User talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales 40th Birthday Challenge!

Make a birthday wish to 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.

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

Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined

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 -

To Mr. Wales

I believe that it is time for you to elect a board of chairmen for the Wikimedia group and to step down as president. It seems that you have many conflicts of interest with your mission statement and your actual policies, in more than several cases knowledge has been removed by yourself and your Wikimedia group for moral/ethical beliefs. If Wikipedia is to become a haven of all human knowledge, how is it permissible to pick and choose which articles remain and which ones are censored?TruesSilver

Do you mean Board of Trustees? It's hard not to notice it, when right now there's an announcement about elections of a new member. BTW, Jimbo is today very inactive in actual administration of Wikipedia at article and user level. Almost all is done by community.

About picking and choosing articles to remain and be deleted, I must say I'm worried about this concern as well. Wikipedia today presents itself as "Sum of human knowledge", but deletionism of many verifiable and sourced articles on grounds of being "non-notable" runs directly contrary to this, attempting to make Wikipedia just a "summary of common knowledge" instead, which is a very different thing. Fortunately, common sense mostly prevails today, but I'm very interested in Jimbo's opinion on this matter, not as a ruler, but as the founder of Wikipedia. Do you think we should cover topics far outside scope of paper encyclopedias? Should verifiability, in your opinion, be a sufficient prerequisite for including a topic in Wikipedia, or do you support additional arbitrary barriers?

CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

hello

just wanted to say awesome thing youve got going here, it's a huge help to me and please keep it going, thank you and happy b-day :)

Re: Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous

Jimbo,

With regards to the following statement:

"In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license. We are powerful enough now that we can insist on this, and get it, from just about any celebrity, or we can get a free photo in a number of different ways. Using fair use in such cases discourages us from creatively looking for a way to enlarge the commons." (emph. added)

I read this as a suggestion that Wikipedia's popularity ought to be used as an instrument of coercion, to suggest that if it is in a celebrity's interest to have their chosen photo represent them in Wikipedia, then they must give up a broad license to their intellectual property rights.

It's reasonable that both parties theoretically would freely exercise their right in property; Wikipedia exercises its right to not-accept the non-free image, and the celebrity exercises their right to not-license the promo photo freely. However, the celebrity has quite reasonably offered the promo photo under terms which balance their desire to control their public image, which can bear heavily on their ability to earn a living in their respective field, and the desire of others to use that image for an illustrative and non-derogatory purpose - a balance which is acceptable to most others.

Your suggestion seems to be (and I admit that this may be hyperbolic) that Wikipedia may require that the celebrity's image be able to be "edited mercilessly [and] redistributed by others", at the threat of releasing a special force of 'GNU-paparazzi' - who will create an image which can be "edited mercilessly [and] redistributed by others" anyways - all in the furtherance of free culture.

I am wondering if you have considered the ethics of this, and am interested in any additional thoughts you had on the matter.

With Regards, KWH 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughout history heroic men and women have suffered and died for the sake of freedom. Today we battle fanatics overseas who wish to destroy our freedom to believe as we choose. Today our governments find it easy to restrict our freedoms in order to preserve our freedoms. Freedom is under attack at home and abroad. It must be defended whereever possible. Celebrities should be glad to be a part of increasing the freedom of their fans. If they are not, then there is an unending supply of want-to-be-famous persons who will. Why shouldn't standing up for freedom be something we ask from those who want us to spend millions on them? WAS 4.250 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll note that there are free licenses which permit redistribution but not editing. Also, releasing an image under a free license does not allow it to be used in a defamatory or misleading context. (In other words, even if Tom Cruise were to provide a completely free image – no rights reserved, effectively public domain – it still wouldn't be kosher to use that picture to endorse products, or describe it as a picture of a pedophile, etc.)

As in most transactions, there may be benefits or costs to the involved parties. The celebrities gain a measure of control over how they are presented on Wikipedia, but may not be able to restrict the distribution of those images in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-derivative licenses like {{cc-nd}} are considered non-free in Wikipedia's view. Also, I think what you're describing is their ability to sue under defamation law, which is notably weaker than copyright - The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and one of the reasons celebrities do not sue tabloids for scurrilous rumours is that they rarely succeed and it only gives more voice to the rumours. It might be a minor point - on reflection, I can see that the situation is much the same as if the celebrity provided a hagiographic article on themselves for publication, but without allowing modification - we would refuse it, and we would create our own article. I am still not certain about the note of coercion inherent. If a celebrity eventually determines by themself that it's in their best interest to publish {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} promo photos, that's great. Maybe Jimmy was just a bit excited when he said that "we are powerful enough" to get this. Frankly, I think that we need to get more photographers into press conferences and photo-scrums like this. KWH 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have come across a related issue. I, amongst other things, make videos as a hobby. The laws over rights to video content are complex. Even if I shoot and edit a video myself, I may not have all the rights to it. For example, making videos (and probably taking photographs) on the London Underground without permission is not allowed. Many people will not know this, and will upload videos under a free licence which they are not legally able to give. The problem is that, by insisting on free licences, Wikipedia makes it the responsibility of each non-legally-expert volunteer editor to make an assessment of the legal situation. This could discourage people from uploading perfectly OK content. This chilling effect is unecessary. I would like to see a new licence condition which says something like: free, but only while no legal reason for withdrawal has been registered at Wikipedia (or wherever information was uploaded to), or even free in a bit when we've seen that no one has objected would reduce possible problems a lot in practice. This would allow more uploading, with the option of fixing things up later in the event there was a problem. Stephen B Streater 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The chilling effect comes from (unreasonable, imho) laws. Wikipedia content must be reusable. Some of your proposals would have wikipedia passing on the chilling effect to our own users; some don't, and might be interesting.

Part of our mission (foundation issue #4) is to stop the chilling effects at our door. Our users must have complete confidence that downloading and using any wikipedia content is permitted and safe.

Kim Bruning 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So does leaving the legal decisions to inexperienced uploaders achieve the goal of leaving the chilling effect at the door? Perhaps there could be a more expert group of RC patrollers who can check new video content, and post a list of relevant questions to the originator. Of course, the same applies to images, which are constantly being checked. I feel a grey area holding bay for new content would increase the confidence in more established material. Stephen B Streater 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. Several people are starting to recognise this as a problem. Perhaps other methods are available as well? (Some folks were suggesting a licence wizard, IIRC ;-) <ducks and runs>) Kim Bruning 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as Wikipedia articles work best when they have a number of editors, the key here is exposure to public scrutiny. My favoured solution is a technical one: allow upload of the videos. For a period of time, allow streaming but not download. This allows content to be added to articles and criticised/checked by the community. Only after a period of time is the content released as free. Wikipedia lives in the Real World (tm), and practical solutions cannot be ignored for the sake of extremist ideology. This solution will end up with both more free content and less non-free content on Wikipedia. In this case, the means justify the ends. Stephen B Streater 13:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Streaming is a form of download. If I can see it, I can make a permanent copy. Streaming can be a copyright violation if the content has an unfree license. Streaming is not a solution. WAS 4.250 13:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So you can make a copy? Be my guest. The point about the copyright violation is that it can usually be remedied if all copies can be destroyed. Ultimately, we're talking about reducing damages to the extent that litigation is never undertaken against Wikipedia(ns). Stephen B Streater 13:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's not do that. Kim Bruning 14:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But it may be impossible to check for copyright without being able to see the material. And if it turns out to breach copyright, it's already too late, on a strict interpretation of the rules. So given that seeing may be necessary for checking, and it can be hard to copy streamed content (although I acknowledge possible with the right equipment), I would like to see what other alternatives available before rejecting this one. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the example you just linked to, the applet appears to be used as a tool to restrict access to content. Wikipedia is not really interested^[1] in the restricted content niche at all, so we are not considering the use of any tools or alternatives in that particular niche.

Applets to assist playback on certain operating systems might be interesting, provided they are freely (as in speech) licenced, and allow free (as in speech) and easy access to any content they display, including downloads. Did you say somewhere that you might be willing to offer something like that? :-) Kim Bruning 14:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC) [1] As a core value: committed to eliminating, the hard way, one article at a time, uphill, both ways, in driving snow.

I've offered a free Java player several times, before and during my RfA, but just got calls for my banning. The applet I put up when WAS 4.250 said copying was easy is, as you suggest, designed to make copying inconvenient. This shows that allowing streaming does not make copying easy. It is important when determining strategy not to be constrained by current implemented technology though. We should distinguish between the player and the content - a free format could be encrypted during a trial phase to make copying harder. Stephen B Streater 15:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to re-iterate that copy-restriction is not very interesting, though I'd like to thank you very much for the offer. Playing files that are open for download might be quite interesting, however. :-) Kim Bruning 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about if people aren't sure files are OK to upload without trying them out first. Would you rather have

• (a) no such files on WP
• (b) right's restricted material signed off on WP as free when it isn't
• (c) a trial period on WP followed by a free licence?

I would prefer (c), but you seem to be preferring a mixture of (a) and (b). Stephen B Streater 15:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of these options, (a) is optimal.

My actual preference would be (d) A slow growth of free material on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 15:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I wondered what you (d) would be ;-) I would say this is the clear consensus of "Important People" here. I am hoping to improve on (a)+(d), but there is no rush to find a solution. As Jimbo says at the start, Wikipedia's influence may be able to speed up (d) if it is not diluted by allowing non-free content. I can help people on the creation of free content. All we need is some system for helping on the rights side. I'm contibuting to (d), but its a bit of a lonely place where video is concerned at the moment. Stephen B Streater 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On copyright and speaking also as a hobbyist videographer. I recently uploaded a video to WP and was completely confused by the array of copyright clauses presented to me. I basically guessed at which one I ought to choose. Should I have read and understand every single agreement? I would rather not upload any more video if that is what I have to do - as for one thing - I could read them all and probably still get it wrong!

Video managed like text. If video were able to be managed more like text articles we have a change history and a clear statement of what is the current version. An intermediary would need to make the changes for you to track them. From a copyright perspective, you could address 'contentious' footage which may remove a copyright objection. Naturally this works best if footage is ring fenced. But even if the footage were not ring fenced it would still be a great feature.

On retraction of videos. If video could be retracted (or should I say superceded) more easily then it would also be possible to correct errors or mistakes in the footage too - before people begin to copy it. I had an example of this on a recent video I uploaded where I spotted the mistake only after having uploaded it. But as soon as I uploaded it, the video could have been downloaded hundreds of times (that's modesty for you). Even if videos had been downloaded, a system that makes it easier for a person to evaluate which version they had downloaded would be helpful to them.

If there were ever a role of 'copyright checker' it might be good to also provide a channel for raising issues over copyright against particular bits of footage. That way, issues could be raised and progressed and terminate with a video being recalled (ok there are issues with this!), amended, or rejected. mk 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We could have a default licence option when uploading from FORscene. This could fill in name and date and any pre-configured conditions. Given the complexity of the Wikimedia interface, I'm not surprised there are so few videos uploaded here at the moment! But all this can be fixed over time. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is a fundamental question about scope of the word "free". Kim is saying the chilling effect should stop at the door. Let me give you an illustration. At Eidos, we made a video promo which had Sony headphones in it, with their logo clearly visible. They threatened to sue for breach of trademark, because they said it was important that they were Sony headphones ie they were not just generic headphones. We changed "Sony" to read "Phony" and escaped litigation. The point is that a generic headphone which just happened to by Sony would have been OK. Now, suppose someone makes a "free" video with a generic headphone, which happens to be Sony. This is fine on the face of it. But then Eidos takes out the headphones part of the video and re-uses in a way where the Sonyness is important. This is now a breach of trademark. So I am currently sceptical about this "re-use anywhere" idea when applied to photographs and video. The strict interpretation of: "No future use of this video could ever infringe any rights in any circumstances" gives technically no videos in the UK because of the Official Secrets Act, and given that laws can change, it is not productive to use this rule anywhere. In practice, a good rule for Wikipedia could be re-use anywhere that doesn't infringe any new rights. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider the issue of character rights. I could take a generic video of Wimbledon which happens to contain someone important in the background. This would be fine. But then, if someone takes their image and slaps it on an ad (ie commercial use allowed by the free licence), suddenly they could have an injunction brought against them to prevent publication. Or an even clearer case, a photo of a minor could be in the public domain. If this persons is charged with a crime, his identity cannot be published, so use of the photo/video in this context is forbidden. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, stopping the chilling effect at the door is in fact impossible (as above). Trying to insist on this policy will boil down to having only (in practice) unfree content from people who are unaware of the issues. The unofficial Wikipedia motto presented by supporters of "freedom" in my RfA: The means justify the ends should be reviewed in the light of evidence from the real world. Let's start at the ends we want to achieve, which is for content to be accessible and as free as possible, and then work out the means to get there. Stephen B Streater 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also encountered sensitivies over filming certain buildings, foreign embassies, you either might not be aware of these restrictions (ignorance is no defence!), or you might not realise what you're filming is in fact an embassy. I also talked to a film crew once about filming and they said they did not have a license to film certain areas of a city. And a group of British tourists will attest to the consequences of even writing down numbers of certain military aircraft - let alone taking photos or videos - they spent several months in prison and never even published anything!

If I am ever going to publish a video of anything then the power to retract, having read the previous contribution, would be a paramount concern in order to protect myself.

Is the current approach on WP just naive then? I.e. there are scenarios that were simply not foreseen re exposing a person or organisation to some rather unpleasent consequences. Is the current approach just an impractical ideal? Or could it be WP only ever expects / is happy with videos or photos to consist of footage of blue sky, flowers, and shots at such a wide viewing angle that no discernable detail could ever be picked out. We can get plenty of those but it does not really get the best out of the medium!

What is the best way to mitigate against these issues. I.e. to protect the author / WP). Is it creating better policy/guidelines (e.g. statements like 'remove all trademarks' and exclude any 'military or diplomatic sites' etc.), or better systems - ones that allow video/photos to be retracted - just like text can be (sort of) retracted from articles, or a combination of both?

mk 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing a "cooling off" period which should pick up most problems. This could apply to both images and videos. It is easier with videos, as images can be more simply captured off a screen. People tend not to copy videos off a screen so much, and the licence could exclude this anyway, which would protect everyone legally. Stephen B Streater 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This story here talks about large scale infringement. Having a few videos is easy to keep tabs on but if content increases substantially in volume it is harder to police. It is the organisation hosting the material that is targetted for the breach, not the authors/uploaders. Clearly a victim of its own success. mk 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from wp:fr

Hello Jimbo. I permit myselft to ask you again this question somebody asked you just above...

---

Your presentation says that you are "the founder and the chairman of the Wikimedia Foudation, the groups that governs Wikipedia".

The way I understand the situation is that although the foundation owns the name "Wikipedia" and the servers that Wikipedia is using, it does not "govern" Wikipedia as it is neither the owner nor the editor of the content of Wikipedia.

Shouldn't your presentation text be modified into "the founder and the chairman of the Wikimedia Foudation, the groups that supports Wikipedia." or something similar? Or did I miss anything?

I think I would not be the sole person that would be interested by a clarification on the subject

---

I am intersted too by the answer to this question. The reasons are quite clear. I don't consider I work for anybody in particular but for a project and I consider this project owes nobody but everybody. Am I wrong ?

Thank you in advance Best regards, Alithien 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Overview FAQ#Who owns Wikipedia? That may answer your questions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links but it unfortunately doesn't answer to the questions...Alithien

As a matter of fact, it makes the issue a bit more problematic. "Wikipedia is managed by a nonprofit parent organization, The Wikimedia Foundation"...is it? Again, in my understanding, the foundation owns the name Wikipedia, the domain, the servers, but it does not "manage" Wikipedia if "manage" means "organises, determines the content" and if Wikipedia means the encyclopedia.

So we have on Jimbo's user page "Wikimedia Foudation, the groups that governs Wikipedia" and on that page, "Wikipedia is managed by a nonprofit parent organization, The Wikimedia Foundation".

This is certainly not the way I and other understood the situation. Some clarity is desired. Bradipus 12:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects.--Jimbo Wales 07:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for your answer. I have to think about this because I don't consider acceptable, as wikipedia project member to be governed by whoever but only agrees complying with wikipedia community collegial decisions. This way of working looks too much like a kind of dictature éclairée. alithien 10:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising on User Pages?

I am observer and reader, non editor. Wikipedia is one site I follow to understand social interactions and sociology as shown on the web. Would you please comment on your philosophy for advertising on Wikipedia User Pages. This is different form exploiting articles as advertising, which is frowned upon as violating NPOV.

- I see that you advertise on your user pages. This could be construed as both informative and adverting: "Press Inquiries: Please leave a message with my assistant Danny in the U.S. at +1 (727) 231-0101, and I will get back to you." Since you are employed by Wikipedia's Foundation, I presume any speaking fees as a result of contacts to that phone or wiki email go to the Foundation; therefore, it is reasonable to allow this info/ad on a Wikipedia user page.

- Please comment and explain why the link ad on the top of this User page is allowed: "Something fun from Jimbo for the politically inclined" with permalink to a for-profit site. Is Campaigns Wikia paying a fee to Wikipedia for allowing it to have an advertisement and publicity on this site?

Here is another example of an solicitation on a Wikipedia User:Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Man_In_Black Wikipedia Research Survey Request Hello, I am a member of a research group at [name cut to not repeat the advertising] studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Wikipedia as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at [permalink ad cut] which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a [acronym cut (AC)] research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

[AC] wiki researcher 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC) [name cut]

So it would seem that solicitations, when represented as invitations formatted as an ad-link, are acceptable on User:Talk pages. Do you consider these types of links advertising?

P.S. Is the Wikipedia Foundation officially cooperating with the research group mentioned above? I'm very interested in similar work, but don't want to advertise it here without prior permission. Thanks for any info.

{I hope this posts correctly. As I said, I don't edit articles; only the occasional Talk page comment, and even then typically only when the Talk page gets in a conflict and solicits comment from us observers (i.e. Anybody out there have something to say/add on this conflict, to help us/editors resolve it).}

I'm not Jimbo, but I hope my comment can clear it a bit.

Advertising on talk pages isn't strictly banned; in some cases, it may be appropriate, when it's related to the user, and is not commercial in nature. That Jimbo's link isn't commercial, but just points to his words on another site. In case of PARC group... well, they post on talk pages, and it is generally OK, since their research is directed exactly at Wikipedia. However, it might be somewhat of a spamming, if they decide to target all the thousand of admins. Of course, my opinion, while based on guidelines, isn't absolute. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that may have made it worse. The logic flow may cause my first presumption to be invalid. Let's see if I can explain the two parts, the second half first:

- User:Talk ad-links, from "In case of PARC..." on: So PARC has more than this one research survey going. That's interesting; thanks for confirming that there is a Wikipedia-PARC understanding. To repeat myself, "Solicitations, when represented as invitations formatted as an ad-link, are acceptable on User:Talk pages." I'm interested in conducting research on interaction conflict. It may bolster a research proposal if it is accompanied with a letter from Wikimedia Foundation confirming the acceptability of my research to post on Wikipedia talk pages. Would you advise researchers to seek such letters from Wikimedia? (It would be disasterous if a grant proposal were awarded, then the researcher couldn't perform the funded research due to a Wikipedia block.)

- User:Talk and User:home ad-links: "Advertising on talk pages isn't strictly banned." Here is a recoding of your explanation into a logic flow: "it may be appropriate, when it's related to the user, and is not commercial in nature"

"Advertising is allowed when it is (a) related to the user AND (b) non-commercial in nature [and (c) on User home or Talk pages, not Article home or Talk pages.]

This logic is in conflict with the PARC research. PARC's site mentions Xerox, so its research may be intended to produce for-profit commercial results. Similarly, the ad-link to Campaigns Wikia is definitely commercial in nature! It clearly violates (b); why has it been allowed to stay up? It appears Mr Wales did not put it there, but he has allowed it to stay there. My original question: Is Campaigns Wikia paying a fee to Wikipedia for allowing it to have an advertisement and publicity on this site, [or are for-profit ad-links on User Pages an allowed privilege]?

As an aside, in doing more looking around this weekend, I saw User page used to, basically, ask for support of her off-wiki writing career so she would have more time to provide volunteer Wikipedia content. (Sorry I can't find the page at the moment. [Found it; added below.]) This is kinda similar to Mr Wale's home page, offering to be a speaker; but at least all his speaking engagements go through the wikipedia email or Danny, so Wikimedia benefits from an speaking fees. Since the off-wiki writing career is allowed, can I also create a User page to tell others about my off-wiki research? It may help encourage them to participate in my research surveys, if that's the methodology I decide to use, like PARC. {I've been deliberately avoiding becoming a User, in order to maintain the Reader/Obersver perspective. This thought may change my mind, or have a User page by a co-researcher instead of me.}

Other: I don't see how the guideline you provided fits for either one.

Still hoping to get Mr Wales' insights. I'll be at a conference next week; meanwhile, perhaps someone could copy/move this to a discussion stub. A new discussion stub, or is there any policy that it would fit well into?

Here is the User page with advertising:

"Support a poor editor!

To make ends meet, I do some freelance writing, web design, Excel spreadsheet and macro design, and lots of other computer-literate brain-required things. Please see my Rent A Coder profile if you're interested in hiring me to help out with any project. If you like my poem, you can purchase a "This Is An Encyclopedia" poster or T-shirt from my CafePress shop. Or if you're just feeling generous towards a hard-working editor, PayPal donations can be sent to catherine dot munro at gmail dot com. Many humble thanks! " Could my research project do a "Support a poor researcher!" page, instead of going through the government funding mechanisms? It would save a lot of time: no need for a Wikimedia support letter in the proposal; no need for a competitive award selection.

This seems like a slippery slope; Wikipedia would just become Monster.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro

from a BIG fan

hi

I have been following your vision for WP for sometime.. and i feel that it is exactly right. i'm quite dismayed in seeing that you're constantly having to defend WP's reliability and accuracy, also a lot of wikifolk are talking about efforts to raise the quality of articles. I am all for that, but most of their proposals would result in making WP less open and more exclusive.. i'm pretty sure that you would be against such proposals... anyway good luck and please don't let WPs openness be sacrificed for higher quality.Esmehwk 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia isn't a RIGHT. Just look at anyone who has been blocked or banned. Editing Wikipedia is a priviledge and quality is more important than priviledges extended to some people with questionable morals and abusive intentions. --HResearcher 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is evolving in the direction of being MORE open to encyclopedic contributions and LESS open to unencyclopedic contributions and we are characterizing this as Wikipedia becoming MORE open. WAS 4.250 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia? Anomo 00:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

govern - support

Hello Jimbo.

I see you haven't answered the question but read your talk page and made some edits. So I assume you read this but don't have particular comment. Following wp rules and processes I will permit myself to modify the sentence within a few days unless stated. See you. Alithien 13:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

IAR

You stepped in to make an edit on IAR a few days back. Your edit comment said "IAR is policy, always has been". If you look at the edits since, it hasn't helped matters much. Could you take a minute to expand on your comment? I know it's the brass ring, but it would be nice to settle this page down a bit. -- Isogolem 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the page has been fairly stable, aside from Isogolem's numerous ill-advised edits and the reversions thereof. —David Levy 15:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack, David. That's just what I needed this afternoon. 1. If you'd stopped to tell me what I was suggesting had already been discussed, I wouldn't have resubmitted (and once you did I stopped). 2. I'm not the only one touching the page. 3. The main reason it is staying "stable", is becuase of people reverting to jimbo's edit. This doesn't indicate to me that there's acceptance or understanding, let alone consensus. Look I'm not an expert, I'm not an admin, and (despite evidence to the contrary on IAR) I'm not stupid. I'm just inexperienced, and I was looking for a way cut what is apparently a vicious cycle by somehow address the concerns stated by so many on the talk page. Barring that, I thought maybe a bit more that a one line statement from the person who made the edit everyone is reverting to, might also help. Ooops, my bad, Sorry for breathing. -- Isogolem 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please calm down. Secondly, please read WP:NPA. My comments pertained to your edits, not to you as a person. I never suggested that you were "stupid." I only stated that your edits were ill-advised. (They were preceded by insufficient consideration.) That's a valid criticism, not a personal attack. Thirdly, I made such a comment only because you came here to report the turmoil that had arisen on the page (when most of the edits were yours or reversions of yours). Understand that I didn't accuse you of malice; the point is that there really isn't an ongoing problem. There's merely some well-intentioned but misplaced editing by a newcomer (you) and the repeated reversion of these edits (which you've mistaken for a heated conflict). The handful of other edits concerned only trivial details regarding the policy tag's wording. (No one has attempted to change the wording of IAR or to alter its scope or status.) There is no issue requiring intervention by Jimbo or anyone else.

FYI, I wasn't referring strictly to your repeated merger proposal (which was based upon an honest misunderstanding on your part). I also was referring to your multiple formatting changes and back-and-forth revisions in rapid succession. (In the future, you might want to take your time and use the "Show preview" button.)

The bottom line is that you're an inexperienced user who doesn't quite understand how things work. We all start out that way, and I'm not attacking you by noting this. —David Levy 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, all points taken. FYI, I haven't mistaken the edits or revertions for heated conflict. I have interpreted your comments to the best of my ability and found them brusk, condescending, and rude. That you felt the need to respond to a question I asked of another user, and that that response didn't change that interpretation didn't help matters. -- Isogolem 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you complaining because I replied to a message that you posted here (on Jimbo's talk page)? This is an open forum, so any expectation of privacy is unrealistic. (If you don't want other users to read and respond to your messages, please use e-mail.)

I'm sorry that my comments seemed brusque, condescending, and rude. I've attempted to be helpful, and you've interpreted this as an "attack." If you plan to stick around, you need to understand that accepting constructive criticism is a normal part of being an editor. I've drawn attention to your errors not to hurt your feelings, but to enable you to learn from them. Others did the same for me when I was new, and I hope that you're able to do this for someone in the not-too-distant future. —David Levy 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an "intervention". I didn't say there was an "issue". What I said was, "it hasn't helped matters much". Is all action by Jimbo an intervention? Is asking for a little more guidance on something he already touched an intervention? Is it wrong to ask for clarification of Jimbo's actions? (These are not rhetorical questions for me.) I didn't think he was likely to answer, but why not ask? <shrug> -- Isogolem 23:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that Jimbo's edit to IAR helped matters immensely. Jimbo, as president of the Wikimedia Foundation, possesses the authority to establish policy. By confirming that IAR is policy (the correct decision, in my humble opinion), he's effectively ended one of the longest disputes in Wikipedia history. No one has challenged his decision or attempted to alter/demote IAR. For the first time ever, we have an irrefutable grasp of the page's official status within the project. You're the only person to express the belief that Jimbo's actions require clarification, but you implied in your original post that this is the prevailing sentiment. You cited the "edits since" as evidence that Jimbo's intervention "hasn't helped matters much," but these have pertained strictly to minor issues (such as the policy tag's precise wording and trivial style concerns). In actuality, things are fine, and you've mistaken routine page-tweaking (and the reversion of your well-meaning but misplaced edits) for the continuation of a major conflict.

I'm sorry if this offends you, as that absolutely isn't my intention. I'm trying my hardest to be as tactful as possible, but it's important that your misunderstanding be brought to your attention. —David Levy 05:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the rucus. I think I understand my errors now:

1. Thinking any further action was needed. I should have waited, watched, and seen where things went before doing anything. Too much hurry, not enought thought.
2. Posting the question here. He may have been the person that made the edit, but this location is too high on the food chain. Just making that one edit was enough and efficiency of action is key for one with power.
3. Invoking NPA when it wasn't appropriate. I apologise to you, David, for doing this. It was a childish response, and it made you spend most of you responses defending your actions, and thus much harder for you to help me. I was trying to figure out why you seemed to be talking down to me, now I see I why.
4. Public forum, as is all of wiki, already got that. Jimbo's page even more so. I wasn't sufficiently aware of that.
5. David made reasonable assumtions based on my question and the location, which I was not aware of. I didn't think it was the "continuation of a major conflict" or that my view was the "prevailing sentiment", but I understand how (in ignorance) I came across that way.

I now see my actions have caused most of this thread. I'm sorry.

David, As long as we're on the topic of constructive criticism, I would to give you a couple suggestions for the next time this happens (though I promise it won't be with me):

1. Don't speak of someone in the third person if they are present. If you're responding to my question, that means I'm present. Speaking of me in the third person puts us immediately into an adversarial (as opposed to a cooperative) position.
2. I didn't need help spotting my mistaken edits (look at the edit history on IAR, I'd already acknowledged them). Nor was there any question that there were serveral of them. Your reiteration of these two facts was heavy handed and felt insulting.
3. Start with "I'm sorry." If someone feels attacked, accept their feelings, and validate them by apologising. I costs you nothing and doesn't mean that you agree with their perspective, but simply that you acknowledge it. "I'm sorry. I did not intend that as a personal attack. Please calm down and reread WP:NPA. My comments pertained to ..."

As I said, I understand that you were reacting as reasonably and helpfully as you could to my actions. None of these suggestion is meant to imply anything to the contrary. Thank you. -- Isogolem 18:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Encarta

Aloha Jimbo. Reading this quite old and archived story, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-18/Encarta elaborates, have you had any further word on it? And is there a date set? Thanks, Iolakana•T 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Licence

I am looking into licensing some Wiki IPR. Who should I talk to? Stephen B Streater 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to be a bit more specific. My ideas often sound controversial at first, so I'd appreciate it if you could work with me on this one.

So, to be more specific, I run an award winning service which allows web-based editing and publishing of video, often uploaded over the air from camera phones such as the Nokia N93. These can be output in a variety of formats, and I would like to add a button which will publish video directly in the free format supported by Wikipedia, upload the videos directly from our servers to Wiki Commons, and sort out all the licensing forms ready for signing off by the user. Current publishing icons look like:

• a world (for web publishing / hosting with a built in Java player)
• a mobile phone (for mobile phone publishing / hosting)
• timecode (for EDL/XML text output for further editing on other systems)
• iPod (for publishing/hosting video podcasts)
• MPEG (for MPEG 2 output)
• Ogg (for Ogg open video/audio formats - this is a new addition, not reflected in the FORscene article yet as I've stopped editing the article now following a suggestion at my RfA)

In order to add them to Wikipedia articles, Ogg videos currently have to be downloaded over the web to a local computer, and then uploaded manually to Wikipedia. This is significantly more work than users have come to expect from the other formats, and not necessarily possible on locked down / firewalled computers such as at work or in a library or cybercafé. I would like to add a new publishing option which automatically uploads Ogg videos to Wikipedia. You can see a couple of manually downloaded and uploaded videos made in this way (shot on a mobile phone, and edited on the web) here and here. Given the impoverished nature of video on Wikipedia (I couldn't find any other videos uploaded this year), I feel this would help to the project by encouraging editors to contribute their original video content under the free licences here.

As this development would exclusively be used for publishing free content to Wikipedia, I think it would be nice to use the Wikipedia logo for this button. What do you think about this idea? Stephen B Streater 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See the wikitech-l thread starting at [1]. There's a discussion there about allowing "upload" directly from another server. --cesarb 22:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - an interesting thread. Luckily technical issues can be solved :-) The largest video I've uploaded so far is 10MB, though I've got some harder/longer ones to add. I've just set a longer one off to test it. Coincidentally, people don't seem to watch long videos on the web, so encouraging people to edit their material more concisely may not be a bad thing. I'm new to Ogg, so haven't got a feel for file sizes yet, but when I've converted a dozen or so videos, I'll know how things compare with my usual web format. Stephen B Streater 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The biggest video I've made so far is 47.9MB in Ogg. Is the upload limit 20MB or 100MB? Here is the current external Java streamed version so you can see it now (size and frame rate adapt to your connection speed). Stephen B Streater 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is specific enough to get the responses you need. I recommed you also post the above details to http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ as it seems to be a very interesting idea and worthy of consideration. WAS 4.250 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've subscribed to the first list, and posted this thread up. Stephen B Streater 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo...

This message—and this edit—marks the end of my editing prowess in the Bronx. I'll be moving to Connecticut tomorrow along with my family. It all depends on my Internet access, but I'll be seeing the Wikipedia community again in a week or two. Goodbye, farewell... and Amen. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Godspeed! Anomo 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Jimbo Wales, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Date for "Statement of Principles"

I raised this a few months ago, so forgive me for mentioning it again, but I still find that the "Statement of Principles" lacks any context indicating when it was written. I know this can be found in the page history (well, I hope it can), but it would be useful for something like this to have a comment like this somewhere: "This document was first written on 21 August 2006, and last updated on 26 August 2006". At the moment, the "As we move forward..." bit seems to refer either to now, or some indeterminate point in the past (2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006?). Probably both, but it is a bit confusing. Carcharoth 23:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the copy of the page at the nostalgia wiki it was created at: 01:34, 27 October 2001. The page now states this. Just a bit of Wikignomaticim for your benefit. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfCfc

I noticed your ban of user:Primetime for copyright violations. Is this eN-WikipediA specific, or Wikimedia wide? If the latter, it would be helpful to know so his sockpuppets on other wikis/langauges can be blocked more easily. Thanx 68.39.174.238 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to think he is sockpuppeting. Do you know any reason to think so?--Jimbo Wales 07:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

After his Spanish WikipediA account es:Usuario:Principal Tiempo was blocked for the same sort of copyright violations he used to perpetrate here, es:Usuario:El Periodico showed up and signed himself as "Principal Tiempo" and started to remove the "blocked" message from his main userpage. From what User:Connel MacKenzie (Adminr. from En Wiktionary) he's been sockpuppeting around there, and I've been attacked by at least three of his puppets on my talk page (User:555jyj, User:Loghfn5 and User:Ulm76), all of which admitted themselves to be socks by signing as "Primetime". There's a whole list at WP:'T and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. 68.39.174.238 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Primetime has become a very prolific sock-puppeteer, on en.wiktionary, en.wikipedia and en.wikisource. I've also heard he was on es: and de: before. I'm not sure someone as determined as he seems to be can be blocked, without a hypothetical "All Wikimedia" type of block feature. Some other (very long) boring but pertinent links: User talk:Primetime, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive47#Wiktionary user, as well as the long term abuse link WP:'T (referenced above.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Minor clarification) I'm not suggesting a block, just a clarification on whether or not your ban of him on this wiki (En, WikipediA), is specific to this wiki alone or if he can be indefinately blocked from ANY WMF wiki where he starts sockpuppeting as soon as he's seen. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal?

What's the deal with this? "Under the new approach, page edits will no longer be immediately applied to pages but will instead have to be approved by an administrator before they become visible. Vandalism or changes which are not approved will not appear." I am amazed I never heard anything about this before, since it would mean a complete (and probably terrible) redefinition of Wikipedia. They say it is going into effect on de: soon and then may be applied elsewhere. What is your position on this, Jimbo? Everyking 09:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My position is that the author of it had no idea what he was talking about when he wrote it. He still seems to not "get it" even with the correction.--Jimbo Wales 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this updated version accurate? Trevor Saline 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Everyking 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't receive a response to my issue.

I posted here and expected an answer on a serious problem I had on Wikipedia. The archiving bot for this page has moved it into the archives, but I would appreciate a response. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales -was the answer to a question (regarding Wikipedia) on Mastermind a week or so ago. Just thought you'd like to know. Actually now I think about it a bit more, I think Jimmy Wales was in the question and Wikipedia was the answer. Jooler 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You're too late! I've already added this to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_on_TV_and_Radio! :-) Carcharoth 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Images, Copyrights, Porn, and 18 USC 2257

Jimbo,

There's been a spirited debate on WP:AN/I over what to do about a number of images, ranging from innocuous to hardcore, uploaded by User:publicgirluk. I'd like to specifically direct your attention to Image:Woman_Pearl_Necklace.jpg and Image:Facial.png. My reading of USC 2257 suggests that even if there are no copyright issues with these images, they put the Foundation at risk because we are absolutely unable to comply wth 2257(f)(4), since there is no statement associated with these images that describe where the records pertaining to them are kept. I think this is worth running by the Foundation's lawyers. I don't want to delete material willy-nilly, but if I'm correct I think we should take fast action.

Regards, Nandesuka 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there was any debate at all here. This was pretty clearly a case of trolling. I would recommend a checkuser on various parties involved to see who else we ought to block in this nonsense. People are really missing the point if they think we should allow this kind of nonsense to go on. This is an encyclopedia, not a free speech zone for trolls.--Jimbo Wales 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was sort of disturbed by how many editors' critical facilities seem to have been turned off in this case. I can guess why, but there's no need to say it out loud. Nandesuka

"Of course the foundation governs and manages the projects"...

...that is the answer you put on Alithien's talk page (further to the question I had initiated) and he copied that answer hereabove.

He is of course not happy with the answer, and neither I am in a way.

But I noted that on his talk page, your answer was under the header "I guess I do not understand your question", and I guess that is just what happened, and you can guess that by the reaction of Alithien: "I don't consider acceptable, as wikipedia project member to be governed by whoever but only agrees complying with wikipedia community collegial decisions."

In order to understand the issue Alithien, me and others can have, you should read the Wikipedia FAQs in the Wikipedia in french: the foundation is described as the entity that supports the project, not as governing entity.

Anyway, I asked the same question on the Village Pump a couple of days ago. The discussion is there, and I think I have reached something that looks like a conclusion, and I would like to share it with you and possibly get your feedback.

Here it goes, indented to be clearly visible.

If you take the usual meaning of "govern and manage", which is organising and taking decisions on a day-to-day basis, the foundation is not governing or managing Wikipedia, because the foundation decided so (I do not consider here as "management" the fact that a lot of people work on ensuring the material support necessary to Wikipedia and eventually take decisions to ensure that).

The Foundation, as owner of the domain names, the name of Wikipedia and the servers that Wikipedia is using, is technically the current "owner" of the general framework (website) that is currently representing Wikipedia, so the Foundation is the only person that has the legal capacity to organise and govern the current Wikipedia project (within the boundaries of its by-laws), but it has decided to let Wikipedia be self-managed in some kind of mild anarchy as long as it goes in the general direction that is given by the pillars.

That way of working is basically something like a social contract between the foundation and wikipedians: as long as they respects the basics and the pillars, they will have a very large autonomy within the project. And as long as the foundation respects that autonomy, the wikipedians will stay (as they have the legal capacity to decide to work for another similar project or build a new one).

It is of course well noted that the Foundation will show its muscles and intervene directly in the following cases:

• legal issues that are of direct interest to the foundation (possible threats towards the Foundation that need to be adressed such as copyright issue),
• the pillars of the encyclopedia are not respected (if, for instance, a majority of wikipedians would vote for a policy that is a negation of NPOV or would vote for accepting copyrighted material).

On the subject of these direct interventions, somebody mentionned that you occasionally make binding proclamations (such as anonymous users not being allowed to create articles, WP:CSD#I4, and category:living people), to show that you occasionally exercise executive privilege. These two examples show that you are indeed much closer to the english Wikipedia and do exercise some closer control, but they are also largely within the envisaged boundaries of exceptional intervention when dealing with legal issues that are of direct interest to the foundation. In these examples for instance, it all goes around stressing the importance of respecting the pillars when the foundation is at risk :who knows what would happen if somebody would sue the foundation for something defamatory in a biography? Who, here, wants to court-test the concept that only the author is accountable for what is in an article? Noone probably.

Anyway, to take a step further, I have tentatively further described the social contract between the Foundation and wikipedians as follows: the Foundation is at the same time the Constitutional Convention of the projects it supports, and the Constitutional court of the projects, but it lets the general legislative and executive power to the electronic citizens of the projects, knowing that the other side of this mild anarchy is that the foundation can at any time intervene as constituant power or as constitutional court to put the project back on tracks.

My final suggestion/question in the Village Pump is whether it would be a good idea to materialise this parallel with politics and write a constitution for the projects? And this is where the discussion stopped on the Village Pump.

I would be happy to hear your feedback on the above. Bradipus 21:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater involvement by scientists and Ignore all Rules

Can Wikipedia stress the "Ignore all Rules" part of the Trifecta a little more?

Dr. Bertrand Meyer (the creator of the Eiffel programming language) came to Wikipedia and cleaned up the Eiffel programming language article (No editor disagreed with any of his content) but a number of Wikipedia editors would not allow him to use a blue color for the articles code snippets. (The Eiffel standard states that color should be used to reinforce semantics, in a consistent way and blue is used for this).

They were inflexible and occasionally not as polite as they could have been.

In the past, he has had a very positive view of wikipedia: Defense and illustration of Wikipedia where he stated: "A more pragmatic look at Wikipedia as it exists today indicates that the project, while perhaps not living up to the hype of its most fervent promoters, has become a superbly useful tool for Web-based fact-finding."

Finally he gave up, and the Wikipedia editors sent him on his way wishing him: "Goodbye and good riddance." and "rv; enjoy your block"

A little more flexiblity (as in "Ignore all Rules" and let in some blue code snippets (I don't even think that wikipedia has an official policy on the color for code snippets)) would have helped here, but the Ignore All Rules part of the trifecta is stressed quite a bit less than the NPOV and the "Don't Be a Dick" parts.

Maybe some kind of "Ignore All Rules" week would help. 75.30.203.153 07:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ignore all rules and vandalize this page, that would sure show everyone. 65.95.41.70 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:IAR, vandalizing a page does not improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality. --Credema 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see WP:IAR as the key to the issue that you mention. NPOV and DBAD are just as applicable. Whoever wrote the comments you mentioned ("...good riddance", etc.) was wrong. At the same time, looking at the changes, it looks like Mr. Meyer could have been more civil as well.

Wiki is a different medium than other writing. While the idea of wiki sounded fine, dealing with reality is a lot messier. I have a nice little mess of my own creating higher up this page. The user in question (who might or might not by the real life Bertrand Meyer) didn't seem particularly interested in collaborating, and several users were understandably irate over this. You can be brilliant in your field, but that doesn't buy instant privs or esteem.

You must be willing and able to deal with other people if you want to be part of wikipedia. No amount of "ignoring all rules" will change that. -- Isogolem 23:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Eiffel discussion degenerated, but the initial conflict (non-content based conflict) occurred the editors were more interested in the rules "no code snippets may be blue" and "all code snippets for all programming languages must be in an identical format" than in producing good Wikipedia content.

When admins post: "I don't know how better to put it. Dr. Meyer doesn't make the rules here. Experienced Wikipedia editors know the rules here, and if Dr. Meyer refuses to learn from them then this isn't going to work." [2] when discussing the font color for a section of an article, it demonstrates that to them "the rules" may be more important than content or civility. What rule could be less disruptive if broken than that one? If an admin/editor won't IAR in that case, when will they?

Bend the rules - let the font be a different color than on other programming languages, let the language creator improve the article, make Wikipedia editting a positive experience, everyone wins.

or

Stick to the rules - make the font be the same color as on other programming languages, let the language creator leave in frustration, say "goodbye and good riddence", no one wins.

75.30.203.153 01:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already agreed with you on the "good riddence" comment. There is no excuse for it.

That being said, no matter how many times you mention it, it is still only one commment out of many, and I feel you are misrepresenting the progression of events. There seems to constructive disussion for a while here and here, including the suggestion that while in might not be the same as other articles, color is an option still under discussion. Then it appears B-Meyer is the one who begins to get upset, here, claiming harasment where I personally can see none. There was good faith effort to to caution B-Meyer, here. There is even a plea for mutual respect by one editor to B-Meyer, here. And once again it is Meyer who escalates matters, here - "... mob rule, proud of its arrogant incompetence. I will move the text to a place where it is free from interference from the vandals." Now here finally we see someone committing personal attack, but it is Meyer not one of the other editors.

The other comments you mention occured after that edit, as here. This doesn't excuse them, but it does cast them in a slightly different light, I think. The editors didn't gang up on Meyer to force him out, he left in a huff.

This is not about the "rules" as you are trying to frame it. The editors your are claiming should have done more IAR were trying to make sure that they maintained the quality of wikipedia by maintaining the consistency of the wikipedia article style. They were willing to break with that style if it were needed but were unwilling to do so without due consideration and discussion. The discussion might not have been progressing at the speed on in the direction Meyer wanted, and so he became upset, confusing many.

What you seem to be suggesting is something other than IAR. This isn't about the rules, it is about medium awareness. Everyone can edit is part of the wiki medium, and it appears Meyer was unable to handle that aspect of it. -- Isogolem 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I would argue, it might not be helpful for us to blame him for lack of 'medium awareness'. I would have preferred to see people treat him with a lot more patience and kindness EVEN AFTER he got a bit huffy. And why shouldn't we be nice? Costs nothing, and has a better result in the end.--Jimbo Wales 09:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very minor little corner of Wikipedia, but I can tell you (Jimbo and others), that Meyer was treated with an amazing amount of patience and kindness, continuing well past the point where he got huffy, and even well past the point where he started repeated page blanking. I happen to have done a great deal of that in email with Meyer, along with on Talk:Eiffel programming language. Unfortunately, Meyer's attitude just proved to be "My way or the highway" (on the most trivial of issues, no less)... I think he might have rathered the rest of WP "hit the highway" instead, but ultimately he decided to (despite repeated polite, even obsequious, requests he not do so). LotLE×talk 17:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of my original "Greater involvement by scientists and Ignore All Rules" post was that I believe that |Ignore All Rules| policy should be stressed more - especially "on the most trivial of issues, no less"

There may be better examples of "stick-to-the-rulesitis" but I was thinking about IAR and the Eiffel|Bertrand Meyer happening was the example I saw.144.189.5.201 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New users always benefit from guidance. Kindness is the greatest wisdom. Stephen B Streater 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Wayne Saewyc, and why does he live in Vancouver?

See WP:VPN#McClatchy News article on Wikipedia and Gil Gutknecht. Who is this guy? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have responded there. Raul654 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

about entertainment

Hi Jimmy,I am Magic Designer.Beacuse in meta:CWMC2006 the Wikia meeting was canceled and I am sorry that there was no other time for me to demo my DIY little movies I promised to you .So I put the link for you here:MGdesigner's Movie Studio .Their scripts are made in BullFlower literature.Wish you have fun ^_^.My next movie is about SWAT ~_~

And I also will continue building and promoting BullFlower and Beauty,To explore wiki usage on entertainment and liturature.--MagicDesigner 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:StewartBrandArsElectronica.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StewartBrandArsElectronica.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Hi, Jimbo. I couldn't think of anywhere else to say this, so here I am. I don't think enough Admins follow WP:IAR enough, or IAR isn't specific enough. Say somone is vandalizing an article on purpose, and only one non-admin is around to revert it. The vandal keeps going and eventually both he and the contributor break 3RR. Sometimes, the contributor will be blocked along with the vandal, even though he did it out of good faith and was only thinking about Wikipedia. Is there any way to get IAR to be a little more important? People getting blocked for good faith edits isn't fair. Too many admins take the rules too literally, and I think something should be done about it.--KojiDude 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "I don't think enough Admins follow WP:IAR enough" We get more complaints that they do the opposite.
2. "Say somone is vandalizing an article on purpose, and only one non-admin is around to revert it. The vandal keeps going and eventually both he and the contributor break 3RR. Sometimes, the contributor will be blocked along with the vandal, even though he did it out of good faith and was only thinking about Wikipedia." No good deed goes unpunished. Goodness is its own reward.
3. "Is there any way to get IAR to be a little more important?" No
4. "People getting blocked for good faith edits isn't fair. Too many admins take the rules too literally, and I think something should be done about it." Yes, we have a rule against "admins tak[ing] the rules too literally". Its called IAR.

• Bottom line : Sources presented in an unbiased way trump all the bullshit. WAS 4.250 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty insulted on how you called my comment "bull shit". And if IAR did take care of this kind of problem, then I wouldn't be complaining, now would I?--KojiDude 03:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What I think WAS 4.250 would be trying to say, were he feeling a bit more WP:CIVIL, is that there is little the must be fixed immediately. There is really nothing to worry about, your changes are still there and can be brought back. In the case of vandals, WP:AIV is the right way to go. If this is a content dispute, do the right thing.

While I disagree with WAS 4.250 in the implication that only admins are allowed to IAR, I'm finding that I'd rather have the rules applied overly consistently, than capriciously. -- Isogolem 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Either way, if this is a complaint about an administrator blocking someone for 3rr when he or she shouldn't have, this is probably more of a place for ANI to get other's opinions, or perhaps an RFC. Anyway, the first step is to speak with the blocking administrator. Cowman109^Talk 06:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, along the same lines of this, I see that some people have taken your decree as that IAR should actually be considered legitimate policy, which really has some nasty implications to it. We're past the point of this, I'm sure, and people taking this to heart are causing a growing amount of strife. Perhaps you could clarify, since it's fairly simple as it is, what you mean by this and why it's at all a good idea considering its divisiveness? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a good idea because it recognizes that, on Wikipedia, the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. It suggests that we have the intelligence and sophistication to handle this, rather than assuming we're all dimwitted children who must be made to rigidly follow each rule as we're not capable of doing the right thing otherwise. Attempts to invoke IAR in destructive or just plain stupid ways should, of course, be ignored. --Xyzzyplugh 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is when IAR is invoked in ways that can't be ignored or reversed easily. I'm not sure how aware of the problem people are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to make this clear: This wasn't supossed to be a complaint or a report about an administraitor doing this, it's just that I've seen it happen before, and I wanted to try and get something done about it. That's all.--KojiDude 19:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit by User:Drini, and request for emergency desysopping of this administrator

Moved to User talk:Drini. This is not the place to discuss my actions. It's my talk. -- Drini 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention needed!

These articles: User:Nina, Whitney Sloan, and more to come are unnoticed, and this encyclopedia should be updated (right)? What do you suggest? I've was randomly hitting users and User:Nina is I think no longer active, and Whitney Sloan is being updated in the process. Expect more unnoticed articles! --Sylvia 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Utter Debacle

You may want to take a look at User talk:Publicgirluk, and the associated Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27#Publicgirluk.27s_images. Quite frankly, the attitudes and actions of some of the editors and admins during this farce have been unbelievable. They've managed to drive away a user who attempted to contribute in good faith, and I've quit the project as I can't justify contributing to a project that treats people so shabbily. exolon 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like this "user who attempted to contribute in good faith" was likely just trolling us. The "utter debacle" I see here is that good people were suckered into defending this nonsense. "Publicgirluk" should have been indef blocked and the images speedied without so much as a how do you do. --Jimbo Wales 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which edits you object to. WAS 4.250 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see good judgment prevail. Thanks Jimmy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling? How? If I was suckered I would like to know in what way? HighInBC 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If I offer a guess (& I hope Jimbo doesn't mind me speaking for him), I'd say that he doubts that the average woman -- or at least, a woman who would prove to be a constructive contributor -- would post the pictures in question. -- llywrch 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The block reason refers to Jimbo Wales, so I would prefer to hear his reasoning. HighInBC 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's original answer is pretty informative. "likely just trolling", "nonsense" and "should have been indef blocked/speedied" should tell you what you need to know without pressing an issue in which Jimbo describes those defending publicgirluk as having been "suckered"... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not informative at all. It is a list of Jimbo's opinions; his opinions may well be based on good reasoning, but he has only provided the conclusions so far, not the process with which he arrived at them, so I can't tell. Jimbo has not described why Publicgirl_uk's edits constitute "trolling"; ie., what he has seen in those edits which I failed to see. And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan.

I understand that WP is not an experiment in democracy, but I also understand that this is a consensus-based project. I also respect the fact that as WP's founder, Jimbo's opinion deserves to be treated with respect. But so do those of the rest of the community here, which largely seemed to be supportive of Publicgirl_uk in terms of following the guidelines of WP:AGF.

Jimbo, please go back in the page history of the blocked user's talk page and read her reply to this entire debate. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with trolls here and this simply isn't one. Further, Publicgirl_uk had already posted a comment stating that rather than defend herself in this debate, she would rather her images be withdrawn and was leaving the project. That is not the action of a troll. A troll, upon stirring up so much furor, would be having a great time; they would want to stick around and have more fun by stirring the pot some more. After all, what would it cost them? In addition, I'd like to point out that in this comment I mentioned, she also stated that she expected there would be a negative reaction to her withdrawal of the images, in her words the "no smoke without fire" argument; and here it is.

I think you've made a mistake, Jimbo. Your opinion is given great weight around here. This puts a (probably unfair) burden upon you to be more careful with what you say. You can't just toss things like that off without giving a line of reasoning. Perhaps you believe that the images she uploaded weren't appropriate for the site . That's cool - we have a process for that, which was ignored in this case (images deleted without consensus). Publicgirl_uk was treated very poorly by WP and it makes me ashamed of this project. We already have ways of dealing with, reporting, and correcting inappropriate behavior at WP. None of these processes were used. In fact, quite a few procedures we have in place for dealing with "trolls" was ignored or broken here. Look at the user's talk page history and all the users who expressed their wish that Publicgirl_uk remain as a contributor. I don't mean any disrespect, but you can't just go calling all those editors, which includes myself, "suckers" and Publicgirl_uk a "troll" without providing reasons. I know I am not alone in wondering what that reason is. Cordially, Kasreyn 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Please WP:CIVIL. Your comment "And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." was plainly uncivil. I don't expect an apology given your animosity, but I'd try to cool down if I were you. 2. Your assessment of the community being 'largely in support of' WP:AGF being the most important guideline for dealing with publicgirluk's uploads is plainly wrong.The community was not 'largely in support' of either view. 3. Your characterization of 'what a troll would do' is absolutely wrong - Just disrupting WP with this behavior is enough to retire the 'publicgirluk' sock. 4. Your continued haranguing about 'how she was treated' when it's clear that she has treated the community disrespectfully with her trolling is getting very very old.

I recommend you leave the issue alone (or at least drop some of your tired arguments as they have been rehashed to death) and try to conduct yourself civilly. Perhaps Theresa's advice on the other page you're pressing these same old issues is good advice to consider - "Actually doing something constructive, rather than the endless talk (which is happening on this page) feels good." Have a wonderful day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I found your comment to HighInBC to be rather high-handed and insulting; I felt you were talking down to him and belittling his request for information. It was his place to dispute it if he wished, though, so perhaps I shouldn't have butted in. 2. I don't see how it's plainly wrong; important talk sections on this subject have been (I hope accidentally) deleted and others have been closed, making it rather difficult to even determine what consensus there was, if any. 3. I fail to see anything disruptive in Publicgirluk's actions, and her defense of herself was startlingly civil and polite, which is very rare for a new user under such circumstances. 4. I do not appreciate my remarks being described as "harangues", I do not feel Publicgirluk ever treated this community with anything but the utmost respect, and how can my questions be "getting old" when no one has given me the courtesy of a meaningful answer?

I do feel that I have conducted myself civilly, though I will admit I have been sorely tried in that regard for probably the first time ever in my time at WP. You ask me to leave the issue alone, but how can I in good conscience? I am not in the slightest convinced that the editor in question was a troll. If you have some sort of evidence not available to me, or if there has been some establishment of proof to support your claim that PGUK was a sockpuppet, then I'd be very interested to see it. You imply my questioning is unproductive; nonsense. By questioning, I am attempting to find a way to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. WP has lost at least two editors that I know of over this, and possibly more who simply didn't announce their departure. That is unproductive. If the talk seems endless, communication and, ultimately, answers and solutions, will be the best way for us to solve it. Regards, Kasreyn 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with your views - both of my conduct and the original issue of the images and the behavior of the uploader. So have many. And like them I disagree with you for all the reasons that have (again) been discussed ad nauseam by what is now dozens of particpants.

Claiming there's not been enough discussion is particularly ludicrous, when Jimbo captures it best with 'should have been indef blocked/speedied wihtout so much as a how do you do'.

You're welcome to keep spinning on this, but I've said my peace enough, and done so civilly and directly. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. Peace. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"And I can decide for myself what I "need to know" without you telling me, Ryan." is not uncivil. Please explain how denying your the ability to decide for others what they need to know is uncivil? Please stop trying to block this line of questioning. HighInBC 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is uncivil. I'm not blocking anything - one cannot 'block' a conversation. You're welcome to keep pressing in defense of a troll if you'd like, but the reaction you get may not be what you (ostensibly) want, which is better policy and a better encyclopedia, right? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not say I am defending a troll, I am asking why it is thought someone is a troll. If you wish to discuss this matter further User:RyanFreisling, please do so on my talk page, not here. I don't think seeking clarification is innapropraite in this case. I am not asking you your opinions as I am very aware of them from other pages. HighInBC 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whooa! Calm it down people. Have a nice cuppa tea (or whatever floats your boat). We are all nice people here. Let's not let passion spill over into anger. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to leave it lay right here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be quite natural, as you are satisfied with the way things have turned out. Others are not, and thus are not happy. Kasreyn 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it was the right decision. Quite natural indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --kizzle 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the person is labeled a troll based simply on the pictures she uploaded, doesn't that mean no one would be allowed to upload pictures like that—anyone who did so would be trolling by definition? This is very worrying because there is no reason to think the pictures were trolling—they could have been trolling, but they could have been good faith, too, and my money's on the latter. Particularly so since no other behavior from the user was trollish in the least. Personally I think Jimbo should apologize for what he's said here. Everyking 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I might be blinded by the fact that I'm defending an attractive girl who uploaded naked pictures of herself, but Publicgirluk is definetely not a troll, as evidenced by her goodbye message. Matters of policy over what some see as pornographic material (and not copyright, as that's basically been settled at this point that these pics are hers) are important, and should be addressed, but it would seem that labeling this user a "troll" along with other instances of below-average conduct towards this user are not justified in any way whatsoever, especially given the coherence and conduct of her goodbye message and other posts. --kizzle 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree wholeheartedly. She appeared with little else of value having been contributed prior, posted extremely graphic photos of a young woman without verification of the model's identity or the image's license, and then took offense at the inevitable requests for validation (due to the increased risk and seriousness of such imagery). Her 'defenders' have decried describing her as a 'troll', and claiming she was 'mistreated', but it's WP and the exercise of good judgment that's been mistreated here. She was, as Jimbo suggested, 'very likely trolling' - at least in my eyes and, gathering from the other opinions posted, a goodly number of other users and admins. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You would, liberal POV-warrior... ;) I just have a hard time labeling her a troll with such a lack of belligerance or a perceptible intent to cause annoyance, as her goodbye message seems annoyed but completely willing to abandon the matter. Regardless, it's over, she's gone, and i'll be desparately looking up google cache's for the deleted images. --kizzle 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote in WP:NPOV

Hi. Just a note to say that you're currently being misquoted (or more acuratly 'selectivly quoted') in the lead to the NPOV policy. This quote appears to being pushed to promote the 'NPOV Over All Other Policy' position.

It currently reads 'According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."', when the original quote is "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example.". This does seem only a little difference. But it's being used to promote the idea that you said this about NPOV alone, and that this indicates a policy position. --Barberio 20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Misquotation (Quotation#Misquotations) implies misinterpretation. The selective quote does not suggest that other policies of wikipedia are not also "absolute and non-negotiable." The inclusion of this wording as part of policy is also a fact. Selective quoting in this case clarifies and simplifies the argument and quote without detraction, and is used in proper context. Further, I would likely argue that NPOV trumps any other policy as the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability form a "constitution" that all the other wikipedia policies are built off of. Electrawn 21:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

However, the quote as it stood was being taken by many to imply that WP:NPOV trumped WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability as well. --Barberio 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Siegenthaler, Biographies of Living Persons, CNN and Kyra Phillips

Mr. Wales,

Back on December 5th, 2005 you participated in a round table discussion on CNN about the John Siegenthaler debacle. Moderator was CNN host Kyra Phillips and the counter point was none other than John Seigenthaler himself.

From the transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html) , Kyra Phillips herself reviews her own wikipedia article. "I was shocked to see what was under my name. I was pretty disappointed," Phillips said. "I saw that my bio was on there, which of course comes from CNN. But then there was stuff about how liberals -- I'm accused by liberals of showing right-wing bias, and then it links onto other blogs with a bias, and I look like a right-wing commie, if you were to look at my name on this Wikipedia site."

Since then, Wikipedia policies have evolved/changed, especially about Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Fast forward to August 2006, Phillips is part of an on air gaffe at CNN. The Kyra Phillips article still read like a liberal blog. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyra_Phillips&oldid=72684754 . Six months after Siegenthaler and the on air comments, the article still made Phillips look like in her words "a right-wing commie."

From my journalism experience, I already knew the article was severely unbalanced. I still had to fight an edit war amongst many wikipedians from anonymous to regular user to administrators. From my experience, I am highly concerned that your average wikipedian is unfamiliar with policy. Fortunatly, policy was clear and explicit enough that I could aggressively edit the article. In it's current form (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyra_Phillips&oldid=72896533), I feel it is somewhat balanced, although includes irrelevant information. (augh..France reference popped back in!)

I wonder how many articles like this exist, I suspect hundreds. Many articles I see cite blogs and other irrelevant primary sources. The problem is rampant and erodes Wikipedia itself.

I am sure there is tons of debate on the matter, however, someone needs to act. At the very least, an internal media campaign to bring most of the users up to speed on all the important policies. Even to the point of creating easily surmountable barriers to entry. Wikiality is a derogatory term.

Signed, Electrawn 22:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Hawkins

I considered reverting, at least in part, your courtesy blanking, but I rather figured that wasn't a good idea. I readily recognize that you're inclined, in situations such as this, to undertake to accomodate a living subject, even in such cases as the talk page discussion wasn't in contravention of policy, but I think two concerns to remain: (a) the {{Notable Wikipedian}} should remain (FWIW, I long ago commented out the IPs, even as such commenting out isn't necessary; as I explained here, our practice seems to be to use the template even anon editors) and (b) even as archiving the talk page is in practice unnecessary, such archiving should be undertaken, if only because much of the excised discussion was as to the substance of the page.

As you may recall, we are on opposite ends of the BLP issue, but I think we agree that there is a qualitative distinction between an individual who is irked by inaccuracies in a biography and a notable individual who objects to the existence of a biography, and I think we ought not to compromise encyclopedic principles to accomodate the latter.

I wonder, then, whether you would object to my returning the Notable Wikipedian template and adding a formal archive box (neither action serves some profound practical purpose, but each would be consistent with policy and go toward the proposition that accomodation of a plainly notable individual who objects to our aggregating verifiable content need not to be more than cursory). Joe 06:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on See Alsos being developed

I am developing a straw poll on see alsos and I am hoping anyone reading this page would help contribute. Wikipedia:See alsos Anomo 06:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

CVU and the Wikimedia Logo

Hi there, Jimbo. I would like to know what your opinion regarding the use of the Wikimedia Foundation logo on Image:CVU2.PNG, Image:CVU2.svg, and Image:Counter Vandalism Unit.png. I understand that there has been debate a while back about concerns that it may look like this is a Foundation-endorsed project, but what I'd like to point out is its violation of the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. The Foundation-part of the full CVU logo uses alternating black/white background, which is against the part of the guidelines which restrict use of the logo to white or light gray backgrounds. Again, I am not necessarily suggesting you spontaneously delete these images; I would just like to know what your opinion is of the matter. (If you wish to respond, please copy the response to my talk page so I'll get the notification.) —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg

Jajyg has stated that he was personally appointed to the arbitration committe by you. He has restored or reverted sections in the Baruch Goldstein article that claim Goldstein was acting to prevent a massacre, an extreme minority view that breaches Wikipedia guidlelines. He has also restored claims that there was a gas-chamber at Belsen, another extreme minority view that breaches Wikipedia guidelines. Jayjg has also threatend to block me for removing original research from the Israel Shahak page. Do you condone these actions? Conch Shell 09:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you cite a diff by Zer0; earlier, Jayjg clarified that according to this ultra-right, racist conspiracy theory, Goldstein "pre-empted an intended Arab mass murder of Jews". Second, the Belsen diff is actually of you and Leifern, who did not add that section (it was added by Anthony Appleyard); Jayjg's contributions to that entry appear rather minor in scope. Lastly, the claim of original research on Israel Shahak (which I have just protected) might be subject to debate, but your neglect to document where jayjg threatened to block you, is not. El_C 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentaly, I agree with Zero's correction to Jay's aforementioned addition to Baruch_Goldstein ^[3] (the pertinent material is now featured on the Massacre entry), but Jay didn't object, so what was the point of mentioning this edit (from July 2004) in the first place? El_C 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I used the links as an example of what Jayjg reverted/restored in violation of Wikipedia policy, I didn't have time to track down the actual edits. [You can see how they consistently failed to reveal what you claim they did, regardless of how much time you have for this.] El_C 10:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jajyg removed vandalism to the claim that there was a gas chamber at Belsen on 12 August 2005 [4] He was therefore aware of this section and that it breached Wikipedia guidelines but did not remove it. [He reverted vandalism, that dosen't mean that he found the section and two accounts therein credible, or that he looked closely into these at the time; indeed, he did not object when you removed them.] El_C 10:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg also restored text in the Baruch Goldstein [5] (16:36, 8 January 2006) which violates Wikipedia policy (Simons is a chemist, not a social scientist) and does not explicitly appear in any current article. [Simons' questionable work is still highly influential among BG supporters, and Jay only seems to have used it to bring up specific points, which appear referenced to the official report of the Shamgar Commission]. El_C 10:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Jayjg's threats to block me the relevant text is on the Israel Shahak talk page "You can also be blocked for simple disruption ..." I am not being disruptive, I am editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. [I'm not yet certain of that, actually.] El_C 10:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do the administrators (including at least one person on the arbitration comittee) apply different standards to different pages?

Is Wikipedia being used to push some political agenda? Conch Shell 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that warning; you still refuse to provide any evidence for the "breach of copyright." Whenever you feel like living up to your own standards, let me know — when you actually find the time to present examples that are carefuly documented, that actually reveal what you claim they do, then I might take you more seriously. Otherwise, I'm afraid I tend to place about as much weight on your __examples__ as I do the ridiculous study by, and unremitting POV pushing on the part of, a certain Rabbi Dr. User:Chaim Simons. El_C 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Are your Jimbo Wales spokesman?
2. It's reasonable to assume that these websites haven't obtained permission to reproduce the work, 'breach of copyright' is a common reason given by administrators for removing links to sites.
3. Please refrain from personal attacks - they may be a good way to change the subject but they're a breach of wiki etiquette. Are you trying to get me to respond with a personal attack so you can ban me?
4. Now, Why do the administrators (including at least one person on the arbitration comittee) apply different standards to different pages? Is Wikipedia being used to push some political agenda? Conch Shell 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Mr.Willison here I'm a reaaly big fan your like a rockstar to me thanks. now to buissness I got some question umm... how do you get user boxes and why won't you guys make a comecial I can see it WIKIPEDIA BE BOLD AND EDIT. Thanks it would be cool to have you write something on my page thanks.User:Mr.Willison 6:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email concerning User:PublicgirlUK's block. JoshuaZ 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hi

I am a new enthusiastic user and i would just
like to say hello and thank you for this marvellous
encyclopedia. Jig-Saw 02:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem

I have a POV dispute over a certain article and with an extremely POV user who keeps preventing dissenting information, and criticisms of the studies, being mentioned and an administrator who refuses to do anything about this user and oversteps his authority as an administrator (Threatening to ban me for a supposed violation of the WP: No Personal Insults policy when what I said couldn't in anyway be construed as such). The current state of the article in question is engendering a false sense of legitimacy for a genital mutilation practice. Please contact me on my user talk page, thanks Lordkazan 12:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)