User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

"You may edit this page!"

May I add this?. (It's a reference to JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speach). I've been reverted three times. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know that the American public is really aware that the joke is that what JKF actually said was that he was a jelly donut/pastry ("Ich bin ein Berliner" translates literally to "I am a pastry") when the proper language would have been "Ich bin Berliner" (I am a Berliner). Amazing what a difference "ein" makes... but I thoutht it was humorous. In any event, the German people knew what he meant and were appreciative. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  I wonder if many people will get the joke here. Why not put it on Jimbo's German page instead? Laurent (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  There's a thought. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 17:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Joke is wrong regardless, read our own page on the matter. N419BH 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Germans I know all consider it true. Granted they are from Bavaria, Hesse, and Franconia, not Berlin, but all of them said the same thing, that it was not the correct language to use. In any event, the German people are much too polite to titter about it at the time of the speech - and it does make an interesting story. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a funny story when you consider the alternate meaning. N419BH 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was first told to me in Bamburg, where I kept asking for "any check" instead of "my check," Harold had a hard time understanding my extremely limited German anyway (thick Texas accent, plus I don't speak very much, nor good German) and I always remebered it. I had a tendency to use "ein" a lot more than I should... :D GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter

GOCE July 2010 backlog elimination drive chart Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have now passed the halfway point, so here's an update. Progress Report - Progress toward the targets has been good. 751 articles out of the approximately 1,600 we would like to get completed by the end of the month were done by July 15, so we will be very close to meeting the target for volume. However, we would like to clear all of the 2008 articles from the backlog, and there are still 892 left to do. Please consider choosing one of these older articles when looking for something to copy edit. If we focus our firepower we can completely wipe out 2008 from the queue. Participation Report - 95 people signed up for the July drive. This is a great result compared to May, when we had 36. However, in May only one person that signed up didn't do any copy edits, and in July only 59 of the 95 have posted any copy edits on the big board. The task may seem insurmountable but please remember that if all 95 participants copy edit just one article a day from now until the end of the month, we will eliminate 1,300 more articles from the backlog. So please consider participating at whatever level you can! All contributions are appreciated. This newsletter was prepared for the GOCE by Diannaa (Talk), S Masters (talk), and The Raptor Let's talk.

Is there enough philosophical value

Is there enough philosophical value in the sentence “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be” to be added in the Philosophy_of_law section? Same question for “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. I added those as: In 2010, Florin Horicianu, cautioned the United States government that “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be”; his deep belief in a true democracy was expressed in “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. Ohnoitsjamie deleted it as being “promotional material”. Fhbrain (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss these issues on the Philosophy of law talk page, please. --Cyclopia^talk 10:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to know Jimbo's personal opinion on the issue if he so wishes to respond and I believe that may be what Fhbrain is curious about as well.Camelbinky (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be in Jimbo's best interest to Google Florin Horicianu before answering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you like this particular edit

"I am proud of founding Wikipedia and grateful to what it has offered to countless people worldwide." It was added by an IP. N419BH 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP is a former IP hopping vandal on your's and my userpage might I also add. Marcus Qwertyus ^{(signs his posts)} 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Very nasty attacks too I might add. N419BH 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify copyvio policy

Hi Jimbo, I previously noted on your talkpage how some editors don't want to acknowledge that anyone really believes their sacred texts aren't myths. No matter how many published references from theologians and religious scholars etc, are found, they are each and all automatically deemed unsuitable for demonstrating that anyone living actually objects to their scriptures being called "myth", hence by these "rules" no objection can possibly ever be demonstrated as existing in print, as the POV cannot be proved to exist.

Now some editors have targeted my personal userspace where some of these brief quotes from prominent theologians are maintained. The pretext for censoring these published quotes from my userpage keeps shifting, but the latest is someone is seriously claiming that my page should be deleted for copyright violations. I have never before encountered such a strict interpretation of policy that says user pages with brief, attributed quotes from published works need to be deleted as copyvios, and I cannot believe that is the true intent of the policy, since there is no legal copyright violation here. Can you clarify what the intent of the policy is? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The majority of your page is quotes from modern copyrighted sources. There is a difference between having a page that uses one or two quotes and having a user page that is little other than copyrighted quotes. --B (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already heard from you, thanks, I was seeking Jimbo's input. This is an unprecedentedly strict interpretation of policy that you have just come up with, and want to apply exclusively to me, it seems. You have already conceded that this is not a violation of copyright law, if the purpose of the policy isn't to avoid violating those laws, what then is the intent of that policy? To be applied selectively to userpages when a few clearly don't even want to acknowledge the existence of significant, widespread opinions, and would rather do away with them  ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro to WP:FAIR and m:Resolution:Licensing policy should give the answer to your question of why the policy is more restrictive than US copyright law. This policy does not apply exclusively to you. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Removal_of_fair_use_images#Possible_questions_and_responses_to_these_actions, which was written specifically concerning images, but you can substitute in the word "content". --B (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But, there is no such policy page that substitutes in the word "content" - and applies it to short, attributed quotes in userspace: that is merely your extended interpretation of it. That's why IMO the actual policy, and its intent, need clarification. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images isn't a policy - it's an essay to help users understand the removal of their images. The actual policy - WP:FAIR - does say "content". --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What I see on WP:FAIR is that we're not allowed to break US copyright law. I'm not breaking any US copyright law. The policy also says to use "common sense" in specific instances. Where does it say, specifically, that properly attributed brief quotes are not allowed in personal userspace -- without your unprecedentedly interpreting it that way, or without your making up brand new unheard-of standards like "well, if over half the page is made up of different quotes, then it's a violation", and expecting these made-up standards to apply...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

small change

So if you are here to vandalize, why don't you turn around and become a productive editor?

how can someone turn around if they never even came here physically? jim implies that they simply ARE here, but in fact if they were to turn around this would require an actual action verb demonstrating movement. so i fixed it; good on me, jim... good on me.........................-

So if you came here to vandalize, why don't you turn around and become a productive editor?

Hugo