User talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

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: 1 days

Archives

Index

-index-

As of January 16, 2003

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by .

Birthday gift

Hi, Jimbo! Sorry for being late, but I made you this:

The flag of Wikipedia. Happy Birthday! User:Secret Saturdays/Signature (Archiving comment Fram (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

About communist propaganda inside Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. I am one of those supporters of your gift to all of us: Wikipedia. But I am afraid your creation is in danger: it is being manipulated by groups of communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. They use "promoters" of their ideology, like for example user:DIREKTOR, inside Wikipedia. Direktor is a pusher of diktator Tito communist ideas inside en.wiki, no doubt about it. I want to repeat what user:Sir Floyd wrote, because I agree with him totally about this medicine student and the way he promotes his croatian nationalism: "While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).Info from M. & Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion." Furthermore, I want to pinpoint that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear. His discussion page is full of these fightings and his edit page is a clear evidence of this reality, just read it from the times he showed up in en.wiki ! He is supported by members of the group of communists related to the (KGB) hackers disrupting western websites (like user: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog). He is always helped by admin & check users with slav roots and supporters of communist ideology inside wikipedia (like user:Spellcast). You can verify it easily, and so try to save your creation (that otherwise can become a useful instrument of the communist groups centered around ex-KGB members). Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So these people interested in the Balkans are communists related to the ex-KGB in the Baltic States. Mmm. Do they do their plotting and relating in the Balkans or the Baltics or at points between? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ಠ_ಠ 8bit (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone's gone and revealed the secret plans to use Wikipedia as a base of operations to build a canal between the Aegean and Baltic seas. I guess they'll just have to move on to plan B and start a Facebook group for the Union of Latvo-Croatian Socialist Republics. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion35, please go back to school and learn again geography: the Aegean sea is not the sea of Croatia. It is the Adriatic sea! Now let's forget the jokes and let's pay attention to this serious threat to Wikipedia. I believe user Direktor is only the tip of the iceberg....GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.25 (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, an iceberg in the Adriatic sea? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "iceberg" is made of many communist (users of wikipedia), who use "useful idiots" (without offense...) like Hoary and Hyperion35 to "cover" their propaganda inside wikipedia. For example, try to write something against Stalin or Tito or communist Jugoslavia in the en.wiki and you'll see how they will attack you and your posts. Just try.GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.98 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've seen us referred to as "Nazis" and "Communists". Those ideologies are absolute polar opposites. So which is it? It can't possibly be both. I'm going to say it's neither. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, J.delanoy, try to post something against communism in en.wiki and you'll see......For example, to give you a clear example, I have just posted on the voice Tito (written in part by user Direktor, in a way that looks like a propaganda of the achievements of this comunist diktator) the research from Rummel about Tito's massacres ([1])......Let's see what will happen.GPU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.98 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing, J.Delanoy. User Direktor and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism. He, for example, today even does inappropriate deletion on the talk page of another user (he has done this several times, just check his edits):[2]. That is why I want to pinpoint again to Jimbo that en.wiki will be better if Direktor is banned, because a lot of fighting (with Serbs-Bosniaks-Italians-Montenegrins-Albanians et al) will disappear and a lot of propaganda for Tito's communism in Jugoslavia will finish.--Formyopinion (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of the article Mzoli's

Your article Mzoli's is nominated for deletion on August 19, 2009. For further information please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mzoli%27s_(2nd_nomination). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren (talk • contribs) 08:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already seems to be resolved (speedy keep). Jehochman ^Talk 10:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Wiki Academy Mangalore

User:Prashanthns/Invitation prashanthns (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban following non-involvement

Jimbo, I don't want to elaborate on this just yet. I only want the dates checked before the pages in question become harder to access. Basically, there was an edit war recently at speed of light. I wasn't involved in it. But I have ended up as the only person to be topic banned from that page. David Tombe (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)

That is not why he was page (not topic) banned: It was because of his tendentious behaviour on the article's talk page, not edit warring. Here is the link to incident at AN/I, which David should have given you: Disruptive editing at Talk:Speed of light. By the way, Speed of light (a former FA) and its Talk page have, unfortunately become a textbook case of how not to Wikipedia, with lots of guidelines being flouted and several editors who don't understand collaborative. I wonder if something useful can be leaned from this example of how to do it all wrong. David: Asking Jimbo (or anyone) to intervene, but saying you "don't want to elaborate"—that is, give the facts—is useless. This is the kind of nonsense that keeps getting you in trouble, and will only get worse if you don't learn to edit and discuss things collaboratively, and stop trying to "win". —Finell (Talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, after a look at the debate there, I see no reason for me to get involved. I know nothing particularly useful about the subject matter of the article in question, and the behavioral situation does not strike me as in any way particularly special. David, the normal dispute resolution procedures should serve you well enough. I will offer a small bit of personal advice, though, and that is to look for *reliable sources* who make, in their own words, the point that you wish to be made. If there are none, then you might consider presenting a paper to an academic physics journal making the case that the 1983 whatever whatever is something something important. (As I say, I don't know enough about the subject matter area to even attempt to properly and fairly characterize the dispute. The heat of the debate that I read, shed very little light on what it's all about.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you grasped the dynamic of the non-discussion and the nub of the problem perfectly. As for the physics: A few Wikipedians, and a few sources (note the lack of adjective) upon whom they rely for support, insist that they have grasped an important flaw in physics that has eluded the physics community for 26 years (actually longer: the 1983 redefinition of the metre, the source of the "problem", was in the works for years), or that physicists have deliberately suppressed it. One of Tombe's allies just accused me of supporting the "cabal" of orthodoxy. Simultaneously, a few editors are trying to water down WP:FRINGE (one proposal: rename the page 'Minority views'). However, they do not appear to be the same editors who are trying to rewrite WP's physics articles to conform to the "truth". How was your vacation and wikibreak? —Finell (Talk) 03:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a conflict of interest at play - David Tombe is the author of several of the sources in question, and is not in a position to neutrally assess their validity and relevance to the rest of the field and conversation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the problem. I didn't know that part. In which peer reviewed physics journal did Tombe publish his groundbreaking discovery? What are his professional credentials? Where does Brews fit into this picture? —Finell (Talk) 11:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [3]. The NPA is specialized in "disproving" special relativity. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, but I didn't see any peer reviewed papers there, and being a retired physics teacher, by itself, isn't enough in the way qualifications. —Finell (Talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is quite peer (and qualified) within the NPA. :-) - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, Thanks for your response. I left a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page that may clarify the issue. In summary, anything that touches on the contents of the paper which James Clerk-Maxwell wrote in 1861, at the beginning of the American civil war, tends to ignite a civil war. The speed of light is a highly sensitive issue, and any topic which sails close to equation (132) on that paper is dynamite. The problem is that we still use Maxwell's results to this very day, but we have swept his method under the carpet. The clashes that are likely to follow as a consequence of this dilemma will mainly be be at centrifugal force, Faraday's law, and Ampère's circuital law. I will now bear in mind the trouble that seems to arise everytime that I touch one of these three pages, and I will try to minimize conflict in future. But at any rate, I would be most obliged if you could remove the topic ban, just as a matter of principle. I wasn't actually editing on the page in question at the time of the ban and I don't intend to return to the current stage of the dispute on the talk page. I have also given my advice to Brews ohare to leave it alone. I fully sympathize with Brews, and I see that perhaps even a new editor called 'Abtract' may be beginning to see the point too. But I think that Brews should come out now (voluntarily) because he has made his point loud and clear. I do also think that as a token gesture to Brews, that some other editor should at least make an attempt to neutralize the introduction. David Tombe (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David: What do you mean by, "Brews should come out now (voluntarily)"? Please explain. Thanks. —Finell (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommorow's gonna be my birthday!!!!!!!!

Hey Jimbo! August 25, 2009 is going to be my 13th brithday! Can you post something on my talk page (about that)?--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 ^{Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965} 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For inventing the cookie jar

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} has given you a cookie for inventing the cookie jar!

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions/advice please

Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid, regarding paid editing issues, and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. I've done some research including past comments on this talkpage and would like your opinion and any ideas. Some users feel we must include a statement about paid admining. If we do I feel it also has to be accurate. Is there anything on this draft you feel should be changed and if so how:

“

Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref>

”

I have a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Opinions/advice please but it may be of only so much interest to most folks. Comments there would also be fine but that thread may expire before this one. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI ..." (emphasis added). This statement is absurdly mild. What doubt is there that it would be a conflict of interest? That is what conflict of interest means. As for "discouraged", isn't it clear that an admin who used admin tools or authority at the behest of some third party would be de-sysoped? This proposed policy would acknowledge that Wikipedia admins are for sale, which I certainly hope is not the fact. This is crazy. —Finell (Talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely would be a conflict of interest, I agree with Finell. As written, the sentence is misleading, that there is no policy against it. Indeed, this page *should become* policy against it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what it means to do an admin action at the behest of a third party. Asking an administrator "Please block User X, he is a vandalism-only account, here is the evidence." seems fine to me, especially since it would be up to the administrator to indeed determine the validity of the person's claim and then take responsibility for it themselves. @harej 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist propaganda inside wikipedia 2

It is happening exactly what I was pinpointing above in "about communist propaganda inside wikipedia". User:DIREKTOR and other communists (BTW, nice photo of Che Guevara on the user page of user:Producer...) quickly erase evidences and data about Tito's massacres. And in Direktor's edits we can read that he is starting to request "help" from admins & check users friendly to him, in order to eliminate opponents to his posts supporting Tito's communism & other communist propaganda articles in wikipedia. May I repeat that he is only the tip of the iceberg (a huge iceberg made of many communists spreading their propaganda inside wikipedia). I am afraid that wikipedia can become a useful instrument of the communist groups in the internet.Sincerely.--Formyopinion (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]