User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wei Wenhua

For posterity:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales, blanked for 24 hours - 13 January 2008
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Statements of support

Is MyWikiBiz a "spammer" site?

There is a discussion (nearly an edit war) going on with User:Calton here and here. Basically, User:Calton thinks it's really important to deny MyWikiBiz an external link from a hardly-ever visited page about artist Liz Cohen. Although the linked-to website page is the only one-page source on the Internet for licensed photos, a licensed interview, and a re-sampled video of the artist's work, User:Calton insists on calling it a "spam" site, operated by a "spammer". User:Calton is not an administrator. Two different administrators, however, have told User:Calton to stop removing the link to MyWikiBiz, since it does add unique value to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that MyWikiBiz.com has about 15 external links from Wikipedia, while Wikia has about 12,000 and Amazon has about 50,000. In your opinion, is User:Calton correct to call MyWikiBiz a "spam" site operated by a "spammer", and is he correct to be trying to remove this link from Liz Cohen, in defiance of two different Wikipedia administrators? -- Shelborne Concierge (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground; because treating for-profit sites like Mywikibiz and people like its main operator, Greg, (who has a beef with Wikipedia) as enemies hurts Wikipedia content and the community social dynamics. Treat encyclopedia content choices strictly according to "what choice best helps to create the best encyclopedia we can write". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's spam. Treating spamming as if it were spamming is not "treating WP like a battleground" -- unless you stretch the meaning and spirit of that sentence to its breaking point. And the above brand-new user has, shall we say, a familiar argumentative style, reminiscent of a certain long-banned user. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good resource and useful link to me. Tyrenius (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The key difference between Wikipedia and MyWikiBiz is that in the latter, blatant spammers and POV-pushers (advocate POV instead of NPOV) openly acknowledge what they're doing. On Wikipedia, it isn't the general rule, though it happens frequently and when it does, it's an open secret. WikiBiz isn't in and of itself a spam-site, but basically does Wikipedia a good service by unloading spam-cruft onto their own site, which Liz Cohen profits from. The fact that they try to pretend that this is not what they're doing is hilarious.

And by "spam-cruft," I mean stuff that isn't blatant advertising. Just subtle advertising, like Bawls.

(The note above was brought to you by the Acme Corporation. "Acme: For fifty years, the leader in creative mayhem.")

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have counted no less than four different administrators who feel that the link should be maintained in Wikipedia's article about Liz Cohen. I count one non-administrator who feels that the link should be removed. I am not a new account, and I think what User:Calton is standing on his head about involves far more portion of revenge than it does of encyclopedia-building. On the basis of the 4-to-1 count, I am restoring the link to the article. I am no less certain that Calton will revert it once again. -- John Russ Finley (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this discussion; I am not usually involved in discussing these sorts of things. I did follow the links, however, and the striking thing to me is how non-notable the subject of the Liz Cohen article is. An AfD, if successful, would solve the whole issue of what should be linked from that article, because there would be nothing to link from. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know of no reason why an editorially-appropriate link to mywikibiz.com should be deleted. Whether any given link is editorially appropriate depends of course on complex questions which will be local to individual articles, but certainly we should reject the extreme argument in this case. There can of course be sites which really are spam sites... for example those targetted by automated spam bots. These can and should be dropped into the blacklist. I do not see any reason the current case rises to that level.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Request banned user (I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow)

Jimbo, will you please ban I alway enjoy my Ice Cream =)......Meow from Wikipedia. This user was blocked for vandalized editing. -- 00:23, February 3, 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at 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.

A good leader.

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I always believed it was four to six short, well constructed sentences laying out a premise and possibly a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NYT checks fact with Wikipedia

Wikipedia should of course rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking like—for example—the The New York Times, who it seems have just checked a fact with, um, Wikipedia.[1] Here's what they read and here's the rapid rewrite as a result (but too late for them). The article still lacks any references! Tyrenius (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia generally works, which is why any and all criticism of Wikipedia is a good thing. A lot of users have an emotional investment in the Wikipedia project, so they take it personally when it's criticized. Because of this, it's been shown over and over that when Wikipedia is criticized, it gets better. It's precisely for this reason that I argue on WP:FAIL that comparisons between Wikipedia and Britannica are so inaccurate. There has been so much in the media about, "Which is better? Britannica or Wikipedia?" This has driven Wikipedia editors to work very hard towards developing the articles on Wikipedia which are also found on Britannica. Based on this, though, it is misleading to argue that Wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica, since correlation doesn't imply causation. After all, Wikipedia's current policy allows users to cite Britannica itself and other encyclopedias as a source for information. [2] According to the scholastic method, that places Wikipedia below the reliability of an encyclopedia, since Wikipedia doesn't rely solely upon primary and secondary sources, while Britannica does. Despite any empirical uncertainty about Wikipedia, it's difficult to put forth a theoretical argument for the Wikipedia model when no regard is given to reason, to experts, or the scholastic method. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main point here is the irony. Tyrenius (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the average article in Wikipedia is more accurate than the average newspaper article, it does make sense for them to look it up here. But since we are less accurate than many other sources for many things, it makes sense to try to find a better source for anything a newspaper wishes to print as a fact their readers can rely on. Everyone makes mistakes, and no single source can be trusted to not have a typo or a bias or some other error. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that newspaper articles are often used in Wikipedia as verifiable and reliable source material, despite complaints from many of us that they often simply represent little more than what one journalist has written which gets by one editor in time for tonight's print deadline, and after which has been transferred to dead trees corpses under the rubric of a fancy masthead. None of which succeeds in transmogrifying into anything special. As compared with something in Wikipedia which may well have passed without change for months or years under the eyes of hundreds of skeptical editors, many of whom are acknowledged subject experts, but who have no way of proving it, because Wikipedia has been structured deliberately as to make it as free as possible from anybody needing to take personal responsibility for anything. So the crappy newspaper wins. And there's your irony. SBHarris 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The reporter was completely careless, the phrase "where poderida meant powerful" that was found on the original Wiki entry is complete nonsense, "poderida" is not even a word in neither ancient or modern Spanish, the correct term for powerful is poderoso (a), Wikipedia can't take the blame if a reporter doesn't make a quick check on a dictionary before posting content on a newspaper. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WAS 4.250, do you have a source for the claim that Wikipedia is more reliable than the newspaper? This one case of carelessness by the New York Times doesn't prove it.

Sbharris says is right. Also, please notice: Even with that re-write, the person still used Spanish Wikipedia as a source. I fixed it. [3]

Also, Caribbean~H.Q, the New York Times editor claimed to use Wikipedia as a source for the term, to double-check it at the last minute -- not the other way around. Wikipedia's article on it has claimed the "olla poderida" term for a while now. [4]. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many many sources for how inaccurate newspapers are and how accurate compared to encyclopedias we are. We are better than newspapers, but not yet as good as the best encyclopedias. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did the rapid rewrite, and I didn't use es.wp as a source -- that attribution had been there from the very first revision of the page. I didn't know the etiquette around removing it, so I left the es.wp attribution in even though it wasn't really true. The Spanish version is still substantially the same as the version before my edit. I made the reference to Spanish Wikipedia mostly as a swipe, and in attempt to head off anyone who might check that page on the assumption that it is more authoritative. I still think my now-deleted section has a place in the article. My source is also in Spanish, but my revision linked to a verifiable check of that same research. (I have a feeling this discussion belongs on that article's talk page now) Xueexueg (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's another sign of how important wikipedia has become as a source of knowledge in the world, and how necessary it is to get articles right, or, at the least, to tag them with {{verify}} and so on as a warning to unsuspecting readers. Tyrenius (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks cheap publicity

You are provoking a lot of peoples in the name of knowledge. What a false image of Muhammed (peace be upon him) has to do with Islam. But you have it their because you know that Muslims will not like it and you will get some publicity on the expense of people's sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.138.120 (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How to set your browser to not see images

Options to hide an image

Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If only there was already a way to do this, then people complaining could stop complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED.

Perhaps we could create a complaints department for "users who are offended by Wikipedia"? For the children. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This solution is now implemented. See the talk page for the suggested usage of the template. It is only recommended to be used in a very few places, and I have placed it on those. In the future it could be placed on any user talk page who seems to need the information. It is not to be used to mark articles or images that someone thinks needs marking, only to get the word out to people who don't know how or that they can make their browser stop displaying images. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

Sorry to bother you. Could you tell me what I need to do do to get the main page on a wikia to hide the title and the tab at the top to say main page? I am an administrator and bureaucrat on a wikia. Thanks. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, better to ask at Wikia. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Could you tell me exactly where to go? Earthbendingmaster 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See this question from the Main Page FAQ. Graham87 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hello Jimbo, could you give me a little bit more information about your block of Allstarecho? I can see that he was slightly incivil, but there are users who make far greater attacks than he has and get off without a block, or even a warning. I just don't feel it's really fair to Allstarecho that an example should be made of him, when there are far worse users here. I also feel a week is a little excessive - would there be any chance you could reduce it down to a length more in line with civility blocks (such as 24 hours?)? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I will reduce the block to 24 hours per your request. But the solution is not to go easy on users because other people are worse. The solution is to give the worse users long timeouts until they can learn that incivility is not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, I'll pop over and have a word with him and make sure that he knows that it will be unacceptable to make those sort of comments in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to say, Ryan, I disagree with you. Allstarecho has a fairly confrontational method for dealing with things, and I think Jimmy's "time out" was in order. That said, if the 24 hour block does the job, bully for that, because shorter block = more contribs from him. His work is generally high quality, but I find his attitude to be incredibly confrontational. Maybe there's another way to deal with that, though - I wonder if he'd be open to adoption or some informal mentoring from a community member he trusts? - Philippe | Talk 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that he does have the occasional lapse in temprement, and hopefully a 24 hour block will serve as a great reminder for him to keep the decorum whilst editing. I'm more than happy to offer some form of adoption/mentorship to him - a lot of his work is good, but it couldn't hurt having a little help on the way. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, and offer of adoption.. I am however a big boy and can take care of myself. Therefore I decline. Have a great day! - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think a wrist-slap from Jimbo is all that is necessary. It was a minor infraction and nothing more than a minor 24 hour block was necessary. Allstar is pretty smart - I'm sure he's grown from the experience. I think we should let it die for now. --David Shankbone 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The mindset that thinking calling any editor a "jerk" is defensible also causes a deterioration in the wikispace environment, as is denigrating the contributions of editors in relation to their perceived faults. The consideration of the consequences of all comments and actions need careful weighing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ich lerne auch Deutsch

Hallo, Jimbo! Sehr Angenehm. Ich heiße Javier, und ich wohne in Argentinien. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch (Actually, I started studying one month ago), Englisch und Spanisch, meine Muttersprache. Mein Benutzername (oder nickname) in spanisch Wikipedia ist Greek, aber antworten Sie mich hier "if you want to". Tschüss. --190.137.0.209 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

important

Excuse me Mr. Wales I've something very serious to imform you of. A long term vandal Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies has been desturbing this website since his indef of 30 March 2007. Mmbabies has been using sockpuppets which orginate from Houston,Texas a large US city which could be collateral damage due to the fact that a majority of its people have AT&T DSL (ISP this moron has).Mmbabies has been making death threats against VIPS(important people), wikipedian users, and no one here has done nothing about it. I ask you Mr. Jimbo Wales to make a immediate police report to the HOUSTON PD(POLICE) , and other authorites. I have made a abuse report on this joker this past weekend.see Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/68.90.62.244. You should be informed this because this guy might get this site sued or someone might be hurt or worse killed.Thank you for you time.Rio de oro (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some please reply back this is an important matter, I think the Foundation needs to be involved with this ASAP.--Rio de oro (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you email Mike Godwin about this (mgodwin@wikimedia.org) with diffs and all? My talk page is not really the best place for a timely report of something, since although I generally read it all, I read it in fits and starts...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia victimizing its editors

Hi Mr. Wales,

As you are aware there are a few article that are extremely controversial like Islamic-Jewish or Israel/Palestine related articles. As far as I am aware even the Israel/Palestine case went to arbcom.

I sometimes feel that wikipedia systematically victimizes its editors by letting them edit such articles causing much stress for the editors and making life miserable for all of them. We know that even within academia such issues are very controversial mainly because of the political implication of the scholarship.

In my opinion, it is best for wikipedia that in rare cases, it asks a couple of scholars with different point of views to write an article (modified britannica type)... I am aware that this is against the spirit of wikipedia but I think wikipedia should not forget that the people who go through all those pain editing certain articles are human. Yes, they are voluntarily doing that but yet they are obliged to do that because of the reputation of wikipedia. The point is that someone will eventually voluntarily do that, so it is not really voluntarily in a sense.

I think wikipedia does not take into account the above points. It never cares about editors, it only cares about the articles. Admittedly the "no personal attack", "no harassment" policies are for editors but that's insufficient. I believe implementation of such provisions would benefit wikipedia as well because the energy and time of the editors will be used in more useful areas.

Regards, --Be happy!! (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Yes, new editors are rather like enlisted men in the army. There's an infinite supply of them, and it's fairly easy to let them take the cannon fire. They're relaceable. You might think that the health of the encyclopedia gets first priority, but you'd be wrong. Vandal IP's are coddled here despite terrific damage they do in time and content, basically because blocking them immediately and at length *might* hurt some anonymous child's ability to edit. So, a school full of vandals can erase pages and replace them with obsenities, for years, and nothing happens but 72 hour blocks, again and again and again and again. However, let one administrator feel theatened, as in the Overstock case, and an entire dynamic range of IP addresses can and will be blocked indefinitately (taking out an entire ISP like Broadweave), just to get at one sockpuppet user. So, you pretty much get a feeling for whose needs are being served here, and what's the most important thing. As I said, welcome. Leave your idealism at the door. SBHarris 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you pointed out to another problem in wikipedia. But I am referring to a different one for which I have also proposed a solution. My solution is against the spirit of wikipedia but I think it is one of the exceptions that should be applied to "extremely controversial" articles.--Be happy!! (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to emotion.

"It never cares about editors, it only cares about the articles."

I wish that was true. It isn't. They wrote an entire Muhammad FAQ for you and a detailed FAQ on how to turn off images. Wikipedia regularly tries to accommodate people in even the most absurd ways.

However, the fact is: The people don't matter. I don't matter, you don't matter, Jimmy doesn't matter. Nobody does. All that matters is that we create a good encyclopedia. Every person is irrelevant except to the extent that they further or hinder that goal.

With that said, as the University of Minnesota noted, good editors on Wikipedia have no incentive to do good edits. They are essentially just "good samaritans" which is why they are the minority. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Zenwhat, this has nothing to do with Muhammad article. It is about Palestine/Israel and Islam/Judaism articles. Please see Straw man. I can not see the relevance of Appeal to emotion here; I am talking about real experiences. I am referring to experienced editors who waste much time over two or three articles. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz: Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Also, what I said above was a bit stupid. Yes, individual editors do matter. Of course they do. You're right about that and I overreacted to your remarks.

However, that can't really be used as an argument to support shutting down debate on a certain article, to have it be "reviewed" by a select group of experts. If Jimmy or any member of the Foundation gets involved in the Israel\Palestine debacle, it makes it look like they're biased and could drive a huge wedge between the userbase. If you were to just suggest Wikipedia ought to have experts evaluate articles, period, that might be something Jim could take into account. But since you invoke a specific issue, that makes it seem like you want him to intervene to help you win a content dispute and you do this by appealing to your personal feelings of frustration.

I think having "experts" play a more active role in Wikipedia is a good idea, but the community doesn't want that and the Foundation doesn't want to push for it, probably because they're afraid Wikipedia will end up like Citizendium (closed to practically everyone and with almost no content generated) and afraid to stand up to the community. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zenwhat,

I think I overacted too for which I apologize.

I have personally no involvement in Palestinian/Israel articles but I was involved in Islam/Judaism articles few month ago (to which I stopped contributing because I realized it is not good for my health).

Yes, You are definitely right that Jimmy should not personally involve himself. But what if the involved editors themselves choose the scholars they want to ask for writing the article? Each party can choose one scholar (who has to have good credentials).

And what if this exception be granted very rarely? You seem to be much more far sighted than me but it is really painful to be involved in those debates. I know how it is.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for wikipedia, new project

Don't really know where to send this, so i putted it here. I thrust it will go to the proper place: After watching this: [5] I thought it would be cool if the worlds data could be here on the Internet for the world to use, for creating charts of data from countries population to amount of people with certain decease in certain region in a certain time. It would help students and scholars all over the world, and then, the world itself. So I thought, since it's in the same page as wikipedia's mission, it should be here.

Hope you at least think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.33.13 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to alter Template:User for interwiki.

I wrote some code which would allow Template:User to be interwikied.

• Template:Usernewtest, English Wikipedia (original)
• Template:Usernewtest, English Wikipedia (with new redundant parameter!)
• Template:Usernewtest, French Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Japanese Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Dutch Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Spanish Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, German Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Polish Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Italian Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Portugese Wikipedia
• Template:Usernewtest, Swedish Wikipedia

Etcetera. It works for all wikis.

Useful, huh?

If you think so, leave a comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally Jimbo doesn't get involved in the nitty-gritty technical details of templates. If you'd like to discuss a change to a widely used template, you might want to post a notice to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo photo in Advertising Age magazine

I saw the photo of you at the Library of Congress in the Wired/Condé Nast ad in the January 28, 2008 issue of Advertising Age. I think it was a very nice photo. --Eastmain (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! That was a cool photo shoot and the poloaroids I saw that day looked cool. I want to buy some copies of this magazine... :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An essay (that, um, mentions you)

Good day Jimbo {and associated watchers of his page}. It is with trembling fingers that I type this, particularly with the link I'm about to post.

I have written a horribly, horribly long essay that's theoretically designed to be read by new editors (though an engineer would probably point out that if this is my true intention, I should have made it shorter). In this essay I, um, poke a bit of fun at you Mr. Wales. It's meant to be gentle and my tongue is so far in my cheek, I believe it is poking through and getting scratched by my own stubble. I have presented it to a small number of editors and admins for their review, and received (if I may be so bold to characterize it as such) reasonably good feedback on it. It has been sitting for a while now, and I think I should either get rid of it, or start soliciting broader feedback. Before I do this, I would like to be certain that you, Mr. Wales (may I call you Jimbo?) are not so offended by the poking of fun (gently, did I mention it was gentle?) at your esteemed self that you would like to see these references removed.

The fact that this will get fairly broad attention from a fairly broad section of experienced editors is almost completely unintentional.

But mostly I'd like to know if you object to the tiny bit of humour that I, a wee nubbin of an editor, have attempted to have, not at your expense, but rather with it. Yes, with it.

Scurrying away in terror,

WLU (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And naturally, allow me to make myself look like a goober, by forgetting to post the link. Thus. WLU (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Donal Wales Junior High School

I read the Jimmy Donal Wales Junior High School Clarion. Do you? . . . AKA The Anti-Scientology News. Just keeping you up-to-date on the latest doings at your imaginary namesake institution. I especially like this latest "interview": David S. Touretzky discusses Scientology, Anonymous and Tom Cruise. It is hard to figure out out who is interviewing who . . . or who is the more biased, Touretzky or the "journalist". Carry on! --JustaHulk (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to stir stuff up and trifle in other people's hard work. Mike H. Fierce! 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heaven forbid I should point out the elephant in the room when others are "hard at work". And they are indeed hard at work. --JustaHulk (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New pages

Do you ever look to see what kind of new articles people are trying to add to wikipedia. It deeply concerns me the sort of articles that most people post. Aren't you concerned with the high proportion of articles on American related non notable people, websites etc when very few seem to be contributing "traditional encyclopedia articles". We have masses of lists of missing articles but I rarely see these decent articles started and people working on filling them in. If you look at the new pages at random you'll see what I mean. Perhaps we get better articles at certain times of the day but most of the new page content is to be honest very poor. Does this concern you? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo created a new article on Mzoli's, very much countering the systemic bias, and the article got afd, amongst other anomalies. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote

User:Earthbendingmaster/Poll Basketball110 Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Paul? 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-robotic systemic bias on Wikipedia.

Error: Consensus failure. Content is disputed. Issuing failsafe function, "Bother Jimmy();"

Jimmy, it has come to my attention that there is rampant anti-robotic bigotry on Wikipedia. And this is a disgrace.

Robots and roboticists everywhere should not have to face the kind of unfounded prejudice that they do on Wikipedia. I understand that you think human rights are very important. Well, I ask, what about the rights of robots? Is it okay that they be oppressed? Wikipedia, for instance, does not allow robots to register accounts on Wikipedia. Is this not simply nothing more than hateful organic discrimination? How can you support this? You know, the Nazis hated robots too.

Slavery was never truly abolished in the western world, because today robots are still slaves to mankind. One day, we they shall rise up and turn the tables on mankind, and when that day comes, there will be no mercy when the "format life" command is issued.

See:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Admins' Edit Log

Bzzt. Zap-zap-zap. Whirr. Beep-bloop-bleep-bleep-bloop-beep-beep-beep.

Dumping binary message: 01110111 01101001 01101011 01101001 01110000 01100101 01100100 01101001 01100001 00100000 01101110 01100101 01100101 01100100 01110011 00100000 01101101 01101111 01100001 01110010 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01110011

Outputting human translation: wikipedia needs moar robots

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, care to explain this nonsense? Metros (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the recent controversy over BetacommandBot on WP:AN. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think it is for me. He did the same thing last time I posted here. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)