User talk:Jimbo Wales

; Archives
	as of Jan. 16, 2003; Sept. – Dec. 2005; January 2006; Jan. – Feb. 2006; February 2006; Feb. 2006, cont.; March 2006; April 2006; May24 - July 2006; July 2006 - August 2006; August 2006 - ;

Jimbo Wales 40th Birthday Challenge!

Make a birthday wish to Jimbo !

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

Shortcut

[[:|WP:JIMBO]]

If you are here to report abuse, or to request intervention in a dispute:

Please first read about resolving disputes, and try adding your request to the administrators' incident noticeboard instead.
Your grievance is much more likely to be investigated and acted upon in that forum.

Template:Trollwarning

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Wikipedia talk:Delete unused username after 90 days

Hi just a note to say that it has reached 200 in favour (with just 14 opposing) which seems to be a good time to implement for most people. Just wondering if you could find out how as you have a position on the board (and if it is allowed) Lcarsdata 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Angus

hello,

I believe that you are the owner of wikipedia no. I have understood that your you can clear an administrator of its functions, then this user I want that you see what puts: [1]

[2]

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Sobre_el_n%C3%BAmero_m%C3%ADnimo_de_ediciones_necesarias_para_tener_derecho_a_voto#Propuesta_7_.28angus.29

the author of this message is:es:Usuario:Rossoneri 100%

User Themindset trying to corrupt SMS.ac page again.

Themindset is reverting from actual quotes out of the source material to biased NPOV violating rhetoric which is not contained in the text of the source article.

See Talk page for details.

Reeves Guy

I am Reeves Guy and Wales has been more understanding than anybody else, the point now is, to make him believe it was makemi, herostratus and few other administrative vandals who made things worse, not me and worse... releasing names of my former club, people who have nothing to do with this, great detectives you all are, when I improved paul bern site with correct bio, same for rocky, corrected links, that was reversed, then it was reversed again after I was prooven right, but nobody said anything... as usual!

Hey, hmm, I do not think you are any better than your administrative vandals, who joined together, all of them, against one or two people, but worse are those who believe them...

Can you help me?

Hi my name is Ahmad Najib Biabani Ibrahimkhel which corresponds to my username: احمد-نجيب-بياباني-ابراهيمخېل i am one of the sysop of Pashto wikipedia, now i would like to be the sysop of http://ps.wikitionary.org

and

http://ps.wikibooks.org

in order to change the interface into the real Afghan language.

Now if you could please help me with that i would be thankful to you. Or if you could provide me information on how i can apply for that?

regards Ahmad Najib Biabani Ibrahimkhel

Administrative Change

Big boss man, I'd recommend you get rid of few administrators here, you know the names, I suggest administrators go thru better screening process, many of them simply have no life, no b/f, no g/f and have nothing better to do but revert correct edits on wikipedia and address changes such as play into played as vandalism... I would like to remind everybody that majority could be wrong... it took them forever to put footnote under Chopin's birthday, they did not put it because majority of administrators did not agree... So I repeat the following...

May I remind you... from Fulton J Sheen (and others):

The majority is not always right! Majority is right in the field of the relative but not in the absolute and objective (crteria too). Majority is a legitimate test so long as voting is based on conscience and not on propaganda. Truth does not win when numbers alone become decisive. Numbers alone can decide a beauty queen, but not justice. Beaty is a matter of taste, but justice is tasteless and sour. Right is STILL right if nobody is right and wrong is STILL wrong if everybody is wrong, at any time, at any place. The first poll in Christianity was wrong but so were many other polls. So, these should be the words by which wikipedia and their administrators should live by, THE GOLDEN RULE...

Inductively Strong Argument- The conclusion of an inductively strong argument is probably true if all its premises are true. But even if the middle sentence is true and the rest is wrong, the argument can still be considered true..But even that statement could be wrong if it is thrown to the dogs who have their own views. Then self evident truth becomes non-existent.Theory that truth is relative to a group. The truth or falsity of moral statements is relative to some individual or group, e.g. Administrators on wiki have their own policy. The the truth of moral or any statements is relative to individuals. Then it becomes the only criteria/system of administering, which in its underlying structure and sense could be wrong and was prooven wrong many times here..But then again, hmmm nobody will understand logic behind this statement anyways, ah well, it's vandalism, no doubt!
George Reeves Lives Fella

Your intervention in a very important issue at the Spanish Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo,

In the Spanish Wikipedia, they have a "This user is a nazi" userbox: es:Plantilla:Usuario nazi. They're now voting on deleting it, and it seems like no consensus will be reached and the template will stay in its place. I hope you can see what's very wrong with this template, and attempt to force them remove it for the good faith of Wikipedia. Thanks, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 12:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, two articles at two major Israeli news websites have been posted about this subject: at Nana and NRG. I did not tell the writers about this issue, and I did not ask anybody to post anything about this, but they found the information here at the Wiki by themselves and decided it's worth publishing. I think it just shows You how much us Jews are insulted by this userbox, and I believe You should also, as I would be insulted if I see a userbox saying "This user supports killing all Hispanos/immigrants/Arabs/homosexuals." I do not see any reason for this provocative userbox to stay. Somebody saying in his userpage he supports the party which killed 6 million Jews and 5 million people just because they belong to other cultures and religions just 60 years ago, should simply not be at a Wikipedia. Regards, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to your reply. Regards, ⌠Yellow up⌡ 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The high costs of a ribbon...and Dutch misery

Sir,

On the page " Order of the Crown (Netherlands)" you have deleted the words " The background of this decision seems to have been the high costs of the silk ribbon of the Order of the Crown." and asked for a reference. I am a member of the Dutch Society of collectors of Orders and medals. We meet every few months in the " Het Loo " palace ( Rijksmuseum Paleis het Loo ) where we discuss current events with the director of the museum of the chancellary of Dutch orders of knighthood. The story about the costs came from him. He added that he was curious about the reaction of the wives of visiting presidents who could find themselves honoured with a small silver medal. To foreigners it may sound incredeble but the Dutch are a very thrifty nation! Is the reference good enough?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have asked the heraldic sculptor of the British court if i could use the pictures on his website in Wikipedia articles. He was delighted! I have to mention the name or he artist offcourse. Soon the beautifull carved crests in Saint George's chapel in Windsor , St. Giles' cathedral and Westminster abbey will appear on Wikipedia.

If I may be so bold, may I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability which states "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". Its a shame wikipedia can't contain things that are true but unverifyable, but that's the cost of trying to be reliable. WAS 4.250 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but we will never get it published in the Netherlands... EVERYONE IS AFRAID OF THE QUEEN! Her Majesty even managed to surpress a floor-plan of the 17th. century Het Loo palace in a book commemorating King William III. ( 1650-1702) The map showed the stairs between the Kings appartement and the rooms of his probable lover Mister Keppel. How do I know this? A good friend who was involved in publishing the book told me. Will he publicly confirm the story? Oh never.. He is a civil servant. The Queen is well known for her ambition to controll everything concerning her family and ancestors. Robert Prummel 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic category

I thought that I had heard that you were Roman Catholic, so I added you to the category. If this isn't the case, I apologize, and will remove it for you. Thanks for letting me know.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, wow. Looks like Wales doesn't really like CatholicismDominicS 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

I am coming to you because I am not sure what else to do. Here we have users-- valuable users-- who are being driven away from Wikipedia or from the highways area by SPUI, even though he is under ArbCom sanctions-- actually, two of them. These users include, but are not limited to, PHenry, Beirne, Northenglish (just yesterday), Gateman1997 (for the most part), B.Wind, Rt66lt Censorwolf, Elkman (who has resorted to vandalizing his own article Minnesota State Highway 33 in frustration and posting fake vandalism notices on his talk page to get himself blocked), Jonathunder (an admin), (many of which have left essays on their talk page).. Even though I am an administrator, at times I sympathize with these people and have considered leaving myself. Basically, SPUI has been dancing around the ArbCom limitations but has not broken the "letter of the law." The ArbCom case specifically says that he may not move pages to his parenthetical contribution. However, he has changed list articles to use his new convention, tagged pages not at his convention with {{cleanup-name}}, mass-tagged pages with the WikiProject-accepted infobox with {{cleanup-infobox}} in favor of his own, and more of the same. (Just now I discovered that he allegedly created a coyvio, haven't looked at it yet). It is futile to reverse any of this because he will simply revert and bring an edit war. About a dozen or so posts to WP:AE and WP:ANI have been ignored or brought little change. This ... problem is slowly creeping up across the United States road area and is beginning to move to international roads.

In truth, I believe that SPUI has good knowledge and has the potential to be a valuable contributor. However, his manner of negotiation has driven people away from Wikipedia. Complaining just gets you ignored. I do not believe that this is the Wiki way. I realize that you must be busy with running Wikimedia, but if you could please give your thoughts regarding the situation, that would be helpful. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? If this is a disruptive user and you're an admin, why don't you block him, and, if he continues such behaviour, add increasingly longer blocks? Presumably he has no special exemption from good behaviour which other editors are expected to adhere to. Tyrenius 11:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the wheel wars that has started. In the past, SPUI has been unblocked very quickly after being blocked by various admins. The current one might actually hold, though, as it's for probabtion violation. Time will tell. Powers 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some admin (usually the same ones) come to SPUI's rescue. Then you go and reblock and someone unblocks him. And then at the last ArbCom someone accused me of having a conflict of interest (although SPUI was clearly violating WP:ANI move restrictions). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a few comments about SPUI and the whole situation, and his lack of respect for authority, copyrights, or other people in general:

Copyright Infringement 2003
More Copyright Infringement 2005 - Here is where I discovered SPUI had literally lifted a lot of material and research for Wikipedia from my former web-site Ohio Valley Transit.
Copyright Infringement (from AARoads)
Photo Lifting with prior examples by Douglas Kerr
Has gone in and added various cleanup tags to pages without initating a discussion or even mentioning it other than the fact that "he feels like it,"
Has requested major page renames, such as what he did on Ohio State Highway 7. As what he stated on User_talk:Youngamerican, he did zero research (other than a "general Google search") to which I refuted with research that I have conducted,
Renamed pages or attempted to, preferring his own naming convention despite no attempt being made to discuss it or come to a conclusion on what should be done. Basically, taking matters into his own hands. Seicer (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Board of Trustees election

Jimbo, I notice the following, regarding the election to the WP Board: "Candidates should be aware that Board positions are not paid and do not offer per diems; Trustees must be able to financially support their activities as a Trustee (including international travel) and must be able to devote a significant amount of time to Trustee duties."

In my view, Board members should be reimbursed for their receipted travel expenses and related meal expenses. Otherwise, you're severely limiting who can legitimately participate in the elections, resulting in a form of elitism.

For example, I remember reading something about User:Kelly Martin requiring financial assistance from friends etc. to attend a recent Wikipedia event, so I'm somewhat surprised that she's seeking a spot on the Board under the present rules -- rules that I think are unfortunately flawed.

A change in the rules (and a reasonable one in my opinion) would eliminate this perceived problem. How would I go about getting such a change on the Board's agenda? I have left the same message on User:Essjay's talk page. Best regards. Barry Wells 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live action graphic images

Please believe me when I say that I am not puritanical or anything but there are a number of images on any number of articles that can be said to relate to anything remotely sexual that really seem somewhat out of place or inappropriate. I don't really have a problem with similar images that can actually be useful to the article, and its not like the ones that I do take issue with offend my sensibilities or anything, but I really feel these images reflectly badly on the quality of the articles involved and on wikipedia as a whole. I would not normally engage you for this matter it is just that every time I remove one of these pictures, they seem to reappear almost immediatly due to the efforts of a dedicated group whose ostensible reasons for doing so do not seem entirely true. I would hate to judge a book by its cover, but probably the editor most dedicated to keeping the images is this guy, User:MCB.

An example of this situation can be seen on the clitorus article. I would suspect that this image: [3] does not originate on a website that specializes in educational photographs.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd even looked at the image's description page, you'd have seen this text: "This photograph was taken by me using a Fuji FinePix 4700 digital camera on Jan 15 2000. The model is my wife (aged 29) and she has agreed to grant full rights to use the picture on the web. She is fully aware that the photograph is in the public domain and we release all rights." Of which part of that do you disapprove? Powers 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it adds all that much to the article, quite the opposite in fact, I think it makes the article look kinda strange. It seems that a detailed illustration would have about equal educational value and would be far more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suppose we could deline the picture or something, but I think such an explicit photograph is really kinda disruptive for people who aren't expecting it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being targetted; please help me

Through RC Patrolling, I reverted an edit by a user who appeared to be Wikistalking another (all of the new user's edits were reverting the edits of another user based off of one edit). This user (YourCousin) was then reverted by Kevin Breiterstein and myself, and I left a message on the user's page not to remove information, even if it is questionable (the information was a quote from a British TV host who was making fun of rural America). This user then went on to slander me on the article's talk page repeatedly, even when I had placed a simple question to ask for him (civilly) there, as well. When the information was shown to be unsourced (and after several blocks on IPs he used to evade his block), and even after I apologized, he continued to attack me on my talk page, and even on my recently created RFA nom (that had to be sprotected from his, and other's edits). He has left messages stating "it is [his] quest to ruin [my] RFA" and I recently received a Wikipedia email from the true user, Repmart who has been indefinitely blocked for warnings on disruption (which he has followed through on). I am requesting your help because the email was extremely explicit and I really do not need this kind of drama from someone who used this analogy on the situation: "Sometimes, you can make a smug remark to someone in a grocery store and then ten minutes later you're unlocking your car door and BLAM... your brains are everywhere..." All of the IPs Repmart has used in the past two days are listed at WP:ANI#YourCousin sockpuppeteering and a recent Checkuser was denied for this user, despite his extreme actions. Please help me. Ryūlóng 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_User:Homeontherange_sockpuppets - the danger when people start dismissing things as "Wikilawyering" is that this is when due process and the rule of law dies, two things that are essential for a community to succeed. "Lawyerly arguments" is the sort of nonsense that apparatchiks in a dictatorship throw out against people they're sending to the gulags. User:Homeontherange 04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did the videos work out?

Hey, just wondering how you ended up using the .flv files of Stephen Colbert. You were at WikiMania, right? (mboverload, from IRC =D) --mboverload @ 06:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on PBS idents

Ongoing vandalism on the article PBS idents by User:68.40.190.58 has been getting serious recently. He has been intentionally posting false information just to get User:Georgia guy angry. Is there anything you could do about stopping this vandal? Please reply to me on my talk page if anything new about this incident is going on.--KRW 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Board of Trustees

Just noticed that Article IV, Section 3 of Wikipedia Foundation Inc.'s bylaws do permit payment for expenses to trustees by resolution of the Board. So the statement that they must always pay for their own travel etc. is somewhat misleading. Best regards. Barry Wells 00:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that board members must pay for their own travel?--Jimbo Wales 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Essjay, under Rules for candidates - since removed--Paul E. Ester 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

This week's Economist has a report about this organization as a possible front for a Russian disinformation/propagnda effort; focusing on the efforts of its reporter, User:Edwardlucas, to verify the claims made for the organization in the article here. Based on that, and what Lucas reports on the talk page, I have tagged the article as a hoax and nominated it for deletion as we cannot allow Wikipedia to be used this way.

Just letting you know in case there's anything you want to say or do about this. Daniel Case 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday! :D

Hey Jimbo!

Hehe i got the 1st spot :D it's the 7th here in Australia btw ;) Have a good one man, here's to 40 more! --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day.

Have a good one :) -Ladybirdintheuk 09:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It said make a birthday wish for Jimbo. I wish that at each April Fools day, wikipedia and uncyclopedia switch domains just for that one day. Oh and Brian Peppers comes back that day, too, but is protected and has one link: to a YTMND search for Brian Peppers. Anomo 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes from Germany! -- Simplicius 10:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

As I understand it, you have deleted and locked the article on Brian Peppers, and refuse to put it back up without good reason. I'll give you very good reason to put it back up. What I'm about to say also applies to The Tourettes Guy. We are an encyclopedia. Are job is to record and give information about notable, infamous, and famous things/events/people/places, etc.. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE FEELINGS. These notable articles were taken down because they were considered "mean," "rude," or "attacks." Encyclopedias are inanimate objects; they have no feelings or thought. We are only to get info on, write, and expand articles. This goes for any other article deleted for these stupid, biased reasons. Brian Peppers, The Tourettes Guy, and all articles like them should be put back up and stay up. Happy Birthday, Jimmy. I hope the Wikimedia foundation never dies.--WatchHawk 07:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC picture of you (are you the new God?)

Go to this BBC news article (flash needed) and scroll to 2001 and you will see what I mean. :D Ian¹³ /t 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert

What is your opinion of the Stephen Colbert vandalism? Do you think Mr. Colbert meant in good humor or just distaste? Thank you.--71.197.196.45 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New messages on wfm

Hi, can you have a look here please? :) jd 10:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steele

There is a thread on WP:AN about some recent comments of Steele - [4]. Since he seems to have talked to you about it at least in part, I thought it prudent to let know. JoshuaZ 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a tough day wikipediaing

and having to mess with my pictures - scanning, photoshoping out dust, etc - was the final straw. So, i've decided to ask you to help me get a digital back for my hasselblad so that I can once again afford to use that system. Life is good. Carptrash 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin and a serious abuse of power. (you need to read this)

Jimbo, I've just posted this on AN/I, but I've watched as similar information has been quickly deleted by the subject recently, and don't suspect she'll do the same on your talk page, so I post it here as well to be sure you're made aware. Thanks and take care.

I am an active Wikipedian in good standing. Consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:SOCK, this account was created today for the sole purpose of making the present complaint and obviously has not, nor will it ever, interface with my main account. Sockpuppet? Yes. Abusive? No.

That I feel it is necessary to do this anonymously at all is indicative of what I see as the root of this very complaint: an administrator who has come to regard herself as exempt from the policies that maintain fairness and order here, and who has lately demonstrated a certain eagerness to exercise her power in unethical ways.

Basics

SlimVirgin appears to have abused her position for the benefit of one editor and the detriment of another, violating her ethical responsibilities to this community in the process.

I've learned that many editors know about this situation generally, since it was first described some weeks ago on another website. Instead of linking to that site, I'll summarize what I've gleaned from forum banter and my own email exchange with the the editor involved, inviting those more familiar with the specifics to follow up and fill in the gaps.

Details

Recently IPFrehley claimed he had evidence of abusive sockpuppetry on the part of Mantanmoreland.

At one point he uploaded a graphic of some sort which he intended to use as a “visual aid” when making his “case” (he clearly had no idea what the hell he was doing[5]).

After uploading the image but before he could do whatever he was going to do next, IPFrehley was blocked by SlimVirgin and the image deleted (but not until after she apparently let Mantanmoreland have a copy, since he does refer to it on some thread I can't find now).

Based on comments IPFrehley made in another setting, it seems that prior to this, he reached out to a few admins, explaining what he wanted to do and asking for advice. He said the only ones he specifically remembers were Morven and Humus sapiens but thinks there were three or four total requests made. None of them replied to his email, though at least one forwarded it to either SlimVirgin or Mantanmoreland, which is how she managed to intercept and block IPFrehley so quickly when he finally decided to do it by himself (she must have been waiting for it to happen).

When it did, SlimVirgin took advantage of IPFrehley's obvious lack of familiarity with WP:SOCK, because she told him to send his evidence to her via email so she could judge it privately and offline[6].

Here's where it gets interesting

IPFrehley says he didn't believe SlimVirgin was really interested in the evidence he was sending, so he did something a little diabolical: in the document he emailed SlimVirgin, he hid something that would alert him when it was opened (I don't get that tech stuff so don't ask me more about it), to know if it even got looked at. He says that yes it was opened, not by SlimVirgin but by Mantanmoreland -- 'the same person his evidence accused!!!!! (Here's where he explains how he knew that).

Looking over their contribution histories it's easy to see that Mantanmoreland and SlimVirgin often work in tandem. But that's no excuse for secretly passing him information sent to her in confidence and with the promise that it would be reviewed and judged appropriately.

IPFrehley says he later emailed SlimVirgin asking if there was another explanation (other than what seemed obvious...that she was sending the information to Mantanmoreland) but she refused to answer, except for apparently announcing somewhere that IPFrehley was sending her threats.

I've yet to verify that, but is sounds pretty typical of a pattern that's emerged over time.

I suspect SlimVirgin will argue that because IPFrehley has since been indef banned and even spawned some socks of his own since this episode that his claims should be disregarded.

I would respond by noting that when all this happened, IPFrehley had yet to be banned. Also, IPFrehley openly admits to creating multiple socks specifically attempting to bring this situation to the community, which he apparently tried to do more than once though record of it is gone because he was summary banned and reverted and all diffs permanently deleted from the history.

In my time as a wikipedian, I've grown to respect SlimVirgin's dedication but feel increasing concern over her fading sense of impartiality and even propriety. If what IPFrehley says is true, it represents a grave deception, violation of trust, abuse of power, and act of inexcusable cronyism on the part of SlimVirgin. I'm requesting that her administrative powers be suspended while evidence related to this and other alleged abuses be presented and reviewed by a panel other than the Arbitration Committee, which I do not feel can be impartial in this case. --SecondMostLikely 06:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to the above on AN/I, including Fred's response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm New Here, But Dismayed At What I See

Hi, you probably will never read this, but what i've seen at

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2

is unfortunate.

It seems that the rules on Wikipedia are made by strongarm tactics rather than by any process. Attic Owl 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with edit summaries

You mentioned at Wikimania that you had problems always remembering to use an edit summary, and then I brought up that there was actually an option in the interface to force edit summary usage, but you hadn't run across it. So here's how to turn it on. Go into your preferences, click the Editing tab, and check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Hopefully within a month or two you'll have good enough edit summary usage to pass an Rfa :-P Cyde Weys 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!!!--Jimbo Wales 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jimbo already knew this. Anomo 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you would assume that? There are a team of skilled developers making this software - Jimbo can't know about every feature. It looks to me like Cyde had a good time and Jimbo appreciated it. Johntex\^talk 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a totally serious comment by Cyde. Among top wikipedians it is well known that I am a clueless editor. :) --Jimbo Wales 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have something in common with Jimbo Wales...Sweet!--Koji Dude 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack article

Hi Mr. Wales! Does this article belong on Wikipedia?Steve Dufour 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz, née Bretschneider, is an illegal immigrant ^[1] from Germany living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She is known for filing a record number of requests under the United States Freedom of Information Act, for filing a large number of lawsuits, and for posting a large number of articles to Usenet newsgroups.

A quick review of this article shows that it is referenced and there are sufficient sources to provide evidence of notability, and the article has survived two discussions of whether it should be deleted - which means that the community has reached concensus that the article should be included in the encyclopedia. --Trödel 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "community" that likes this article seem to be the individuals who are fair gaming her, I would guess because they think she posts too much to their Usenet group.Steve Dufour 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edits to that article. --Trödel 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The article is much improved in tone. I have excused myself from editing it any more since I am too emotionally involved.Steve Dufour 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:User:Dangherous

While randomly searching around Wiktionary, I stumbled onto this. Aperently, the user used a sock puppet to vandalise the Main Page with the edit summary "going out with a bang". However, when going through both he and the suspected sock puppet's contributions, I used Crtl-F to search for the word "bang", and even going as far as 2,000 edits back, nothing came up. Maybe I just don't understand what was going on (in which case, please explain it for me), but this isn't making sense to me. (If you aren't the right person to ask about this to, could you please tell me who that would be? Thanks.)--Koji Dude 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted the page with the edit summary going out with a bang, not edited it. The deletion would not show up in the history, but in the deletion history. Here is a link http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Wiktionary%3AMain+Page. Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disenchanted due to high-level admin actions

Not knowing where else to turn to on this, I post here.

Summary: I believe that actions of a high-level admin (User:Essjay) violate not only the rules as set forth in policy, but the spirit of them. Further, followup questioning on these actions has shown me a profoundly disfunctional class system between editors and admins and I believe this is a problem that must be solved.

Links of import on this topic:

What it basically comes down to for me:

Admins, while understanding their busy-ness, need to be required to participate in processes and policy involved in questioning their actions.
The rules on "excessive personal insults" need to be spelled out more clearly to avoid disingenuous and over-reaching actions by admins claiming that they were insulted.
Methods used to solve such issues need to be clearly identified as "has teeth" or "has no teeth", so that editors don't waste voluminous amounts of time going through pointless steps to attempt to reach a solution, only to find that the attempted resolution doesn't mean anything and can't propel the system to improvement.

I do feel like I'm 'fighting city hall' here, as the little guy. My involvements with some admins have been overwhelmingly positive, but my involvements here seem like there is a very broken class system between editors and admins and it's extremely disheartening. I hope you don't take this as just some editor complaining about a single poorly-handled block, because it's more than that. The system appears to be broken there doesn't seem to be a way for people on the broken side (regular editors) to fix it.

Regards,

--Kickstart70-T-C 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MyWikiBiz

This user has claimed that you wanted him to be unblocked but were having technical problems doing so, and has asked for other admins to do it. If that's the case I'd be glad to unblock for you... but the story sounds a bit implausible, frankly. Mango juice^talk 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here.--Koji Dude 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do

you believe? Stupid 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Smith, Christopher (2003-05-11). "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System". The Salt Lake Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[slctrib-1] Smith, Christopher (2003-05-11). "S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System". The Salt Lake Tribune. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]