User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions
m Reverting possible vandalism by 205.121.106.82 to version by MiszaBot III. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (696665) (Bot) |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::::Are you able to sign [[User:Nz26/guestbook|mine]] also? - <span style="border:1px solid black;">[[User:Nz26|'''nz'''''26'']]<small> [[User_talk:Nz26|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Nz26|Contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Nz26|Email]]</small></span> 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::::Are you able to sign [[User:Nz26/guestbook|mine]] also? - <span style="border:1px solid black;">[[User:Nz26|'''nz'''''26'']]<small> [[User_talk:Nz26|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Nz26|Contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Nz26|Email]]</small></span> 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::Please sign my [[User:MC10/GB|guestbook]]. Thanks. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font> <font color="#1E90FF">|</font> <font color="#4169E1">[[User:MC10/GB|Sign here!]]</font>''' 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
::::::Please sign my [[User:MC10/GB|guestbook]]. Thanks. '''<font color="#9370DB">[[User:MC10#top|M]][[User talk:MC10#top|C]]</font><font color="#6A5ACD">[[Special:Contributions/MC10|10]]</font> <font color="#1E90FF">|</font> <font color="#4169E1">[[User:MC10/GB|Sign here!]]</font>''' 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
I |
I have a guestbook now can you please sign it that would be the coolest heres the link[[User:P-Real DA deal/Guestbook|sign my guestbook]][[User:P-Real DA deal|P-Real DA deal]] ([[User talk:P-Real DA deal|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 03:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== About your idea for a guestbook... == |
== About your idea for a guestbook... == |
Revision as of 18:08, 12 May 2009
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Thank you very much!
I've just been checking my subpages to realise you had signed my guestbook. Thank you very much for doing that, I really do appreciate that. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like to do it and usually do when people ask, but sometimes I've accidentally overlooked requests or meant to get to them later and forgot, etc. People shouldn't take it as a slight if I screw up and overlook requests. I like guestbooks, maybe I'll start one of my own. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you should; you'd definitely have the largest guestbook by a day! Let me know if you do make one, cause I'll want to sign it first (or second if you sign it). :) Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to look at some of my subpages. I like people to know more about me, especially great and honouable people. Just by looking at my userbox page, you'd probably know more about me than some of my friends. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, too. I can't believe Jimmy Wale actually signed my autograph book! :) You should have one, too. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 01:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- While you're at it, please sign mine. :) -download ׀ sign! 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please sign mine as well? Thanks! --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Are you able to sign mine also? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please sign my guestbook. Thanks. MC10 | Sign here! 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Are you able to sign mine also? - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please sign mine as well? Thanks! --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- While you're at it, please sign mine. :) -download ׀ sign! 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, too. I can't believe Jimmy Wale actually signed my autograph book! :) You should have one, too. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 01:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a guestbook now can you please sign it that would be the coolest heres the linksign my guestbookP-Real DA deal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
About your idea for a guestbook...
Could I create it for you? I mean, only if you want. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Please say yes!I would love to make another guestbook! Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Enough with the guestbooks, please. There's more to Wikipedia than socialization.
–Juliancolton | Talk 22:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think guestbooks are silly. But they don't waste people's time as much as a hundred other things we do around here. If Jimbo doesn't want User talk:Jimbo Wales/guestbook he can always delete it. Meantime, people who want to sign it can. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You should have waited for Jimbo's approval. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine. I hope it's pretty. With flowers and ponies!:)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Making Jimbo smile is a great improvement of wikipedia, so we can ignore that Wikipedia is not a social network. Tought, please, make sure Jimbo is not already smiling beforehand. Otherwise, you'll get banned for six month :) . What do you mean with CREEP ? I don't see what you mean... ==>[] Iluvalar (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine. I hope it's pretty. With flowers and ponies!:)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- You should have waited for Jimbo's approval. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think guestbooks are silly. But they don't waste people's time as much as a hundred other things we do around here. If Jimbo doesn't want User talk:Jimbo Wales/guestbook he can always delete it. Meantime, people who want to sign it can. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Protected Page
Your page isn't supposed to be protected. You even said so! Someone protected it. Why? Stop him! 99.29.236.85 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- So that you can't do stuff like this and this to his page. J.delanoygabsadds 02:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- How protect if last section CLEARLY says don't protect page! That's what about! How say "dumbass" without personal attack? 99.29.236.85 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo doesn't like having his page protected, but if an admin thinks it is necessary, he does not mind. Besides, he is an administrator himself, so he could unprotect it if he wanted to. J.delanoygabsadds 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- How protect if last section CLEARLY says don't protect page! That's what about! How say "dumbass" without personal attack? 99.29.236.85 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The extent of the Verifiability policy
Hi, Jimmy. I've had some ongoing disagreements ([1][2]) with others over the Verifiability policy. My practice is to remove any information from articles that is not sourced, including things like birth dates, places of birth etc. Some have argued that that sources exist for them on the Internet that can be found with a Google search, that in some cases, the information is at sites linked to in the References sections, and that this makes the information in question sourced. Some argue that I can easily find sources for them myself, and that some of the unsourced material I added was in the articles for years, and that they were merely re-adding it after I removed it. The most frequent complaint may be that things like places or dates of birth are not contentious.
I have responded that WP:V requires that information be sourced by having the sources placed explicitly in the article, in the text where it is used, not somewhere else on the Internet or in a Google search, and that placing sources in References sections is only appropriate, according to WP:CS, for undeveloped articles. I pointed out that WP:Burden properly states that the burden of proof is on the editor adding or re-adding the material, not the one who finds it unsourced, and that unsourced material does not gain legitimacy after being in an article for some length of time, as the false material in the John Seigenthaler article was in it for four months before it was noticed, and that whether material is added initially or being re-added after being removed bears no relevance on whether it includes a citation. As to the final point, WP:V states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" must be supported by cites and there is your own quote regarding removal of information, "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." My practice is to treat ALL information as requiring sources, and for a number of reasons: First, whether something is "challenged" is subjective. (Hell, I could argue that I'm challenging all such information!) Another is vandalism of the "subtle" sort--that is, vandalism in which editors add or change information that I happen to know is false, or contrary to what a source in the passage indicates, but is not particularly inflammatory, and is only likely to raise a red flag if someone on whose Watchlist that article appears notices the edit. Quite a few times when I photographed these people, for example, I heard complaints from them that their articles contained false information, even on trivial matters like date of birth. Sourcing everything solves this problem, and will help improve Wikipedia's reputation. For this reason, I believe ALL material should be sourced.
I want to know what you think. Am I right to do this? Or should I just let things like dates or places of birth, and other material go without a source? Nightscream (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think balance is needed, and that in the case of negative information, your approach is one that I would strongly support. In other cases, I think it is ok to do what you are doing, but not if it's an ongoing extreme campaign that annoys people without purpose. (That's not an accusation; I haven't looked into your edit history.) I don't agree with those who would argue that every single thing in Wikipedia must have a source. It is desirable to source everything, but some things are simply common knowledge to the point that demanding a source (or else removing it) is just WP:POINT. (Christmas Day is December 25th. France is a country in Europe.)
- So let me say: in general I support you, but just try not to be a jerk (again, not an accusation!) and assume good faith of other editors. When possible, it'll be best if you can find the cite yourself for correct information, rather than just deleting, but depending on the context and using good judgment, you could also wait a bit, or ask local editors in that area to help. Whether it's a biography matters, whether the information is negative matters, etc. There's no simple answer.
- Earlier today, I left a note on a talk page. No one responded with a comment or a source, after a few hours, so I'm removing the weird-sounding info. I have not, in this particular case, googled to find a source myself. If I had time, it would be better if I did that, but I don't - and it's more important to correct a potentially harmful bit of nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with what you're saying (and yes, I understood that you were not making any accusations). I agree that the two examples you suggested are indeed "common knowledge". Another would be the name of a famous actor (whereas by contrast, the surnames of cast members on The Real World are not, which is why I always source that material). Would you agree that dates and places of birth are not common knowledge? I assume they are not. Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- While the onus should be on the person who adds the information to provide sources for information, it is also important that people who remove material realize that it is within their responsibility to confirm that no such sources exist before removing material. Material that is not yet sourced should be an invitation to research, not an excuse to delete. Nor is this an accusation of you. In general the philosophy is to preserve material. Unomi (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, policy says that the philosophy is to delete material unless it can be verified. And I agree with the policy. Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Verifiable does not imply always already verified. LadyofShalott 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. we also have {{fact}}, which in my opinion usually works a lot better than deleting stuff. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing fuzzy principles in this situation really isn't really relevant. Nightscream is keeps removing inexplicably harmless information like birth info, not dubious speculation. In my opinion a cardinal sin committed here is generally avoiding discussion. From what I've seen of this so far Nightscream avoids talkpage discussion in favor of debate-by-edit-summary and block threats. That's also very much against our philosophy.
- Peter Isotalo 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. we also have {{fact}}, which in my opinion usually works a lot better than deleting stuff. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Verifiable does not imply always already verified. LadyofShalott 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, policy says that the philosophy is to delete material unless it can be verified. And I agree with the policy. Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"People who remove material realize that it is within their responsibility to confirm that no such sources exist before removing material." No, WP:Burden clearly states otherwise.
"Nightscream avoids talkpage discussion in favor of debate-by-edit-summary and block threats." A lie. Any sincere look at my Edit History shows copious amounts of Talk Page discussion, on both the Talk Pages of articles and other editors, and indeed, I've been corresponding with you on my Talk Page and yours. And last time I checked, after all, this page right here is a Talk Page, and we're having a discussion. Talk Page discussion is for issues in which proper interpretation of policy is in dispute. The removal of unsourced material is not in dispute, but I came here to double-check with Jimmy anyway, just to be sure, and he confirmed my view of WP:V. What I avoid, however, is extended discussion with people such as yourself who do not engage in a discussion in an intellectually honest or civil manner. So far you've stated lies about me on my Talk Page twice, and now again here in misrepresenting my Edit History, which is hardly motivation for me to jump through your flaming hoops. But if you want me to discuss things with you further, I will do so on two conditions: First, you acknowledge (and apologize for) falsely claiming two statements by me that I did not make. Second, that you answer the question I put to you (twice) about the Lazenby info in dispute. If you cannot do this, then I'm disinclined to speak to you further, Peter. Nightscream (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not really care to become embroiled in whatever argument you are engaged in with Peter, but if you cared to read all of WP:Burden you would see this :
- Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.
- If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.
- Emphasis added. Please also see Our editing policy Unomi (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Moved from User page.....
HELP! Manager of Russian Wikipedia Andrei Romanenko conducts dishonest game. He initiated elimination by any ways Arahau from Wikipedia (articles are written in 11 languages, their removal today has begun). Arahau is an a priori constructed language created by Russian writer Ivan Karasev in 2006. The Arahau language is polysynthetic and typologically active. This is unlike most constructed languages but not atypical of engineered languages. Each vowel designates a noun, and consonants designate grammatic formants. This system often lets Arahau produce compact speech. Arahau has been found to have similarities with Basque and Nakh-Dagestanian languages. Neemus (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- It would seem at present that this language has problems establishing its notability both here and on ru:wiki, and we have a current deletion proposal. Without multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability here or on ru:wiki, this article seems unlikely to survive, and it appears to me at least that User:Andrei Romanenko is within his rights. Rodhullandemu 01:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Fundraising
I noticed that wikipedia fundraising for yesterday and today have been very low. In an emergency of course you can always do those top banners. However you also might want to consider asking for funding from the U.S. gov, with the expectation that the U.S. gov, would have special admin priveleges for blocking, editing, etc. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- That would involve a load of problems not worth the money; it's worse even than advertising. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) (iPod edit)
- Just 3 months ago, Wikipedia raised 6 million dollars. They need more money? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Nihiltres. Giving the US (or any other) government special admin powers would be throwing NPOV out the window: extremely bad idea. LadyofShalott 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A request from Uncyclopedia
Hello there, Mr. Wales, and greetings from the land of Benson! I am Saberwolf116, the (self-proclaimed) Uncyclopedian ambassador to Wikipedia. Anyways, i've got an extremely strange request for you.
On Uncyclopedia, we have this thing called "Imperial Colonization". We take our most popular articles that are terrible in every since of the word, and rewrite them as a collaborative group. Anyways, our colonization this week happens to be Wikipedia. Seeing as how you founded Wikipedia, we were wondering if you might want to contribute a few ideas on the talk page.
Thanks for the time, that's all for now. Now if you'll excuse me, my comrades at Uncyclopedia await me.
Cheers, Saberwolf116 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)