User talk:Jimbo Wales

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251: 2 days

Archives

Index

-index-

As of January 16, 2003

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

how to talk friends out of vandalism

hi all,

some friends of mine have consistentlyvandalising wikipedia in articles that are about my intrests how do i talk them out of them also my school ip adress is used for vandalisim alot how do i try getting a longer ip block mattman (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are vandalising from school you might want to try talking to your teachers/administrators and get them to deal with it. While it is something of a taboo to tell on your friends, it can be rather effective (you may wish to offer your friends an ultimatum first - give them a chance to stop voluntarily before you tell on that). --Tango (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but the problem is it is some of my friends and some other people who i dont know and if i tell the it guys the whole edditing from school would be blocked mattman (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem - school IT people do tend to take unnecessarily general action rather than fixing just the problem that exists.. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the offenders are vandalizing an article using an IP address rather than with a Wikipedia account, then you can request that that specific article be semi-protected (so IPs cannot edit it) at WP:RFPP -- of course it must meet the requirements listed on that page before the article can be protected. If that does not address your problem, as soon as they vandalize an article, be sure to warn the user appropriately; if they continue to vandalize after warning them 3 or 4 times, report them to WP:AIV so an administrator can block them accordingly. If that still is not addressing your problem, you can always remind them that Wikipedia is willing and able to contact specific schools and alert the staff of the persistent vandalism; school officials can then monitor the computers accordingly and identify the specific individuals committing the vandalism and punish said student in whatever manner they see fit. Hope that helps! --64.85.222.144 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but none of this advice seems particularly effective in stopping vandalism or making constructive editors. At best this will just make the people vandalising angry, and more likely to be motivated to work around the limited effective of any IP blocks and vandalise further, at worst it will label kids who are messing around as troublemakers in "real life". Far better to look at how people can be encouraged to change with positive rather than negative reinforcement. For example, perhaps it might work to point out to these people, that far more people, maybe millions, will read their constructive contributions rather than a couple of people who might see their quickly reverted vandalism. Supreme Gene (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether it's actually effective in curbing the committed vandal, we do have an escalating system of warning messages, the first of which assumes good faith and that the editor is merely experimenting; they are specifically directed to the sandbox if they want to try edits out. But, if they are bent on vandalism, the escalation has to be for the benefit of the encyclopedia in general, and if they just don't (or won't) get it, that benefit has to take priority. Committed vandals are unlikely, in my experience, to be swayed by arguments that someone halfway around the world will see their edits; they are, put simply, being selfish in an essentially unselfish and giving volunteer project. While we do try to educate, some editors are beyond education, and the only practical remedy left to us is physical prevention. --Rodhull andemu 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I new a way to change vandals into constructive editors, I would do so, but unfortunately I have never come across a method that works a significant portion of the time... --Tango (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both of you comments. Obviously you both have a lot of experience in this area but I wonder, because it is very difficult to know which individual is behind an IP or an account, and because IP/accounts get blocked very quickly, do we really have any reliable data on the effectiveness of trying to convince people not to vandalise or the effectiveness of preventing them via blocks? It would seem that anybody we do try to convince would likely be blocked before they made a change (given that they would likely not change immediately) and once they are blocked it would seem very difficult to judge whether they ever came back under a different IP/account. Supreme Gene (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked is the hard lesson, but it generally takes about four unconstructive edits to reach that stage, and each is accompanied by appropriate links to our policies. But being blocked isn't final. IPs, unless they are ASSIGNED PAs, generally get recycled quite quickly. Even a person behind a blocked registered account may start a fresh account and start over, without vandalising; I'm sure many have. Some, however, never learn, and are blocked again and again and again; that's all we can do- and overall, the interests of the encyclopedia must come first. Committed editors here have enough to do without nannying those who don't get it, so it's easier to just kick them into touch. Having said that, if a blocked editor comes back and asked for help by way of adoption by an experienced editor, we have a scheme for that. But all in all, although some of our rules may seem complicated to some editors, they are not beyond learning and explanation; it's most usually those who don't accept our rules who tend to get blocked, and we do give them reasonable opportunity to adapt. Specifically for those who use shared IP addresses, particularly schools, the balance of convenience must sometimes come down to our own interests, but in those cases, we do not prevent creation of accounts, and those only people who may be hurt are those who wish to edit anonymously- however, to have reach that stage, it is obviously those editors who have caused the problem. --Rodhullandemu 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree that IPs/accounts should be blocked pretty quickly if they are vandalising, but I think that there is more that can be done beyond that to convince people that they could enjoy creating even more than vandalising. This happens with "real world" vandals who are given the ability to create constructively. In fact those people rapidly come to despise vandals when they vandalise a project they have started to take a stake in. In this case, we may have an individual who can debate this with his friends, and generally it could be that more could be done to encourage people to change their ways through dialogue (but, again, not as a replacement for blocks). The messages that are left on a vandal's talk page are obviously a key pat of the message here. I just think that, "creating articles has these benefits for you" is better than "you are blocked, we will keep blocking you until you behave, and we will report you to your teachers". Those same real world vandals who changed their ways were not discouraged by having their vandalism repaired or the risk of getting caught, it only changed when they were convinced to take a stake. Supreme Gene (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also this is theUser talk:202.153.69.122 ip of the school and the it departments contact is telephone +61 7 3010 1168 and it helpdesk email saint laurences college it department email —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt037291 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting discussion took place here, when a blocked editor whom Jimmy Wales thought should be reincorporated into the community was denied the opportunity to be unblocked for 168 hours, even with the promise of not antagonizing anyone, on or off Wikipedia. Speaks volumes about Wikipedian culture. -- Morrell Maddie (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found User:Dendodge/School warning to be very useful in dealing with my school - maybe leave it on the school IP's talk page. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE!

tell me these questions on my talk page!

my report is due this thursday!!

1. What things have you done that involve leadership.

2. What struggles did you fight to acolmplish a goal.

Thanks! AgentSpy101 (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We heard you the first time. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with some suggestions on AgentSpy101's talk page. // BL \\ (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of school sets an assignement specifically about Jimbo Wales? MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to choose someone so I picked Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. Its to late to change around! AgentSpy101 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking more and more like the best thing you can do is bite the bullet and pick someone else to interview; this one appears to be going nowhere. One of life's little lessons is that it is never too late to change around, especially when a deadline is approaching. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Go on Jimbo, help AgentSpy101 with his/her assignment. It would be a good deed for the day. Jack forbes (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I don't blame Jimbo for not being receptive to a request from a user that has "Larry Sanger created wikipedia and jimmy wales took the fame" on their talk. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I only noticed that after I'd posted here. Jack forbes (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

After a long period of reflection, I choose to retire from editing Wikipedia. I enjoyed my time sir, but too much has been happening to allow me to edit much. So I would like to have you delete this account. Thank you Mr. Wales, it's been a pleasure. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted. Please see WP:RTV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Free Software Foundation to explicitly amend GFDL 1.2 to allow upgrade to 1.3?

Dear Jimbo,

Please see Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#Should we update this to 1.3? and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Ask Free Software Foundation to explicitly amend GFDL 1.2 to allow upgrade to 1.3?. Thank you! NCC-8765 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Dowsiewuwu

Hello, I am User:Dowsiewuwu, and please return to me a letter of response whenever you can. I understand you are a busy man with WIKIPEDIA as one of the most popular sites in the United States and maybe even other countries. Well, please respond to my letter of appreciation to your work. It must have cost much greenbacks to build a website like WIKIPEDIA. --Dowsiewuwu (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Fanatic-Lunatics Again

There is an endless supply of these lunatics. Again, what are you going to do about this problem? It scares away anyone with an ounce of common sense and education. Civility laws are not the answer. The recent Arbcom case resulted in two quite good editors being banned also. You really have to do something. I am prepared to put some work into this - it wouldn't take too much to set up a 'Committee of Common Sense' whose job would be to secure the lifetime banning of incompetent and hopeless (but perfectly civil) lunatics from the face of Wikipedia. Otherwise it is hopeless. Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could call it the Encyclopedia any intelligent and competent person can edit. How would it be decided who is and isn't competent? Jack forbes (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee will decide this, with the help of a few elementary rules and principles. It is usually completely obvious from a sentence or two when a person is completely deranged. Read the discourse linked to above. Peter Damian (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped in a few times to observe the discussions taking place there and can understand your frustrations. The problems at that article I think are a little bit of an exception. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a committee whose job includes banning lunatics - ArbCom. If you think ArbCom isn't working, say what is wrong with it and suggest a way to fix it. Creating a new committee to do the same job isn't going to help. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is not doing its job. User:DGG has already suggested taking this case to Arbcom. Let's do that. Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] But as you can see the Arbitration committee is simply there to deal with dispute resolution and even there its main focus is behaviour. Thus I could be blocked or banned for calling someone a lunatic. But the problem is being a lunatic on Wikipedia. There need to be clear policies (or a committee) to deal with the deranged and disturbing thought-processes such as we regularly see on that page. The arbitration committee is not really the place to deal with this. Peter Damian (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are disruptive, hateful, disrespectful and can be viewed as conduct that should get you banned. The fact that you are allowed to engage in this behavior and bullying and hostility under the guise that you are justified in calling people "deranged" is down right amazing. And the other editor on the talkpage who is banned from the Ayn Rand article and your cohort User:TallNapoleon is also edit warring [1] even after he has been warned to stop doing so by Arbcom. So you know you and your editing buddies obviously have not respect for fellow volunteers (editors) that you disagree with but also no respect for what arbcom has requested of you.

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! And thought I was a Rand nutjob! Perhaps it's because my understanding of her work was filtered thru a fog of LSD and other mind-altering substances (hey, it was the sixties...)? Terry Yager (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Rand Enthusiasts Again

Arbcom is clearly an imperfect mechanism for mopping up, but I respect their efforts. I'm less optimistic that they can reign in the POV pushers on Barack Obama, but I will hope for the best! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither pro or anti-Rand. I have to ask though, what has your heading got to do with your comment? Jack forbes (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Yager article

Now that I've figured out who 'Jimbo" is <SEG>, I'd like to call your attention to the Carol Yager article if you can find the time. I've excerpted the following section from that talk page:

Bizarre Magazine seems highly inappropriate

Citing "Bizarre Magazine" for a biographical article in an encyclopedia seems highly inappropriate to me, its worse than a tabloid. We don't use TMZ as a source either, for crying out loud. If there are no objections, I will be removing links to said site and bringing this up to Jimbo if need be. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed already on this talk page, starting with the Dispute Continued section. --Geniac (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

coccyx bloccyx: While the matter has been discussed here, it hasn't really been settled. The recent editing war is currently at a state of cease-fire, the article having been pared of nearly all of the outlandish claims that were attributed to Bizarre Magazine. The only claim I have been unable to refute with citations from other sources is that a human being can, and did, measure five feet wide, but I feel less uncomfortable with that assertion, because it is so patently ridiculous that no reasonably intelligent person would believe it anyway. I, for one, would still like to see a ruling from someone in authority as to whether a self-described sensationalist fetish magazine can be cited as a resource for scholarly research, since actual researchers seeing the claim that someone lived who was as wide as they were tall might disbelieve the rest of the facts presented, based on their incredulity of that one. If 'Jimbo' is such an authority, please do bring it to his attention. Terry Yager (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, while you're at it, I would also like to see a ruling as to whether "Karl Niedershuh's" (personal?) webpage can be cited as a reliable source, even if it is a sub-page off from the "Dimensions Magazine" page. The page is clearly identified as his, and the opinions, etc expressed are presumably his own. Terry Yager (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Terry Yager (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]