqueakBox 00:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Both anon and Squeak are missing the point I think. At this stage, Wikipedia is roughly the equivalent of a late teen or early twenty-something. Paternalism in the sense of guidance is fine at that age (although sadly often ignored), but paternalism of a Solonic nature is problematic. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point; I said exactly what I meant. From what I've seen, we're damn lucky to have his input. Wikipedia is not a person; it does not have one mind. If anything it is the world's largest committee. Argument by analogy is worthless anyway, particularly when the analogy is as horribly inapt as that one. 150.203.2.85 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still innately tied to whatever nonsense the mainstream media pumps out - the majority will only edit what they have been told by the media, with whichever spin the media puts on the subject - all the other subjects are subject to the censorship of personality contests.

Wikipedia is meant to be attempting to be FACTUAL, not invent and distort information because one of the personal bias of people like User:Merbabu think I and the US Dept. of State are evil wicked "anti-Indonesian" people whose information should be excluded from Wikipedia. That is after all the reason User:Merbabu follows me around Wikipedia to delete any new information I provide. Does he really care about Merbau wood or did he revert my edit because of his dislike for the editor. Why did he have my edits removed from the Transmigration program, because it didn't suit his spin on the subject - - I simply stated some facts, 6.27 million, not 2.5 million; and as I've always said, the program was NOT stopped in 2001. THese are the type of facts User:Merbabu wants excluded,video, newspaper and special articles, and government reports.

It is sad, that Wikipedia has become a popularity contest instead of a publishing endeavour.58.107.15.245 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We've gotten a bit off track here.

150.203.2.85: want to explain why the analogy is inept? Jimbo has taken on a decidely paternalistic role here (which was the inital point of this thread). As a father of six, ranging in ages from 1 to 22 I think I have a pretty good handle on the issue raised by Osomec. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Really and truly, it's pointless but I will. But first, it's a sad statement that someone can't remark on Jimbo's page with appreciation for his truly amazing leadership (part of that is being hands-off on most issues) without being told he doesn't get it and dragged off for a philosophical debate. I'm posting as anon because that's a sincere sentiment, and I don't want anyone to think it's a suck-up (am not an admin either & don't hobnob on IRC, maillists, etc.) I'll not respond further, because this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a child. It does not have cognition. It does not have will. It does not have a mind. It does not necessarily even learn from experience. It is a mass of individuals each following their own incentives. Not one single element relevant to the wisdom of severing the parent-child relationship is present here. Anyway, I can as easily say Wikipedia is a toddler as you can say it's a teenager, and with just as little justification (I'm a father too). One might as well compare a small country to a child as to compare Wikipedia, as each is similarly composed of individuals following their own judgement and aims. Countries tend to fail rather spectacularly without any government at all. Jimbo has showed remarkable restraint as the de facto governor-general around here, usually stepping in only for a damn good reason. It may be that some other leader than Jimbo would do as well, but we need someone who can cut through the committee crap when need be. And I'd say the very success of Wikipedia to this point is a tremendous testament to his judgement as a leader. So, he may choose to move on for his own reasons, but if someone wants to push him out they're going to have to do better than some ridiculous, inapt, unsupported, inapplicable, pulled-out-of-your rear analogy that I'd fail a student for making. 150.203.2.85 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's precisely because, in my opinion, Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, that I'm very happy with user Jimbo Wales' contribution to recent policy discussion. Some users were attempting to change longstanding policies, including changing wording that talks about the very purpose and meaning of Wikipedia (i.e. whether Wikipedia is supposed to try to be factual), without going through a proper policy-changing process. User Jimbo Wales has as much right to participate as any other user. --Coppertwig 22:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll mostly ignore the first post...making an anonymous stand is effectively the same as making no stand at all (yep, pulled that one out o' me butt too). Also, no one said you could not post your thoughts here, however, I will remind you of WP:CIVIL and, more importantly, WP:NPA. Finally, no one is trying to "push him out", there's no coup afoot here, and I think most if not all editors appreciate his work here (in otherwords, anon, don't jump to contusions).

Coppertwig: no one was suggesting that Jimbo could not participate, as a regular user (or admin, etc.). At issue (see re Post above) was the deletion of a portion of an article out of process, and the posting of an untoward message on an Admin's page. Please do some research before jumping into the fray. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some juvenile whose been editing for LESS than two years, I think &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;'s opinion is completely worthless.

See WP:NPA. Oh, BTW, you neglected to mention the 13,000 edits and 3 FA's.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

- Actually I don't, but that would be applying is own logic to his input. The fact is that long term editors, people like Tannin and others who have contributed quality content for years to this project and who have been victimized by neo-rednecks like Wik and his helpers, are very qualified to talk about Wikipedia's weaknesses. Look at the Transmigration Program article, it is a joke. I just added a Reference link about the current Manpower & Transmigration Minister - - of a program the Wikipedia article says ended in 2001. It and probably a dozen other articles related to Indonesia have become the private property of a group who use Wikipedia to push their political bias; certainly I have used Wikipedia for six years as a PUBLISHING tool to put commonly mis-understood facts into the open. I edited the Kangaroo article hoping Americans would stop boycotting Australia for using kangaroo meat - I did not trick people with lies, I put the truth in front of them that the Roos being culled were not the same ones that were endangered. The truth helps others. But people who promote propaganda as 'facts' are not helping anyone but themselves. The Wikipedia community should at least allow publishing of all the reasonably verifiable facts.58.107.15.245 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cavic & image attribution and/or watermarks

Hello. I was involved with Cavic (talk · contribs) on the Dennis Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and his commons:Image:Dennis_Johnson_Lipofsky.jpg. The problem is he seemingly wants the watermark on the image which is a violation of our Image use policy, specifically where it states "Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." Further, he seemingly wants image attribution to him and his website in a caption underneath the image on the article, which it seems there isn't a policy or guideline covering this. WP:CAPTION isn't a policy or guideline and doesn't cover this topic either. Through talking with several others, it seems at most, stating something of "Image by <Name>" would be the consensus, but not then linking to an external website (as was part of the issue in the revert/edit war on the article). However, I do not believe image attribution of any kind should be allowed in a caption or on the article, as attribution is clearly acceptable on the image description page. We don't attribute article authors on the article page, and we seem to be doing just fine with that, so why are images so special? Further, it seems to me that many are trying to bend over backwards and perhaps ignore a policy to allow the watermark on the image in defiance of the policy. Some are claiming that removing the watermark and/or copyright terms from the image aren't acceptable under the GFDL license. There was minimal discussion on the issue of caption attribution at the pump/policy, but no resolution or consensus. My preference for resolution is to remove the watermark from the image and the caption from the article page. If Cavic finds this use unacceptable, I would permit the deletion of the image, despite the fact he had licensed the image under the GFDL and revoking isn't really possible. The image on commons and the article are currently fully protected to stop the revert/edit wars until this matter can be solved. (I apologize for the lengthy background section, especially if you knew all this).

This leads me to why I am writing to you: I was told on IRC in the #wikimedia-commons channel several weeks ago that this was being handled at the "foundation level." The problem is there is little transparency as to if this is still being worked, if the matter has been resolved, or even if it really is being handled at all (I don't doubt that it was, since "dannyisme" was in the channel and I believe that is a foundation person). If you could at least let me know if this is still an ongoing issue with the foundation, that would be great. Also, if you could perhaps say when a resolution is expected (even vaguely, like "months" would be better than no information), and perhaps leave a note on the article talk page about the issue, that would be much appreciated. If the matter is resolved, then producing the results (a statement by you) and un-protecting the image/article would be needed. Thank you for your time. --MECU≈talk 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any discussion of this at the foundation level. If the image is a violation of image policy, it should be deleted. Simple as that. I see no reason for the foundation to be involved in any way.--Jimbo Wales 11:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office Actions

I assume you are the only one authorized to use Wikipedia:Office Actions now, since Danny resigned. As such, I removed him from that page_revert. You may want to appoint someone else there, unless Danny still retains the Office. Perhaps Brad? Prodego ^talk 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Danny resigned? Why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why, I just know that he is now listed as "Former staff" and he has removed his rights from his meta and enwiki accounts (not the others though). Prodego ^talk 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment, WP:OFFICE is unfilled. We should all be as loving and reasonable as we can towards anyone from the office who posts there asking for our help, of course. I am talking with Anthere about how to move forward in this area.--Jimbo Wales 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com

Does Mr. Wales have any comments on potential profitability gained through the copying of wikipedia articles on www.answers.com ? So far, there has been no comment on a possibility of whether or not wikipedia.com gains a portion of the ad revenue generated through answers.com which essentially contains wikipedia articles but receive ad revenue for its traffic. Obviously I have no proof of this, but it is theoretically possible that Mr. Wales does not wish to directly make wikipedia profitable but could theoretically receive revenues through a secondary website as not to damage wikipedia's image of non-profit. So far, this has not really been talked about, so I was wondering if Mr. Wales has any comment on this issue, and even rather or not, this is even a relevant issue at all. Active contributor 01:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-24/Answers.com partnership, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-17/Answers tool ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has an image (and reality) of being nonprofit, and in keeping with this, it uses wikipedia.org as its address, not wikipedia.com as you mistakenly note. *Dan T.* 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com is a completely independent reuser of Wikipedia content, and one of the best. They have been a good friend to the Wikimedia Foundation over the years, having sponsored Wikimania two years in a row. Such use is perfectly fine under the GNU FDL. Neither I, nor any other board members, receives any form of compensation from Answers.com. --Jimbo Wales 11:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this link Wikipedia related

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd Hello sir,
Is this link Wikipedia related. Thanks Sushant gupta 08:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is data about the xhtml format from the World Wide Web Consortium, who set the standards. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34 now? I don't want to create an account under that address. And could you please delete the article Multimedia Applications Development Environment? 124.180.66.13 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

fair use images on talk pages

George Lucas shooting the original Star Wars film in 1976...What do you think George??? I didnt see the fair use thing before,...but go ahead and remove it again after I just rechecked to see it after scrolling down, I will fully comply with the legal policy until it changes. However, I now have a mind to start removing all Kenner images on wikipedia...screw them then if we cant use an advertising image from them, then its time to start removing all publicity and images of their products from wikipedia, someone might actually take an interest in their product or buy it if they see it. If there is this lock tight image policy, then its time to just remove these images of peoples' movies and products so wikipedia users dont come into contact with them, these movie or product images can all be considered advertising, unpaid advertising. I think its time for the unpaid advertising to stop. Unless the fair use image policy changes to allow some more leeway I see no reason to give companies and manufacturers free advertising of their images and products on wikipedia. Someone might see the image of Jabba I pasted up and rent "Return of the Jedi" this weekend for instance. I didn't use the image of Jabba to advertise for Kenner or for the Star Wars movies, but I really think they should actually pay me for including the image of Jabba on wikipedia at all! Wikipedia is currently in a position as an unpaid advertiser in many cases, although the intent isn't usually to advertise, many times that is a secondary side-effect, and I think those with financial interests behind some of these images should lighten up a little and show some appreciation for the free distribution of their images. Thats the least they can do besides actually paying wikipedia for the distribution of those images on a heavily used internet site. (I'm not implying in any way Lucas or Kenner is behind the removal of my Jabba image or that they are the ones that lobby for a tight image use policy, it was merely a wikipedia editor steadfastly following the legal policy, and of course he should follow that policy unless it changes somewhat, and mere coincidence that it is after I used a star wars image that I have brought up this issue) Wikipedia can survive with digital photos taken from users until the image policy loosens up a little, until then thousands of movies and products will suffer a little as people won't see them so much. Its time to lobby for the allowance of fair use images on talk pages if people wish to use them from time to time. An editor that begins a marketting campaign across wikipedia for a specific product or movie though should be chastised. But to use a variety of images from varying sources on talk pages to demonstrate ones point or add some color now and again I think is reasonable. Talk pages can get really dreary. Its nice sometimes to see an image or two to liven them up for those that use the talk pages. I'm not exactly trying to defend my specific metaphorical use of the jabba image, but I am defending the right of an editor to use a fair use image to demonstrate a point they have made on a talk page, and that image may not be directly associated with the article, in fact its rare one would even want to use an image related exactly directly to the article on its talk page, it may only relate to something in ones edit on the talk page and just be indirectly associated to the actual article. CrystalizedAngels 11:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We are here to create a free content ensyclopedia, so unfree images are only allowed when they add important information to an article that would be impossible to provide otherwise. They may not be used outside of articles, and scertainly not just to "add some color" (not even in articles). This has nothing to do with the copyright holders wishes or maketing, or anything like that, but rater a internal policy of this project seeing as a fundamental goal is to create and distribute content that anyone can use, modify or even sell freely. Unfree (aka fair use) images are not free in this way and so only allowed as a "last resort" where it is not possible to find or create free licensed alternatives. --Sherool (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say "add color". I said "liven up". Meaning to "add interest" to an otherwise monotonous page. I think the addition of an image or two to an otherwise very very long talk page can be worthwhile on occasion. It can even help me find my place on a ridiculously long talk page, of where I was editing at. But, make no mistake, its something I rarely do, in hundreds of talk page additions I have added perhaps 2 or 3 images, but its something I think can be OK on occasion. Anyways I understand the reasoning behind the fair use image thing, I'm just saying I think that it should in actuality be the other way around with a bunch of these images used on wikipedia, instead of all this worry about using someones' image or movie/product picture, they should be begging wikipedia to use more of their images. Thats all I'm saying.CrystalizedAngels 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your well meaning mistake. It used to be that average people didn't need to know very much about copyright law: if you didn't copy the encyclopedia and turn it in as your term paper you were probably safe, but trimming a cartoon from a newspaper and taping it to your wall was fine. The same urge to liven things up in a friendly way becomes a different matter on one of the world's largest Internet sites. Fair use is a longstanding principle of copyright. I hope the editors you dealt with were courteous about explaining this. It can be confusing and sometimes frustrating. I'm sure no personal insult was intended. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion- RFA process

The RFA process here on Wikipedia is very pethitic. Again and again same 6 questions (3 compulsory and 3 optional) are asked from every user. Do you know what I was planning to do. First I thought that I will be copying the answers from the page of any user who has successfully becamed the admin. And then I would have also been simply becamed the administrator. But don't worry, I am not a Vandal, rather I want to make Wikipedia and associated media a feature. I wish I could make it my career. The only thing I wish to convey to you is that the questions asked for the nomination should be different. And I noticed many such WP:RFA pages of many admins. Some of them were alike. Thanks Sushant gupta 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

People usually aren't stupid enough, given that one of the questions asks "what contributions are you proud of"- copying someone else's answer for that is probably the worst thing an RFA candidate could do. – Chacor 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that plagiarizing another candidate's replies would lead to swift and overwhelming rejection. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually you both are right, I am sorry, I should have read it with open mind. I just take a fast look. Thanks Sushant gupta 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NBC News

NBC Nightly news tonight has coverage of the wikipedia reliability issues. Web link here Abecedare 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a typical news coverage, focusing on the controversies and not the positive aspects. Hopefully this does not create another surge of people trying to hinder our progress as a community. — Deckiller 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

More likely, the news media serves a much greater community, and is reporting concerns that Wikipedia hinders the progress of the community at large. Ornizo 12:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The broadcast news item featured the Lisa Daniels page and this edit. So maybe some editors should watch the page for vandalism. Abecedare 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am disappointed that they did not even mention the thousands of people who dedicate themselves to reverting edits like "Lisa is a rock star". I understand that they only had five minutes to make this report, but they should have taken both sides into the picture. — Deckiller 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should media continually report what burglers steal or how property owners recover their property, when the real story is that the victim refused to secure their property in the first place? Ornizo 12:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats right, blame victims and not crimminals, geesh --Tom 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Three days ago, when she was working on the report, she vandalized her page. It was reverted within one minute.[13]. — Deckiller 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research/attribution

Please see my comment here. I don't know whether you'll agree with it or whether you'll think I go too far, but either way it deals with an important issue that you obviously have a keen interest in. I see no one else making quite this point. Metamagician3000 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking of dates, and how it interacts with user preference formatting

Hi, a humble question from me which seems to vex "Featured Articles" editors, as they call themselves. Is it Wikipedia policy or not to link day-month-year (esp. birthdates and date of decease) combinations in order that users can view the date format in their chosen style when viewing the article?

I have a quote from Tony1 in response to a fellow editor (Mattisse), who is part of the Featured Article editing fraternity. Quote:

"Given the unfortunate technical situation, in which dates can't be autoformatted without linking them, I'm now refusing to link any dates. I suggest that you do the same until the situation is resolved. Tony 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)"

I must admit to being at a loss to understand the editors' dogged reluctance to link day-month-year combinations. Further, there is widespread de-linking of dates in articles being carried out in campaign style, it seems.

For me, this all came about when an article I contribute to, Hoagy Carmichael, was modified in this way (example diff). Having thoroughly studied the MoS, I could find no reason for this "user preference format destruction", for want of better words. I can only think that there has been a large-scale difference of opinion amongst the Featured Article editors regarding linking in articles. I have obtained a valued opinion from an admin of my acquaintance, which leans towards this type of linking being in line with MoS, and therefore allowable.

Your opinion would be appreciated, if it is within your remit. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question on a basic principle of Wikipedia

We have to give licencing for images... but doesn't Wikipedia fit under educational? So we can take copyrighted stuff... right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W1k13rh3nry (talk • contribs).

Wrong. See Copyright, Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and probably a dozen other pages I can't recall right off-hand. --Carnildo 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use legal rights provide wide latitude for the use of copyrighted material for educational and other purposes. However Wikipedia is more than just a no-cost encyclopedia. We are a free (libre) encyclopedia, meaning we want everyone to have the freedom to copy and modify and redistribute all of our content. We are the freedom encyclopedia, not just the no-cost encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know about all of those, but I recall something about educational stuff be exerpted from copyright laws... mabye in some places its not? ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W1k13rh3nry (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

You do not "know about all of those". If you understood fair use then you would not be asking this question. It is not so much that people don't know stuff that is the problem; it is that much of what they know is not so. WAS 4.250 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

Jimbo, and Jimbo page-watchers, please join the discussion regarding the Wikipedia:Attribution proposal. Marskell 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

wikinews:Universities ban Wikipedia as primary source

Can wikinews have a quote for this story? Personally I believe that Wikipedia should be a starting point for research, high-school kids should be allowed to cite it, but at university level you should be following the references and citing them. --Brianmc 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Block at Christopher Michael Langan

Hi Jimbo. Since you acted earlier at Christopher Michael Langan in response to FNMF's alert about potential libel, I thought I would notify you that FeloniousMonk, the administrator who originally inserted the lawsuit section, and who, after it was removed, re-inserted it on the grounds that its removal was a "pov whitewashing of well-sourced events", has now blocked FNMF for 48 hours. For discussion, see here and here. FeloniousMonk was previously admonished by the ArbCom not to use his administrative tools in content disputes in which he is involved, and the administrator who declined FNMF's unblock request, JzG, had also argued for the lawsuit's inclusion (in part so that it could illustrate, in his words, "the obsessive behaviour to which [Langan] is stated to be prone"), and has apparently even been in contact with Mega Society members. Input from you or an uninvolved administrator would be very welcome. Best regards, Tim Smith 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Jimbo. I second Tim Smith's notion, though I want to note something: Shortly after FeloniousMonk (FM) made the block, I advised him to remove it[14] [15], per the first step in DR against an admin. Prior to this incident, FM had accused me of having a personal axe to grind and of being a banned user's sockpuppet, I was very careful to keep a civil and professional tone. redacted/Otheus 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC) FM has not contriubted (till now) since I made either of these comments on his talk page. So please give FM a chance to respond. --Otheus 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(For some context, FM was made administrator in August 2005[16] (64/15/9) and has been an involved party in 4 resolved ArbCom disputes.[17]. Disclaimer: He and I have had a dispute over his OR at neologism, Denialism. He has filed a checkuser on me for evading the ban on User:Agapetos_angel at Jonathan Sarfati. I made my first edit to the Langan article yesterday. My first edit to WP was Feb 2006[18].) --Otheus 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(also, checkuser could not show FNMF was the same as the banned user (discussion)) --Otheus 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FNMF has recently noted on his talk page that, concerning the warning he received from FM, he asked for clarification, but received none. [19]. --Otheus 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify Tim's post, he is conflating actions which occurred well over a month apart. Whether FMNF had valid concerns about the case (I don't believe so, but that's another issue), he is doing exactly what the arbcomm case said qualifies as disallowed activities. Since FMNF chose to ignore warnings posted 3 days ago, and has engaged in personal attacks, a block is in keeping with the arbcomm decision. Guettarda 17:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the situation at Christopher Michael Langan

Hello, Mr. Wales.

Wikipedia administrator FeloniousMonk, who is unquestionably guilty of serial defamation and obsessively controlling the article Christopher Michael Langan (along with fellows and sympathizers of "Wikiproject Intelligent Design" including jim62sch, Guettarda, KillerChihuahua, Arthur Rubin, ScienceApologist, and a constant stream of trolls and single-purpose attack accounts), has just further abused his/her sysop powers to issue a retaliatory block against FNMF, the person who most recently blew the whistle on him here. The stated reason for the block is that FNMF's editing patterns are allegedly similar to mine, which of course comes down to a suspicion that he (she?) is identical or at least personally known to me, and/or that I am prompting him in some way.

Accordingly, I hereby inform all concerned that to the best of my knowledge, FNMF is not connected to me in any way. Indeed, a checkuser was already run on FNMF, and his location is already known to be geographically uncorrelated with mine. I don't know him or even know what his initials stand for, and as nearly as I can tell, there is no reasonable, legitimate suspicion that he is, or is related, to me or to the subject of the biography article that he has been constructively editing. I do, however, know that his corrections to the article have been almost 100% accurate, and that the reversions made by his administrative opponents have been almost 100% erroneous. This leads me to believe that what we have here is simply a tedious continuation of the malicious behavior on the part of certain wayward sysops which you recently responsibly interdicted. (Thank you for your intercession.)

This is an old story for FeloniousMonk, who has long been a liability and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I happen to be attuned to this situation because FeloniousMonk and his meatpuppet brigade - since "meatpuppet" is one of their own most cherished epithets, I'm sure they won't mind wearing it themselves - are largely responsible for snookering the Arbitration Committee into banning me indefinitely from the CML article even though I have no significant history of editing that article. (Of the two or three minor and entirely justifiable edits that I made to correct errors and improve intelligibility, the most recent occurred almost half a year before the ban was issued.)

This, of course, raises a question: given that FeloniousMonk has a long and colorful history of manipulatively abusing his sysop powers in order to prevail in personal, editorial, and procedural disputes, and also to exact sweet revenge on those who dare to challenge his various abuses, why is he still tolerated here as an administrator, and why is his word preferred with such blatant prejudice over those of his victims? It simply fails to make sense, given that Wikipedia is actively promoted for its supposed neutrality, reliability, and compassion.

For my own part, I'm trying to be as understanding as possible about this. Indeed, I've been angelically tolerant of it for almost nine months now. But as any neutral observer can plainly see, the Wikipedia sysops who have been specializing in this article are among the very worst elements ever to endanger the reputation and future wellbeing of the Wikipedia Project. Unfortunately, nobody seems to want to do anything about them. This is an intolerable and therefore unstable situation.

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that you instruct FeloniousMonk to lift his abusive block against FNMF and stop persecuting better and more responsible editors than himself, and if at all possible, to pry this ill-intentioned administrative troll and his cohorts from the article in question and shoo them permanently away from it. As I hope you'll agree, letting this kind of recidivist policy violator retain special powers to anonymously censor honest editors and torment Wikipedia biography subjects reflects poorly on the entire Project, and could ultimately cause it to be subjected to unwelcome and exacting forms of scrutiny.

Thank you and best wishes, Asmodeus 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We need a little more input at WP:IAC

The Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials proposal seems to be failing to develop a consensus. Your name is being used to block closing it out based on a comment you made very early on, as evidence that you may be overriding the discussion. If you could please review the discussion and clarify this, and possibly offer additional comments, we would be grateful. Mangoe 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

List of tamgotchi characters

Can you talk to User:SuperDJ about him trying to delete the tamagotchi charactr list?