User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

ARIN CEO asks us to go to IPv6

I cannot verify the authenticity of it, but apparently ARIN CEO John Curran has asked us to hasten the move to IPv6 to the point that the WMF can participate in World IPv6 Launch. It would be sad if the WMF could not take the leap with everyone else, but I realize that there are major outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Nevertheless, it seems that contact by Curran himself is a big motivator.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP Address: 12.174.51.2
• ISP: AT&T Services
• Organization: INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP
• Region: Austin (US)

  —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Who says he couldn't have been traveling? The topic, whether the message is real or not, is still a valid, pressing one for the WMF.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm simply giving information to start the discussion with. I'm not trying to prove anything. I would suggest contacting ARIN's CEO by e-Mail or phone to verify that he indeed did write that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This surely will make a Signpost headline.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

SxSW just wrapped up this past weekend - lots of tech types were there, or so I understand. Then again, you'd think he'd use a more official channel. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we aren't too transparent about how to contact the WMF either...Jasper Deng (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've met him before, and I see no reason to doubt this request is genuine. Perhaps someone can help him find the right people to talk with!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

However, with it being a hotel IP, I don't believe there's really anything the community can do; the WMF has to do something, I think.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with quickly switching over to IPv6. Majority of systems out there are old style an run off of IPv4. Anything earlier than Windows vista will not be able to connect to IPv6. By switching over to IPv6, we may be kicking off millions of experienced editors including me.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 10:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, my Windows XP is IPv6 ready (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not so by default, and I can't expect all users to know the command.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's expected that the IPv4 address's will be running out by the end of 2012. To be fair, we're in March. Testing and stuff could go underway, but I don't think there is a major rush to have it completed. I just did a quick search and there are also ways to communicate with IPv6 websites from an IPv4 address through a proxy, so it may not mean getting an upgrade in hardware straight away, however, I would assume, it will eventually be phased out entirely. Mrlittleirish 11:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to support connections from both IP versions? If WMF implemented support forth both, then they wouldn't force old users to have have to upgrade to new hardware to continue editing Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason why we shouldn't seamlessly support both. I have been told (but only randomly by random people) that we don't yet do IPV6 at all. This is not about kicking people off who use old hardware/software or making them use a proxy or anything - that would be very very wrong for us to do. This is about making sure that we are proactive about assisting with the move into the future. I personally have no real idea of the status of that right now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we have some on-wiki issues too. We just talk to you as you're the head of the WMF; unfortunately we don't know how to reach the WMF network admins.

With that said, though, I think that we can resolve these in time if gadget and Toolserver developers hurry up.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You can always write to answerswikimedia.org. :) Currently I man this email address, but if I don't know, I'll ask around. Director of Technical Operations CT Woo tells me that, while there are a couple of tasks to be completed first (including particularly to do with Mediawiki and load balancer LVS), the WMF hopes to participate in the IPV6 Launch Day on 6/6/12. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the WMF does not appear on the participants list, yet.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it need to? That's not a sarcastic question; I've read what they say about IPv6 there, but that's the extent of my personal knowledge. :) I can suggest that WMF sign up, but there may be good reason they haven't. I don't know. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Being ready is a possible issue, but I think it's worth asking...Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

All right; I'll pass along the suggestion. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Most things are working although there are a zillion little toolserver scripts and bots which don't know about ipv6 yet and may need to be upgraded. Also, there are still some bugs. In general, reading from ipv6 is ready for prime time, but editing might still be months to years out. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you've been informed right Jimmy, there is a way to seemlessly support both, many sites have already implimented it. It would definately need to be something that gets implimented by tech staff. Most people, I would imagine, would be contacted by their ISP's about the transition. Mrlittleirish 14:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's something of interest that would like a WMF comment: mw:Roadmap#April 2012 (search for "IPv6" in that section).Jasper Deng (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you (Jimbo) think that if I start an active on-wiki movement to get ready, you can convince the WMF to follow suite and be ready ahead of World IPv6 Launch?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not entirely true, the problem with dual stack (as this is called), is that people who have IPv6 enabled, but incorrectly working (either due to older OS or due to ISPs being incompetent) would not even be able to reach the IPv4 website. That's why the IPv6 change is being done so carefully, even by large organizations like google. Just flipping the switch will loose you about between 1 to 4% of traffic. That was part of last years effort. To better get a feel about what would break, and make it possible for infrastructure organizations to better assess where they themselves had issues. But in general yes, dual stack is possible (actually it's what everyone is doing) and it's the organizations idea to go there as well. Last years effort was unable to succeed because it was forgotten that we would need to update the databases, which would be at least 1 week of work, before IPv6 can be enabled for wiki. Because of that we missed the window of opportunity. It would be good if someone could at least put that Db update on the map for the immediate future, before we again are too late. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • IPv6 brokenness was listed as an issue on wikitech, but it's not directly related to the MediaWiki software and the webservers themselves.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject IPv6 has now been started.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted a little help with my wikia's wiki

When I saw that Uncyclopedia is a wikia's wiki, I found that a Wikia's wiki can have the wikipedia's layout.

Jimmy, help me, I was wondering how my wiki can have the wikipedia's layout?

The link of my wiki:: pt-br.weirdpedia.wikia.com

I thought, as co-founder of Wikia, you could help me do this.

A hug from your fan Renan Marcos (A Brazilian Wikipedian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.121.227 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, questions about Wikia are best directed to community@wikia.com!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A DYK in the making

See Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass.

I mean, seriously? --JN466 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, please, can you step in and sort out DYK? The Eastenders incident was horrific, and this looks as though it's heading into a similar way. I cannot believe these kinds of 'jokes' are being permitted for the front page. The shop window of Wikipedia is going to look like it's splattered in post-Friday night vomit. doktorb _words^deeds 21:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean, seriously, a move was done, it was challenged by moving back, with a request to discuss as per WP:BRD, and you ignored that and moved back without discussion. Please discuss. The hook was clearly done for April Fools DYK, and yes, yes we know we have to turn the project into Prudeapedia. Hence, why for the next Russian election, I am going to suggest to Zhirinovsky that he get a giant rooster, put a circular band on one of its feet, and then place 2 chickadees belonging to Ms XXX on either side. We should then have the hook,...DYK...Vladimir Zhirinovsky put a ring on his big cock, and then placed it between Ms XXX's tits? Let's see how you guys would handle that one eh. Lighten up.....geeeez. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading it correctly, it's up for April 1st. For those who don't know, our April Fool's tradition in English Wikipedia is to have the front page of the site be 100% accurate and very well sourced - but also as implausible seeming as possible. I think this has traditionally been done with good taste, and I think this one should be done with good taste. Russavia, I think the term 'Prudeapedia' may not be the most helpful way to conceptualize people's desire for good editorial judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My objection to this is not based on the childish attempt to slip a "naughty" word in the main page, but on the fact that it is being done at the expense of a living person. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, at the expense of a living donkey... Resolute 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you're not just making a joke, check out Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass. I'm surprised that no one suggested "Did you know that Vladimir Zhirinovsky has a big hairy black ass?"... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am! Though in seriousness, we may need to write a WP:Biographies of Living Asses policy to protect donkeys and politicians... Resolute 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

At the expense of a living person? Zhirinovsky would be relishing in the attention. Have you not seen his infamous drunken rant? It is the stuff that legends of made of! Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky's infamous drunken rant -- watch it in its entirety, it is pure class from beginning to end!!! Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Russavia's example brought a tear to my eye, though I admit that I would rather see a jest with more appeal to Noel Fielding fans than Butt-head enthusiasts (and if dependant on wordplay, one that transfers well into British English rather than assuming some less well established vocabulary). --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The only objection I would have (I find the wordplay barely*cough* amusing, but it's not too far into the realm of childish IMO) is that the article tries too hard to be funny/amusing/ironic. There are far too many childish asides and "nods" - per our traditions the joke goes on the front page, but the article must be of the normal high quality. But I've moaned about that all the time, and we still end up with poor quality articles. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't consider this a BLP violation? How would you feel if this was Obama's ass, or Romney's ass ... or whoever's? --JN466 00:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Zhirinovsky.27s_ass --JN466 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Zhirinovsky was using an ass/donkey to make a deliberate political point, with that exact context - no, I really don't think it is :) the BLP issue is with the name of the Donkey and the issues such as the image of its namesake in the article... I fixed some of those problems. If president Obama filmed himself riding an Ass, and claimed it the new symbol of the US, then that would work for me. I can't say how I would feel though - probably depends on how much beer I had drunk. --Errant ^(chat!) 01:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JN. This is painfully inappropriate. We need a full investigation into the future of these stunts, it's not funny, it's not appropriate, it's not tasteful and if we had anything about us, it would be stopped before it started. doktorb _words^deeds 06:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A mildly amusing double entendre on ass (donkey) is not painfully inappropriate and can reasonably be taken in good faith; after all it isn't on the main page of Wikipedia yet. Making light of a recent alleged murder and dismemberment was painfully inappropriate or the open harassment of a Wikipedia editor by speculating about their gay sex life and HIV status was painfully inappropriate. --Fæ (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the ass/donkey double-entendre is so old, it not only fails to be mildly amusing, it's profoundly embarrassing. What's next? Is someone also dreaming up a DYK about Uranus? Volunteer Marek said the other day that Wikipedia is becoming, or has already become,

Encyclopedia Dramatica-lite, with some real content in the background. The articles featured on the main page - particularly DYK but also In the News - are becoming more and more "lulz" internet memes. It's only partly accidental that the front page keeps embarrassing itself by featuring offensive or morbid articles time and time again. The non-accidental part is simply the reflection of the fact that these articles are written by editors who show up to Wikipedia thinking that "this is what this is all about" - lulz, memes, porn, donkey punches, misogyny, bigotry, harassment - that is what this is supposed to be, right?"

Looking at the tone of the discussion above, he seems to have a point. --JN466 08:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466, I'm not dreaming about Uranus, sorry, not even in my top 10 of heavenly bodies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh for goodness sake. Your soapboxing would carry a lot more weight, you know, if you had actually tried to fix some of the problems in the article (which I hope will eventually be merged) instead of moaning about it in multiple forums. Banality is a part of human culture; even though I've never found it very amusing the day we shove a stick up our ass is a sad one. I'm unsure what point you are trying to prove; if it is that the April fools DYK has inspired someone to write a joke article which contains BLP issues and violates the serious nature of the project, then I agree with you. If you're moaning about a piece of banal humour being put together for April fools day, I definitely don't. Either way; action speaks louder than words. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"if it is that the April fools DYK has inspired someone to write a joke article which contains BLP issues and violates the serious nature of the project, then I agree with you."

"If you're moaning about a piece of banal humour being put together for April fools day, I definitely don't."

So it's alright to say that someone has written an April fool's "joke article which contains BLP issues and violates the serious nature of the project", but it's not alright to complain about "a piece of banal humour being put together for April fools day"? Gee. Why don't you make it easier on yourself: "I agree with you, but I don't like the way you make your point." There. That wasn't so hard? --JN466 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perish the thought. :) --JN466 10:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Checking the article, it looks to be an example of Recentism (WP:Recentism). It looks like it only deserves to be a small section in a few articles, instead of having a full article of itself. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC) So, I think the article should be sent to AfD. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete this one?

The point above about DYK becoming a 'meme' is valid. I am deeply concerned that a lack of oversight amongst DYK has given the regulars there a sense of being 'autonomous'. Is there a mechanism through which this specific nomination could be deleted or removed? I mean this - I am very uneasy with the idea of this being on the front page and consider it important that we do what we can to ensure it never does doktorb _words^deeds 12:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The process is open and transparent. Anyone can go to Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Zhirinovsky's ass and add their opinion. No need to ask for the secret police to send out a van. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote somebody else on this: Ideally the best humor is not offensive but rather intellectual. Making jokes of sexual or scatalogical innuendo should be left to those without the intellectual power of Wikipedians. (With the exception of jokes of such innuendo that are sufficiently clever/geeky that most people won't get it). Everything should be ruthlessly accurate. Jokes that depend on being misleading should be kept to a minimum, although I know that's one of the easiest kinds to construct! [1]. It seems to apply.VolunteerMarek 21:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong

Is appropriate for users to create a user page about an Ip that keeps coming back,about what he does,or personal info.Doesn't that break a Wikipedia rule,if not we should have a rule about it. 74.163.16.20 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is their responsibility to not disrupt our project, and we will out things like IP addresses (at least suspected ones) and location (as a result) if necessary to prevent further disruption.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have to look at the specific case before I could have an opinion about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is illuminating. Resolute 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that is me being stupid,forgive me anger is something I half to control here,but User:Tailsman67.74.163.16.20 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are de facto banned. Stop editing, go away, and then nobody will bother collecting information to use for spotting your IP addresses. Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See That's what I don't understand,people like you scaring people off.Just delet the page or make a rule about it.Besides I can't stop these open Poxy changes74.163.16.20 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I've done. I've deleted the redirect at User:Tailsman67. I've also deleted the destination at User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67, but only so I could remove personally identifying information and information that was linked to non-Wikipedia related accounts. I'm leaving the rest of that up there, as it directly pertains to the way you've been disrupting Wikipedia for some time now. Perhaps an entry at WP:LTA would be more appropriate or perhaps it should be used for a more formal community ban. I'll leave that up to others. AniMate 00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much friend.74.163.16.20 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• This was hosted in my userspace, so I feel compelled to chime in. I've addressed AniMate's concerns on my talk page. I will agree the redirect from the Userpage of the non-existent account was not okay. I will note all personal information on that page was information publicly released by the user. The age and ethnicity is indeed irrelevant, but the off-wiki accounts, especially the Wikia account, is highly relevant to this particular editor. As for the WP:LTA suggestion, we've decided to heed WP:DFTT at MuZeMike's direction. I will also note that this particular editor, as noted on the page being discussed is known for posting messages to this talk page with goals other than improving the encyclopedia, and has done so at least twice in the past. Salvidrim! 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have gone to far,I just want to be left alone,my motive is just to add info,but I can't,because of you,I want you to stop.74.163.16.20 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, you are not currently under any blocking sanction; you are free to edit as you see fit. Don't give people a reason to take action and you'll be "left alone" as you want. However if solitude is what you're seeking, I may recommend that you seek avenues other than the primarily collaborative environment Wikipedia is meant to be. I apologize if I come off as rude, but please do understand that with your past actions it is difficult to be anything but wary. But as always, I am willing to forgive and give the benefit of doubt. The best you can do at this point is prove me wrong to worry. :) Salvidrim! 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this is no longer the case and that a block has been issued; the jusitification is your past disruption. I believe that as of right now these punishments have served, and unless I've missed something you've not given reason to block; I've asked the admin for some manner of clarification... :) Salvidrim! 01:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the last block, which is a 6 month range block enacted last month. He's evading a block. Simple. AniMate 02:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the rangeblock extension; I then clearly support the action. This is "case closed" as far as I am concerned. Salvidrim! 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My password

I forgot my password and have proof that it is me. User name: Scientific Alan. I gave you a barnstar in archive 94, section 23. I have 50 userboxes. I've made 53 contributions. In case you are wondering why I'm not resetting it by email, I never set it up. 184.57.204.9 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Jimbo or anyone else can do, I'm afraid. Technically speaking I think it's possible, but the people who can do it are unlikely to. Just start over. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can help, help. Until then I'll try to remember it, but I think it has to do with 1 or 2 glitch Pokemon from Pokemon Yellow. 184.57.204.9 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What you could do is make a new account and mention in your userpage your old account (and wikilink it). That way you have your new account and the history of your old account. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I might do that if I don't remember my password. 184.57.204.9 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Haz Kitten ^-^

Beep beep meow (Cheers to homestuck fans)

⌯⌯☲☲Zenith042☲☲⌯⌯ (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Declining editorship

I just saw this Signpost article and wanted to comment. I think its ok to sell Merch and to restructure but I think that the organization is kidding themselves if they think this is why editors stop editing. They stop editing because its difficult to edit, the community is frequently mean and impatient, there is a general sense of IP hatred and a variety of other reasons. If you want to seriously improve retention you need to consentrate your efforts on two main areas, simplifying the rules and instructions and improving civility. No matter how much merchandise you sell and no matter how many college students you talk to, if they have to spend months to learn the rules and get constantly attacked by other editors because they don't know the rules its just a waste of time. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Editorship is declining because the easy articles are already done. There's not much to draw people in now. Cleanup and maintenance is not as glamorous sounding as creating a new article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me is how obvious the decline has become. It's possible to monitor watchlists now for weeks without seeing much change. What used to be 'popular' pages now lay dormant. Where there was once busy activity and a sense of community, there is now a small bunch of people who are in danger of becoming de-facto 'slaves' to a long forgotten machine. You are right about the complexity of it all - to even build a basic table for information needs weeks of understanding code and programming. To delete an article means having 4 or 5 tabs open to go through a rigorous nomination process only for a BOT (which nobody tells you about) to warn you against a specific oversight. It's notable that many popular pages, from US Presidential elections to television series, are now effectively left monitored by obsessives who - through no fault of their own - probably fall against WP:OWNERSHIP by virtue of being the only editors left. Selling tat for cheap profit will do nothing. Wiki used to be racing ahead of the pack; it's quickly falling behind Google+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.102.100 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to The Hand That Feeds You - True that is one reason, and there are some things that can be done there too. With respect though, more often than not these days, if someone does create an article its deleted or at least submitted for it, they then have to face the gauntlet of unsympathetic editors making incivil comments. Granted many are not notable and probably shouldn't have an article but the experience drives away editors. This ties directly to civility. Additionally, many of these articles are deleted because the author simply doesn't understand the hundreds of editing rules and most editors are too interested in pointing out problems than helping a new editor fix them. Then these editors leave with a bad impression of Wikipedia and some come back as vandals and Sockpuppeteers. If we can change civility and this like article ownership as mentioned by the other IP, then we can start to change these things. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, declining editorship is a good thing, the project has...slowly and agonizingly...raised the bar for what it deems as an acceptable article. The local bar band you love, the game your youth rec center leader created yesterday, every street and avenue in every mid-sized city, every one-event drive-by media sensation, every porn starlet whose PR team uses the Wiki Commons for free image galleries to color their free Wikipedia bio. All *poof*. New editors need to be steered away from "I create" mindsets and towards "I contribute" mindsets. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanspiritness is the PRIME reason for decline in membership. Certainly with all of the scholars here someone can come up with a simple way to discourage this.This does not apply exclusively to just editors. Having said that there are some very fine editors and administrators which I have had the good fortune to interact with. It is the few causing all the trouble, in my view. Also, we have not nearly begun to run out of good articles to create and/or improve. Mugginsx (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not "meanspiritedness", it is thinskinnedness on the part of the person receiving criticism. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I whole heartedly disagree that declining editorship is a good thing and I don't agree that new editors shouldn't be creating content. There is simply too many articles that still need to be created/expanded for a couple hundred editors. I do agree that we can make it a lot easier for them, the New article wizard is a huge leap in that direction but it still has some shortcomings that need improvement. There are still tens of thousands of articles that could/need to be created on a wide variety of subjects, Biographies, flora and fauna, science, history, geography, etc. With that said just because we raised the bar doesn't mean that we should become elitist or we might end up like Citizendium. I also agree that is the prime reason Mugginsx. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are still articles to create, sure. But those tend to be obscure topics, not the kind of thing your average new editor tosses out for their first article. No one says we should be "elitist," so I don't know where you're getting that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea that new editors should be discouraged from creating new articles and, more importantly, the attitude which is behind it, is PART of the problem, not a solution. There are many new editors that have a learning curve which is not helped but discouraged by this kind of thinking. A gentle nudge, a pleasant message, ...I see you have created a new article, it needs more content before it is ready, please start in your sandbox, if you do not know how to do that, I will talk you through it ..... or .... your reference or references do not comply with our guidelines, let me direct you to the ones in point and if you do not understand them, I will help explain ....... Often one time is all it takes to help a new editor who may have a good article in his or her mind but simply needs "a little help". All one has to do is check the editors contribs, as we all know, to find out if they are a new editor or not. This should be mandatory for an administrator and vigoursly encouraged for editors. If it is "beneath" any editor or administrator to do this kind of thing then perhaps their fitness should be questioned by a board or panel of veterans. Mugginsx (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whoa, slow down there. Admins are volunteers, just like the rest of us. You really can't "mandate" anything outside of our policies. And even that is flexible. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Then mandate through the policies. It is new editors that are being discourage with "Speedy Deletion" notices rather than a kind message with a message that if they do not have sufficient information or significant information and reliable sources the article could be deleted rather than these big NOTICES that stop a Newbie dead in their tracks. One was even given to a young child when a helpful word would have encourage her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erin_Brault Where is the foresight in that? Mugginsx (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a single welcome message or word of advice to a new editor in your last 1000 contributions. It is easy to propose such things when you leave the work to someone else. Resolute 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Feel free to suggest a new policy here, then. I don't think you'll get much traction with the way you've framed the issue, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Look here and see how this new editor, "obviously a child" was treated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erin_Brault

LOOK AT WHAT SHE SAYS - it says it all!! - "I was just figuring this stuff out!" Erin Brault (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Using all caps, bold and extra exclamation points does not help sway others to your side. And, personally, neither does "Think of the children!" Further, that comment is from 2008. Are you seriously going to dredge up 4-year-old posts to make your point? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was so hoping you would have something useful to say. Mugginsx (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather doubt that. Regardless, I did have something useful to say: you're basing your argument on a post from 4 years ago, and you exaggerated its importance with bold, caps and extra exclamation points. No one is going to take you seriously when you do that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On that thing 78.86.102.100 was talking about - the complicated AFD process where people are more willing to judge than actually advise, I personally think it is absolutely ridiculous that the attitude at AFD's is: "going to make a vote and leave ti at that. it's someone else's problem now", rather than actually helping edit those struggling articles to give them that new burst of life to push them over the edge into being kept on Wikipedia. It's all talk, no action. 20 people can say keep but improve, the article probably gets kept, but no work gets done on it at all. Instead of all this background bureaucratic behind the scenes nonsense (I acknowledge there are some vital behind the scenes things but in general, people waste so much of there time arguing about what must be done rather than doing it... it drives me up the wall just reading it.. IMHO, everyone should just get back to work....--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AfDs are not for advisement or for hand-holding, it is for determining whether an article merits inclusion per our standards. If a better job was done getting new users away from article-writing, or at the very least into creation/incubation spaces, then the misconception that AfD is WP:BITEy would be lessened. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to encouraging new editors and articles - on the Village Pump proposals page

Just made a proposal to the Village Pump proposals page directly related to this discussion. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.--Coin945 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea Oops - And look at the "friendly" message someone put on the page when you try to answer your comment. I think I made my point. Editing Talk:Main Page (section) (can't make the link work) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit It states: This is NOT the place to make suggestions for Main Page content. Please direct your suggestion to one of the forums listed above or your post may be removed or ignored. I believe this message makes my point.Mugginsx (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

... what? How is that offensive? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The message in its format just discourages new thoughts and new ideas. A better way would have been to say something directly to the editor like: I have placed your message in its proper place - you may inform editors to answer you there Mugginsx (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's easily sorted... (oops... forgot the talk page wasn't for general discussion about the main page.. :P) all I have to do is relocate the proposal to the suitable page, and then change the link. Give me 5 minutes. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Coin945 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So, Mugginsx, your entire problem is with the "may be removed or ignored" bit? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that "sometimes" a personal message is more effective than an automated one. It conveys to the editor the same message but without the harshness of the automated message. Either that or the automated message could be worded in a more friendly tone. While veteran editors are used to them, newer editors are not. That was my only point but I think it is an important point to be made in a discussion about encouraging new editors or even experienced editors with a new or novel idea. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a personalized message is more friendly. But, your complaint was the warning on the page. That's not possible to personalize, because there's no one "interacting" with the editor at that point. IIRC, the stern wording was due to people not getting it when it was worded in a more friendly manner, then being upset that their additions were moved/removed. I wouldn't be opposed to wording it differently, but I don't think it'll make a difference in the long run. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A welcome bot

In the spirit of above I think it would also be very beneficial to welcome new users with some sort of automated message. Perhaps this could even help them with some kind of wizard to a WikiProject that might interest them (I would limit this to active ones). Projects are a great place for users to get advice and learn. We do not, IMO, do enough to promote our productive WikiProjects. Creating such a bot would be trivial, IMO determining what the message should say is a bit harder. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with the WikiProject thing. I had to fish out all this info about the innerworkings of Wikipedia by my self. I would've been much more enthused to enter the project if i had known about things like WikiProjects, Wikipedia:Requested articles, etc. Knowing there are others out there with similar interests to you is a great feeling. Knowing that your miniscule contribution is part of a much larger project and is therefore essential is awesome - working freelance is much harder than being relied upon/having deadlines etc. Anything we can do to make these things more noticeable, I'd say go for it!--Coin945 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also a good idea. Mugginsx (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, there's already Template:Welcomeh. And I'm pretty sure there's already a bot that applies it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And it is a very nice template but could say more, like, if you wish to create a new article, please feel free to do so but start it in your sandbox first (with directions) Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. Might want to bring it up on the template's Talk page, see if that piques anyone else's interest there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it called Template:Welcomeh - what's the "h" for?--Coin945 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a better answer than "it comes after G." There's a Template:Welcomef and a Template:Welcomeg. Template:Welcomeh was a natural progression. The pattern seems to have been started by Can't sleep, clown will eat me in December 2006, but it may have earlier origins. Dig through the page histories to learn more. I imagine this has already been previously discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia as well; Special:Search is your friend. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed and debated endlessly. It just came up again on foundation-l. A few other Wikimedia wikis (22 of them) already have this feature through a MediaWiki extension called NewUserMessage. This isn't a technical problem; it's a political or social problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is a Socio-political problem rather than technical. I don't think there is a bot that leaves a welcome message in all cases although it might under certain circumstances (such as use of the New User template. I think another good helpful thing would be to add a link to the Article creation andn account creation Wizards to the toolbox. We have a link for uploading an image, why not an article too and creating an account. If we want poeple to join and start editing we need to make the process as transparent as possible and it seems to me we still have plenty of realestate over there on the left. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 April Fools On this Day

Not sure what's happening with the rest of the AF preparations, but this is a page that has been very dormant this year. I found this out a few days ago, and came up with some ideas accordingly. Contribution/critiquing would be awesome. I assume the "On This Day"s are going ahead whether we've got funny/clever ones or not, so we might as well get some humorous juices flowing in the final few days that we've got left.--Coin945 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideally the best humor is not offensive but rather intellectual. Making jokes of sexual or scatalogical innuendo should be left to those without the intellectual power of Wikipedians. (With the exception of jokes of such innuendo that are sufficiently clever/geeky that most people won't get it). Everything should be ruthlessly accurate. Jokes that depend on being misleading should be kept to a minimum, although I know that's one of the easiest kinds to construct!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My jokes are misleading but that's the whole point of April Fools. It's not like disruptive misleading but misleading nonetheless. It's already implemented, gets activated automatically and dactivates after April Fools.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that every year you write the OTD for April Fools, which get automatically uploaded?--Coin945 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean me then no.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... got slightly muddled with your response.. :D--Coin945 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific place where joke articles for this day could be created? Calabe1992 00:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Userspace. Joke articles in mainspace will get deleted, the same as they would on any other day. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago, it was decided that April Fools Day would tend towards "strange but true" on Wikipedia, rather than directly misleading people with false information. I have been told that joke articles are quite common on April Fools Day on other wikis though...--Coin945 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, obviously userspace would work, but nowhere within April Fool's sections? Calabe1992 02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately It wouldn't end up on the main page. Discussion around the "sillyness" of the Wikipedia AF tradition has been heavily debated on the Wikipedia April Fools page, and I fear you may not win a chance to get your article on the main page, even if you fully write it and propose it...--Coin945 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

haha - as a sidenote, I just realised that FA (feature article) has the opposite letters as AF (april fools) - maybe thats a sign from the great Jimbo himself that while FA's represent our very best content, the stuff that gets posted on April Fools day may be our worst - the sillyness disrupting the professionality of the site and all... :D--Coin945 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Searching for ship films in 3D

New article "Titanic in 3D" (which I created today) is rising now in external search-results. However, prior to that article, there had been no near-matches. After reading about the controversial 1,000-search test done by Search Engine Watch (in February 2012), then I became curious about searching in Google/Bing for other common topics, and I discovered how searching for the re-release film "Titanic in 3D" had failed to match within the top 50 search-results on Google or Bing. Of course, the editors of film articles tend to append the major re-release of a film near the bottom of the original article, so Titanic in 3D was described, near the bottom, of high-ranking article "Titanic (1997 film)" but that failed to match in Google or Bing. Next, I created a redirect to that article, as specifically "Titanic in 3D" but it still failed to register in Google/Bing (after 24 hours). Well, after researching the term "titanic in 3-d" then I found other films which were about the RMS Titanic in 3D filming. That gave a reason to create separate article "Titanic in 3D" to also link to a prior 3D film about the underwater shipwreck, as the 3D one-hour documentary film Ghosts of the Abyss (2003), but also focus on the more-notable re-release of the 1997 blockbuster. With the new article in place, voila! the search-results began matching and rose higher every few hours of the day, even before the premiere screening of the film began this evening in West London. Bottom line: if we want Wikipedia to reasonably match search-requests for major topics, then those topics need separate spinoff articles, rather than be buried at the bottom of some other large article (even if that article ranked #2 for years). A rare topic is likely to match anywhere in an article, but a major topic will be covered by many other websites to clutter the results. Apparently, an article also needs to get a head start, to gain search momentum, as it takes many hours or days for other readers to click an article and improve its search-rank as a webpage which other readers are actively viewing. If the prior search-test by Search Engine Watch (SEW) had tried to find "Titanic in 3D" last month, then it would have been an actual complete failure to match within the top 50 results (on Google or Bing), despite WP having described the re-release film near the bottom of "Titanic (1997 film)". Again, this does not apply to rare topics, not covered by many websites, but I conclude that major topics need a separate article and days of preparation, for readers to find them in search-results. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:17/23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could just add a "notable re-releases" parameter to film infoboxes to get the term into the top of the page? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:33, 27 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Two things: I'm not sure why being at the top of a Google search is necessary for Wikipedia, and links are not ranked by how many people click on them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If a separate article is needed for each major topic, then that need is relevant to Wikipedia:Merging and Wikipedia:Splitting.

(Evidently, you meant "voilà" and not "viola". Maybe your spell checker changed what you typed.)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so much for wikilinking to check spelling errors; if it's not a large violin, then the misspelled word is often a rare village name, somewhere. For merging/splitting, the rank in Google/Bing is likely to be considered as an outside, off-topic issue. However, in cases where the search-engine access is considered important, then creating a separate article should be noted. For active editors, it is often a concern because searching in Google or Bing is where we get some good ideas for article titles. Seeing WP articles listed there (or not) helps us sort out which are the most-likely missing titles. -Wikid77 01:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if people are searching for the sort of information that we have then we should try and make our information available to their search. However I'm not sure that spinout articles are necessarily the right way to go, why not create redirects from common search terms to the relevant Wikipedia article or section of article? ϢereSpielChequers 07:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think his point is that he tested a redirect and it didn't help, but creating a separate article did. While I agree that getting ranked higher in google/bing is not a valid reason to create a separate article in and of itself, I do think this is a really interesting anecdotal piece of evidence. It is not completely wrong for us to think about how to help searchers find the information they are looking for, and while it shouldn't solely drive the structure of Wikipedia, it can reasonably be considered one factor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Scottdelaney1067's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 07:25, 28 March 2012 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration

This is relevant to the work of all editors of English Wikipedia.

• Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar Check Demonstration

—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC) and 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very desperate situation where I need your help.

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please. This is only for Jimbo. Thanks Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Yrc/o2r

I'm closing this hopelessly heated personal argument.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JW, I have posted the below to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2Foff2riorob, and am posting it in its entirety here, so that you are aware of this unacceptable behaviour from this editor..... Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC) At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself: [2] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it [3] - I respond to this baseless accusation [4] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll. [5] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on. [6] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda. [7] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off? He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance. I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors. Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card. Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind. He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given: a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC) This belongs at AN/I...and not here...what is Jimbo supposed to do?--MONGO 02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I know it does. And I have posted this to JW's talk page, because he needs to be aware of this editor and his unacceptable attacks on GLBT editors. And I know he doesn't like bad press.......... Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC) No, It seems you are trying to use Jimbo to win a fight with another editor. As I explained at ANI, whatever else was done wrong in that interaction, your misinterpretation of the multiple meanings of "queer" does not make his comment a homophobic attack. Resolute 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Jimbo, this was a blatant and malicious homophobic attack, discrediting an editor's opinion during a community consensus process. Regardless of all other considerations of claims about Russavia's involvement in difficult topics (such as the Zhirinovsky's ass nonsense), the wider community and the Wikimedia Foundation does not accept any form of homophobic abuse against volunteers on our projects and must be seen to take action. You know I am a long term active supporter of the Wikimedia movement who happens to be openly gay, and as a result I have been subject to nasty on-wiki and off-wiki homophobic attacks, stalking and abuse in sustained attempts to frighten me off the projects. I look forward to your public statement supporting and valuing LGBT contributors to Wikipedia and your personal active involvement and leadership in this case. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC) What you are both saying (and implying) leads me to believe there is too much back story here to justify my initial AGF of the context Rob placed that comment in. Thus, retracted. Resolute 04:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Can I point out here that being GBLT doesn't preclude one also being annoying, full of oneself, and generally over-keen to make mountains out of molehills. Yes, YRC/Rob seems to have an issue with what he perceives as POV-pushing by activists, and yes, it is possible (but no means certain) that this is motivated in part by homophobia - but is it really that significant? Is Rob the sole arbiter of article content? -Clearly not. More to the point, was the root cause of this particular dispute - the vacuous bit of nonsense that is our Polandball article in any way related to GBLT issues? If it is, I can't see how - this looks like nothing more than name-calling, followed by a bad case of righteous indignation. If you insist on posting crap articles on Wikipedia, don't complain when people point out that they are crap, even if you dislike them for other reasons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I was trying to remember where I saw similar arguments to yours AndyTheGrump. I recall now the defence of Dan White based on diminished capacity; this seems astonishingly similar to the case that you are arguing for Youreallcan, i.e. his being annoyed is justification for an aggressive homophobic attack. I'm afraid you are at least three decades out of date in your prejudices. Yes gay people exist in all varieties including being angelic through to being very annoying, homophobia is still unacceptable on Wikimedia projects. Unless this is some sort of joke, I recommend you leave such outmoded arguments behind in the 1970s where they belong along with blacking up white people to dance around on stage in the The Black and White Minstrel Show. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Grow up. Storm in a teacup. Rob used a word you didn't like. I don't particularly like it either, but why is this so important? As for my prejudices, you know next to nothing about me - so what are you basing your assessments on? Oh, yes - stereotypes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Fae, you just indirectly tried to link Andy to racism which is a red herring and straw man debate tactic. When you resort to logical fallacies I think you have conceded the higher moral ground in the debate between you two. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Well done Fae for coming up with another outrageous non sequitur. "The Black and White Minstrel Show?" More like the Fae and Russavia school of trolling. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone went and called bullshit on your last comment by pointing out how you tried to tar a successful black author with the "porn actress"/"coke whore" brush both here and here. Racism and homophobia are two peas in a pod: demeaning and diminishing someone for who they are, instead of their argument. Saying "grow up" in a complaint about a blatantly homophobic attack is not "the higher moral ground," and it's disgusting that anyone would defend such behavior here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Funny how Malik Shabazz, one of the editors you argued with on this BLP’s talk page, at no point deemed it necessary to play the race card. He chose the classy path of pointing out to you that the gossip columns and adult video streaming website you were trying to get to pass for references in that biographical article didn’t *quite* qualify as reliable sources. Your reply was rather disappointing: "As I would hope that you knew that I am an admin and I know that you are an admin, you might expect me to be aware of some of Wikipedia's policies but thank you for your recommendation that I try reading them." Woo hoo, you’re an admin! That’s an argument you use quite frequently to deal with opponents, isn’t it? But let’s not forget that you only became an admin by "forgetting" to mention, during your RfA, that in your previous user incarnations, you were instrumental in trying to out other gay men by means of your legendary “List of gay bathhouse regulars”. As much as I adored your decision, under a now defunct WP user name, to add a male picture to the hogtie bondage article in order to balance the scales, I can’t get my head around as to why you, as a gay man, would want to expose fellow gay men visiting gay bathhouses to the kind of sexist treatment you so vigorously oppose whenever you think it’s being applied to you on this here site? Why not let people decide for themselves just how much of their sexual identity they want to put out there if and when it pleases them? So forgive me if, in my opinion, you don’t get to play the homophobia card whenever somebody questions your actions around here. Daffyd Thomas, much? Your latest Rfc wasn’t about you being a member of the gay community, but rather about how you, even as an admin, failed to adhere to basic policies. As to the allegations of homophobia repeated ad nauseam by both you and Russavia – both of you have yet to prove them. Oh, and Russavia, it’s LGBT, not GLBT. That’s because in principle, there’s less of a sexist agenda among the persecuted tenth. However, in light of your recent activities around here, I won’t be making a big song and dance about how your spelling could be interpreted as an insult to each and every one of the few women contributing to the project. DracoE 07:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) It seems pointless to reply to such obvious trolling, regurgitating material previously addressed but used to maliciously smear my name in other places. However for anyone else interested in the false claim of my outing other gay men; here is the list in full: Truman Capote, Charles Griffes, Justin Fashanu, Michel Foucault, Rock Hudson, Mikhail Kuzmin, Harvey Milk, Rudolf Nureyev. It is hard to call listing men having such well documented sex lives as outing, particularly when the key thing connecting them is that they are all long dead; some were dead before my parents were born! Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC) If you still don't understand that having a "List of gay bathhouse attendees" article on an openly editable encyclopedia is a BLP and privacy disaster waiting to happen, then you're beyond help. --JN466 10:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC) You are missing the point, I never outed anyone despite these much repeated defamatory claims to the contrary; though I understand why you might want to rush to defend your wife. If you want to recreate the list with the clarification in the article title of "long dead people" then please go ahead. There would be no risk of any possible BLP violation or even BDP. There is a far greater risk of BLP problems on List of HIV-positive people which as Delicious carbuncle seemed so concerned about my HIV status, he might help you review. For a change, perhaps your reasonable concerns about the enforcement of our policies could be directed at the disruptive homophobic attacks and attempts to game the system by those who appear to have problems in their collaborations with openly gay Wikipedians? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Fæ, what do you want me to say? People made fun of you, mercilessly. Unquestionably. I am very uncomfortable with it, and I wouldn't have done it. But the reason people are having a problem with you is not because you're gay. It's because of your manipulativeness on-line, which includes your gay "persona", your pro-porn agenda, your reckless and inconsiderate BLP editing ... things like that. You're not prepared to look at that, so instead you shout homophobia. I would like to know whether or not you will in future cite an adult video streaming website as a reference in the Wikipedia biography of a woman, if the URL in question leads to a video of her having sex. Do you, today, think that edit was in compliance with BLP policy, especially given that you knew she had taken legal steps in order to suppress that video? This concern was raised repeatedly, in the RfCU and elsewhere. I even included it in my evidence to parliament. You have never addressed it, but instead used every criticism voiced against you as an opportunity to claim that you're a victim of homophobia. --JN466 11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Your example is daft. The administrator that initially raised this point about the BLP you are so worried about, went on to apologise for raising an issue that was long resolved, particularly as all the "BLP violations" about nicknames or claims about her past were supported by her own popular biography that she made a small fortune from. Well done for attempting to distract Jimbo from the issue here, being a misuse of Wikipedia to launch a malicious homophobic attack against Russavia, which I am looking forward to reading his statement about. To remind you, this discussion is not about whether you believe I am some sort of nasty sexual pervert with a "queer agenda", I suggest you desist from attempting to portray me as such if you expect me seriously to reply to any of your questions. As for your letter to Parliament, your personal polemic about me was clearly irrelevant to the business of the committee, neither I nor the other Wikimedia UK trustees could see any point replying when we have the good work of the charity to concentrate on. I really am the wrong one to be attacking through fear tactics, I suggest you reconsider how your close involvement with people banned from the projects colours your opinions on these matters so badly, that you cannot simply use my open door or that of the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive to pursue the improvements you would like to see, despite our positive invitations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Redacted usernames from thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this talk-page thread to replace the 2 usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." with "Yrc/o2r". I do wish people would stop begging the question, of improper actions, as the titles of message threads. Remember, some search-engine results list the thread titles as major topics to be displayed. A search for "homophobic" might display the title of this thread as a highly prominent, bolded header in search-engine results. Hence, avoid mentioning usernames in thread titles, especially with non-neutral (WP:NPOV) wording. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC) YRC responds badly to baiting - and such has occurred -- with the very same protagonists each time. This is not a place to iterate the heinousness of the work by both sides here -- including those who have repeatedly called for his scalp. I do regard the presence here of an official of a WMF organization making strong acusations after having had an RFC/U which was replete wih the same accusations about many editors - always without evidence other than the accusation itself. I would suggest here that this page be a "homophobe accusation free zone." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Point of correction, there were no such accusations made by me, although 29 people were prepared to state they felt the RFC/U itself was a continuation of the homophobic harassment against me on Wikipedia. This point was even made clear by Delicious carbuncle, who raised the RFC/U in question against me. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I don't see any evidence of baiting, Collect, unless it's possible to be baited because you don't like someone's editing. It's really, really easy not to make expletive-laden homophobic attacks on other editors and I don't think it should be any surprise that it can lead to a block. Whatever Russavia's behaviour as an editor might be like is irrelevant and doesn't justify anything. And I don't see why Fae's behaviour is being brought up at all. They are different editors. You can tell this by the differences in spelling between their names. Editors seeking to broaden the discussion so as to examine the types of behaviour that might justify (or sort-of-y'know-don't-get-me-wrong justify) the sort of nonsense just displayed by YRC ought to have a very serious word with themselves. FormerIP (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) It can never be proved that there is any such condition as 'homophobia' hence only few actually use the term. Regular English speakers understand a 'disease' to be something that makes you suffer. Thus the ones who are doing the suffering are the ones who would be understood as having the disease through a normal prism, not everybody else. 74.110.240.130 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to encouraging new editors and articles - on the Village Pump proposals page

Just to reiterate what I've said above (in a "==" style heading to make it more prominent), I have made a proposal to essentially have a feature on the Main Page that encourages newbies to create the "100 articles of the week" (the proposal is in much more detail on the Village Pump page). It's being heavily debated as we speak, and would greatly appreciate as many opinions from the community as I can. Perhaps even if Jimbo himself could pitch in...? It will affect the Main Page and all if it's passed.....!--Coin945 (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User script list deprecation

The current list of user scripts is in bad shape, and its cleanup has been on the to-do list for some time. To finally get the list back to a useful state, it's now set to be deprecated and replaced entirely. The new working draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. Checking your .js pages didn't show much, but I assume you do most of your editing from outside this account; so if you know of useful, working scripts that you'd like to survive the deprecation, I'd prevail upon you to add them to the draft. Thanks :) Equazcion ^(talk) 11:42, 28 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, corporate shills, and anonymous editing/money trail

Hi, I know you helped participate in the founding discussions of WP:PAIDWATCH and I linked to them for reference at the top.

I have put together some of the links and somee info about how the processes going on behind the scenes with the corporate infiltration of Wikipedia work, and some case studies:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch/Editor Registry

Where does this leave Wikipedia? When we last had this discussion[8], the outlook looked bleak[9] and you didn't seem to be able to give any ideas on how Wikipedia can ever base saved, going forward...

Is there any plans? I can't really think of many ideas, it seems a bit like Wikipedia is already doomed, (aybe has been for a long time given how some stuff has been going on for years and only just found out about) unless you can provide some sort of internal money trail by verifying IDs of editors, at least internally... Even then I'm not sure if WMF would really be up to the vast job of policement internally given how much has been going on in public without anyone really chasing after it, it seems like the only thing that would work is people being forced to show their COIs publicly like OpenCongress's wonderful work with SOPA contributors:[10][11]. But then that's a double-edged-sword too, since real life information can also stop people dissenting about corporations, governments, and politics because they could be targeted. I'm not sure if there is any answer, are you? Is there any hope, do you think this situation can be changed and if so how? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)