User talk:Jimbo Wales

Click here to leave a new message.

Your so cool

Can you give me any advice and it would be a honor if you stopped at my site. And how can i help keep wikipedia a better place???

Signed to archive. KnightLago (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your house in the New York Times

Is the house pictured in the NYT magazine recently actually your house? Is that the one on Harrisburg? We need to know exactly where you live, so that we can leave appreciative gifts on your porch. -12.148.45.98 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He's answered this before. He lives in a cave in an undisclosed location with Osama bin Laden. They watch DVDs of Lost with Jimmy Hoffa. :D WODUP 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_26#Residence. WODUP 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh, I remember that one. :) Acalamari 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad we got that one sorted. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the NYTimes article and I've detected delightful echoes of Colbert, et al. in Jimbo's answers. I'm guessing they punched it up for him over several email communiques before he handed it over to the Times.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no it was a phone interview. I'm pretty silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the club of 5.5 million wikipedians and 1300+ admins. sharara 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About an article

Im not one to complain alot but one article Black humor has been having alot of controversy about the name and alot of us want to like vote to have the name changed to dark humor so can you help me. The Panther (click to talk)

Stubs... stubs... and even more stubs!

Hello Jimbo, my name is Javascap and I have a small question for you. Wikipedia has recently broken 2,000,000 articles, but only 3,000 or so are rated B (Which translates to a good article) or better. As the grand high duke of Wikipedia, how do you plan to adress those 1,970,000 articles that almost count as spam?

Warm regards, Javascap (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (edited because I forgot to log in)

There is space between b class and spam. Stroudwater Navigation isn't spam and is a reasonable article untill something better comes along.Geni 16:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Autograph

Hello so I received your Autograph by email by Sannse today and just wanted to thank you for allowing me to have your autograph. We thanks again, H*bad (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Next autograph you may want from User:TAA who was named person of the year by TIME magazine. sharara 13:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We got another User:Chris 73 who was named person of the year 2006 by TIME magazine.sharara 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sharara. I thought that "You" were the Time Person of the Year for 2006. No? -Susanlesch (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sharara, hi again. Here is the article. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Grossman, Lev (December 13, 2006). "Time's Person of the Year: You". Time. Time Warner. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Here's another one. Maybe there are more (sorry I only saw one the first time I checked Google. They probably all link to each other from the cover).
• Stengel, Richard (December 16, 2006). "Now It's Your Turn". Time. Time Warner. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Hi again, Shahara. Does this help? These are the covers I can see now (four different editions). Sorry for the excessive citations, but I was not sure what you need. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• "U.S. Table of Contents". Time. 168 (26). Time Warner. December 25, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Europe Table of Contents". Time. 168 (27/28). Time Warner. December 25, 2006 to January 1, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Asia Table of Contents". Time. 168 (27/28). Time Warner. December 25, 2006 to January 1, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "South Pacific Table of Contents". Time (51). Time Warner. December 25, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Credible vs non-credible threats

Hi. Per the ANI discussion, I was wondering if you were interested in establishing a threshold for where to send stuff in to OFFICE for foundation response when there are apparent threats made.

I think that most admins (myself included, and I wrote the current WP:SUICIDE) think that there are things that might be threats, but were not credible or specific enough to rise to the level of calling the police in.

I'm perfectly happy to move my threshold for that further over, if you want, but it would help if you can help more specifically say where you think the line is on this. This one on the Battle of Bunker Hill being on the "report it" side of the line helps, but doesn't really clarify for incidents that don't match the details on this one well.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a very difficult judgment call. I have no really firm idea of how to specifically write up or establish a threshold for it. I am interested, but not sure how to do it. The risks are pretty obvious... in both directions. Too lax a policy, and we run the risk that a real threat is ignored. Too strict a policy, and we end up with a great tool for trolls to use. It's worth a serious discussion with a lot of minds working on it...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

trolls don't really want stuff to be reported. The police tend not to see a funny side.Geni 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say if the threat is specific enough for any actual action to be taken, we should probably do something. If someone says "I'm going to kill John Doe" - that might be a threat. If someone just says "I'm going to kill someone" - that is not a very credible threat, and probably not enough for the authorities to act on. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns about the uniformity of such a policy. It really depends where somebody is located, in the UK or US it is easy to find the number of the local police to ring, in poor, third world countries, and where the language used is not English, it is almost impossible to inform the correct authorities, and I feel this difference should probably be addressed, we must certainly not assume only people in first world English countries make or receive threats, or are deservin g of our protection. How quickly could wikipedia, for instance, find an Arabic or Persian speaker, or find the correct authorities in a small town in Colombia. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. There are projects in every major language. With IRC, the mailing lists, and talk pages on different projects, I can't imagine it would take that long to find someone in a specific country. Mr.Z-man 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know one user who was blocked indefinetly for edit warring. After that the administrator picked one of user's post which was follow-up to earlier posts, twisted its meaning and went on saying that the user made death threat. As the user was blocked, user had no alternative except signing up with different username. Once he asked that administrator where exactly user had made death threat, the user was immediately blocked by that administrator. And after blocking, that administrator called user's post as 'rant'. This is provoking to that user to keep creating sockpuppets. If he speak truth, he will be blocked immediately even if he has no single edit. If he lie, he is free to contribute on wikipedia.

So while addressing this 'death threat' topic, behaviour of admins should also be addressed. sharara 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but is this really the discussion to be making accusations of admin abuse? Mr.Z-man 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If a death threat is considered non-credible by the police they won't act on it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in all jurisdictions, I believe a report like such and such user made a death threat and BTW he is a Falung Gong member would be cated upon in China, if not because of the first part, but because of the second. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe whether he/she want to report threats to the authorities should be an individual concisions decision by a user, who might take into the account the whole history of the interaction with a user, not a strict guideline that can be easily gamed Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Se my earlier comment and really how credible is it for wikipedia to make a report to a local Chinese police force. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Larry

Why did you ban this user? What was the WP:POINT violation going on? Candle^{of Hope} 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the contribution history, it is transparently obviously a single purpose account for attacking another editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Matejko Bilder

Hallo Jimmy,

ich bin ein user in der deutschen wikipedia version. ich möchte dich in kenntnis setzen, dass es seit dieser woche in der deutschen wikipedia auf basis der [[1]] verboten ist Jan Matejko Bilder zu nutzen. Alle Jan Matejko Bilder wurden aus der deutschen Wikipedia entfernt (!), siehe z. B. hier [[2]] oder auch hier [[3]] Ist das ok? Warum ist die Nutzung von Jan Matjeko Bildern in der englischen, französischen, polnischen Wikipedia erlaubt, aber in der deutschen plötzlich verboten? Ich hatte hier [[4]] versucht einen Ausgelich zu finden, komme aber mit meiner Argumentation bedingt durch die Solidarisierung der Admins untereinander nicht mehr durch, hoffe dass du ein Machtwort sprechen kannst--Interrex (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy translation to english sharara 11:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving Wiki

Hello, It is unfortunate to say that as much as i once enjoyed wikipedia i now do not, i would like to wonder how i can use my right to vanish to its fullest, or delete my account. I dont want anything silly taht i may have said to come back and bite me, because someone saw me on this sight. I dont want to search my name on yahoo or google and hvae this thing the first to come up. Could u help me delet my account or vanish me as much as possible!! Thanks

THE MILJAKINATOR (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious usernames

I have reported to google to exclude wiki userpages, user talk pages from search results two weeks ago. Keywords 'Rama Arrow' shows wikipedia user:Rama's Arrow on top of first result page which leads to talk page of user showing pictures of wrestler instead of info about Lord Rama. I reported this on WP:ANI, but all admins dismissed my request to delete, redirect those pages. I asked them if keywords 'Jesus second coming' leads to pictures of wrestler on wikipedia, will you tolerate that? Then, without giving hint, I created account Jesus's Second Coming.. Another admin Merope, who has no idea about WP:ANI discussion, blocked it in few minutes. I asked why Rama's Arrow username allowed but Jesus's Second Coming is not. Merope came up with strange arguments on User talk:Abhih. In the end, Merope said that he will not allow usernames like 'Tenth incarnation of Vishnu'. Before I answer that, I was blocked. Otherwise I would have told that Kalki is would-be 'Tenth incarnation of Vishnu' and you have allowed username User:Kalki.

This is just one incident of admins irrationality, religious bias, abuse of powers. I have many. But I am also not interested in wikipedia. If this post is removed and I am blocked, no surprise. After blocking me, if admin call it rant and other users openly call me 'crank' on WP:ANI, no surprise. That is the way wikipedia works. Thanks and Goodbye. sharara 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We have a policy on inappropriate usernames (WP:U) which is enforced (too harshly, some argue) which includes a section on religious names. If the policy is not being enforced, you can bring attention to usernames you don't like at various different fora, including WP:AIV for really egregiously offensive names. Or you can raise problems with the policy if you don't think it's strong enough, at WT:U. Finally, Google's methods aren't our problem. They're not entirely happy with them themselves, as revealed with the whole "Google the word 'Jew' fiasco" (it brings up a hate site prominently in the list) but on the whole they think it works OK. --Dweller (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you people are thinking that I am religious and my religious sentiments are hurt then you are plain wrong. In one of first edits on wikipedia I described my thinking. I am just trying to say that Jesus Christ get more importance than Rama or Buddha. My following history is proof of that. Admins were seeing username 'Siddhartha Gautama' when I was tagging pages. But nobody blocked me for using name of 'Buddha'. I was blocked for other reason, at my choice.

I tell you my story in short. According to WP:SOCK, I created accounts 'Viran', 'Flight Of The Phoenix', 'Flight Of The neo' to see how wikipedia community treats newbie, how vandalism is handled, how strict new page patrolling is. New page patrolling turned out to be very loose. I succeeded in creating false pages. And I disclosed it alongwith other accounts. My intention was to use just one account User:Neo. and other account User:N e o as dopple danger.

But my over-honesty boomranged. Ryulong tracked these accounts and blocked them. I got angry and drama is still going on.

If I was blocked for vandalism, then I protected wikipedia from garbage using accounts 'TRIRASH', 'Abhih', 'Siddhartha Gautama'. Why I am termed as vandal? I had made it absolute clearly that I can post on wikipedia if I do not disclose my past. Then why keep blocking me once I declare that I am user:viran? You can watch me and if I again do mistake, you are free to block me. But logic do work before corrupt powers.

Anyway admin SQL called my this post as 'rant' which was insulting. So once again returned to prove how irrational their blocking spree is.

I request to unblock User:Neo.. If not, please do not remove this post and please do not make any comment to flame me. I will not come back.

In the end please do remember, be it virus in gutter or president of USA, everybody got the power. sharara 15:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So... essentially, you're informing us that you're a block-evading sockpuppet of the indefinitely-blocked Viran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are new page patroller. Do you really think that this user and this user are not sockpuppets? Look, how professionally they have written first edits.

You need to patrol new pages carefully, kid.

My mistake is that every time I speak truth. Those who don't tell truth are free to contribute on wikipedia using sockpuppets.

I have requested my ISP to deactivate my account. I may be cut off from internet any moment. It doesn't matter what you or anyone think about me. Was Oskar Schindler bad person only because he was member of Nazi Party for sometime?

I am User:Neo.. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.200 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Photograph of pumpkin pie.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Much obliged.[5] If I can address any concerns of yours regarding this matter, I'd be glad to. Happy Thanksgiving. Durova^Charge! 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Home libraries and the spirit of the Encyclopédie

From The New York Times: I collect books, and not only that, I do something unbelievably geeky with them, which is, I put little labels on the spines with Library of Congress numbers, and keep all the books in Library of Congress order. Oddly, I have never computerized the collection. - I started my own book classification system as a child for my little library. Perhaps that is why we love encyclopedias, eh? They are the ultimate reflection of the desire for ordered knowledge. Awadewit | talk 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving!!!

AWESOME! NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A JIMBO WALES PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.254.125 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo

---

Wikipedia is #1! "Wikipedia 4 Life" - I coined that, but who cares...Wikipdeia you can have it

---

Info: Hi am Mr. Crouse the owner of the account: NRC Admin on Wikipedia and i just wanted to tell you all i am leavin' Wikipedia as a Registed user and i may come back just 2 comment ppl...so if u see this sig - GC, its me

---

Site: NRC inc. aka: NEED FOR SPEED RACING CIRCUT | "NRC 4 LIFE"

---

Link: [wwww.freewebs.com/1991_cool/ NRC Inc.]

---

Email(Admin): nrc.wat_usa@yahoo.com
[User:NRC ADmin ^RETIRED*]

---

Woah, see No legal threats! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... considering the account NRC ADMIN (talk · contribs) was indeffed a year ago tomorrow, this departure notice might just be a little late. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews are being questioned

Jim, Wikinews is being called into question here on Wikipedia. You are aware that Wikinews has been conducting interviews with notable politicians, religious leaders, musicians, artists, actors, et. al. We have talked to Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback; the Dalai Lama's Representative about Tibet-China and religious issues; an eminent psychoanalyst, Dr. Joseph Merlino about psychological and paraphilia topics; Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA, about animal rights; Michael Musto about celebrity journalism; Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU about civil liberties; Evan Wolfson, the founder of the gay marriage movement; and acclaimed journalists Gay Talese and Craig Unger about journalism and political topics. One editor, User:Cool Hand Luke, with whom I have had constant battles with, is now raising the question whether interviews, which are primary sources since they are done directly with the people involved in issues or well-known journalists, should be used at all. This will weaken not only Wikinews, but Wikipedia, since we sit down, record and transcribe what these people think or have researched. Quotes are attributed to them and point back to the Wikinews interviews. There are multiple instances where these people have linked to the interviews we have published (showing they stand by them) and I have e-mails that also verify that for all people. This issue, since it involves two Wikimedia projects, could stand your attention and consideration here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews_redux. We aren't interviewing "small time" people, but major newsmakers. Indeed, tomorrow I have interview with Al Sharpton. --David Shankbone 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a Wikinews issue so much as an issue about the reliability of using interviews to comment on third-party subjects. I think they should be considered as self-published sources and only used to comment on the interviewees themselves, unless other reliable sources have picked up on the comments.

In any case, I agree that it's an important issue. Cool Hand Luke 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So what Luke is saying is that my interview with Tashi Wangdi, the representative to the Dalai Lama, should only be used to discuss Tashi Wangdi and that it can't be used to discuss the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama and what the Tibetan people think about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. That's a real example that exists. This policy change would be disastrous for the goals of our project. --David Shankbone 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First, like any interview, Wikinews interviews can only be evidence for what some person said. That's just simple enough. Next, As to the relative weight to give Wikinews interviews as a source, versus other interviews, I think that depends on whether or not we trust the process of Wikinews accreditation. If that is considered good, then yay, all is well. If people have specific concerns about it, they should voice them, and Wikinewsies should try to respond in good faith if possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• What are your thoughts if "what some person said" involves claims (or opinions) about third parties, specifically if that third party is a living person? - Crockspot (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling we are discussing a specific case but I don't know what the case is. But like, if well-known person A is interviewed and says something... possibly something negative, just to make our example fun.... about well-known person B, then that quote might or might not be relevant and important for either A or B's Wikipedia article, or perhaps for an article which in some way touches on the relationship between A or B. Depending on the nature of the statement, Wikipedia itself should almost certainly distance itself from the factual claim being made.

"In an Wikinews interview, Abraham Lincoln suggested that he might run for office again, saying 'Never say never.'" is generally preferable to "Abraham Lincoln might run for office again."

But this is just about good encyclopedic coverage of any interview, not about wikinews in particular.

The only wikinews related question I can think of here is whether wikinews interviews are of high quality. I would recommend that wikinewsies follow the best possible practices, for example recording interviews, having multiple people check the transcript, and indeed publishing the audio of the transcript on commons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot's question is a good question, because we have a lot of things like that on Wikipedia:

1. Scooter Libby: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
2. Dick Cheney: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
3. Al Sharpton: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
4. Most of Michael Moore controversies are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: [[On March 12, 2007, Canadian filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine appeared on MSNBC's Tucker to talk about their documentary Manufacturing Dissent, which investigates Michael Moore. They reported to have found that Moore talked with General Motors Chairman Roger Smith at a company shareholders' meeting, and that this interview was cut from Roger & Me.[1][2] However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker.[3] Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.

My quoting a journalist, Craig Unger, in an interview about about research he conducted reviewing government documents and interviewing high-level government employees barely touches on some of these examples. --David Shankbone 05:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A random thought.

Hi Jimbo. I've been reading some of your recent comments on the Wiki, and I must say I'm not happy with their direction. I really think you should consider the question: Who is more likely to know and care for the encyclopedia, and who is more likely to be telling you the truth? Is it the editors who have been writing the actual encyclopedia articles for years, or is it the ever-changing "inner" circle of Wiki defenders who see a troll behind every bush, frequently quote or claim to quote your words as gospel, and vehemently support every action you ever make, even when you yourself realize it was grayish?

I realize it's easier to trust people you have more contact with, but I think you should realize that the group of people who present themselves to you as the "inner core" of Wikipedia is entirely self-selected. Zocky | picture popups 05:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Can you give me a specific quote of something I have said on the wiki that you think suggests someone is not telling me the truth?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User !! discusses something you said recently which I think relates to what Zocky is talking about above [6]. The related comment comes in the second to last paragraph of his statement on Durova's recent actions. Of course, if I misunderstand what Zocky is talking about I hope he'll correct me. Cla68 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The current Durova-blocking controversy is being seen or framed by some as a values conflict between those who mostly write articles and those who mostly do vandalism tasks; feeling that !!'s and Giano II's work at article writing is undervalued compared to Durova's editor-blocking efforts. This feeling appears based on the perceived ease of forgiveness of Durova and the quickness to threaten blocks/bans on people who are widely regarded as prolific writers of Wikipedia articles. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WAS's comment is well spoken. Us content-concentrating editors often avoid policy, Wikien, and other "insider" forums and may have the perception that because we aren't as visible as certain "sleuthing" admins or policy-debating admins that we're not as trusted or appreciated by the Foundation leadership. Cla68 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I value most highly those who work together in harmony to create content. Content creation, however, does not excuse bad behavior... for the simple reason that bad behavior (drama mongering) drives away content creators. We want people who work quietly and peacefully with others in a spirit of harmony to create content. There are users who do create content, yes, but who also engage in persistent drama all over the wiki. That's got to stop, and if we lose a few people who are driving away others, then so much the better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been heavily involved in content creation on Wikipedia for about two years now, and I haven't noticed any other heavy content editors (i.e. Featured Article or Good Article editors) who have, in my opinion, engaged in persistent drama all over the wiki. I have, however, seen this from some who mainly engage in admin and policy debates. I propose to you that content creators are less likely to engage in unnecessary drama, because our ultimate aim is to preserve Wikipedia in the long term because we want the articles that we've spent so many hours suffering over to be around for awhile. I don't have the same confidence in editors/admins that try to prove themselves by exposing malicious sockpuppets behind every corner. In my opinion, those type of personalities appear to have a different agenda behind their participation in this project. Cla68 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "content creators are less likely to engage in unnecessary darama". What made you suppose I would disagree with that? But if you are driving to drive a wedge between "admins" versus "content creators" I think you are making an error. Drama can come from anywhere, and there are people who really do cause a lot more trouble than they are worth, whether we look at their contributions in terms of content or in terms of admin work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a complex project building wikipedia and it needs both types of people you allude to; without admins working hard in the background the project wont grow either, and certainly would not have grown to where it is. And sockpuppetry is a real problem that does threaten the integrity of the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope, though, that Jimbo follows his own views (that good works don't excuse bad behavior) in a consistent manner, meaning that the troll-fighting admins need to be held to a standard of civility just like the content-creating people. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course Dan.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, I understand the nature of your comments, but I strongly hope that you are not considering any unilateral actions relating to any aspect of this matter. There has been concern expressed to me that a comment you made yesterday on the ANI subpage was hinting in that direction. A unilateral action in this matter would, among other problematic effects, be likely to increase the level of distracting drama manyfold. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am taking no actions in the matter of !!.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• "If we lose a few people who are driving away others, then so much the better." A quote from you Jimmy and a truth, for certain. I pray the Arbcom case does just what you are saying. The University of Minnesota study is quite clear, from a math standpoint...WP needs content editors that are good contributors of same. The project has a future as long as the main content editors stay here. Lose the great content people and the project suffers. The sleuth and private cabal type approach is what must be stopped. My first post and you can call me a "student driver." Nice (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think what Zocky may be referring to is that, from your comments, you seem to be 'taking sides'. I don't think it is any secret that this latest round of 'Wikipedia Review Whac-A-Mole' was kicked off by your block of Miltopia, and you've obviously been keeping involved in the issue. There have been repeated claims that 'the opposition' is acting in bad faith. They are Wikipedia Review agents. They just want to create drama. They are "troll enablers". They (and this one is particularly ironic) fail to assume good faith. You have echoed some of those statements.
• IMO the truth is that anyone who spends nearly all their time arguing policy, behaviour issues, politics, or indeed any contentious topic inevitably falls into a downward spiral. Frustration and annoyance seldom lead to harmony. People become more and more entrenched in their positions, more and more prone to kneejerk reactions and assumption of bad faith by those who disagree with them, more and more incivil, et cetera. Yes, we obviously saw that with Miltopia and some others opposing 'BADSITES' and related concepts, but it is also self-evident in the behaviour of JzG, Durova, and (lately in any case) even yourself for that matter. You're annoyed with the situation, sunshine and roses do not result.
• Do you think that Durova and company were 'assuming good faith' or 'trying to find the best in people' when they decided to investigate !!? A long term content contributor with very little involvement in Wikipedia's contentious debates... other than a few stray comments disagreeing with them? The fact that Durova's analysis was mistaken is, as you say, a fairly minor issue. The fact that she and a group of other users are conducting these 'investigations' in the first place? Going after good users on no more solid basis than the bad faith assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is probably here to harm the project? That's not a little thing. That's poisonous.
• People are upset and 'making a stink' because these wide ranging 'anti Wikipedia Review' campaigns are themselves harmful to the project... drive away content contributors... fail to assume good faith... et cetera. When the reaction to that is more nasty accusations against the people complaining we get back into that 'downward spiral' issue. Durova and company are investigating people who disagree with them. Good users like !! who there was no valid reason to be looking into at all. People are upset about that... and they should be. Unless we are to become a collection of warring camps, always looking to 'dig up dirt' to get 'the enemy' blocked, this kind of thing should have no place at Wikipedia. --CBD 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Autograph my page

Please autograph this page. Thanks. • EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

oOoo please, please please if you are willing autographing this page will make my day! I only have two signatures :-( I will send you a thanksgiving card after I have written the code! (its a bit late but nvm lol) PhilB ~ ^T/_C 23:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New User

Hi Jimbo. Im a new user to this excellent site. Can you give me any advice on what to do, or any wiki programs I should get involved in? Sincerely, --Memphiseditor22 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)