User talk:Jimbo Wales

Click here to leave a new message.

Reminder: Your friendly intervention

We refer now to our last Issue to our topic and kindly remind to look what happened meanwhile to our reprimands to Demanding fairness for thousands dissidents, apologizing bad English of Germans (decades out of experiences and effects of my personal impedance). We kindly ask you to involve a bit elder more fair and serious acting user, mainly able to see unfairness and real censorship by admins consistently violating themselves especially WP:NOR by defending bare opinions priory put in articles shown as only one bad example (also ground for our actions, copied from original article Tired light) as seen in section in

Unfair administrators support of - here even prior to all - depreciating opinions of redactors to a theory

One evidence only how Wiki-admins themselves violate WP-RULES especially themselves WP:NOR in a related article, then to see how we tried in vain IP-hunted (proved by prior confession of admin) to correct that behaviours. We took instead seriously pure linked citations: At first taking official PNAS-papers, then citations of Feynman to blame - as here objected - such prior depreciating opinions in our related erased section Tired light in Fritz Zwicky by well known facts: Transparent matter as glass neither blur nor scatter, citing Feynman, resumed: It cannot be understood. We felt that Big bang proponents chased and erased us (they already formerly did so, we heard) and the acting Admin quasi confessed how he really did search us by falsely meaning that this is a WIKI-consent.

You can easily see that and how answers to clear fixed main topics are prevented (admin fleeing like a slippery snake?). It would be helpful if an "old physicist" could help instead of here claimed as sole valid "the mainstream" or "modern physics" and their proponents - sorry for us like more or less bad "modern clothes". We prefer an old good wine and need especially a more serious acting reader, an in serious redactions skilled, qualified user to interfere. Acting admin claims CONTROL ABOUT HIS PAGE; many evidences to prove rather poor admin's qualification are (in danger to be) erased.

Because evidences are furthermore erased I personally ask you to take my last version as shown in [[1]] DeepBlueDiamond 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone understand what the request, complaint, or desired outcome is here? ←Ben^B4 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please look the first link. It is the same as the now second link, but it goes directly to the top of all instead. It is the last link now put to the top instead. 84.158.202.58 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He wants people to stop reverting the WP:POV and errors in physics that he keeps inserting into physics pages. He wants people to stop being so brutally insulting as to suggest that his insertions might be in any kind of conflict with wikipedia guidelines or with basic physics. He also wants to counteract the flood of errors and distortions being put about by modern physicists who show their ignorance and bias by thinking his ideas are in conflict with basic physics. He thinks anybody who reverts his edits is an administrator and acting falsely. (I think acting falsely means daring to suggest that he doesn't understand basic physics.) He uses a dynamic IP cluster, and is hugely offended that anyone (me, as it turns out) would go to the trouble of checking for edits in the IP range 84.158.*.*, or mentioning this IP range at the WikiProject Physics discussion page as a source of many errors in basic physics.

In all seriousness, my own personal judgment here is highly suspect, as over the last two weeks or so I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to communicate with this editor, and suggest some of the reasons that his edits nearly always get reverted in short order by the next passing physicist who happens to notice the many errors in basic physics and English grammar he is adding. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

False pretentions continue:

* Errors in English, you're right! Sorry, we demanded help, not got. People like you should communicate in French, Spanish, German (partly Latin, Sweedish etc.). You pretended by no abilities in German e.g.: EN.WIKI says the same to photon's mass like DE.WIKI. You only contradicted by principle vehemently without any abilities in German (or in the matter). Then you was introduced in German: Both WIKI say the contrary! How can you realize old German physicists you need to reproduce something correctly? Learn to read seriously, then basic physics, not pretending only to know anything (reading makes no understanding). You are neither graduated in at least a similar matter but dare to reprimand serious knowledge of our old Fr. Professor, Dres.-physics and Univ.-graduated people. Some of them indirectly tried to teach you in vain to both a bit, linked. - Such behaviour of laymen is named hubris, ok?

* What would it matter - if really true (you could not prove only one) - to have perhaps even some little defects in physics?

* Much better than to need some (ten, until 30) "mysteries" for (your?) "modern physics" named Big Bang (BB). You confirmed at least: Dark energy needs a real "mystery"!

* Must physicists fulfil the bible confirming how God produced a Big bang, "there will be light and there was light" (we link following Original Big Bang section again to show that BB is mainly founded by the support of many religions, e.g how glad Pope Pius XII was)? Only a real God could make from nothing everything and a BB (by violating his own physics?), ok? Dobson meant this and reminded one little of many additional problems: How could time begin within a Schwarzschild radius of super-super-massive compressed BB if time stops at the Schwarzschild-radius of a black hole with much less super-gravity. He teach you at least real physics instead of all mysteries you need...

* In BB opposing articles dominate in Wiki pure OPINIONS of redactors (users, admins, e.g.: None-BB-physics are no more valid, obsolate, overruled by BB)! Meanwhile such impertinence is found even in prior sections. Shall such opinions induce pupils, students, laymen and experts by depreciating at first any non-BB-matter already by principle? That is WP:NOR supported by admins!

* Instead, fair criticism hs to be put in a last section CRITICS or CRITICISM as fairly in most other articles, that's ok! But obviously not exist any effective neutral control with such Admins WP-principles (any attempt to correct it was rv).

* Instead of our serious pure reproductions of papers, theories, links, biographies as we did, such unserious people try to violate the mind of readers by their own prejuctices' OPINIONS (meaning impertinently that their opinions are a fact and all have to believe). Unqualified tendentious depreciations dominate especially to opponents of BB-physics more and more instead of serious redaction - as shown in one bad example only, above.

* A mass-storage of a computer has an incredible capacity to store something. Is that not a big brain?

* The disk has no intelligence to proceed data. Only by real expert's programs make a computer work, by spending much time instead of only using (reading) an Computer. Beware beginners and laymen in programming. physics, medicine, chemistry... - please!!!

* What happens if such underqualified people get the of might to discipline real experts by steadily destroying their work here (a kind of mental torment abusing the little might to dictate the result? Abuse by hubris only?

* Readers of something dominated by any redactor's OPINIONS mean then to have understood the world but they haven't by ignorance. If you have read a theory you haven't really understood until having really worked with it in practice. Here, such laymen of physics meant only to have understood one and/or the other last real genius FEYNMAN or ZWICKY better than those who know that physics or even use their theories until now. But all with a here ignored real photons's mass (as known in the whole world, even by you, as you wrote us) have to invent many real mysteries - only to support a Big Bang? Poor believers of fashion... 84.158.202.58 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

Hi Jimmy, just wanted you to know that you have lost another dedicated editor. If you care to know why, it's on his userpage. Thanks, and farewell. --Targeman 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy, I also want you to know that I have put a report stating Targeman is leaving Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Stress Alerts. Greg Jones II 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually not unusual that people decide to leave Wikipedia, but the question is, can they actually stay away? Some can, some can't and some might even return under different usernames. It's sorry to see people go in this way, but it's not like the deathknell of Wikipedia, new users are cropping up all the time aren't they? I guess the main reason for people leaving is there are too many idiots operating on this website. It's sad, but that's the conclusion I've come to from what I've seen and witnessed in my 8 months working here. Lradrama 10:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that another user is leaving is not as important as the reason for which he is leaving. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said before - too many idiots and vandals in operation. :-( Lradrama 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What is really sad is that it isn't that WP is too open, it is because too many editors are effected by the actions of vandals that is the reason for them abusing the system. If you don't want to deal with the idiots, then don't - concentrate on building the encyclopedia instead. There are those, bless them, that actively pursue and correct vandalism, there are those that deal with vandalism as it is found, there are those who ignore it, and there are those who are effected by it. I would hope that Wikipedia is large enough to allow all of the above to contribute according to their talents and preferences. I also regret any good contributor leaving, and I hope Targeman finds something else that rewards their skills and efforts. LessHeard vanU 12:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many have left because of a few problems with Wikipedia. Read the essays they write on their userpages. Fix the problems, and Wikipedia will be a better place. Don't fix them, and Wikipedia will suck. --Kaypoh 01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message is for all of us, Jimbo cant fix anything on his own, SqueakBox 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I myself enjoy fighting vandalism. Look on the bright side. Some things they put are funny ;-). Even if it does get reverted. Service with a smile! Lradrama 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to place protection on your userpage

I saw the history of you userpage and there were about ten vandalsims in the last ten days. My my. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't read that note at the bottom. Sorry. Marlith ^T/C 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Food for Thought

How can Wikipedia be called an encyclopedia if you can not fully trust the information inside it? ComputerDude1010 13:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How can ANYTHING be called an encyclopedia, by that standard? See WP:EBE --Lucid 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias, are not reliable research tools. Unfortunately, a lot of people ignore this fact and rely on them for information regardless. Secondary sources are good, if it's from a reliable source. Primary sources are the best, if you can adequately interpret them. ~ UBeR 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference on various topics. Meanwhile, teachers in some schools my friend's children go to are calling Wikipedia a place for "unverified information not suitable for projects or reports". Therefore, Wikipedia is flawed in the fact it can't perform its main objective: To be a "Free Encyclopedia" ComputerDude1010 13:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I have realized Targeman described Wikipedia perfectly. "[Wikipedia is] a huge, inept and anarchic organization committed to political correctness more than to anything else, employing an unpaid, ill-equipped, badly trained and pitifully powerless work force." ComputerDude1010 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your point that's flawed. Just because 'teachers in some schools' don't consider it reliable doesn't mean it isn't an encyclopedia (which, for reference, a teacher shouldn't be accepting as a source anyway, as mentioned above). A lack of trust does not mean something is not an encyclopedia. No source is perfect, and relying on a single source to be perfect goes beyond trust, and into stupidity. Also, for an explanation of why Wikipedia is able to actually keep up or exceed the much more professional opposition, see Linus's Law --Lucid 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the best part of Wikipedia, we are doing it out of love, the good of humanity, and other Hallmark-esque reasons. Besides, no one is supposed to cite any encyclopedia as it is considered a Tertiary source, and as such not good enought for reference. As for validation, patience young grasshopper. Zidel333 13:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is playing the Political game. In short, deception is at work here. In my personal opinion, Wikipedia, like the world as a whole, is majorly flawed. This reminds me to put up my "The world will end in 1952 days" userbox. (PS: That's 12/21/12 ComputerDude1010 13:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So don't use it. Britanica is quite good. Use that instead. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A disclaimer was made for the purpose of avoiding such vacuous arguments. ~ UBeR 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot fully trust any information from any source. See Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. Jon513 17:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1,951 Days and Counting!!! :P ComputerDude1010 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Open for anything...

We all know that Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. But Jim, I'm sure that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=151885238) really wasn't what it was intended for. Looking back at the Chris Benoit/Wikipedia controversy, although wikipedia was created so that edits like this are allowed to happen, should we take something like the above edit (as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=151887760&oldid=151886061) seriously? Socby19 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh? It'a a sandbox edit. You know, a sandbox, where people can play! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and so is the rest of the internet. Like when Al-Qaeda, or any other terror cell makes serious posts about plots that actually follow through. I did say that I'm not sure what to think of it, but just in case, I have notified the FBI via their counter-terrorism tip submission forum. Socby19 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't just an odd joke about the movie Telefon? -85.210.30.61 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. From reading the Telefon wikipedia page, I don't see any references to Disney (park, nor company) at all. The only connection I see is that the distributor is MGM, which, through this year, Disney has a license for the name MGM (Disney-MGM Studios). Besides, the ride page (Snow White's Scary Adventures) doesn't mention the movie. The Disney World ride is in Magic Kingdom, not Disney-MGM. To me, it's just a bunch of loose ends that may or may not mean something. Socby19 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help with Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles

I would appreciate any help you could provide with the new Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles proposal/essay and also over on wiktionary's definition of "conspiracy theory" here. zen master T 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like nonsense to me. Some things actually are conspiracy theories and should be dubbed as such.--Jimbo Wales 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If a theory is dubious it should not be "dubbed" with a non-neutral phrase that can be separately literally true. I am very surprised you aren't concerned some Wikipedia articles are violating Wikipedia's neutral presentation policies and principles by using a discrediting term in the title. zen master T 17:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible police investigation by Frank Zampino

Also posted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello! I'm Not sure if you are aware of this but I've spotted this article (although in French) mentioning that the individual is threating to demand a police investigation because of users using some IP's from the cabinet office of Gerald Tremblay the mayor of Montreal that had made defamatory edits on Zampino's article - the IP mentionned that he was a former nazi supporter and a member of the Weight Watchers. Another article here mentionned that the incident occured on August 15 2006 at 12:19 PM (so 16:19 UTC). JForget 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the one edit in question made by User:67.71.78.44.--JForget 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like an issue for the police not for wikipedia. We dont have any fear of the police here cos we are law-abiding, SqueakBox 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article was referring to a different edit, deleted 15:23, August 17, 2007 from a different IP, 142.243.254.239 that contained the same information. I've deleted the above-mentioned revisons that interestingly enough came weeks before (July 23) the ones mentioned in the article (August 15). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, we dont see enough of admins using the delete button for unacceptable revisions, IMHO, SqueakBox 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is an article in English. City hall hunts for Wikipedia 'vandal'. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the problem seems too serious. Just a case of vandalism that may or may not have come from the city hall. ~ UBeR 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

Hey Jimbo can you make me an administrator oh please!!!!--*VANILLA2 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You make request for adminship (RfA), which then gets reviewed by other editors. If the majority vote support (for the candidate) you are made an admin / sysop. If the majority don't support you, you just have to try again another time. You must have at least a few months experience editing Wikipedia, and experience editing Wikipedia-project space. It isn't easy to pass - that's what I conclude through experience on RfA! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for more details. Cheers, Lradrama 15:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to be an admin, I would recommend going to RfA as well. If you would like help/advice, I am happy to offer it; we cen continue this discussion on my talk page. Cheers, Neranei (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

People, the user is already aware of this process. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vanilla2. I think Vanilla2 wants to know if s/he can be made an admin by special appointment, outside of RfA.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But is that possible? Lradrama 15:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Jimbo is a steward after all. But how probable that is... now that's another story... Миша13 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if he ever intends to enact his "I'll just go around and randomly make some people who have been here awhile sysops" idea. --Lucid 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Well, note that being a steward gives one the ability in a technical sense to make someone a sysop, but gives no right to do so outside of normal procedures. So my being a steward is more or less irrelevant to the question. Now, under our traditional governance model, making sysops would be among my reserved powers, and I would imagine that the ArbCom would back me up on that, and indeed in some special cases they might even request me to do it. But this is clearly not a special case and in any event, I am well aware that in order for me to keep my traditional powers, it is best not to use them very much, and then typically only to resolve some kind of crisis in governance by cutting through some procedural dilemma to enact the will of the community directly. Not an easy matter, which is why I try as best I can to proceed slowly and thoughtfully.

So no, Vanilla2, as charming as the request is, I will not be granting you admin status. I rather doubt that I would ever directly grant sysop status to someone except upon the advise of the ArbCom. :) --Jimbo Wales 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of any situations where ArbCom would want you to give someone sysop where they couldn't pass an RFA? --Lucid 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, no.--Jimbo Wales 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

L, not heard of User:Mikegodwin? Anthere used her magical steward/board chair powers to appoint him sysop. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. This is clearly a special case since he is the foundation's legal counsel. This is the kind of situation Jimbo is referring to, I think. --Deskana (banana) 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

but Jim are you saying that I will never become an administrator?--*VANILLA2 15:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is like sand. "The tighter you grasp it, the more slips through your fingers" --Lucid 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he's saying he's not going to specially appoint you to be an administrator. You can submit another request for adminship though I think everyone here would suggest you take several months to gain experience and learn morea bout the policies of Wikipedia more before you submit another RFA. Metros 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanilla2, don't be disheartened by the results of this discussion. Please, continue to edit Wikipedia, with particular focus on Wikipedia-project space, and provide sensible answers in your RfA, and there is no reason to suggest that you will not become an admin. Of course you will if you put the effort in. I wish you the best of luck in your future editing Wikipedia. Happy editing, Lradrama 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that your adminship candidacy would be opposed by a cabal of POV-pushing admins who are trying to control certain articles, policies, or BLPs in Wikipedia for their own ends. But, certain recent events in the project appear to indicate that such opposition is probably not likely at the moment so I think the regular RfA process should work as it is supposed to, at least for the time being. Cla68 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo says he won't, but that will not stop the community making you one in due course (and due process). Bear in mind, though, that a question that the community is likely to ask you is why you want so badly to be appointed an admin - and outside the usual methods. It was Jimbo who said that adminship should be "no big deal", therefore it really shouldn't matter if you are an admin or not as long as you are a valuable contributor. LessHeard vanU 16:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason why Vanilla2 might not become an admin someday.--Jimbo Wales 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you help

My article on Bay Valley Foods was just trashed. I put in a section that cites EPA public reports on this company's toxic emissions. The citation was removed, the section was removed, and in the discussion the reason given was no citation.

I don't know the right way top contest this.

Thank you

BmikeSci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.247.142 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks very much to me like this article should be looked at closely and probably deleted. The whole article looks very much like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make some kind of political or business attack. That's just my quick impression; I don't mean to cause offense to you. A more experienced editor, who knows more about the USA than I do, should look at this carefully. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding link: the page is Bay Valley Foods, created June 25. The main point of the article seems to insert claims about a particular plant being a source of pollution. Initial versions probably libelous and inadequately sourced. The subsequent attempt to document allegations are rather confused, and look throughly WP:POV. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions.

1. Where did you get the idea for wikipeidia?

2. What was the first article?

3. How many barnstars per day do you get?

(Please respond on my talk page) Thanks!! -Tobi4242 20:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For 1 and 2, see History of Wikipedia and WP:OLDEST (it's Transport). ←Ben^B4 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A new barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

An idea to lower vandalism

Hello Jimbo, my name is HarrisonB and I have seen you on various shows such as the now defunct 'The Catchup' and the 'Sunday program of Australia. I have been working on the project for nearly six months and I had an idea to lower vandalism. Would it be feasible to stop anonymous editing and/or instate a 'One Strke, Your Out' program where one is blocked for a week for any vandalism? Thanks HarrisonB Speak! 04:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't ensure that we catch the vandals, as they could easily have moved on to a different IP. It's a good idea, but it won't work for dynamic IPs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• A lot of really good work is done by IP editors. Whenever you block an IP vandal, you might be blocking one of the good ones too. For example, we have a fairly nasty troll out of Chicago who has been extremely active for a long time. He's on a dynamic dsl, and a lot of the IPs he has used have also been used by good editors. So all we can really do is block him for short periods when he shows up. If he's on a tear, he'll be back in five minutes with a new IP anyway, and a longer block is only going to keep out legit editors. - Crockspot 05:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed how you said that a lot of good work is done by IP editors. What is stopping them creating an account? I guess you wouldd have to do more advertising to get an account, but it is doable. HarrisonB Speak! 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's something you'd have to ask each and every IP. Sometimes its someone just trying out Wikipedia for size, sometimes its just a registered user who hasn't logged in (perhaps at an insecure location, such as a public library computer). Why they don't register is largely irrelevant, however; the fact that good anonymous edits vastly outweigh the negative ones is the key here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S pleased to meet you two.

• And you as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I actually started to type something about that, but deleted it before posting because I thought I was starting to ramble. But yes, if we could find a better way to encourage IP editors to sign up, it would not solve the problem, but it would keep those editors from suffering annoyance blocks due to IP vandalism. There are already incentives to having an account, but maybe we need more, like some cool trick tool. Or maybe we need to advertise the existing incentives better. - Crockspot 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that most vandals choose to do so as IP's rather than create accounts. We can see who their ISP is. We can tell if they are coming from a school and are therefore likely to just be kids mucking about, and we can, of course contact the school. We can tell if they are related to other vandalising IP's i.e if they are in the same range they are likely to be the same person and so can be blocked without further warnings. Wiki Scanner can be used on thier edits. Forcing people to log in would stop all this, and as creating an account is so easy only the casual vandals would be deterred. But these asual vandals are the easiest to deal with. The more pesistant ones would create multiple accounts and continue to vandalise. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I do agree with that entirely but if both vandals and good people start up an account it would still be easy to control, I think in some cases easier. It would also solve block problems with IPs. For instance, in 2005 or so when I did not have an account here I was blocked for 48 hours for something I did not do. I thought an edit I made, which was an attempt to correct a fact on the Ferrari Enzo article, which 'screwed up' a part of the code put me in hot water; I felt quite bad until I saw my contributions, ealising that I did not do that.

Also, it would be nice if Jimbo had a part to do in this conversation :) HarrisonB Speak! 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that anonymous (non-logged-in) editing is, on the whole, worthwhile. The delicious irony, of course, is that what is commonly called "anonymous" editing is not particularly anonymous, as the whole wonderful Wikiscanner thing has shown. As Theresa Knott said, we know that anons mostly do valuable things, and there are good reasons to want vandals on ip numbers instead of accounts, etc. --Jimbo Wales 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is WP sticking its neck out too far in discussing potentially inappropriate image uploads?

Consider this discussion on the administrators notice board.

I have made a proposal that WP contributors be discouraged from offering "legal conclusions" and "legal analysis" when flagging images and media uploaded to WP. This proposal seems quite sensible, considering Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and other important factors.

There is a big difference between telling an uploader:

• 1) "you do not have redistribution rights for this image"; or
• 2) "this is a derivative work, and therefore does not belong to you";

and

• 3) "you have not adequately demonstrated that this image is consistent with WP terms of use"

It seems to me the only statement that needs to be made by WP contributors and admins is statement 3. The other two invite "legal gamesmanship" and fruitless debates. They are also unnecessary, since WP is not here to advise people about their individual legal rights to various media. Even in purely obvious cases of blatant copyright infringement, WP doesn't have to go any further than stating its own policy, and that the burden of proof is on the uploader.

These are just my preliminary thoughts after seeing some "red flags". Constructive criticism and comments are of course welcome. dr.ef.tymac 09:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)