User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Puzzle globe of the Wikipedia logo.

Cool idea no? Do it!!! I would buy one. Even though I'm rubbish at puzzles... --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it might cost more to manufacture than it might raise in revenue, but it's interesting to note that ours was the subject of a starter question on last week's University Challenge, when Jeremy Paxman asked <list of various characters>..."can be found on which website's logo?" - and if I remember correctly, it was answered correctly on an interruption, so either we have product identification, or the student who answered it is a Wikipedian. Either way, it's good kudos for us. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem might be that, as far as I know, nobody knows what the back of the globe looks like. PhGustaf (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the theoretical work that's been done for someday correcting the typographical errors in the logo (yes, there are typographical errors in the logo :/) has also outlined what characters would go on the back of the globe. There's also the idea that the missing pieces of the globe might be reserved e.g. for fantasy languages like Klingon. See meta:Wikipedia/Logo. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat you to it anyway, Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#Physical versions. $©@®©Ξ 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimeetup Karachi

Dear Jimbo, First meetup between Wikipedians in Karachi was a success. We mostly focused on development and publicity of Urdu edition of Wikipedia. You can see post-meetup media coverage and a detailed report however in Urdu. We're working on making English version of reports and send it to you as soon as earlier for your attentions. I was expecting just 3 attendees however I found total 6 including me at the venue. So sorry that I could not take photographs cause you know well about Muslim society is so conservative about that. Thank you. Saqib ^talk 11:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. I will get back to you very shortly with something that makes you feel happy. Now, you can see a brief report on meetup prepared by me available in English here File:Wikimeetup_Karachi_1_report.pdf. Thank you. Saqib ^talk 17:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgent Intervention Needed

Dear Jimbo,

The following is a part reply to my Unblock request; .....The opinion of the various uninvolved administrators who have reviewed your block and declined to lift it is that any benefits you have brought to the project are heavily outweighed by the disruption. This seems to be a reasonable assessment and there is therefore no obvious reason, at this moment, for ArbCom to intervene.....

One of the administrators said that wikipedia works on consensus. So does it mean that if the editors are not well informed, any content will simply be termed as POV, soapbox, original research, vandalism, or disruption? Also I am damn sure editors do not take any effort to verify sources provided, if so, they should not have any right for accusations. Kindly scrutinize my case and decide in the best interest of wikipedia.

A suggestion: Pull up your socks on wikipedia policies, before this pulls wikipedia down. User:Gaunkars of Goa --59.95.15.49 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Request wikipedia move to rev 2.0, from encyclopedia to knowledge base

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks so much for wikipedia. Its impact on society is huge and still growing. Would appreciate your thoughts about removing artificial encyclopedia boundary and making it more of a knowledge base. Please comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_is_it_so_in_the_first_place...
Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Greetings.

I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles. It is my opinion that Presidency of Barack Obama has violated this policy, by not including relevant info that is critical of the subject. When I added this negative info to balance out the article, other editors erased it. Now they want me permanently banned from editing all political articles.

I trust your judgement. I would appreciate it if you would read the discussion of my proposed ban here, and offer your opinion on it. If you support the ban, I will respect your wishes.

I am sure you are aware of the media attention that was given to past bias in the John Edwards article, regarding the exclusion of info on his extramarital affair. I hope you don't want the same thing to happen to Presidency of Barack Obama.

I am aware that you normally don't get involved in content disputes. However, the attempt to ban me is a serious threat to the NPOV policy that wikipedia is based on, so I hope you will consider getting involved.

Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require "all points of view to be included in articles", it requires points of view to be given appropriate weight judged by the sources supporting that viewpoint. So, hypothetically, a fringe theory that Obama is an alien from the planet Zarg does not belong in the article.

Your editing behaviour has been reviewed and sanctions imposed by those entrusted by the community with that function and it is now alleged that you are in breach of those sanctions. Those allegations are being reviewed and appropriate action, if any, is being discussed. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What a cop out Ukexpat. An alien from Zarg? Fringe theories? Why don't you answer Grundle's question about why packs of editors are allowed to bias and censor articles in order to push their favored POV. They've gone so far as to work aggresively to ban editors who have different aritcle interests and perspectives. This behavior is clearly a violation of our core NPOV policy, and as Grundle notes, is damaging the encyclopedia and puts Wikipedia in a very negative light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think COM has a point here --NotedGrant Talk 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how ChildofMidnight is currently under an ArbCom restriction more limiting than the one Grundle2600 is subject to, take what he has to say on this matter with a grain of salt, perhaps even the entire salt shaker. All of this has been subject to an ArbCom case and numerous WP:ANI filings where the entire editing community has been able to weigh in, where they have consistently and reliably found these two, and their general approach to political articles to be in violation of NPOV, among other core policies. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, please don't lie. There has never been any kind of finding that my editing violates the NPOV policy, quite the opposite in fact as your attempts at censorship and bias have been noted repeatedly by numerous editors.

There has been relentless stalking and hounding of me (and Grundle) by you, Magnificent Clean Keeper and other editors, some of whom had to be issued a Wiki-restraining order to stop.

I've created and edited numerous political articles. It's been made difficult at times because of the inexcusable and policy violating behavior engaged in by you and others in your pack trying to censor and bias our political coverage, but otherwise I haven't had much problem. Your behavior and abuse of our policies is a serious issue, and its one that Jimbo and Arbcom have failed to address so far. Your statements here are further indication that you have no interest in contributing constructively to the encyclopedia, as you insist on disrupting discussions with personal attacks and smears. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, this is the case you tried to make to ArbCom and others, but it has been roundly rejected. You aren't the victim of anything; you are, as ArbCom noted, the perpetrator. That ArbCom did not address it to your liking is your problem, and yours alone. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You, CoM, were out of the picture till you decided to put yourself back in for free while Grundle has to pick up the tab. You're really a "big guy (or girl)". Anything more I should say? No, I don't think so. Pretty much everyone here (including you) know the rest. Have a nice day. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That fell on an opportunist's deaf ear, I guess.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat, I never said anything about aliens from the planet Zarg. I created a section in the discussion of my proposed ban called, Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions. In that section, I ask the following questions:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, can you please stop the forum shopping. You clearly didn't come here for a valid reason, and continuing the same argument you've been making on Jimbo's talk page is pointless. Grsz¹¹ 18:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See this definition. It's to make a point that it's all about weight and balance. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That might be true for Grundle's first edit here but not for his following one.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot and RfA issue

Hey! Just wanted to know, if you consider making a bot, do you have to be an admin to do so? Plus, if a user has been blocked directly, or has been mistakenly auto/blocked, will this affect the number of votes on an RfA? Cheers,--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. It is not reasonable to expect Jimbo to field routine questions from every editor. Also, it is unusual for a Wikipedian's visible signature to have no relation to the registered user name. —Finell (Talk) 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Election 2009

Good morning, Jimbo. We've (belatedly) started the process of setting up this year's Arbcom Election, and there is some discussion about the length of terms for the newly elected arbitrators. From last year's election discussion (WT:ACE2008), the Arbcom RFC (at WP:ARBCOMRFC), and discussion for this year's election, there appears to be some interest in switching to a two-tranche system with staggered 2 year terms, rather than the current 3 year terms. Functionally, this would give us 9 arbs per tranche, with some elected this year to a 1 year rump term with Alpha, and others getting a full 2 years that would match Beta. There are arguments both ways; from a procedural standpoint, it won't impact how we run the election, but it might influence who runs. I'd invite your thoughts on the matter at WT:ACE2009#Vacancies, if you get the chance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Jimbo, I was by coincidence about to send you the following email:

Dear Jimbo

Last week I raised on your talk page the question of whether the current norm of three years for the terms of incoming arbs might be reduced to two years, suggesting that there would be consensus for such a change in the community, and asking whether you might sound out the current arbs on the matter. I know you've been busy and in transit recently, and the section has since been swallowed into the archives.

A colleague and I would be willing to hold an RfC before nominations are called (i.e., starting very soon) to gauge community attitudes to such a proposal, framed as advisory only. What are your thoughts on the matter, and would such an RfC be useful?

Tony

A quick count has revealed the astonishing fact that only six of the 57 arbs ever to have been appointed have served a full three-year term. A three-year term now would not be replaced until 2013, which seems like a long time to take our best and brightest out of circulation. There's the burn-out factor in such a long term, since being an arb is increasingly a challenging, complex and full-on job. There's the apparently quick learning curve of the current new crop of arbs. And there the option of a second term of four not six years.

I'm unsure why the tranches are needed, if elections can be treated as "top ups" of numbers to the desired size (18?) each January. The number of seats to be filled will almost certainly vary from year to year, which shouldn't matter.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. Tony (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for Jimbo, but as clarification: I know of no other purpose for Tranches, beyond being a means to sort whose terms expire when. Compare Classes of United States Senators, which sorts US Senators into three staggered 6-year election cycles. It's easier to say "We're electing Tranche Beta this year" than "We're filling the seats vacated by this guy, this guy, and this guy". UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

Hi there Jimbo. I'm curious about your take on the discussions regarding the David Shankbone article. If the article is kept at the AfD will you support deletion if there is later a media controversy involving the subject? Can people opt in or out at any time depending on how the news cycle treats them?

I ask because, as you might recall, I've been critical about the appearance of nepotism, double standards, censorship, and bias on Wikipedia where editors are treated differently than other article subjects. And as far as an "informal" policy of letting persons with marginal notability opt out of having BLPs on them, unless we post this somewhere and notify COI editors instead of blocking and banning them when they try to alter their articles, it seems like another example of Wikipedia policy being made to benefit those with insider knowledge. Can the opt out be invoked at any time? Is it appropriate to grant special treament to those with membership in the Wiki-Club? Or do you have a different take? Should the David Boothroyd article be recreated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this, and other biographies like it, whether of Wikipedia editors or not, are clear candidates for deletion. If I were to vote, I would vote very strongly for deletion. I don't really know what your concerns about double standards and so on have to do with it, but I'm certainly willing to say that we should take the same very high moral and ethical approach to BLPs of everyone equally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)