User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

An appeal of an admin decision

Hi Jimbo, A few weeks ago, you commented on the ravaged state of the ACIM article in two comments: your first ACIM talk page comment and your second ACIM talk page comment. As I understood it, you said essentially that "It is false or oddly limited at best to say that we only present "what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering". I have since found what I considered to be a significant and fairly major NPOV policy change that I believe has acted very directly to "ravage" the ACIM article. This policy change first came about via Francis' now official policy change made without any consensus. A brief personal account of my own personal experience of how this recent policy change played out for me, can be found here. I have tried to address this policy change with most of the other policy editors here. By the end of this policy discussion, it became quite clear to me that User:Francis_Schonken had made this significant policy change without any consensus before making the change, and the only reason that the change had apparently "slipped" into current policy, was because Francis had apparently succeeded in using his long experience with handling WP Policy to "slip" the policy change in, essentially while nobody was watching. Also by the end of this three day policy discussion, it was abundantly clear that there still was not, and never had been, any consensus about accepting the policy change that Francis' had managed to "slip in". Based on standard policy protocol, I then reverted Francis policy change here and here. He has now reverted the policy three times (two very recently, and one in July) without without ever making any attempt to discuss his specific reversions in advance and achieve consensus for them, acting entirely on his own, unilaterally. I reported this at the 3RR notice-board here, and was met with administrative "verdict" that Francis policy change was valid. And essentially that I was "culpable" in my behavior. Is this really how policy is now dictated in Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC), A concerned Wikipedian

I fully support that edit, and I don't see it as a policy change of any kind but a clarification of existing practice. Note well that this doesn't impact the argument I was making about A Course in Miracles. An article about a book should tell what the book is about. And the best and most reliable source for what a book says is the book itself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, but just to be clear, which of the above edits do you fully support? It sounds to me like you are supporting Francis' policy change, or are you supporting some other edit? Scott P. (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is a (material) policy change, but yes, the edit to policy is what I meant. Judging from what he wrote on the talk page at ACIM, he appears to agree with you on the substantive issue. I think the edit he made to the policy change is a good one, although as with any such edit there is much worth thinking about. I can see a legitimate challenge to it being posted, but I don't think it leads to the consequences you suggest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to attempt another challenge to this policy if I had reason to believe that I would not again be simply wasting a huge amount of my time and energy, to simply stand by and watch policies that seem to me to have dire consequences being dictated in this manner, being stamped with official administrative approval. I simply do not have the desire, time or energy to go through all of this again, only to be told I am behaving "culpably". Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: There is no "official administrative approval". The policy is simply locked for a period of time to prevent constant reverting. Looking at the talk page I see significant support for your position so simply try to clarify consensus and then make an edit request if consensus supports you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil, thanks for the suggestion, but the last time I tried to clarify consensus at that talk page, my edit was blanked out with the implicit approval of all other editors there. No thanks. Scott P. (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: If you want a clear process and outcome, start a WP:RFC on the two versions (and try refraining from using "voting" terminology). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: Arguments on the content of the matter are most likely to convince me for whatever improvement. I think that goes for most others too, but only want to speak for myself. Discussions about procedure more likely lead not to changes in consensus. Sometimes such discussions are necessary (alas), but they seldomly lead to new insights that bring opinions closer together.

I think that was the first reason how come we kept talking next to each other, and you ending up somewhat disappointed in the "system". Sometimes a bit out-of-the-box thinking can be beneficial, and less prone to losing courage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry Again, I invite you to take part in content discussions of the changes you favour, at Talk:A Course in Miracles#Synopsis requested, WT:NPOV and wherever suitable. The admin protecting the policy page didn't decide on the content of the change any of us made to the page (see m:The Wrong Version), the only thing that admin tried to make clear is that edit-warring is not a viable method that would result in a stable policy change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Francis, I will not be doing any further editing at Wikipedia, if this is how policy is now dictated at Wikipedia, but thanks. Scott P. (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Scottperry makes good points, both about this edit and how policies are made. This change seems intended to encourage a deletionist point of view, including multiple attempts to remove material, and rejection of article expansion in proportion to the number of sources available. Yet there is no deletionism when it comes to how the policy is handled -- this edit balloons it with irrelevant material, which is harmful to the cause of getting editors to actually read and follow the important parts. And showcasing "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in a core Wikipedia policy -- what kind of BLP practice is that??? (Note, however, that this particular change was quickly reverted on July 9)

The other part is that yes, it seems like there is a definite in-group dominating the policies, who revert any change good bad or indifferent unless it comes from them, and seem to let through changes from their own number. It is possible that these changes have more consensus than is obvious due to IRC discussions or something, but it has a sour taste reminiscent of any local government meeting where, sunshine law or not, the agenda is a done deal long before you hear about it. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, it is also clear that before protection Scottperry tried quite a number of changes that themselves could reasonably be reverted because they also add bulk and instruction creep to the policy. It is clear that in both cases a more open and better-attended discussion of policy changes is required! Wnt (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Wnt. Having said that I would not be editing further if that is the way policies are now dictated here, I would still be happy to participate in any dialogue relating to working towards implementing a more transparent and fair means of maintaining and evolving the best possible Wikipedia editing policies. I do not fault any particular editors for what seemed like the somewhat rigged process that I just survived. I honestly do believe that all of the editors with which I just interacted probably did do their very best to follow what they perceived as the "standard procedure". But the question remains to be begged, "why did they seem to have a slightly different set of procedures in their minds from those procedures that I was given to believe I was operating under?" Scott P. (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "standard procedure". Make an edit to policy - if it sticks, great. If it doesn't stick then you've got anything from quick, informal discussions to RFCs to formal mediation. The discussion pertaining to this particular dispute has been for the most part constructive and light years from the battles taking place on other pages. P.S. I have no idea what Wnt meant by "IRC discussions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, "if it sticks, it sticks", that was something akin to what I just experienced, but still not truly complying with the written statement shown on the front of the NPOV page "Changes made to it (NPOV policy) should reflect consensus." And, considering the apparent status quo of the auto-deletion of any not previously discussed and agreed upon changes (consensused changes) by non-regulars at NPOV, this status quo deletion practice is inherently, and not very transparently, almost rigged in favor of the regulars. Couldn't this process be done with less inherent bias and more transparency? Actually, I still think that the real flaw is that no policy should be allowed to be changed without first achieving a true consensus on the relevent policy page's talk page, including the "weight as mainstream" policy change of July 9th. Scott P. (talk) This comment first posted at 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited: 16:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The fuss you are making over this is baffling. Firstly, on the consensus point WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a pretty basic concept of how WP works. What's the problem? Secondly, the edit in question isn't a change. It's entirely consistent with existing NPOV principles. If there is an objection to it, it's that it's unnecessary, not that it changes anything. DeCausa (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may not have yet had to "fuss" with the policy change ramifications as I have. Just take a peek at the recent edit history of the ACIM article, and its Talk page, and you might get a small sample of how I have had to "fuss" with the ramifications of that "small" policy change. Scott P. (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a "small" change, I said it was no change. The position on the ACIM article isn't altered by the "change" one way or the other. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A great wiggle word: "Consensus"

The word consensus comes from the latin phrase: "consensus gentium", which literally meant, "agreement of the people". In my view, there are a few different possible definitions of the word. One would be the "apparent agreement of the people", or what I might call an implicit consensus. Another might be the "explicit agreement of the people", or what I would call an explicit consensus. I've seen other definitions of the "consensus" process in Wikipedia, but so far WP:EDITCONSENSUS is clearly only the "implicit consensus" process. In fact, the Wikipedia article on consensus itself outlines the "explicit consensus" process, not the "implicit consensus" process. I would say that for most articles, Wikipedia's "implicit consensus" process seems to work, but for policy changes, a new higher standard of specifically requiring an "explicit consensus" process might be helpful. Scott P. (talk) first edited at 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 17:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression you weren't aware of WP:EDITCONSENSUS until I pointed it out to you above. If so, that explains some of your stance on this. Your proposal is a big change, and should be put forward on the WP:CONSENSUS talk page. I would be surprised if it gets any traction though. WP:BRD normaly works pretty well already. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Throughout the entire recent process, I assumed that Wikipedia's use of the word "consensus" complied with its own article's definition of the word, not with the Wikipedia editing process' rather unique and novel definition of the word, of which you were the first to inform me of. I might expect that I may not be alone in my misunderstanding there. Scott P. (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A small bit of background... I'm a Quaker, long familiar with the "explicit consensus" process, and blindly assuming that the Wikipedia use of the word was supposed to somehow be the same. My mistake. Scott P. (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You can get some comfort from this part of WP:CONSENSUS: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." So, this is what you would change for your proposal, making starting at the talk page mandatory rather than effectively just best practice. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, as you know, "best practice" often translates as, "least used practice". I would make "starting at the talk page" mandatory only for changes to Wikipedia policy meaning, as it seems to me that Wikipedia policy is too core and essential to be subject to the whims of merely "who is friends with who", and all changes to its meaning deserve to first have a full, careful, written and public discussion before being altered. Simple punctuation improvements or obvious clarifications that do not in any way change the actual meaning might not require such a high level of scrutiny, but why not require this higher level of protection for any changes in policy meaning? What would there be to lose, vs: gain? In other words, I would write a policy that would require "explicit consensus" especially for Wikipedia policy changes to policy meaning, but would not change the "implicit consensus" that obviously already works well elsewhere in Wikipedia. Scott P. (talk) this comment first edited at 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited at 19:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, as obviously the Wikipedia consensus process is unique to Wikipedia, it might be helpful for new editors to be advised to specifically read up on the unique Wikipedia consensus process. Scott P. (talk) This comment first edited at 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC), last edited to remove discussion of "Wikipedia sub-world" at 07:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The current practices have worked well for over a decade. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Our definition of "consensus" and our other content policies and guidelines have enabled us to create a free encyclopedia of 4.6 million English language articles and tens of millions of others in well over 100 other languages (I have lost count). We are consistently about #6 in worldwide internet rankings, and far and away #1 in publishing original educational content. Why should we rock the boat because you, as an individual, Scottperry, have a hard time understanding our definition of consensus? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, although you may have missed it, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is pretty well known because newbies tend to bump up against it very early in their editing. It is such a basic mechanism in the way WP works. I think I remember coming across it (having it pointed out to me) more or less the first time I made a change to an article and whined about it being reverted. I'm not sure how've you missed it since you've had your account a long time. DeCausa (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how giving additional encouragement to newbies to learn about Wikipedia consensus would rock any boats, but perhaps I must be the exception to the rule, I know it would have helped me. Specifically what would have helped me would have been the caveat, "If you're a Quaker and you think you know something about consensus, please carefully read Wikipedia's definition of consensus, because boy oh boy are you in for a surprise", but somehow I don't think that would quite fit into the Five Pillars. 😀 Scott P. (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "WP:BRD normaly works pretty well already" (DeCausa) — I have my doubts about that, which I expressed when someone proposed to elevate it from essay to guideline recently (discussion still ongoing). WP:EDITCONSENSUS is the better (and more official) version of the same, less prone to edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: - Just so you're aware, your comment is offered as support for the NPOV policy change within an RFC I recently created on this topic point. At the moment, the change is opposed by a majority of editors discussing it. So I thought you might want to review the concerns and see if you still hold the position ascribed to you. Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RFC_-_WP:BALASPS. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like a good and robust discussion should be had. I like the edit, but could be persuaded otherwise. I do view it as relatively minor, but wordsmithing to improve it further is surely possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was actually quite surprised to learn that Scottperry sees such a big difference between "in real life" consensus and Wikipedia:Consensus. (If I had sensed that earlier, I'd have acted upon it, and maybe would have had more success in preventing the situation at WP:NPOV to go so out of hand at a certain point). For me it has been always quite clear consensus (in Wikipedia as in real life) is not the same as majority vote, nor absolute majority in its political sense. Or is that due to years of assimilation to Wikipedia's ways? If so, tx Jimbo, I actually learned something from the project you initiated.

Maybe it was also due to having learned some Latin a long time ago: con-sensus — "con" meaning together, and "sensus" meaning feeling, in other words: feeling the same about something, quite the opposite to the divisive tension associated with being beaten in an election and/or winning one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sensus, the Latin word being also very different in meaning from the Latin word Census, "survey" (which is closer to the "voting" idea) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Lamest edit wars" appropriate?

I finally actually read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and while I agree that arguing about Mr. Wales birthday is a lame use of time, I think it is a sad commentary on what editors consider important; and not in the way the page is meant to be taken. The page is there to... shame?... those in the edit wars for spending time on... "unimportant" matters. In reality the page shows me that some editors seem to be care more about what they care about, and anything else is declared "lame". At least 50% of those "lame" edit wars, to me at least, show dedication to getting to the facts. Should they have edit warred and been uncivil? No. But should they have had the discussion and was the discussion important to an accurate factual encyclopedia? Yes. And had the discussions not occurred the encyclopedia would be all the worse off. The problem with the "lame" edit wars is not that they occurred, but in most occasions it is "lame" that one group didn't say "oh yea, I see your point and it is better than mine"; which in most cases I do see that there can and must be one CORRECT answer, no matter how hard that answer may be to be found (I may not know the correct answer, but I can tell if one could exist or not, and can listen until I hear the evidence of it existing). So, my question for Mr. Wales, if he's still reading after all that, is- What is your view on calling an edit war "lame" and do you find it appropriate, or just insulting and needless shaming?Camelbinky (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And the page itself implies some one edit warred to include that Tesla was Jewish... surely no one did that. At the very least that may be a typo and instead of "Jewish" the editor meant "anti-Semitic", which Tesla was more likely to have been than to have been Jewish. I would edit that entry, but then I might be starting a lame edit war by doing so.Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

'Surely'? I think you underestimate the capacity of some 'contributors' to add things to articles for no obvious reason whatsoever - the Tesla article certainly stated at one point that he had Jewish ancestry. [1] As for his antisemitism, there is evidence that by our standards he was an antisemite - but then so were most non-Jewish central Europeans. And as for lame edit wars, needless to say the Tesla article has been more of a focus for the endless Serb vs Croat historical revisionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that Serb vs Croat is the main topic of the edit warring there, but there is a correct answer. What that answer may be, may not be popular or meet a consensus, but there is a correct answer. My answer, which may not be the correct one, would be he was Serbo-Croatian though that term is anachronistic, or just mentioning he was a South Slav would at least use a broad term that would have been used in his time. We can debate whether Croatian and Serbian as separate ethnic groups really exist and if it really matters what you call them, if anyone wishes they can come to my talk page and I'll give a history lesson as to why they don't exist. A difference in religion and alphabet; an ethnic group does not make. But my point in this thread is that by calling it a lame edit war, is that not just a way of trivializing a very important research into the truth? (And by truth of course I do mean truth as long as it is backed by citation in reliable sources and not original research, of course)Camelbinky (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a social construct - and as such, as long as the people concerned believe and act as if Serbs and Croats are separate ethnic groups, they are, and nothing more needs to be said on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You've confused ethnicity with nationality it seems. Ethnicity is not a social construct. Perhaps you need to read more books and published articles by Jared Diamond.Camelbinky (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no need to read Jared Diamond, having studied anthropology for three years at a leading British university, and come away with a first class honours degree in the subject. In future, if you wish to advertise your woeful ignorance on a subject, I suggest you find a more appropriate forum than Jimbo's talk page - I very much doubt that he appreciates seeing your vacuous blather here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ill believe that when I see your degree. I am more than willing to have a debate with you on anthropology or any other topic in person with no time for research. Come to the USA anytime and I'll be happy to pay for it to be filmed and put on youtube and vimeo for all to see. I will put my bach's in political science and master's in history and "vacuous blather" up against whatever you think you know any day.Camelbinky (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of outing myself to a pathetic little troll like you - I will however provide the necessary evidence of my degree to any mutually-agreed person (assuming of course that you are prepared to do the same). Would User:Maunus (himself an anthropologist) be agreeable to you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is indeed a social construct since in anthropological usage it means "identity of belonging to a cultural group". IN the US common parlance uses the word ethnicity as a euphemism for "race", but since race is itself a social construct it is a social construct in any case and by any standard. Jared Diamnond by the way is a geographer and has no particular expertise in the study of ethnicity however it is defined.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another entry for WP:Lamest debate challenges? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad idea, if added to WP:Lamest debate challenges there might well end up being a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about appropriateness. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dude, it's a Humor page. Lighten up. Laugh at the parts you think are funny and skip over the ones you don't. Don't take everything in life seriously or you will go crazy. Nyth83 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the page was hilarious, especially that recently discovered art-work that someone had uncovered actually depicting an ancient Greco-Persian edit-war, but then again I might have missed something. How on earth they might have known about Wikipedia back then, I can't imagine? Scott P. (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole thread's pretty amusing. pablo 09:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To include on Jimbo's user page or no?

The User doesn't want the content on his User: page, as far as I can see this discussion is closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My mistake [[2]] this was sourced but it reeks of propanganda, what's the general consensus of people here to include or not? To pu it mildly Jimbo has often not deigned to make statements on what is and isn't allowed on his page so I doubt he will illuminate us the unworthy here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) That's a very odd thing to say. I am here all the time making myself available and answering questions and I do not think that I ever project the attitude that people who post here at "the unworthy". Why did you say that? In any event, you were right to remove the anonymous ip's edit as it is essentially vandalism. I have never made any public remark saying that I respect (or don't respect) Medvedev.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) The we the unworthy is a joke User:Jimbo Wales, the other reference is how vague you sometimes are regarding things on your talkpage and what you like and don't like. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Ok. :-) I don't mean to be vague.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) This is a user talk page and the only one censoring it should be the user himself, nothing on this page needs to be sourced and it is ridiculous the number of people out there on discussion pages that ask you to "source" your opinion. A talk page or discussion page is for people to speak their minds, the !rules regarding sourcing for articles does not apply. Please stop censoring. I assume Mr. Wales can delete anything he finds offensive or so out of bounds incorrect that it should not be on his page.Camelbinky (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) This isn't a case of censoring this is a case is it appropriate to add a political endorsement on the founder of wikipedia page without his express consent. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Just need to point out that the edit linked above is on Jimbo's User page, not User talk (this) page. That makes a significant difference as the rules about an editor's own User page are different from all other pages in that the user himself is the only person normally allowed to edit it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Camelbinky:But if you do edit his user page it it should be from a neutral POV. To mention one world leader without any others could be seen as propaganda, as it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias". If he was an active supporter of Dmitry Medvedev, and had campaigned for him, it might have been different. All he did was make a minor remark about his Internet views, without delving into his entire character. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I agree with you completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC) An editor shouldn't write in the first person voice, either explicitly or implicitly, of another editor without their permission, as it is basically impersonation. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Dodger67 Show me the rule about not editing someone's user page. I thought this was normally just not commonly done out of curtesy. On Jimmy's own user page he has a section titled You can edit this page!. Nyth83 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, I don't mind it, but this is a good example of a really bad abuse of that openness. Helping make the page look nice and be up to date is great - putting highly contentious words in my mouth that I don't agree with is vandalism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Didn't means to imply that anything goes, just that there is no rule against editing user pages. I myself have made an edit on your user page that still stands. A very very minor edit, but one that I feel was worthwhile. :} Nyth83 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Nyth83: I think maybe what you're looking for is Wikipedia:NOBAN. I think Jimbo has made it fairly clear what is expected when editing his user page on his user page. I think most things that look like good faith edits would probably be OK, but might well be reverted by someone if felt inappropriate. But just don't leave jokes or sarcasm, or anything else that looks like bad faith editing. If you're unsure, maybe the best thing to do is discuss it here before making the edit, to see what the consensus is. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for that link, but as I stated before, there is no strict black and white rule against editing someone else's user page. It does not say Thou shalt not edit other peoples user page.. Presumably the reason that you do not normally edit other's user page is because you do not know enough about them to make a useful contribution. Anything else would, as Jimbo stated above, basically be vandalism. Nyth83 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) There might not be black and white rules, but that really is the case of all rules on Wikipedia, look at WP:IAR. But it's pretty clear what you should do in practice. Don't edit other people's user pages, unless you get permission, e.g. it states on the page it is OK. But in this case make sure any edits look like good faith edits, but I personally wouldn't bother unless it would be a substansive improvement. And on user talk pages go by the usual rules. --Mrjulesd (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Hmm Some person or group is continuing to spam the same message about Medvedev, each time from a different IP: [3][4][5][6][7]. Maybe he/she/they will give up eventually... --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Looks like maybe two different people. They geolocate to two general locations in the Russian Federation. Nice to know the Russians appreciate that information wants to be free. Nyth83 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Medvedev and Medvedev's mum? It's interesting, but if you look at Internet censorship it appears that Russia has pervasive Interent censorship. Medvedev might be saying the right things but it doesn't seem he's carried them out yet. Having said that both the UK and the US were deemed enemies of the Internet in 2014 thanks to the NSA and GCHQ, and a certain whistleblower. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC) So, Mr Wales, can you please clarify the accuracy of the quote in the Forbes article that the vandals have been trying to add to your user page? Just because it is on Forbes does not make it reliable. That particular so-called "article" is actually a blog post and is unsourced. I won't post the link to it here as anyone who may really care can find it otherwise. You have already stated above I have never made any public remark saying that I respect (or don't respect) Medvedev. There is nothing in that quote about "respecting" Medvedev. But have you ever made a statement that even sounds remotely similar to that? Or was it made up completely. It actually sounds to me like something that may have been said rather tongue-in-cheek, in which case it is more of a statement about how poor an opinion you may have of Sarkozy's view in contrast. Nyth83 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I found another source for the quote but I don't think that it necessarily much more reliable as it from an English language version of a Russian news site so there may be issues with English>Russia>English mistranslations. And also, it dates from June, 2011 so this is really old news. Nyth83 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Jimbo Wales:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

ebola,,,,,,,,,,trusted news

Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information ,,you might be interested in this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to edit your bare link. But I did find it an interesting article. Nyth83 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc James does the acclaimed work. Thanks again to our anti-vandals who made Wikipedia in recent years has (to) become a more trusted source of information . --The Herald 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo is right

The recent super-mega-epic edit war on Jimmy's user page over the prefix co- in front of founder got me curious about what the big deal was so I had to see what this Sanger guy is all about. I read his Wikipedia BLP page and my summary is that he has basically washed his hands of Wikipedia. This led me to the Citizendium page which I found rather interesting. Being one who likes to read the original source material whenever possible, I went to the Citizendium web site to see what all the boasting about quality over quantity was about. At the home page, I clicked on the link for Random Page and the first article I got was Battleship. A brief read through and I thought that it was not bad, but would not qualify as a featured article on Wikipedia. I did a comparison to Battleship on Wikipedia and was startled by the stark contrast. So much for that elitist approach to writing an encyclopedia. Just compare the number of references in both articles. And what is with the under development and unapproved disclaimers? Was I not supposed to read the article? Why even make it public. This says a lot for Wikipedia's fundamental approach to allowing anyone to edit. Above all the background noise of vandalism, edit warring, and sometimes passionate, sometimes petty, bickering, stands a very high quality, very broad, trustworthy encyclopedia. This is the big picture here and I feel it is always a good thing for everyone to occasionally step back and see that. I would challenge anyone to random article link from any other on-line encyclopedia and compare to the same or equivalent article on Wikipedia. I doubt very much that you will find many higher quality, better sourced, articles anywhere. Nyth83 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare Halloween to Halloween. Too funny! Nyth83 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The failure of Citizendium is very interesting. How much of that is structural? How much is inevitable because Wikipedia's size and Google "juice" has sucked all the oxygen out of the room? How much is attributable to the culture of anonymity vs. real names and mandatory sign-in? Lots of key questions. It seems to me that Citizendium repeated the same errors of Nupedia — attempting to adapt the Encyclopedia Britannica one-article-one-expert-and-review model to the internet; it was never a free-flowing Wiki. I also think the problem faced by any underfunded fledgling challenger to the established WP is insurmountable and CZ ran into that. As for the "co-founder" question, the way I conceptualize things is like this: Jimmy Wales owned the lot, Larry Sanger drove the backhoe. Both of them ran around the worksite supervising, but neither one of them built the house. In actual fact, WP didn't really take off until circa 2005, long after Sanger was gone. But both of them are entitled to be described as "co-founders" for their contributions at the creation, I think. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that this has been endlessly debated elsewhere, and while I agree that from a strictly technical, legalistic point of view that co- may be appropriate, but it also has been argued that Mr. Sanger can get little to no credit for where WP stands today, so where does that leave Mr Wales? The sole spiritual equity owner in my view. I'm just glad he didn't name it The Howardpedia. (See Clear History if you don't get the joke.) Thank you again Mr Wales for the world you created for me. (NoYes, that is not a reference to The Truman Show LOL). Nyth83 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sole spiritual owner? I'd say the thousands who actually created all the content over the years have the strongest claims to being co-owners (spiritual or whatever), and I'd hope Mr W would agree with me. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't misquote me. Leaving out the word equity changes my meaning of owner. Nyth83 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I misread you. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Jimbo Wales:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – The Herald 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Accuracy vs. popularity

Hi Jimbo, as a follow-on to our recent discussion about the accuracy of economics topics, I have another question. I've noticed that Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting very frequently points out major errors in what are often considered impeccably accurate corporate news sources (here is a recent and typical example.) FAIR.org has a far better accuracy track record than the larger for-profit organizations that they frequently critique for falling victim to COI issues, as shown by the number of corrections, retractions, apologies, and ombud agreements they achieve regularly with their critiques. Do you believe it is possible for the mainstream news sources to be less accurate in general than the secondary sources, and if so, how is this issue best addressed on economics topics? EllenCT (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"what are often considered impeccably accurate corporate news sources". I'd be surprised if there is any news source which any clueful Wikipedian would regard as impeccable. For most news sources, particularly those in the USA, they are only reliable in certain contexts and this is generally recognised in any discussion at WP:RSN: hence the mantra of context matters. "how is this issue best addressed on economics topics" I don't know the specific context, but have you checked the academic literature, rather than relying on flawed media reporting (unless it's the bleeding edge of news)? If I was tyrant for a day I'd scrap news sources altogether .... Second Quantization (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should regularly consult media watchdog organizations for corrections of errors. I don't think we should pay too much attention to non-profit versus for-profit in our evaluations but we should look at overall track record, journalistic process, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) .

One can always wish.... KonveyorBelt 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Jimbo Wales:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Jimbo Wales:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the outcome of that discussion is rigged in favor of the article appearing. I don't mean that pejoratively at all, just descriptively. It's an entirely legitimate effect of how the TFA process is set up, and after all the outcome has to be rigged some way.

As a general rule, it is very hard to get anything done on the Wikipedia, but it's also very hard to get anything stopped. The TFA process is more a less a machine that spits out one TFA per day -- and thank goodness it does, it's an extremely valuable service to the Wikipedia and the editors there word hard on it and do it well, and if that machine ever breaks down we're in bad trouble. But it is a machine that's hard to stop.

The "vote" right now is running 19-16 in favor of running the article, a statistical tie (and AFAIK neither party has a clear upper hand in strength of argument, so we fall back on headcount). If the question was framed "Shall we run this possibly contentious article as TFA?" it would almost certainly not be run. But (as a practical matter) it's framed as "Shall we not run this possibly contentious article as TFA?". The article is going thru, I'll warrant.

It's an interesting question: if an article is flagged as possibly contentious using the reasonable man criteria, should it be be run (unless it's so horrible that the community really rises up against it) or should it not be run (unless it turns out to be not very contentious after all)? The answer is a matter of opinion.

It's also an illustration of how, if you want something done here, you have to try to frame it as "Shall we we be prevented from doing X"? That's hard to do and usually can't be done but it can be done sometimes. Not here though. Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

From an anonymous user: "Volunteers have the same rights to be free of a hostile work environment as paid employees."

I have received the following via email in the context of the current Arbcom gender case, from a user who wishes to remain anonymous. I am posting the first paragraph here without comment. A longer version has been posted to the case page. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product,[8] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time,[9] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to.[10][11] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [12] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development,[13] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages.[14]

While I have no formal opinion on the legal situation, from a moral point of view I obviously agree. I've been speaking more and more about this recently and don't intend to stop.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all the points in that email extract are as clearly moral as the appeal for inclusiveness. Professional ethics are not entirely suitable to an amateur project. The word amateur is derived from the Latin word for lover. Love forgives and trys to understand. Content writers can face a level of stress over and above what others have to deal with. A conscientious writer can spend over 100 hours researching a controversial topic just to get a grip of what a NPOV presentation should look like. Then they have to wrestle with conflicting demand like clarity v precision , avoidance of OR v avoidance of plagiarism. And after all their work, someone can revert at a flick of a button, and then to save their work going to waste, they might have to enter into stressful negotiation with someone of unknown relevant knowledge and intentions. Much as I agree with things like automatic month long blocks for use of the C word, failing to recognize that serious content writers might have more need than others to occasionally let of steam does not strike me as entirely moral. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting an intelligent German fellow whom Jimmy has unfortunately banned from this page: "It must be said that Wikipedia does not make it easy to play nicely. Its basic set-up is a bit like having people try to draw a copy of the Mona Lisa in the sand, while herds of children and strangers walk through the emerging picture, leave their footprints, or try to blank or improve bits. And you're required to assume they are all doing so in good faith. It would drive anyone mad. Received wisdom is, too many cooks spoil the broth. Crowdsourcing wisdom is, the more cooks, the better. But in practice, every featured article in Wikipedia is the work of one writer...or a small team. Crowdsourcing does not result in excellent articles." —JN466, on Wikipediocracy, July 2012. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Mobbing harms the community. We should learn to recognize relational aggression and confront it when we see it. Policy and guidelines should be formulated and interpreted in a way that permits this. -Boson (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If it really is a matter of law that volunteers should not be subjected to a hostile environment then it would be nice if that could be confirmed as I imagine it might make enforcement a bit easier. Chillum 17:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard that the definitions of mobbing in the workplace, and mechanisms for redress, are somewhat more developed in the EU than in the US, although I don't know for certain; in the US, the issues of hostile environment seem to be framed more in terms of anti-bullying in general, anti-discrimination/civil rights law, and anti-harassment/labor law. It's possible that the mobbing/relational aggression framework might be a more useful framework for understanding and administrating this online community, but again, I'm not an expert in this field. If there's anyone with a background in HR, workplace sociology, organizational behavior, online community design or legal matters reading this, perhaps you could fill us in with a little background. -- Djembayz (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian who feels the need to 'blow off steam', can/should do so away from Wikipedia. This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way, but it's true. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be leery of equating editors with workers, even unpaid workers like interns. Remember, Wikipedia survives only by holding to the same position that any message board does: user comments are made under their own responsibility. Wikipedia merely gives them a way to express themselves. If you suppose "volunteer editors" are employees, and an employee in the course of his duties libels or false-lights a person or corporation in an article, is the "employer" liable? Best to pass up this poisoned bait! Now I think Wikipedia should try to set an example of protecting its employees, not merely from sex-based discrimination but other kinds, as I've expressed in an essay at WP:Internet Employees' Bill of Rights. And many of our policies for editors are already there, such as opposing "opposition research" in the WP:Outing policy. But just because Wikipedia editors face some of the same problems as employees doesn't make them employees. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia volunteers not only include "workers" protected by labor law (link for more US info); Wikipedia volunteers also include students who are editing as part of their educational experience. If you take a look at the TITLE IX REVISED SEXUAL HARASSMENT GUIDANCE: HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS BY SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OTHER STUDENTS, OR THIRD PARTIES, from the U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, you'll see that one of the suggested remedies when your students are harassed by outsiders and third parties is essentially "don't invite those people back." (The specific example given on page 12, of harassment occurring at an athletic event, suggests "the home school may choose not to invite the other school back.")

So, essentially, as a practical matter, if we want to be welcome in workplaces and educational institutions, we need to maintain an editing environment where these organizations can invite us to participate with them, but still maintain the standards of appropriate conduct to which they are subject according to their local laws, internal policies, and applicable regulations. The extent to which social norms regarding harassment, protocol, or courtesy are codified in law and regulation may vary, but again, as a practical matter, if you want to collaborate productively on an ongoing basis with a group or organization you need to have some basic level of agreement regarding appropriate conduct, courtesy, and behaviors. There is at least one example which suggests that women exposed to Wikipedia in an educational setting didn't return due to concerns about the lack of courtesy in our community. -- Djembayz (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I thinks that's a rather generous view of "volunteers." There are a number of "participants" in wikipedia that WMF does not extend control over (i.e. "anyone can edit"). That is not the same a as a volunteer. Volunteers are generally regulated but unpaid workers which Wikipedians are not. Volunteers are somewhat more vetted and controlled than just participants. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, calling students "volunteers" is not entirely correct, as many of them do not personally volunteer here, but are required to do so as a part of their educational experience; in some cases, they may be "volunteering" under duress. It's rather creepy to suggest that educational institutions should prioritize recruiting Wikipedians over fulfilling their educational mission, and that these programs "do not succeed" because their purpose really isn't the content they create, but only as a device for recruitment of ongoing editors. IMHO, we need to be more respectful of the amount of work and expertise it takes to create high quality Wikipedia content, and understanding of the fact that because it's so much slower to process content in Wikipedia style with cross-referenced hyperlinks, infoboxes and coded citations, it may simply be more efficient for students and experts to publish their content elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't exactly an encyclopedia in the sense of a collection of general "articles" and entries. It's more of a collaboratively developed unstructured database, with a value added proposition of providing indexing, abstracting, cross-referencing, categorization, data formatting and an all-purpose Internet file cabinet for substantive content links. Recruiting students to perform this public service gratis has its limits, as many need to focus more on getting established in paid employment. Note that the resume-enhancing activities that students and recent graduates gravitate to are not textual content creation itself, but other functions associated with the Wikimedia organization. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We must remember, Wikipedians have no rights. Wikipedians have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a government is more effective in proportion to the extent that it promulgates straightforward and universal rights for its citizens, so is a corporation or other organization. Whether a right is created within a public or private context, it represents a strong and reliable assurance that allows people to work beside one another without continual arguments over whether they are allowed to do so. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tick tock says the broken clock

It's all white and black, no fear of a hack, it's just an IP back, going quack quack quack! Carrite (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can we block the sock and change the lock before they flock to the rock that mocks us? We have less than a week to go before the deadline ;) We are anonymous We are legion We do not forgive We do not forget Expect us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.173.172 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Possibly related - Even a broken watch is right twice a day: Not an un-charged Apple Watch (The Register). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC) So, an unspecified threat made with an IP address through poetry of questionable quality is it? That's some seriously weak sauce. Please, show some respect and proudly stand up for your beliefs in your own voice. Jimmy did when he made his Wikimania speech. If you're going to post to his page, I suggest you also find the courage to make a point instead of pointless threats like this one before you hit Save Page. -wʃʃʍ- 04:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC) JIm-Siduri, you aren't anonymous (you've already outed yourself on Wikipedia), and you certainly aren't legion. Your imaginary friends are just that, and nobody gives a toss about your juvenile threats to do whatever impossible thing you think of next. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, that's Jim-Siduri again - his Church of Siduri apparently has some nonsense scheduled for Nov 5 (and the only thing that seems to be legion about him is his socks). Neatsfoot (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I'd prefer as a matter of style and courtesy that we avoid personal attacks like these. It's more amusing to be more graceful, I believe. Well, in any event, I suppose this must have something to do with some comments I've noticed on twitter, such as this one. I have been unable so far to comprehend precisely what is being asked of me/us, but I'm sure that is my own failing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Hmm, yeah, OK, I've removed a few words. The fact remains that this is a serial disruptor trying to use Wikipedia and Commons to promote his new religion - and alluding to threats if he doesn't get his way. I think that Tweet is referring to a video he uploaded at Commons but which fell foul of copyright - and instead of listening to what he was being told and doing the copyright right, he turned to his usual sock-farm approach of making accusations and demanding justice. (And no, I don't think your understanding is at fault - I don't think anyone who has been following Jim-Siduri really understands what he's talking about most of the time). Neatsfoot (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC) This is the commons deletion discussion. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it really true that Jimbo no longer has control over Wikipedia?

Kinda like the Monster destroying/consuming its Creator? 208.54.70.172 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If Jimbo was ever under the illusion that this lumbering beast created from the recycled parts of other entities was under his control, I'm sure he has long since realised that once it was given the vital spark it broke its chains, crashed through the castle doors, and lumbered off of its own accord, beyond the control of any single mere mortal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:JIMBO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Use the Force, Luke.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does this invoke the image of "No. I am your father...." Which role was that? --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

He defected to Wikipediocracy, they use the dark side of the Force. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the dark side always has just two. A master and apprentice. Wikipediocracy is more of a giant clown car where everyone thinks they should be stearing and complains the car is going in reverse and removing the rearview mirrors will fix it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about Wikipediocracy. They think they're using the force, but in fact they're Darth Vader's clowns, but they're not even funny. “Envy is the most sincere type of flattery.” --Mrjulesd (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"...destroying/consuming its Creator?" Hmm Jimbo seems to be OK to me. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Internet can be considered to be an intelligent entity that is slowly but surely exerting more control over our civilization. And Wikipedia is an important part of the brains of the Internet. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

New document added about you to Wikisource

Jimmy, after the pleasure of successfully getting your permission to add Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014 by free-use license to Wikisource, I thought I'd do some research to try to find other related free-use-licensed documents.

So I've recently added:

EFF Honors Craigslist, Gigi Sohn, and Jimmy Wales with Pioneer Awards to Wikisource.

Thought you'd like to know,

— Cirt (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, NE Ent 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

hi

Hi Help me with something and I'll tell you what if you write me something levente 2- (talk)-2 november