Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amdabadi (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 24 January 2007 (India visit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 17. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Emergency!! Invitation from Business Weekly Magazine in Taiwan

Hi Jimmy:

My name is Hung-ta Lin. The senior reporter of Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan. I really have an emergency here. People in Academia Sinica told me you agree to interview with us on March 10 in Japan. But we don't know the time, place and other details of this interview.

Before we fly to Japan for this interview, we wish to discuss all details with you. So we really need to know how to contact you.

This interview is different. We let you decide which topic you want to talk. It will be a special report or cover story. The report may contain 10 pages or more. So, it takes some time for us to discuss the detailes. I sent my proposal to you jwales@wikia.com and wikispeaker@gamil.com account. The subject is "An invitation from Business Weekly magazine in Taiwan to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales".

My email account is hung@mail2000.com.tw. My another email account is hung@bwnet.com.tw I really need to contact with you!! Please send me an email as soon as possible!

Thank you very much

Hung-ta Lin

Business Weekly magazine: the most popular magazine in Taiwan.

Wikipedia in PDF available?

I have this new idea, to have a link on every page and when you go there you'll see the article as PDF. What do you say Jimbo? Do you support my idea? Thanks, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask me! But I think because of the nature of this project generating PDF without any general review (for vandalism, POV pushings, and false information) is not correct. From technical aspect generating new PDF for every single edits on articles is nothing more than imagination (at least for now). This is what I think about it and might be incorrect. Hessam 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone should face better vandalism, POV pushing...I agree that something has to be done quickly before competition will emerge and make something better than Wikipedia. I think it's a great idea, Jimbo what do you say? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That defeats the purpose of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, does it not? And there is no competition for Wikipedia, as it is a free project. I can't see many of its editors leaving because there is competition. Yuser31415 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is like this: how can one read more easier Wikipedia? As HTML or PDF? Many of us think that it's better HTML. But there are some people who would prefer as PDF. Imagine some books or chapters in PDF from Wikipedia...or CDs, we speak about a lot of money here. I estimate to about 10,000,000 $ bussiness in the first year.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PDF isn't a very open format. Computerjoe's talk 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back after reading PDF! Computerjoe's talk 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, all the good articles can be included in a PDF version, one can sell those CDs for a lot of money..--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who would pay a lot of money for articles that are free on the Internet? Anyway, I find HTML better than PDF for viewing on-screen, though PDF can be good for printing. Wikipedia pages generally print fairly well on browsers that support print stylesheets as Wikipedia uses, so I wouldn't see much use for a PDF version. *Dan T.* 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if PDF is much better for printing that means Wiki will have a greater impact. This will lead to a different status. Much better one. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs are a bloated version of what is much smaller and faster in a web browser. PDF means a slow load of Adobe Acrobat and if it's on a website (instead of offline) it means a chance Acrobat could crash (there's also some security hole recently I heard). You can save Wikipedia as HTML only and view it offline. For printing, don't both with the "printable version" link and just see in "print preview" how it already makes a printable version automatically. PDF is only good for if someone photographically scans a computer game's manual. Anomo 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's not everyones problem. You see, Adobe Acrobat is not the only program that is able to read PDF's. My OS X does it natively and can make a PDF out of anything. Also my Linux (Fedora) has zero problems with PDF. Sucks to be Windows user with no google skills for better programs, now doesn't it? --85.231.131.157 14:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFs can make my new and very fast computer with broadband go very slowly. Now that says something. JorcogaYell! 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the header on my watchlist and felt bound to pose one simple question:
  • Just HOW big do you honestly suppose Wikipedia would BE in pdf format?
--Zeraeph 16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I belive it is posible to generate PDFs on the fly (like, when user requests it). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move Vandalism

I have a question? Since you are the main person of Wikipedia. I would like to know why page move vandalism is taken so seriously in Wikipedia? Why isn't the user given at least one warning before the user is blocked. Also why is the block permanet? It should only be for 24 hours. Is it really that hard to fix or undo page move vandalism? Why is it taken so seriously? I would like to know this. Thank you.King Lopez 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because the level of knowlage requied means that the vandel knows darn well what they are doing.Geni 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

After some thought, I have decided that being a Wikipedia editor is no longer for me. I first joined in 2006 and since then it's just gotten too stessfull for my tastes. It's no longer about building a knowledge base as much as it's about determining policy. Newbies get bitten while perfectly legitimate articles and pictures, representing doubtless thousands of person-hours of work, get deleted because "policy wonks" think it doesn't meet the right guidelines or its not good because they disagree on it - be them "notability" (an open-ended sham), the horrifically exclusive new fair use policy on pictures, or whatever else. Meanwhile, editors who continually add nonsense , unsourced and bunk get a blind eye turned to, while legitimate editors are scorned. This is no longer a project I want to be associated with. --Markhamman 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way -- and I'm not even an admin. I just want you to know that I can relate. Wikipedia has been an immense success but it nonetheless has some problems. The article on Anal Stretching for example was put up for Deletion Review because it had one paragraph that was like a how-to guide and some bad referencing. The stupid admins on Wikipedia, instead of putting up tags saying This article reads like a how-to guide or This article has bad referencing or especially This article is being corrected in compliance with its Deletion Review findings, instead they just deleted it, and refuse to allow me to fix it. That's a big big shame.
BOTTOM LINE - A lot of admins are trigger-happy deletionists!!

--and there is no effective recourse!
Rfwoolf 13:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing things three times in bold doesn't add any weight to an argument, it just makes a mess of the page – Qxz 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. Rfwoolf 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Blass

My page is under attack again. Please take a look and help fellow floridian best piotrek dr piotr blass

The article has been speedy deleted and the editor has been community sitebanned per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Piotr_Blass. DurovaCharge 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Researching Wikipedia

I saw at Wikimania how busy you are so I'll be brief. Every day we are losing irreplecable data on Wikipedia community. Simply, we don't know who we are (even such basic question as male/female ratio of Wikipedians), who is likely to get involved in various projects, what do our users think about various tools we offer and so on. From a perspective of a researcher, we have already lost 6 years of irreplacable date. We will likely never be able to tell who where the people who made Wikipedia what it is and why. There is general agreement among all concerned that meta:General User Survey should be finished - but for months (if not years, actually) we had been waiting for some programmers to find time and help us. I asked in various Wiki-foras for help, but either I was unlucky or the survey is not as appealing as other projects that draw our coder talent pool. I did all I could myself; I can and did help with the questions but I am not a coder. I recently proposed we apply to Fundation to hire somebody to finish the work if we cannot find volunteers - perhaps you could reply to this or just cut through some red tape and prioritize this somehow. Every day makes a difference for this project (and six years lost... ouch). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, check out whether developers want to enable Special:Vote for a survey of this kind. Maybe they do, or maybe they'll offer suggestions at wikitech-l. Titoxd(?!?) 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of original thought, a webspace provider, social networking site or a directory among other things. I'm sure "a place for getting random statistical data from self-selecting, unscientific meaningless surveys" applies to one of those. I really hate the idea of adding surveys to the site, it seems spammy, and I can't see what is to be gained from it - I mean, does the men to women ratio actually matter? -137.222.10.67 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in WP:NOT indicating that Wikipedia, or Wikimedia, for that matter, cannot collect voluntary data for studies about Wikipedia in lieu of an external agency; or even internally for development, web accessibility, or usability studies of MediaWiki. That is a different horse to beat here, though, so I won't go into that. Titoxd(?!?) 05:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if people are interested in doing this, perhaps they should start a page to gauge other people's thoughts on the matter? I, for one, would be completely set against anything like this. There are probably much better, more scientific ways of finding information about web accessibility than begging a self-selecting group of Wikipedians to complete a survey. If people are really interested, there's nothing stopping them from doing it themselves independently of the site and they'll probably get better answers. And, to be honest, even if 70% of the contributors are male and 12% own a top-hat, I don't see it being of any relevance to anyone but researchers. IMO, asking that generously donated money by users go towards something like this would be a complete and utter waste. Perhaps there are very good reasons this hasn't got off the ground after several years. -137.222.10.67 05:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, asking Wikipedians as to how to make MediaWiki, the software on which Wikipedia runs, better? Even if restricted to only Wikipedians, some of the questions there ("Do you think Wikimarkup is becoming too complicated?") are useful to the MediaWiki development team, so they are not worthless. The reason this isn't done - no one knows about it. Hence, my initial suggestion to get more opinions on the technical mailing lists, as the basic functionality is already there. Titoxd(?!?) 05:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you seem to have a very different opinion to the OP. I'm against a survey, I'm not against a way of submitting content to developers if people have gripes/opinions - there's a big difference there (where one wouldn't ask your sex/age or other completely pointless questions for the sake of unscientific "research" and little else). Perhaps a usability Wikiproject would be a better solution, or publicising and opening up the mailing lists (possibly through a /postable/ web gateway) to encourage active non-technical contributions for Mediawiki developers? Or just a Wiki page for suggestions? This should be taken elsewhere, but I think many would be against a massive effort to create many worthless statistics to be taken with a pinch of salt, because how many girls there apparently are isn't going to change MediaWiki development one iota. If developers really need something to fix, I'd suggest fixing the car-crash which is the MediaWiki search engine. Looking at the question page, I don't mind things like "Are search facilities satisfactory?", I'm against questions about their sex, their opinion of "the community", "trustworthiness" or any rubbish like that. --137.222.10.67 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anon. You may not think that statistics or social sciences in general are useful, however as they significantly contributed to the creation of our civilization, I remain convinced that learning 'how many girls there are' among our editors or whether users find our project 'trustworthy' are valuable endeavours contributing both to our general knowledge and to the development of Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Piotrus. You may think that unscientific badly made "statistics", or in fact, unscientific useless trivia in general, is useful, but these things haven't contributed to the creation of our civilisation or have any use at all, and as such I remain convinced that gauging an inaccurate reading of 'how many girls there are' among editors or whether a self-selected small amount of 'users' find Wikipedia content 'trustworthy' is utterly useless for any practical purpose. This matter needs discussion, because I'm sure others would also agree that doing any survey would be a waste of people's time, completely unscientific, prone to abuse and also wouldn't gauge a large proportion of users which don't have accounts. But don't let genuine criticism dampen your apparent disdain for anonymous users. -137.222.10.67 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Segev question

Would a lone sentence be unbalanced relative to the rest of his established notability? F.F.McGurk 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess see what everyone says on the AfD, and if he passes as a stub the bit on the arrest can be stripped down to balance. There's more meat in the RS about his musical work that can easily expand that article out to a short paragraph or two I think. F.F.McGurk 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jimbo Wales

After some serious thinking I decided to stop contrubing to wikipedia. The site has become a source of stress due to someone’s Trolling over their obsession over others editors to contribution to “his” articles and scorn them because they have a different opinion based on fact by citing their sources and the troller having “ the my way or the highway “ attitude. If Wikipedia is become a reliable open scoure Encyclopedia then the articles have to be based on fact rather than one person bent on bending the truth and putting down editors down when they report the facts.

A heads up: The Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio has been editing the Firestone page.

FYI

The Bridgestone office in Akron, Ohio has been editing the Firestone page, maybe since November, 2006.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_office_of_Bridgestone_is_editing_Firestone_page

Looks like another "newsworthy story", similar to the policitican scanal before. As per User:MrDarcy: "...we [may] have a major (not to mention newsworthy) conflict of interest here...."

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has been notified:

And there is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01, which is a complex case.

To my knowledge, none of us have ever been involved in the congressional scandals on wikipedia, so it might be nice if we could get some more eyes on this issue. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Dangerous!

Hi Jimbo,

It seems it's so dangerous to be a editor in your brainchild "wiki" than being get involved in real life controversial issues.Rajkumar KanagasingamRajsingam 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Would you mind explaining your position on borderline notability wrt BLP? I have for the second time nominated an article Jim Shapiro for deletion - the first time it was speedy deleted and salted. One editor (WAS) and one admin (Tyrenius) have ferociously argued for this article's inclusion. I am an attorney, and do not think that creates a "conflict of interest", as Tyrenius alleged. I do not know the subject of this article (a lawyer or former lawyer, I am not sure at this point). I have not the remotist link to Shaprio. I am also not a med mal attorney, and I do not adveretise (at all). It does strikes me as odd that an article would exist on a lawyer where the sole notability is sleazy ads, and that is mostly local. I finally was able to get consensus on the original author's version - which was horrendous. Now, the version is somewhat sanitized, but its only purpose for being is to show that this attorney had sleazy ads. In addition, Tyrenius followed me from my first AfD request, to this one. He helped WAS bypass the original salt, by renaming the article. He was the reason I left Wikipedia and did not decide to return for months - he was abusive then and he is abusive now. He has baited & insulted me, and placed a ridiculous warning on my page - that I violated BLP. How? I explained on my talk page that I understood how someone could find Shapiro overly-zealous and "I would say downright sleazy." Tyrenius said I would be blocked if I "violated BLP" again, and removed the "I would say downright sleazy." Given the fact that Tyrenius has argued for keeping an entire article that is only about how sleazy Shapiro is, it seems odd that Tyrenius would now be so concerned about BLP on my talkpage. And Tyrenius continued to bait me on the AfD project page - by using TLAs as weapons to condescend and insult, and bringing up past conficts. (It is all on the talk page of the AfD where I moved it). I finally ignored him entirely. Now it appears that by default, Jim Shapiro will be kept, despite the borderline notability (at best). I would like to know what Wikipedia's or your position is on something like this. Thank you.Jance 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out New York weighs tough new lawyer advertising rules. WAS 4.250 14:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

myspace

Heya Jimbo. Can you confirm this [1] is yours? — Deon555talkdesksign here! 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deon, I hope you don't mind me answering. :) Jimbo said back in November that someone else started the account but when he complained, MySpace gave it to him. [2] Cheers, Sarah 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if Jimbo starts a blog there it will be automatically blacklisted. My head hurts. 82.41.98.219 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Balasingham

Hi,


The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

A WP:LIVING discussion on the Village Pump

Hi Jimbo, I have started a thread here where I would be really interested to hear (hmm... see?) your opinion as it concerns the WP:LIVING policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace blogs

Greetings. This edit by Raul654 indicates that you wished for MySpace blogs to be added to the spam blacklist. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider this. Many celebrities, especially musicians, use MySpace to communicate with their fans, and confirm through links to and from their websites that the profiles are theirs. For example, I came to notice this through the article on Straight Outta Lynwood, the newest album by "Weird Al" Yankovic. Yankovic links to his MySpace profile on his website, and uses his MySpace blog to communicate with his fans. Some of his blog postings were being used as sources in the article, but now they have been removed. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources to use. A release of note should be announced elsewhere than blogs, so use that. You undercut your own argument -- blogs are for communicating and getting feedback from fans, not as reputable, reliable sources for online encyclopedias. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is a gap between the amount of coverage required to be notable, and the amount of coverage required to have maintstream media parrot every significant annoucement a band makes. Swami is an example of one of the bands that falls between the two, being an extremely notable bhangra band, but still bhangra at that. (With absolutely no snobbery, I would guess that many readers of this page won't know what bhangra is.) I don't see why we shouldn't cite Myspace for their annoucements, subject to the usual provisions (not unduly self-serving, etc.)
I don't know what the original reason for blacklisting Myspace blogs was, but it should be overturned. A blanket ban is not appropriate. If Swami or some other non-mainstream but equally notable band announce something important via the Myspace blog, it's still citable, and I'll still cite it, because it's still obviously a valid source. I just won't be able to link to it directly, and direct links are not required for citations. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think for Wikipedia to go on about having references and citing sources but then to not allow citing of information just because it's on a blog on MySpace even if the author has been verified and is considered a reliable source is a bit hypocritical. What about blogs on Blogger, LiveJournal or Xanga? Why are blogs on MySpace blacklisted, whereas others are not. Isn't this a bit biased against MySpace? Aren't you going against Wikipedia fundamental principals? - kollision 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is ongoing here. Your alleged decision essentially removes a massive, useful repository of primary sourcing material, and it's completely unexplained and makes no apparent sense. Some explanation would be very much appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I captured the blog.myspace.com links as of 08:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC) and pasted them into a user subpage at User:A. B./Sandbox9
Here's the breakdown:
  • 5 links in 5 Image pages
  • 42 links in 42 Article talk pages
  • 19 in 17 User talk pages
  • 42 in 40 User pages
  • 1 in a Wikipedia talk page
  • 49 in 45 Wikipedia pages
    • 9 links in old articles for creation requests
    • 32 links in AfD or VfD pages and logs
    • 8 links in other Wikipedia
  • 52 in 43 Article pages
Here's a link to the current list of articles with these links. Folks can judge the value of the links for themselves; personally, I think that, yes, a few blogs belonging to the notable subjects of articles may have been blocked but that many more inappropriate links have been blacklisted, so I don't see all the fuss. --A. B. (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it would be wrong to assume that this list is representative of the types of links used before they were blacklisted, which was over a week ago. As a result of the blacklisting, good, well-sources articles were left uneditable until these links, many of which were sources of information, were removed. It would seem to me that the links already removed would have been nearly exclusively from heavily-edited pages. --Maxamegalon2000 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does a request by Jimbo (and the edit comment called it a request) amount to an order? If not then the suggestion to blacklist should have been discussed. If so then stop pretending we do things by consensus and label it as an order from Jimbo. I am fully aware there will be times when Jimbo must make a rapid executive decsision but I am at a loss to understand why this was one of them.82.41.98.219 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Not to many userpages can have the userbox that states, "This user is the founder of Wikipedia". That just sounds funny :). Cheers! Arjun 02:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one other that can argue he co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimbo, namely Larry Sanger. A very unique userbox indeed! GizzaChat © 11:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is the new login of the banned right wing Hindu User:HKelkar and after editing through various previous sockpuppets - he seems to be using a different IP this time to avoid detection.It is high time this user's edits with another Hindu right winger [User:Bakasuprman] are stopped from editing the controversial India-Muslim articles they are editing. 87.74.49.93 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomis

I recommend that mr Wales provide some more information, or let us know where we can find, more information as to his personal life for the "personal life" section...high school yearbooks??? and also something more of his early career as a trader...are there archived news articles or something about his early career? His page goes too quickly in to the bomis thing...im considering placing the bomis section further down the page in a "controversy" heading unless someone adds more about his personal life and early career...i prefer to leave it where it is on the page in a career section that lists according to date and times so we see a progression of his career...yet now the first few sections are too sparse and a long period as a trader is just given a line or twoBenjiwolf 15:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At My Rope's End, Could Use Your Help

Hello, I'm not sure if this really is in the scope of something you can do anything about, but I have a serious issue. I'm a member of the AMA and was recently approached by a Israeli user from the hebrew wikipedia. God knows why he came to the english page or to me, but it concerns a day block he thought was unjustified. He tried to appeal the block, but only ended up in getting his block extended for a week by several other admins. On getting deeper into the matter and looking over the comments and actions which led to the block (I have translated them from Hebrew to the best of my ability), I'm frankly worried that these admins are seriously abusing their powers. I encouraged the user to send a request for the block to be lifted, or at the very least have the actions of the (four) admins scrutinized, to the apparently highest authority on he.wikipedia, a Bureaucrat, Shay David. The 'crat simply responded that he saw "no reason to intervene", and did not even address any of the points the user brought up. Due to the he.wiki's size there are no other options other than a RfC when the block expires, but I am frankly horrified that, if in fact the block was unjustified, that these admins can clearly get away with it.

...Well that's a long story. I'm not sure if you can actually do anything, but I'd very much value your input as to what else can be done; An admin I know here (A Man in Black) thought that there was an international noticeboard somewhere, but I have been unable to find it, and appear to have exhausted all other strategic options. If you are actually interested, I have copies of all material and correspondence sent. Sincerely, Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo office action at World Wide Entertainment

You recently deleted and protected World Wide Entertainment. Is this an office action? --- RockMFR 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Do you want to start a new article? Technically, "office" refers to an action done by the office which could under our normal rules be done only by me. Nothing I do is therefore an "office" action in that sense. This is subtle, but so is most of what goes on here. :) If you are asking if it is a Jimbo decree, the answer is no. But unless there is some very good reason, for example, someone who is not a spammer or hater who wants to make a sensible article, I think we should just hang tight. This is very much NOT a notable person or company, as far as I have been able to determine. However, if you want to make an article, just let me know... I will unprotect.--Jimbo Wales 04:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jimbo thats why you are being sued by D McGillis. Have you been served yet?--75.74.103.81 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nofollow

Thank you very much for doing this! --A. B. (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to consider one single point. I am an avid spam fighter in Wiki and I write this for my love of Wiki. English Wikipedia, in the period where it removed its external links nofollow tags last year, has won very high rankings for almost any keyword there is an article written on. One of the reasons for it is Google's love for external linking in a webpage to authority websites on related subjects. The nofollow tags automatically eliminates that advantage for Wikipedia. I will still fight spam for it will not decrease an inch but you just made Wikipedia shoot itself on the foot by making its findability in Google considerably lower in Google's next major data update. Google is the number one reason why people know Wikipedia. An unfound wikipedia is an unused wikipedia. All I say is good luck in the next donations drive because your traffic will be considerably lower. And I say these words not to attack you but for you to consider a point never mentioned before. MKS 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richiesta di Grazia

Caro Jim Donald Scusa se ti scrivo in italiano, ma purtroppo conosco poco la tua lingua madre... Sono un utente italiano che, dopo legale votazione è stato condannato ad un pena esemplare di 3 mesi di bando, nonostante le mie colpe fossero lievi: non ho commesso vandalismi, nè attachhi personali, nè bestemmie, nè minacce legali, nè ho usato sockpuppet nè altro, le mie colpe erano solamente legate alla mia inesperienza... come ammettono pure i miei accusatori. Ho combattuto per dimostrare la mia innocenza adducendo prove ripetute, ma non è servito a niente... umiliato ed imprigionato senza colpa da conservatori che vogliono lavorare solo loro su wikipedia con le loro leggi, ho dimostrato la mia buona fede lavorando sulla mia tak... Jimbo caro sei l'ultima possibilità di giustizia, ti chiedo umilmente uno sconto di pena o perlomeno un processo equo che non tenga di conto di ciò che ho fatto in passato e del quale ho pagato... non posso essere punito due volte per lo stesso crimine... ti prego risp in qualsiasi lingua tu voglia tuo f 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Username

I'd like to change my username to User:The Russian Artist. How would I do that? --Shaericell (Userpage|Talk|E-mail|Triplets) 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username Cowman109Talk 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia concept of expertise?

So, subject expertise equals a "conflict of interest"? Is it any wonder that Citizendium hold such attraction to subject experts?

CyberAnth 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Real People's Champion Big Boss 0

Hello my name is Big Boss 0. I have been with wikipedia for a few months and I am here just to say hi. Take a look at my userpage and tell me what you think. At the moment my userpage is also functioning for several small articals. The reason is that I have insufficient information to create an artical of their own on wikipedia. This will serve as a temporary solution to my problem. Please tell me what you think. Big Boss 0 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the images from the page so to view the page how it should be just access the history on my page and revert the edit. Big Boss 0 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations Jimbo. I am the someone and did so according to the images on userpage policy. I never thought I'd meet you (or sign your talk page) this way. Cheers.  :) --EarthPerson 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

professional comments concerning the using of licenses

I would like, if some of the available money could be spend for professional and understandable comments and their translations for the national Wikipedias, how to use licenses in Wikicommons and Wikipedia. This would be a great help for the users. At present the comments concerning this are made by laymans and very disputed . -- 84.132.90.226 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jimbo!

There's a bunch of Users that need to be deleted. Unused accounts. Just type your name in, it has alot of accounts obviously dedicated to cause a ruccus. Special:Listusers

-Yancyfry

I thought this was odd when I came across it too. It seems that accounts can't actually be deleted... Wikipedia:Username tries to explain it away as impossible because contributions have to be assigned to a name, but there seem to be a lot of accounts that don't actually have any contributions and still haven't been deleted. Odd – Qxz 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, my understanding is that user accounts can't be deleted- all that can be done is to block them. So if you check, most of those names are probably indefinitely blocked already. Sometimes accounts with usernames that violate policy are created but never make a single edit. It hasn't been felt worthwhile to go through each and every one of those and block them when they aren't actually causing any trouble. If you notice edits by an account that violates WP:UN, you can report it at WP:RFCN. Get in touch if you have further questions or ask at the the Village Pump (Technical), but its prob not worth troubling Jimbo with. WJBscribe 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from an online Science fiction short story

"By current ubik count, well over five hundred political wikis were tasked with some portion of running the UWA on nonlocal levels, each of them occupying some slice of the political/ideological/intellectual spectrum and performing one or another “governmental” function. Each political wiki was invested with a certain share of proportional power based on the number of citizens who formally subscribed to its philosophy. The jimmywhales of each wiki formed the next higher level of coordination. From their ranks, after much traditional politicking and alliance building, they elected one jimmywhale to Rule Them All. This individual came as close to being the president of our country as anyone could nowadays. Until deposed, he had the power to order certain consequential actions across his sphere of influence by fiat; to countermand bad decisions; to embark on new projects without prior approval: the traditional role of any jimmywhale. But in this case, his sphere of influence included the entire country." WikiWorld 4.250.168.152 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

PikminloverMeep! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Dear Jimbo Wales

I would very much appreciate it if you took your most valuable and precious time to look at what's going on at Philosophy.

I also believe it might be of very important interest to you and Wikipedia.
I have done much substantial work on all aspects of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where, I'm certain, you are aware, many crackpots come along.
I've also already contributed substantially to several hundred articles since I came on board last August.
But I never dreamed of the insurmountable difficulties I would face there, in Philosophy.
I simply wish you to observe the use of the "Bristol Stool Chart" and "Don't be a dick" and "fuckwit" as forms of discourse.
I find it absolutely impossibility to remain Civil or maintain my Rationality when I'm called by anyone of these vulgar and obscene terms. In New York City, where I hail from, it calls for fisticuffs.
Do you, personally, condone it?
Let me add, that I am very much moved by your role in creating Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I am not at all interested in remaing here, if I'm going to be so abused.
May I ask you to consider having the use of such vulgarities and obscenities against an editor as gounds for immediate and severe effective disciplinary action.
I most sincerely hope that I shall not see Wikipedia degrade by the acceptance of such extremely uncivil expressions, and consequent conduct.
I'm not asking you to intervene on my behalf. As I said, I'm no longer interested in remaining here under the vulgar and obscene use of language which is practiced at this stage of Wikipedia's development. For me, whatever happens, will be an extremely voluable experience.
And of course, I would be curious to know what observation you have to make, if any.
My sincere best wishes to you, User:Ludvikus

PS: Please excuse any typographical, and/or spelling, errors of mine which remain. CC: Philosophy Talk/Discussion Page --Ludvikus 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft editing Wikipedia part 2

In the headlines today are reports that Microsoft has been editing wikipedia. We have a similar case with Bridgestone editing its articles that someone might want to look at:

I am interested how to proceed with this case. What happens next? Travb (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India visit

Hi Jimbo, There is news going round that you are coming to India [4]. Make sure to get down at Ahmedabad. as Nearly Headless Nick says three admins hail from there, and see who awaits you there. [5]three little monkeys]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=102955969"