User talk:Jimbo Wales

; Archives
	September 2005 – December 2005; January 2006; January – February 2006; February 2006; February 2006, cont.;

Shortcut

[[:|WP:JIMBO]]

Template:TrollWarning

Jimbo: Please look at the Rachel Marsen page. You've already told them once that the page is over the top. Now it's taken on elements of stalking. And they've set up a second page to slag this woman. Isotelus 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User to consider banning

Lots of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=141.157.35.222

Jenny8

Jenny 8 wishes her entry were updated to cover her recent book stuff and *ahem* a bit more than her interesting parties and name. Just, you know, if you're bored.

Wikicities.com | My Website

I wonder if you might consider...

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just point me at their user pages. I'll delete them. Start revert wars over userboxes. Oh, that's not what you meant :). Tbeatty 02:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

g* Funny isn't it? I keep stumbling across pages ranting against my irrational vendetta and ban of userboxes when basically I'm just saying Everyone please relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an understanding that you have given the OK for mass userbox deletion. I think it would be helpful if you could make it fully clear that this is not the case. Everyking 04:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I could be any more clear about it.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, not to be sarcastic or anything, but it would probably help if you didn't institute a new CSD that said "any divisive template can be deleted on sight by any admin with no discussion beforehand"? If that's not giving an okay to mass-delete political and religious userboxes, I don't know what it is. After all, it should be evident that a very plausible interpretation of "divisive and inflammatory" (especially based on your past statements) would include any and all political and religious userboxes. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, maybe the cabal is after you.... ;) --Wiki eZach| talk 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was refering to with this post on your talk page yesterday. People try to interpret what you say and differences in that interpretation can lead to semi-religious wars. --StuffOfInterest 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way now is to implement one from 1984: "Ignorance is Strength" _→AzaToth 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish i knew where to voice my support of the userboxes. I think that organizations thrive when they promote internal cohesivness. The useboxes allow people with similar interests to congreagte in the virtual puiblic square. I don't think they should be eliminated, but some way should be found to let people with similar interests and backgrounds congregate.evrik 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Hi Jimbo! If I may be so bold, you should read Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Archiving your talk page is fairly easy, and useful for those who want to read old posts here without searching through the page history. Thanks for your time! --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for donations on search results

Would you please put a regular request for Wikimedia Foundation donations up on the search page and/or some fraction of the multiple results pages? E.g.,

Your donations can help Wikipedia improve.

--James S. 05:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator could do this, why don't you suggest it at The Village Pump, and see if others would like this added? Prodego ^talk 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --James S. 23:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jimbo, I Give You These Big, Yummy Carrots :D

Image:Carrot.jpg Image:Carrot.jpg Carrot Giver 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that carrot society propaganda and have some red meat.

Image:Prime.jpg

And I propose the deletion of all carrot related userboxes as well.

Billyjoekoepsel 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's a busy man; he doesn't have time to cook.

Image:Steak.jpg

There, that's better. JDoorj a m Talk 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo... sorry, there were some images here, but as this page gets large fairly quickly, the images will kill the load time... I left the links so you can enjoy the yummy goodness. If I erred, revert. No hard feelings. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents

All the links in that article now point to "footnotes". Why is that being done at KD and not elsewhere too? Pointing links to "footnotes" increases the steps required to gain the benefits of a wiki (links) and confuses the readers. 192.168.227.195 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a question for the Village Pump than Jimbo, who by the way doesn't control everything that happens on Wikipedia. ;) Links are put into footnotes mainly so that they're in the same place as printed references, which obviously can't be put in full at the place of reference. Also, proper citations allow you to more quickly see useful info about the link, such as date and place of publication.

As for why it was implemented in Killian documents specifically, footnotes are actually being used across Wikipedia. Look around, especially at contentious topics. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a winner, good sir!

You've won, there's no denying it! You now have managed to get yet ANOTHER person to leave Wikipedia! So, gold stars for you, Jimbo, gold stars for you! Oh, and something else... the comfort of knowing that this whole mess you caused is far from over. Coolgamer 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me in what way you think that I caused any mess at all. I'll post more on your talk page.--Jimbo Wales 10:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)". I don't see how you can take this statement to say anything but the following: 1. User boxes are just a fad, a phase. (But in that case, why worry about them?) 2. A mass deletion is likely to happen if the "userbox fad", as you put it, doesn't just go away by itself. In other words, you won't shut them down, as long as we do that for you. How thoughtful. Regardless on if you meant to cause this chain-reaction, the fact remains we have over-eager admins putting up almost all boxes for speedy delete, sometimes deleting boxes after majority votes not to. It's annoying, distracting, and it wastes MY time trying to edit articles for your benefit. I have not even done my rounds of minor edits, i've been too busy having to vote on, complain in favor of, and whatnot about the userbox issue. This, quite frankly, is not fair. Thanks to the templates, i've been able to find people with the same interests as me, and that has been quite healthy for me to have people I know I can talk to. That's shot to hell. IT might not seem like much, but when you know you can just vent once in a while to someone who's been there... it means a lot. People take your word as gospel here. The admins seem to think they're doing what you want (plus a bit of what they want now that they can justify it)... it's just... feh. It's a problem. One which I do not want to deal with any longer. Coolgamer 23:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Kudos

I award this {{Scouting Barnstar}} to Jimbo Wales who has shown the principals of Scouting, and Scouting spirit , in his activities on Wikipedia. -evrik

The Wisdom of Crowds

Do you think the strong wikipedia community could impact negatively on the quality of the information in the articles? I've just read the book mentioned above and one of the key criteria for "smart" crowd decisions is independence. The political/ethical user box issue would be a case in point. CuteWombat 23:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles are handled by a very small number of editors so it isn't really an issue.Geni 03:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Living change

Hey there - I have proposed a rewrite of the poorly written "Privacy of birthdays" section over on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons in hopes of clarifying some issues about posting exact birthdates in articles. Only a couple people have responded so far and I thought I would notify you in case you wanted some input on this section, in hopes of coming to a consensus. Also anyone else reading this is encouraged to give their input. Right now, the only real question is how restrictive we want to be on inclusion of exact birthdates of marginally notable people/non public figures. The current ideas range from marginally restrictive (must be verifiable and published by a reliable public source in order to list) to extremely restrictive (must be verifiable/published by reliable public source, relevant to their notability, person must have had mainstream media coverage, and must have intended to increase their notability or we don't list it). There are also a couple minor issues that needs addressing, such as if being convicted of a crime makes one a public figure or not. Your input is welcomed and would surely expedite the debate. VegaDark 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing personal data from histories

Hi Jimbo. I've noticed that often you or another admin goes by and erases personal information that is posted by some contributor in an article or an article talk page, etc. (for example, Talk:Aurora Snow); but though the information is erased from casual view, it is still accessible in the edit histories. I'm wondering if the Wiki-software will ever be updated so that such information can be erased even from the edit histories (by admins, of course, perhaps after a consensus or request or by decision of WP:OFFICE). If possible, I think that would be great. Alexander 007 03:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be already via selective undeletion.Geni 03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I read more about this? Sounds interesting. Actually erasing stuff from the edit history without deleting an entire page sounds like a good solution. Alexander 007 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to read. You delete the page selet which versions you want to undelete and hit undelete.

Ah. I'm going to request some of this. Alexander 007 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's a fairly impractical operation on pages with really long edit histories, at least from what I've heard (haven't tried it myself). In those cases, we are supposed to ask a developer to fiddle with the database directly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In thoery. In practice we have work arounds if we really need them but developer action under such conditions is prefered.Geni 04:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians have to be made more familiar with this process. It seems required in some cases. Imagine if in the article George W. Bush say, someone posts extremely sensitive info about Bush's daughters :-) You know that can happen anyday at anytime...Alexander 007 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, information may eventually be "leaked" in Wikipedia that could be dangerous to national security...don't think it can't happen :-) Alexander 007 04:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a Wikipedia policy link about these specific deletion methods? I want to see it in "official" writing. Alexander 007 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone sticks sensitive information in George W. Bush, contact a developer. Given the size of the article's edit history, deleting it would kill Wikipedia -- and undeleting it would kill Wikipedia again. --Carnildo 08:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dschor

Just wondering what you think of the sanction imposed in this user's case. Seems a bit out of line for an upstanding wikipedian (if I do say so myself). --67.168.241.139 04:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, 67.168.241.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has since been identified (and temporarily blocked) as a likely sockpuppet of Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICE question from an Admin

When you change a page under OFFICE, is further editing prohibited (and thus in need of page protection), or are changes allowable within limits? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are still feeling our way forward on that one. The tradeoff is, if I say changes allowable within limits, there will be cases where the problematic bits are just going to go right back into the article. If I say no changes at all, well, that's never a good thing, because it leaves the article in a broken state longer. Probably the safest thing to say is "Use very good judgment, and be particularly sensitive to the liklihood of problems." Certainly, be cautious about adding anything back which might be the source of the problem. I think that WP:OFFICE should never be used for more than a tiny handful of pages at any given time, and a WP:OFFICE situation should last no more than a handful of days in any given case. --Jimbo Wales 10:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about you communicating Wikipedia:Office Actions and the like and the community (people like me) to understanding it. I think it is helpful at times to be diplomatic and speak in euphemisms; and helpful at other times to be precise and clear. Which is the case with regard to the use the legal authority of the board and/or your leadership authority is not only not for me to say, but I wouldn't know which to choose if it were up to me. At Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines I asked: Is this wikipedia process?: Just as America has legislative, judicial, and administrative processes, so too, Wikipedia has consensus processes (talking), which when they fail, become democracy processes (voting), which when they fail to help in the goal of building the encyclopedia, become administrative processes (dictatorship) whereby Jimbo and the board (that is legally responsible for the real world hardware Wikipedia runs on) act unilaterally. That is the process, not just the talking or the voting. Wikipedia:Office Actions says It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow and I have created this page for Danny to use to signify why he is deleting or blanking something per my authorization. This does not signify any authoritarian top-down action without approval, but rather signifies a temporary action to allow us to be kind while we sort out the encyclopedic way forward. If this works out, I may authorize other people to use it as well (people handling OTRS email queues, people on the legal team, etc.) I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. I think you should be clear that sometimes normal consensus behavior is overridden by you or the board or your representatives and not pretend it is anything else. Then again, maybe the fiction that this is just like the other policies is useful enough to justify it. I'm no good at the necessary lies of polititians, so if this is one of those, just ignore me. Thank you. WAS 4.250 02:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that part of the problem is the {{policy}} template says "wide consensus among editors", and perhaps is not entirely applicable to this policy; perhaps it should be subst'ed and edited to reflect the situation more accurately. -- SCZenz 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the {{policy}} template that someone put at the top of WP:OFFICE to fit the origin of the policy. Jimbo (or anyone else), you might want to check what I wrote to make sure it's correct. -- SCZenz 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It now reads: This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It was put forth by User:Jimbo Wales as a necessary policy for the running of Wikipedia at the Foundation level. If you wish to propose changes, please talk to him. which strikes me as the straight up truth; clearly and precisely announcing what's what. I like it. WAS 4.250 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Jimbo, will you hear my appeal any time soon? It's been over three months. Here, e-mail, IRC, whatever. Everyking 06:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit, I forgot the magic word: please? Everyking 10:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty please? Everyking 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With sugar on top? Everyking 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir

(I am not a native English speeker, so i apologies for my weak English. I tried to proces it thuogh this)

Hello. I am writing to you, since i see no other venue. Right now, i feel a bit hurted over something that i perceive as a threat to the aims of Wikipedia, as i have understood them.

As it happens, i am a part of a significant minority that holds a very, very, very controversial view. The thing is, my view is so controversial, that people tend to get so emotional that they disregard Wikipedia policies. This means that the majority tend to get so offended by the view, that they tend to AFD a un proportional high amount of articles that are related to that view, and then tend to vote delete without being truly objective and respectful to the Wikipedia aim of representing the sum total of human knowledge.

In most cases, this is a manageable problem, since it can always be found people that will keep their cool and make sure that information is not deleted on emotional grounds. But in this case, the feeling of repulsiveness the majority feels is in such a high grade that it causes wikipedia rules to malfunction. This usually causes people holding my view to give up and stop editing.

My aim for the last few days have been to try to enrich Wikipedia by trying to have wikipedia report on this views.I do not try to soapbox, i try to report them in a NPOV way. Nonetheless, i am alleged to be a extreme POV warrior, a soapboxer and what more...

My view is that a small fraction of the people in the America government orchestrated the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11. And i also have proven that my view is not held by a "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority", but by a "significant minority", at least according to the definition given in WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

I actually hesitate on writing to you, since i am afraid that i will be meet with the same response as usual, resulting in my efforts being made totally impossible by your ruling. But i see no other real options.

For starters, may i ask you about your opinions regarding this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11.

You see five delete votes, and not a single keep vote for something that i belive should be a speedie keep. This, and some other articles i judge are notable are going to be deleted, on what i perceived being nothing more than share disgusted over the view even existing. I have been taught that a article not being offensive does not mean it should be deleted.

Also, i would like to clarify that nobody is actually stating that they are voting "delete" on basis of emotions, but i view it to be evidently true. My basis for that is people giving reasons to delete that i have proven non-valid reasons on the very same page.

If you happen to have more time, you might want to consider reading this Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Pov_and_split. However, i would like to advice you that argument is long, and i get better at it the further the argument proceeds.

I would very much appreciate your comments on this issue, and i assure you that i would not have bothered you if i saw any other venue. If the truth is that wikipedia is not interested in reporting about events and person that are relevant within the movement that calls itself as "9/11 truth", then i will respect that and stop wasting mine and Wikipedias time. Peace. --Striver 14:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About me

For your information, i am number 306 in the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and i have never been banned or suffered any punishment from any admin, as far as i recall. However, i am a extremely controversial editor, since i am not only a Muslim, i am also a Shi'a. In my view, that is a being a minority (Shi'a)being frowned at from a majority (Muslim) that is frowned at from the rest (non-Muslims). As if that would not be enough, i also have extremely controversial views regarding 9/11. This will guaranty it being easy to find people that have stated that i am bad editor, a POV warrior and even mentally deficient. However, you will also see people holding my view showering me with praise. Unfortunately, i am running uphill, and most have a very negative view of me. I only expect to be judged by what the rules say, nothing more, nothing less. Thank you for your time. --Striver 14:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point

Dear sir. Do you regard this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution as being in line with your vision of Wikipedia? If yes, please let me know. --Striver 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2000

Happy 2000th Edit! :)

Yes, yes, I know, quality over quantity, but thought you might like it. :) --AySz88^-^ 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe its time for someone to nominate him for admin again. Its seems that he failed his last RfA attempt ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call to service as a statesman

Jimbo,

I am sure you will agree that Wikipedia's spectacular success has created overwhelming management difficulties. You have adapted well, but the community grows more diverse and crises continue to mount. The new challenges will need to be met with extraordinary caution and diplomacy. You wield tremendous power over us individually, and most users are too distant from you to understand how you will use it. You have been installed as the ultimate authority on any matter in Wikimedia, and you have compared yourself to the Queen of England in describing your control over the arbitration committee, therefore you must understand the weight that your words carry. The community respects you so much that we are proactive in interpreting your desires, and simply by calling someone's comment "unfortunate," you can spur forces into action that make ordinary users shudder in fear.

You are now a statesman, Jimbo. That postion will require that you be even more considerate with your choice of words than you have been in the past. But regardless of your choices, a statesman is bound to face a never-ending mountain of criticisms from strangers who do not understand him, and his impulses to defend himself are rarely accepted in good faith. The only solution is to rise above it, and take every complaint as a challenge to discover better ways to meet the conflicting demands that are placed on your position. If you succeed, the loyal opposition will surely continue to recognize the great debt we have to our founder. But should you fail, you will be reminded that a statesman's position is only made possible by the contributions of the multitudes.

--Yannick 08:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannnick, I agree with you completely. My role in Wikipedia is primarily valuable insofar as I campaign constantly to remind everyone what we are here for, and to try as hard as possible to get everyone to put down their anger and try to understand each other, and to find good compromise solutions to whatever problems we may face. --Jimbo Wales 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Jimbo is a real diplomat. Here is how he reacts to my posts...lol --Candide, or Optimism 13:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Anittas. As you may know, I am learning to speak German, and I found the video very instructional.--Jimbo Wales 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo vs Gilles Tourette

Am I the only one who think these guys are strikingly similar?

File:Gilles tourette2.gif

Coincidence? I think not! Jimbo must be a direct descendant!

Then again, it might just be the beard... and the facial expression... and the eyes... Obli (Talk)^? 13:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ho! Another fact Jimbo and the cabal are hiding. :) (caution never edit wikipedia at night) --Banana04131 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is in reality Kane. For the brotherhood! (Male only cabal? Who could think of such a thing...) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim - why are you igoring my request ?

Do you think it is not possible that ArbCom made a mistake ?

They accuse me of using "propeganda sources" and deleting "scholarly material" but in fact I deleted mostly OR and some propeganda by other editors. (and a quote of a speech by benGourion which was not relevant to the article but was quoted from a book. Additional quotes I tried to insert from the same book, showing that the OR claims were wrong were delted by opposing editors)

All my attempts to get a fair evualtion of what took place by ArbCom has been rejected but at long last Fred confirmed that I might be right by saying: "I am no expert" (to rule if what I removed was OR or not)

All this material that I removed, and was renetered by other editors is now taged with "ciation is needed for source" tags but for two weeks no one is able to locate the source .

You may not like my style but can someone look at the facts ? or is it all an issue of "editing style" and the new Elite to dictate the "world knowldge" are those editors who "get along".....while others are cast aside.

I have pointed out to you, to ArbCom that a specific article is full of errors but it seems if a large group of editors control an article (because it is the core Palestinian narraitive) the facts, NPOV policy OR policy, verifyable sources all are cast aside in the name of what excatly ?

If ArbCom can not look at the facts who can ?

Zeq 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am sure you think I am just one of those nut-cases which Wikipedia has from time to time. Please read the comments ArbCom got in my case from editors who understand the material (not just the POV pushers from the Palestinian side) ArbCom has totaly ignored not just me but others who have told it that they are wrong in accepting the other side claims in face value. I can point you to specific diffs if needed but it seems no one is really intested in looking at the actual facts. I hope you will proove me wrong.

Dear Zeq, I am not Jimmy, but I can tell you that Arbcom is extremely busy doing extremely important work. Here is Arbcom at work. ;) --Candide, or Optimism 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. Anyone who bother looking at the facts will see that even 8 people can be wrong especially when they refuse to look at the facts.... Zeq 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, the reason the ArbCom exists is so that Jimbo doesn't have to personally review every case. That is an honor he extends to almost no one. The ArbCom is the Supreme Court unless you're Jimbo's personal acquaintance and he has a high opinion. Spamming his talk page accomplishes nothing. Accept your fate and get on with your life. If as a consequence you think Wikipedia is a haven for anti-Semitic propagandists or whatever, well, go tell your friends. But I suggest you stop bothering Jimbo with requests that he's never going to read, whatever you do. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo is hiding behind ArbCom. Wikipedia is his property and if is not taking responsibility for it it will become known what goes on here. If he care about Wikipedia becoming a source people can rely on major changes need to take place here. Stability of articles, review process of content etc... So far ArbCom focus on bahviour generates avoidence of rocking the boat but that is by no mean generates good quality articles.

Jimbo did read my note when I asked him "Do you like being lied too" after I showed him it was an ArbCom memebr who lied to him about my case he stoppd answering me. Why ? Is he supportive of Wikipedia being turned into a place where Propeganda replaces REAL NPOV ?

Zeq 13:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Monicasdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps harassing me. 1. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, 2. He wiki-stalks me and votes against me at AFD's such as Chris Faiers', 3. He reverts factual information at McGill Redmen. He's already had 2 RFC's against him, and I don't feel the WP:DR methods work with him. I'm feeling very frustrated and don't know where else to get help. Ardenn 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo generally doesn't handle this kind of case. He's too busy. Go to WP:RFAr. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complain?

Hey, i don't know where to complain but i think this guy shouldn't be an administrator [User:Harro5], if you see his talk page many people ask why he deleted their page, and i think many of them are right. I don't think that because he thinks wikipedia shouldn't have some articles he should just go and delete the articles.--CesarCossio 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo rarely deals with this stuff directly. I suggest you start an RFC if you have issues. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective deletion of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion

I notice that only the "approved" religions have not been deleted, including: Jain, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, Invisible pink unicorn, etc.

All of the "unapproved" religions are no longer permitted, and are now persona non grata, including: Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist, born again, LDS, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Baptist...

Note also that all of the myriad of "freak" (sexual 3-ring circus) crowd's templates, like Template:User queer-4, Template:User SOFFA, Template:User HRC, Template:User ally, Template:User not narrow, etc. are alive and well.

Once again, in fine form, the administration at wikipedia let one and all know exactly and unambiguously on what side of the cultural gap it firmly stands -- all while, tooting its tired, sham "neutral" charade. How much longer can you maintain this deceptiveness in your reputation -- or are you even fooling anyone now? Pretty soon noone will be able to tell the difference between this and the unicyclopedia.

I am responsible for this. I undeleted a few that had been speedily deleted after surviving TFD, and I listed the rest on WP:DRV/U. You should expect the rest to return in five days. —Guan aco 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Abuse

Mr. Wales, as part of an ongoing edit-battle on certain articles between myself and Homeontherange, my IP address - 72.136.34.96 - was spontaneously and without explanation blocked from making edits on wikipedia without logging in. I was wondering if there was anyone that could check to see who blocked access to my IP address and if there was any reason given and if it was done in line with wikipedia's policy. Homeontherange seems to have some hypocritical standards as to how he uses his administrative power in wikipedia. I beg, in the name of fairness, that someone at least check and message me the info as to why my IP address was blocked from making edits and what reason was given. Imstillhere 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. As well as who blocked it. Thanks Imstillhere 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like IP address was unblocked from making edits (only after being called on it). However, I am still very interested (and again, in the name of fairness and to evaluate whether or not administrator abuse took place), why my IP address was restricted and who did it. I don't think it's unreasonable to check if an admin is acting this way. For every infraction that gets reported, who knows how many go unreported. Imstillhere 04:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find you get blocked, or your IP, in the logs. Though they act kind of strange, as blocks don't show up when you search...more likely, the page was just semi-protected, and that is were the confusion comes from.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the block log shows that Homeontherange hasn't blocked anyone since February 19, and that was a 24 hour block. FreplySpang (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the IP in question, 72.136.34.96 , has never been blocked according to the IP's block log. The complaint is specious. Homey 01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000 articles

What is the cabal planning for this glorious event? A lot of good publicity for wikipedia about how extensive it is (articles on Katrina, other recent events, ect.). Is Jimbo going to give a press release? --Banana04131 04:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000th article will be deleted via speedy deletion. Robust Physique 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congr4ts

jo! what's up? congr4ts on the 1,000,000th articl3! wow! i was r34lly unaware! maybe there could be a contest on something, like best user page, or som3thing like th4t?

wikipedia definitely does not suck like an azz-sucking thing! :-D ;-P h33, h33!

Chef Clover 02:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned for adding afd in Survivor Bios

Mr. Wales, please ban Arnzy for adding afds in Survivor Bios. He wants to paging deleted Survivor castaway articles. - ApprenticeFan 08:01 UTC (February 27, 2006).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

Hi, could you please comment on this? User:Ta bu shi da yu seems to feel that you have somehow given him carte blanche to speedy delete images out of process, without giving any evidence of you having done so. I am highly involved in fair use issues on this wiki, so I'm quit surprised that I hadn't heard anything or, if there was anything, that no-one would let me know. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that should be "quite" above. Freudian slip, evidently. JYolkowski // talk 22:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Angela's page also. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quinn (Actor)

Does this meet the requirements of WP:OFFICE? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,000th User!

Congratulations on the millionth user on the English Wikipedia. I believe it is User:Romulus32 because I (like a crazy wiki-addict) kept track of the statistics and New Users until it reached a million, and then welcomed that user. Again, congrats, and here's to the millionth article and the next million users and articles! Jfing ers88 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure it's not a sockpuppet? Robust Physique 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He still doesn't seem to have any contributions.... I hope he stuck around long enough to, at least, notice that he's the millionth.... (Of course, contributing too would be ideal! :) ) --AySz88 ^-^ 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probably just a sock someone created for the purpose of being the 1 millionth registered user. Robust Physique 08:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just a user who didn't make any edits. I suspect, if we have more users than articles, that there are rather a lot of those. -- SCZenz 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely. If you check the stats, you'll see that there are over 43 MILLION edits. Not every user creates articles; some are dedicated purely to cleanup or other activities. Jfing ers88 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he thought it was another of those "Millionth customer" things and scared him away? --Shibo77 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo/Jimmy/Jim

The intro text of your user page says Jimbo, Foundation site says Jimmy, this ancient and unreleased PR says Jim. I presume we should generally refer to you in external communications as Jimmy? Or Jimbo? -- user:zanimum

You can call him Jimmy, or you can call him Donal, or you can call him Jimbo; but ya doesn't have ta call him Mr. Jimmy Wales the Benevolent Dictator for Life. (or even Ray J. Johnson) WAS 4.250 15:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is preferred online; Jimmy is preferrred in print. Never James. Never Jim.--Jimbo Wales 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is equal to the basic idea behind wikipedia?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Improving_our_communication

The idea is to regard every single word as the first module of language. Now let's share associations around these words. Comments? -- Qweet 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, Sir Jimbo. I'm thinking of making a Flash animation of you fighting Willy on Wheels. What would your powers be? I'm probably going to make it a sprite fight, so maybe you could pick one of these sprites (the page is down at the moment, but I have all the sprites saved) and maybe some colors, or powers, or something, so I can animate you correctly in all your Wikian greatness. If you can, please reply to me on my talk page. Plus, I can have the honour of having Jimbo Wales Himself edit my page. Thank you very much, Sir.

Spritedly, A Minion of Jimbo the Great

PPPPS. I wrote this article and was wondering why it was tagged for cleanup. Could you check it out?

Hi From Snorlax

Image:Snorlax.png Sn0rlax 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst

Check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea...

Since Jordanhill railway station's become the millionth article, next time you're in the UK you should go visit there. Heck, maybe install a plaque there, and take a picture of you and the station master shaking hands! Billy H 23:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, it's unstaffed. Still, I'm sure you'll find someone to shake hands with. Billy H 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not that bad an idea. If your plane to Moscow gets delayed in the UK because of bad weather, keep it in mind. ;-) -- user:zanimum

If you want some help in getting the local authorities to give permission, then that's what I'm paid to do all day. Glasgow City Council are responsible for giving planning permission for permanent additions, but for a small ceremony, then probably Strathclyde Passenger Transport [1] are the people to ask, or if not, First Group who operate the trains and maintain the station. David | Talk 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, don't we have a handy bunch of contributors?! -- user:zanimum

Exciting to know that someone had the same idea. Look at my suggestion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jordanhill_railway_station#Will_Jimbo_visit_the_station_on_vacation.3F I agree with what David said. A ceremony and commemorative decorations (like plaques and other things) would fit right in. PS: Would you like to post pictures of the celebration down at the Wikimedia Foundation? --Shultz III 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming Jimmy and Danny hadn't already called it a day? -- user:zanimum

They could post those photos the next day. I wouldn't mind. A visit to the station would be part of their vacation itinerary. --Shultz III 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean they went home and didn't take pics of themselves dancing. Or are you refering a future plaque unveiling? -- user:zanimum

BTW, Jimmy's in the UK in a couple of days, but it's sandwiched inbetween Moscow and Washington, no time to stop. Unless Jimbo's really fast, and doesn't like sleeping. -- user:zanimum

Hi Jimbo, Here's what you look like shaved.

File:Jimbo modified.jpg

File:Jimbo turban.jpg

And here what you would look like without eyebrows and wearing a turban. Sn0rlax 04:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to still have very fuzzy stubble. -- user:zanimum

Jeffery Vernon Merkey

Good evening Jimbo,

I hope I find you in a decent mood. Jeff was banned/indefinitely blocked as Gadugi. He has reincarnated himself as Waya sahoni. The evidence is extremely strong that this is the case.

Many have complained of his attempts to edit the article about himself and to move large portions of the article into an unused article about LKML.

guanaco is an admin who has been told of the sockpuppetry, appears to be convinced that this is a genuine case, yet refuses to block Merkey's new account.

Regards, Vigilant

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for your comment on my talk page. Keep up the good work! Here's to a million more! Nach0king 09:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're at all serious about visiting the station, let me know when, I would love to come down for the historic occasion of a few people standing at an unstaffed, open-plan suburban railway station in western Scotland while commuters stare and wonder what the hell's going on :) Nach0king 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Hi Jimbo! It was brough to my attention on WP:ANI that you have stated that serious vandal edits from an account warrant indefinite blocking, even if it's part of a mixture of good and bad edits. On the other hand the blocking policy says "indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.". Can you update the blocking policy so that your opinion and the policy are synchronized? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he knew what the policy said in the first place, honestly. And I really don't think Jimbo should be unilaterally changing any policies. Everyking 07:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he certainly has the right to if he wants and it seems as though he at least reserves the right to. Rx StrangeLove 07:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly does. Some people amazingly let the fact of Jimbo being the owner of the website slip their mind, I daresay. How odd. If Jimbo hadn't put forth his dream in the beggining, we wouldn't be here in the first place. -Zero^Talk 07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthurmore, Jimbo's comments in regards to this situation seemed perfectly plausible and demonstrated an understanding of policy. Jimbo merely realizes that we are an project attempting to carry ourselves and our work as proffesionally as possible. We have quite enough on our plate. We've no need for trolling of vandalism. That's silly.-Zero^Talk 08:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

userbox policy proposal

Jimbo, please check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the userbox poll page. I advocate the proposed policy only if Wikiproject Userboxes can maintain a comprehensive listing of userboxes (including those that could not be made into templates according to the proposal), so that users can contribute and use them to hard-code to their userpages. I think that if this feature were added to the proposed policy, many others in the opposed camp would then support the policy. I'm curious to see what you think. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that getting listings of userboxes completely out of the official namespaces is the most important thing. The point is that these userboxes are very much frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. If some people want to use them, fine, but they should not be using official pages to do it. (This is just a comment, not an order or a request or anything else.)--Jimbo Wales 08:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless your comments are to alltoo many users in fact orders. Face it: It doesn´t matter if you say: "this is not a order" you are JIMBO WALLES (the leader) and your wish is the command of many users. Flamarande 16:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now for an innocuous question

What do you think of all of the languages that your name has been translated or transliterated to on your user page? I know I'm pretty impressed (noting some specious "languages"), and was just wondering your thoughts. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted...

I run across this banal phrase frequently in articles, and remove it nearly everywhere it exists, because its presence is nearly always redundant and unhelpful. So I was surprised to see you use the phrase in your messages on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. Please join the cause and expunge this phrase from your Wiki vocabulary. I do not mean to say that the phrase is not sometimes appropriate for casual speech or writing, just that it is not encyclopedic. --Blainster 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blatant censorship is getting out of control, take a stand

Hi, I am Flamarande (obviously) and I am herewith complaining officially about the current unofficial and sneaky "userboxes burning campaign".

As far as I know, some users started to complain about userboxes (who by the way appear only in the personal userpages and therefore clearly show that they are a personal view and not Wikipedia stance). You played the politician (my own POV) and made a statement that: "controversial political userboxes schouldn´t be used in Wikipedia as they would give a wrong impression of Wikipedia" (quoting freely). As far as I know, the policy itself is still being debated, but nevertheless many admistrators/users allready started to delete userboxes in a "userboxes burning campaign" everywhere, whithout following the proper procedure or even listening to users who disagree! In a truly "take no prisoners" policy many of them didn´t even announce their deletions in the usual channels.

It began with the very convient deletion of the redirects userbox and userboxes (read the talkpages). Suddenly userboxes were being deleted everywhere. Very convienient, and it makes you wonder... They even deleted the userbox about the United Nations ! Now they are beginning to delete userboxes about books ! like the ASoIaF userboxes.

IF you or the consensus simply had said: "NO USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" or "NO POLITICAL USERBOXES OF ANY KIND" I wouldn´t oppose to this (and personaly I would agree with the second). But there appears to be a unwritten policy of censorship. The controversial userboxes are being deleted while the political corect Userboxes are acceptable. This is BLANTANT CENSORSHIP in my personal opinion. Freedom of Speech and political freedom also means that everybody is free to buy all the books, the Holy Bible, the Koran, the Tora, AND the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, Porn, and the Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler in a bookshoop without any problems.

If you or the consensus says: "this a encyclopedia and NOT a place where we discuss politics" I won´t oppose to it, but then we also have to delete ALL the political userboxes like "in memorian of 9/11" and "I support the troops" (hey, these are obvious political statements). Then we have to delete ALL of them (at least the political ones). It is the same with the bookshops and books: Nobody can force all the booksops to sell all the books (the idea of going into a childrens library and ordering the Communist Manifesto is funny) but it also means that any library can sell all political books, even those we don´t like and disagree and even hate.

Long time ago, I saw a movie about the attempt of the National Socialist Party of America (read the article, please) to march into Stokie. They had to be defended by a jewish laywer of the ACLU. The matter went as far to a court (I don´t remember which one, it was "one step" before the Supreme Court). The judges decided in favour of the nationalist socialist party and wrote: "Freedom of Speech not only means that we have the freedom to say what we like to hear. It also means that other people have the liberty to say things we hate." (quoting freely from memory, and I saw the movie a long time ago).

So decide this whole matter and/or make a official statement about this and don´t give us a political correct statement where you wash your hands. I would be much obliged for a reply in this talpage or in a official channel . Thanks Flamarande 21:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC) PS: If anyone begins to say : "How dares he to talk in this tone?" or "Show the proper respect/education" I can only reply: Look at my "political incorrect userbox" - its all there.[reply]

The userbox deletion is NOT censorship. You will still be free to use your userboxes (by copy-pasting the <div>...</div> code) on your userpage, all that is happening is that they will no longer be allowed on userspace, for the following reasons:

To be honest: this also is using the fact that some (at least) users don´t know to make userboxes and/or don´t like to fill their userpage with codes they don´t really understand. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used for 'vote stuffing' (e.g. 'this user is a Catholic' userbox, somebody goes to the 'What Links Here' for that userbox template and emails everyone who uses it to ask them to shout down a deletion discussion on a Catholic-related article)

My answer to this is: If that happens (and I concede that it will) then complain to a adminstrator (what are there here for?). Still read above: if we delete ALL political userboxes I won´t object, but we got to be honest and completely impartial. In certain backward countries where many citizens don´t seem to understand the separation between politics and religion (like the USA and IRAN, sad but true), in these countries lying politicians are simply manipulating believers using faith, and nothing else (in my own opinion). Therefore ALL userboxes about religion, beliefs or faiths or political statements should also be deleted. Then we have also to delete all political userboxes like in "memoriam of 9/11" and "I support the troops" for these also ARE political statements (see above). Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It puts more strain on the servers to have the code 'called' as a template than having the code on the userpage itself.

Ok, I have no argument against this. Strangely this argument is NOT presented in the arguments fot the deletion, at least that I noticed. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's a bad argument; it's at best an argument for substituting the userboxes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having them in the official Template space may give some people the [mistaken] impression that the views expressed on them are endorsed by Wikipedia.

To prevent that, simply put in really fat letters in the userboxpages:" These boxes do not represent any official position of Wikipedia". Also, if we accept userboxes of ALL political quadrants we can in a reasonable fashion answer to opponents (read: journalist who are interrested in asking hard questions, and manipulating politicians for are trying to use wikipedia to show the self-rightouness): We accept userboxes of ALL kinds and also of your own view. IF we start with censorship, then we also have to delete the userboxes of YOUR political view. Flamarande 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but anyone who knows where to find templates should already know enough to realise that they're not "official". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I understand your concerns about the conduct of certain users in relation to the userbox issue - in fact there is a discussion going on about this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/February_userbox_deletion. Since Jimbo has previously indicated that he is not going to take any action against the admins in question, that RfC is probably a better place to complain than Jimbo's talkpage Cynical 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T1

When you made this edit, were you imposing it as policy, or was it just an edit? There is no consensus for this criterion; in fact, most users are opposed to it due to its widespread misuse. If it is not actually a policy from above, it needs to be removed ASAP. —Guan aco 16:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly stated he intended for us to discuss it, adjust it, apply it in the same way we do any edit of a policy or guideline. This is exactly what we have done. Consensus is to keep T1 as modified by the community. It has been edited many times and debated continually, as you are doing now. WAS 4.250 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heated discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion makes it very clear that there is no consensus for this criterion. —Guan aco 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A clear minority being upset does not refute consensus. That minority not raising substantive issues is even more to the point. WAS 4.250 16:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Romanian

How do you combat Anti-Romanian edits from Wikipedia? There are several users that enjoy having Anti-Romanian edits. They keep attacking some Romanian related pages by edits that may be considered as Anti-Romanian one. Do something. Stefan cel Mare 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is very confused, conflating anything bad that happens to Romanians with anti-Romanianism. The discussion page shows the process is working as it should. I tell everyone to spend as much time learning from Wikipedia as they do teaching others who read Wikipedia. Watch and learn. WAS 4.250 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest: If we start to run to old Momma Walles everytime something goes wrong he simply wouldn´t have time for anything. Use the talkpage to debate the matter, and if that fails complain to a adminstrator (thats part of their job-description). If someone simply keeps on doing abusive edits a adminstrator is capabale to ban him (a full year is the maximun penalty I think). Flamarande 17:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They attacked these articles with anti-romanian edits:

Stefan cel Mare 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he's off at a conference in Moscow currently, then off to the UK for more of the same, before ending in Washington, before heading home. Further proof he doesn't have time to deal with any individual article/articles, except in extreme cases. Just discuss that matters civilly on the talk pages of the individual articles, or even ask for a wikipedia:Peer review to get a judgement of its balancedness. -- user:zanimum

Just FYI

I would like to bring to your attention some gross disarray on Czech Wikipedia, which probably should be addressed - it is most probably quite typical for those East European Wiki's (thats what I am hearing), but still it is not right. See here [2] - otherwise, greetings from Ft. Myers, FL. Ross.Hedvicek 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Usebox appeal

Sigh. I hate to do this, as you've gotten more than enough mentions of this tiresomely fraught issue already - but, it's tearing the community apart, and so I will ask. Please review the Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. We need to do something to stop inflaming the community by deleting userboxes without a clear policy to point to. Either we need to simply allow any and all userboxs and give up on the factionalization and we're-here-to-write-an-encyclopedia issues, or we need a policy that forbids all userbox templates (by which I mean pages, wherever they are, that only contain the wikitext of a userbox, not any other text) maybe with an exception for WikiProjects and such groups. Either one of these options would be vastly prefered by a very large part of the community of editors. We can't let things stay the way they are going - it's tearing the community apart. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

However imposed solutions from above are unlikely to help and leting to two sides talk it out is probably the least damageing option.Geni 03:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while the whole affair is still being debated (is is a proposed policy and not a official one, for Chris´s sake) some users/administrators have been deleting the political incorrect userboxes and sparing the correct ones.

I have a question here and I'll probably state it badly, so when you notice I could have stated it better please be aware I would have stated it better if I could have. I have seen the claim "it's tearing the community apart" many times. I can agree the FIRST attempts accompanied by arrogant "screw the process" type remarks were divisive. But later attempts to achieve the same end result were handled better. I do not see current efforts as "tearing the community apart". So my question is: What is the evidence for the position that current efforts to delete user box templates are interfering with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (ie objective evidence for tearing apart the encyclopedia building part of the community)? Are fewer articles being written? What is the evidence? Please don't answer by changing the subject. The assertion that those templates aren't divisive is a seperate argument that I am specificly not addressing here. WAS 4.250 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to simply to look in the talkpages. As for your statement: "But later attempts to achieve the same end result were handled better. I do not see current efforts as "tearing the community apart" , get real. Jus look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/February_userbox_deletion. It clearly shows that the "rouge/vigilante/self-rightous" administrators who are engaged in this "userboxes deletion campaign" have been doing it despite all opposition. Tell me how is a normal user suppossed to deal with a "over-eager" administrator? Flamarande 10:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To show all of you that there is a division see below. And get real: a third is plenty, there is a division

Results as of 2200 EST 2006-03-04 (0300 UTC 2006-03-05)

I don't care

... what happens, it's only Wikipedia! Have fun. --JimmyT 10:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greetings

My respectful greetings to you. I feel privileged and happy to speak to you who initiated the Project. And, so in the 12th month of my wiki-sojourn (with 16,500 plus edits to more than 10,000 distinct pages, and creating several hundread new stubs and pages, on an average of at least one per day!), I reached here to record my feelings on a day on which I had decided to say a final goodbye to the Project wikipedia. I am gald that the destiny has willed otherwise! A bureacrate’s immediate intervention and the love and affection of the wiki-community prevented me to run away. Please allow me a little indulgence to share with you certain thoughts which have been disturbing me for sometime, and they are there in the section: Sabotage of Wikipedia. With best regards. --Bhadani 15:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat/RfAs

I know adminship is not a big deal but on my RfAs people had made big deal of it.

I have collected some highlights and would like your oppinion.

I am wondering if I should continue pursuing adminship as it appears unlikely I will ever win concensus...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 23:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections

I don't expect a response to this, but for whatever wisdom it may contain I'm copying what I just posted on the talk page for the current vote on a userboxes policy. As follows:

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to organise opposition to the policy by asking people who might not be aware of it, and are thought likely to be against it, to come and vote. Accusing people of vote stacking, or whatever, doesn't help the debate; it just raises emotions. Vote stacking implies something corrupt - like getting friends to sign up as wikipedia members just so they can vote, creating sock puppets to manipulate the voting, or offering kickbacks for voting. Just trying to organise some opposition is not vote stacking. I'm sure there has been some organising of support for the policy as well - though probably through networks of people who know each other. That is also legitimate; there's nothing corrupt about it.

I do think this is a pretty good policy in all the circumstances. The trouble is that some admins evidently jumped the gun and started deleting relatively innocuous userboxes before the community could respond to Jimbo's words through a consultative process. That was an unwise way to deal with an issue of symbolic importance. As a result, a lot of users are evidently confused and upset (as I was a couple of weeks ago). I wish the whole thing had been done consultatively with a vote to ratify this as a compromise after a lot of discussion (maybe taking some weeks) and no pre-emptive action. I'm sure it would have had overwhelming support in those circumstances.

IMHO it's not just not tenable to allow template space to be used forever the way it has been in the past - Jimbo is right about that - but there has to be a transition period, adequate protection of users who still want easy ways to express their beliefs in their own user space, and a moratorium (while we all digest what is needed) on deleting boxes merely because they express political or religious beliefs. This policy does all of that about as well as possible. However reluctant people are to abandon the old situation, I think something like this policy is necessary.

I suggest that people who are upset, and want to express it by voting against the policy, think about whether the old situation was really tenable. It seems to me that it wasn't, given that having these things as templates really does give an odd impression to newcomers and the public, and besides Jimbo's views, which he is entitled to since he's putting such resources into this, will ultimately have to be deferred to in some way. If you can accept that the old situation is not tenable long-term, try to consider this policy on its merits - i.e. separate from the premature actions taken to delete templates in advance of the process of working out a policy. If you agree that the policy itself is quite good, you can support it while expressing your reluctance or regret that it is needed, and/or you can support it while also using other forums here to oppose continuing attempts by some people to jump the gun. E.g. you can vote to reinstate deleted templates pending this policy getting wide agreement.

Conversely, if this vote fails, I ask people who want to stop the kinds of userboxes concerned to accept the result for now and look at any alternative proposals on their merits. Maybe someone could propose a rejigged policy like this in a couple of months, during which people are not being antagonised by premature attempts to delete userbox templates. It's more important to get this right than to prove a point, win a victory, or make a painful (if needed) change quickly.

Just my two cents.

I don't expect this to do much to still the troubled waters, but you never know. Regards, Metamagician3000 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]