User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 15

Contents

Wikipedia's responsibility towards a clean Internet

Hello Mr. Wales,

Maybe you're read it on the news or seen it on TV, but according to Senator Ted Stevens, the Internet is not a big dump truck. It's a series of tubes. So, I'm writing to you in order to plead with you, as the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, to be mindful of how many articles Wikipedia sends down those tubes, every single day, so, other important internets can get through. Just a week ago, I was editing Autofellatio and my edit got in on Friday.

Would you consider donating the time of some of those lovely Bomis ladies to help clean up those tubes? I'm willing to donate $15 per hour the ladies spend in cleaning up the tubes.

PS. Thank you for supporting net neutrality.
PS1. Next time you're next to the Senator, feel free to smack him upside his head.

Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5

Net Neutrality rox0rz! MyrddinEmrys 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Jimbo makes mistakes

This is an essay, by User:Ashibaka, which has been repeatedly deleted by User:Zoe on grounds of being an "attack page", and restored by Ashibaka and User:Friday[1]. Deletion debates appear to have no consensus. I think that your opinion on this matter would clear this up and stop the revert war, as you are the subject of the essay. --Samael775 21:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is an attack page, and putting it in userspace looks like the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

NOTE: The response to this essay is spread out on a few different pages: Village pump (policy) (here), on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, and on Village pump (proposals). I'll try to handle this better if there is a next time. --Ben Houston 04:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember that if you have the user's real name stored, someone can subpoena it. If you start collecting names, they *will* get out the next time there's a messy divorce and the opposing side's lawyer subpoenas Wikipedia's records to prove that a user is editing Satanism articles and must obviously be an unfit parent. Ken Arromdee 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure being caught for editing an article on Satanism is as damning as you think unless that person was stating their own support for it. And if they stated their support for Satanism and get "exposed" -- so what? One has only exposed the truth. --Ben Houston 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe it.
Some are later rescinded, but don't think it doesn't happen for the stupidest reasons imaginable. -- nae'blis 22:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. I did say in the article that I clearly believed that contributions can be made anonymously, and I gave some examples, but that currently there is an overuse of the protection offered by anonymity which in turn causes a lot of issues for project as a whole. Thus I would favor a philosophical shift towards encouraging people to use their real names as much as possible and from there, it isn't a major issue to have them authenticated as Amazon does. Wikipedia would still be the collaboratively created encyclopedia -- it just wouldn't be the encyclopedia created by primarily by anonymous contributors. --Ben Houston 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm 100% OK with requiring all users to register a username. Then we always know we are talking to the right person, and not to an IP adress that may be shared by several people. It would be helpful to the building of community. As to real names, there is a real problem with stalking that unfortunately makes real names a liability. Johntex\talk 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Wikipedia has reached a point where IP editing is a liability, not an asset. — Deckiller 21:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree as well, it is ONE of the issues, but needs to be addressed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Requiring registration remains a significant barrier to entry for many valued contributors. Lots of us started out by contributing a few times under an IP before deciding we liked being involved enough to register a username. Without the ability to edit without logging in, how many potential new Wikipedians will we lose? I'm not willing to risk it in exchange for a little less vandalism (there are plenty of vandals with registered usernames, after all). Powers 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done to Ben for at least trying to come up with a technically viable solution to Wikipedia'a fundamental problems, which are also being discussed at the level of principle further up the page. In reply to LtPowers, it is NOT a valid argument against such a change to say that it would deter/prevent some people from editing at Wikipedia. No doubt it would, as would virtually any change which also prevented or reduced trolling, abuse, frivolous edits, vandalism and POV-pushing. My response is: "too bad." We are trying to build an encyclopaedia for readers, not an amusement centre for everyone in the world who has access to a computer. As I said somewhere above, Wikipedia doesn't need more editors right now, in fact it could do with a lot less. What it needs is better editors, better articles and better processes. Adam 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We will ensure that people are actually really interested in the site, which means an inceased possibility of higher quality, highly ambitious editors. — Deckiller 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And how exactly do we find these better editors without scaring them off before they can even make an edit? Powers 20:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
They will be interested in improving an article/subject enough to register. — Deckiller 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Some anonymous users do make contributions, but there is no good evidence that requiring them to register would scare (m)any of them off. Johntex\talk 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


On a similar note

Re your comment: "My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance." - as a concerned member of this minority, and someone who gets a lot of abuse for trying to enforce the policy, I wonder if you could comment on an amendment to clarify the policy. It is difficult to make progress with these things when the discussion gets overrun with users who think plastering pages with dozens of screenshots a logos isn't a problem because we probably won't get sued! Thanks, ed g2stalk 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For You

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Some people give barnstars for helping edit Wikipedia. Here is one for making it. ;) Viva La Vie Boheme

That's like storing paper US money at Fort Knox. WAS 4.250 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet arbitration

This is where I appeal, right? You may want to review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pudgenet/Proposed_decision and its talk page. Particularly, whether there was really "tendentious editing by Barry." Pudgenet added what myself and at least two other Wikipedians consider vandalism, and I called it that and warned him for it. Scarpia reinserted it, and I considered that vandalism too. I mentioned Scarpia's vandalism on the Wikipedians with articles page because it fit the stated purpose of the page, and went to the talk page to get consensus for an acceptable version when Pudgenet deleted it. Pudgenet deleted the version agreed on too. Now I'm getting banned from Perl even though the arbitrators refuse to judge the large amount of content I added to the article that was deleted improperly, Pudgenet just gets a warning, and Scarpia gets nothing. Oh, and it's claimed that I made inappropriate accusations of vandalism. What a joke. I'm banning myself from further significant contributions to Wikipedia.

And please make it clear in the proper places that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes, assuming that's true. It's true in my case. -Barry- 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, ArbCom does consider content issues when they arise from a behavior dispute. They have to; otherwise how would they be able to know what to do when one side claims the other side's references don't support their insertions? The principle is that ArbCom doesn't accept pure content disputes. They do accept behavior disputes.
Plus, in your appeal above I think you left out some important details. An appeal isn't likely to be considered unless it responds to each finding of fact in the record. (IANAwikiL) AnAccount2 08:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I responded to two of the findings of fact above -- "Tendentious editing by Barry" and "Barry has made inappropriate accusations of vandalism." There are no supporting links or explanations in the proposed findings of fact under the tendentious editing claim, so above I just guessed at what it might be about and tried to defend my actions.
The inappropriate accusations of vandalism claim is more clear, and I partially addressed that above. It's discussed right at the top of the talk page that I mentioned. Basically, Fred Bauder considered this warning that I gave to Pudgenet inappropriate, but a couple of editors agree with me that the paragraph I warned Pudgenet about (bottom left...this shows the paragraph alone) was vandalism.
Here, Fred Bauder says that my vandalism warning was based on this "content dispute" (which included a personal attack -- see the edit summary), but in my warning, I clearly linked to the paragraph with the in-article vandalism in which Pudgenet mentioned me. I went out of my way to be specific in my warning because the template didn't allow for specificity, and there's still confusion! Unless it's a coverup. Fred Bauder had been corrected on the workshop page and elsewhere about where the vandalism was, by more than just me, but in the proposed decision, he again only linked to what he calls a content dispute rather than the other paragraph that I warned Pudgenet about. What is that...does Fred not like me and he's using something he learned in law school to mislead people? The discussion page is long, and it's possible he was successful if the other arbitrators didn't read it. -Barry- 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You said:I am anti-Perl, especially with regard to the Perl community. There are plenty of decent Perl folks, but there are far too many immature idiots that have been active members of various internet discussion venues for a long time, so bad as to drive several people away, including myself. I'm also anti-Perl because I think that in a couple of years they'll be a major shift away from Perl 5, to an even more difficult Perl 6 (or to other languages), and I'd rather learn Python 3 than Perl 6. In the Perl article, I was obviously anti-Perl in the Con section (which wasn't my idea to create). I think the quote I added was pretty even handed for a Con section, and was basically just something from a reliable source to back up what was asserted previously. Probably a more reliable source than anything else in the article, because it came from a formal study. One of my external links, to a critique by an author, teacher, and developer, was reverted for unspecified inaccuracies, and I didn't question it or put the link back. I'll go out of my way more to add appropriate anti-Perl material than pro-Perl material, but I've improved the article in more neutral ways too, which could only help Perl. -Barry- 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC) here then got into a nasty insulting revert war over perl articles. May I suggest you and wikipedia might both benefit more from efforts on your part in Python articles? WAS 4.250 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My involvement in the Perl revert war has been documented by an observer (Simetrical) on the talk page mentioned above, and I don't think there's anything there deserving of much, if any, blame.
I don't know Python. I created the Python 3 page by editing pre-existing, public domain material. I made good and fairly extensive contributions to Perl, and they should be put back as I requested in the arbitration case, or at least judged. -Barry- 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You say I'd rather learn Python 3. Do what you claim you would rather do. Learn a little, then contribute a little using the references you learned from. Repeat. WAS 4.250 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Why should anyone contribute to Wikipedia considering that at the highest level there are lies, double standards, disregard for whether good content was reverted, and better treatment for someone making numerous blatant personal attacks, ignoring consensus, and refusing to communicate, than for someone who calls vandalism vandalism and reverts himself when concensus says he shouldn't call vandalism vandalism. And how could you tell me Wikipedia might benefit from me not editing Perl without you even judging my content? You'll probably be an arbitrator some day. -Barry- 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Simetrical, however, disagrees with -Barry-'s assessment of his actions here, where he says that -Barry- "acted with undue aggression on a number of occasions, and made unnecessarily provocative edit summaries and statements," and that he "did edit-war once or twice." Simetrical also said "I don't think -Barry- is free of guilt." Finally, although he thought the full punishment was overly harsh, he certainly thought the punishment should be to "at least ban him only from editing Perl-related articles." Steve p 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
People need to look at the particular edits, edit summaries, frequency of my reversions, etc. to decide what I deserve. I mentioned Simetrical because he listed a bunch of my edits to make it easy for people to decide for themselves whether I deserve blame and what punishment I deserve. But since you're quoting his opinions, let's get it straight. He said:
Yes, he did edit-war once or twice, but the only one where he made more than a couple of reverts was Wikipedians with articles — which is bad, and deserves a stern warning from the ArbCom and maybe even a one-revert restriction, but is irrelevant to a general ban from Perl, or from interacting with anyone in particular. I don't think -Barry- is free of guilt, but I think the current proposed decision punishes him with undue severity — at least ban him only from editing Perl-related articles and allow him to suggest changes on talk pages.
A lot of the edits I made to Wikipedians with articles were to enforce what was agreed to when I took Pudgenet's objection to the talk page. (after I tried getting an administrator's advice and was ignored). And I think in the context of the quote, "at least..." means "if you have to ban him at all..." -Barry- 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales wrote "Userboxes are a very strong indicator that the person wearing them as badges of pride have no interest in, nor understanding of, NPOV." One of the arbitrators who voted against me on the Perl issues has a "This user is a Perl hacker" userbox on his userpage.

And as long as we're on this subject, Mindspillage is another arbitrator who voted against me, and she has a userbox of sorts (under her standard userboxes) to show her support for ignoring all rules. -Barry- 13:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


RFA on User:Coolcaesar

Hello Mr. Wales, I had a concern about a case that was recently not accepted by the Arbitration Committee. I dont know why, but they were not given enough time to hear the case, and the case never had a 4 vote accept or reject following the policy. This user is a user that has a long history of personally attacking people, and has been warned in excess of over 1 dozen times. He has humiliated other editors in front of hundreds of other people on over 150 different pages and has personally attacked over 200 users since he created an account. Recently, an RFA was filed against him, and the proof was in excess of 330 items long, but was quickly deleted without giving people time to vote. I need this user to be aprehended, and face the consequences of his actions. I would appreciate it if you would read about this case here[[2]] which is his arbitration page that I resotred so you can view it. You will see how much action is really needed in this case. I will be checking on your talk page for a response periodically. Thank You --Ericsaindon2 01:08 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the evidence pretty unpersuasive, but this is not up to me. There is a huge list of links to thinks Coolcaesar has allegedly done wrong, but generally speaking most of them are quite mild if wrong at all. (I randomly spot checked about 10 things). --Jimbo Wales 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, just one more comment. Some rule needs to be added for the naming of communities in the United States. I see that there have been several heated debates over the issue, like on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page as well as the La Jolla, California page. I was involved in one of them, and it got heated, for there was not rule for the naming issue, and it really needs to be corrected, because I notice it is an increasing problem within the encyclopedia. I propose this:

  • If a community within a city has a provable community coalition or council, whether recognized by the city government or not, it may be named community, state or community
  • If the community has no community council that can be found (and proven) then the community must be named community, city, state.

I think that this would solve a lot of issues, and you should add it to the rules and naming conventions because community naming rules are so vague that they are getting out of hand with the debates (communities within cities). Almost all the larger communities have community councils or coalitions (some are recognized by the cities, and some cities do not choose to recognize others, but both have the same representation), and the smaller ones dont have these organized practices, and the larger ones with the community councils are usually large enough to stand on their own, (but should include the city they are apart of in the first sentence of the article). I think that would make both parties happy.

So, what are your perspectives on the two issues? --Ericsaindon2 20:23 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you are completely in the wrong on the Anaheim Hills issue.--Jimbo Wales 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki meetup in Dragör, Denmark

I read in a bunch of places that you are traveling to Denmark on 1 september 2006 to attend the GEL06 conference. Some folks in Denmark are arranging a wikimeetup in conjunction (1 or 2 sept in Dragör) with this conference and are hoping that you can attend to that meetup too. I was just wondering if you will be able to attend that wikimeetup? Regards, mnemo 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Ref reform

Hello. Once again I am employing this talk page as a platform to highlight proposed reforms to Wikipedia. Please see, Wikipedia:Ref reform. El_C 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with WP:CSD I3

I think there might be a problem for the project with WP:CSD I3. My understanding is, this policy comes straight from you, so I wanted to bring this up. Here's a hypothetical. Let's suppose that for some reason, the only image currently available for use on, say, Jewel Kilcher, is a fair-use image. Along comes some fortunate private citizen who managed to snap a great photo of Jewel. They upload the image to Wikipedia, but want to insist that it not be used for commercial purposes (and let's say, they're not ignorant of our policies, but they're serious about the restriction). As this conflicts with the policy on use-with-permission, the image is deleted, and ends up not being used on Wikipedia. Here's the trouble: it's "fair use" to use the old picture.. but that claim relies on the idea that there's no free alternative. Despite the lack of GFDL-compatible licensing, isn't the use-with-permission image a "free alternative"? As a flip-side, what if we are given permission to use one promotional image; we can add a fair use tag to that, but does that mean we shouldn't use any OTHER promotional images for the same person? (This is what made me think of this; see this edit, particularly the "note to editors" about the image.) Mangojuicetalk 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Unless the photo of Jewel is of unique historical importance, it is better to have no image than a "fair use" image. --Jimbo Wales 16:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, why do we still allow fair use images? Powers 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the current policy, it is quite narrow. For images, each case is a case where it is pretty clear that free alternatives are not possible. Take as an example, an album cover... these are uniquely historically important for illustrating the album, and not replacable by a free alternative. An ordinary photo of a celebrity, though, is typically not unique in this sense. (A few might be.) There is a link there, unfortunately, to an excessively liberal page about publicity photos. That page declares itself, quite properly, to be non-policy, but I can see how it might confuse people.--Jimbo Wales 20:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos, but I thought that it might be worth mentioning that the "not replacable by a free alternative" clause at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is pretty much entirely ignored in practice. It is not clear to me how it might be enforced. Jkelly 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimbo, that makes sense. It also results in absurdities like the current image on Mira Sorvino, but I understand that's an unfortunate consequence of the situation we're in. Powers 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure what is so absurd about it. --Jimbo Wales 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good picture. Part of the problem these days is that people are so used to glossy, didgitaly enhanced professional photos of celebreties in full makeup that they consider a candid photo to be "disparadging" to the subject... --Sherool (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, she's badly sunburned, primarily. Powers 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


HaloWiki Account Block

Dear sir,

I first would like to congratulate and sincerely thank you for all the contributions you have made to the world through Wikipedia. I first learned about it a few months back when doing a school report. Now, I routinely use it as a primary source, instead of Google. I am an active editor, and look up stuff ranging from organic chemistry to Star Wars. Some of my friends would also like to thank you for all of the video game materials on it... =)

However, I have encountered a problem on the wikia known as HaloWiki. I just created an account today, and after about 2 hours, when trying to reply a user's message to me on their talk page, recieved the following message:

"

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by KryptoCleric.

The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "RelentlessRogue". The reason given for RelentlessRogue's block is: "cool your jets and BE RESPECTFUL of other members." You may contact KryptoCleric or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. Your IP address is 72.76.89.114. Please include this address in any queries you make.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://h2wiki.halowiki.net/wiki/User:RelentlessRogue"

"

Could you explain this to me? My user account on HaloWiki is RelentlessRogue. My user account on Wikipedia is RelentlessRouge. Why is my account on the Wikia being blocked if my IP address was recently used by myself?

Thank you.

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This... isn't really the place for this, and I'm not Jimbo, but I think you got that autoblock message because you forgot to login, thus you attempted to edit from your IP address - your account RelentlessRogue was blocked (see block log) for only 1 day, so you can just wait 24 hours and then continue to edit on that Wiki. I personally think the block was unwarranted, but you could discuss that with KryptoCleric after the block expires. Cowman109Talk 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders spamlinks

I am going to request again here that myspace.com/bobbyboulders and imwithbobby@yahoo.com be blacklisted, as they have been spammed repetitively by the Bobby Boulders vandal. I have requested that they be blacklisted at both the Spam Blacklist and the Administrator's noticeboard, but I seem to have been ignored.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

hey

Did you get in trouble when that old man saw that article that had been vandalised? and did you get sued by sollog? --Banner Making Competiton 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Blocked indefinitely as troll/imposter. — FireFox (talk) 13:52, 02 August '06

Password concern

I just wanted to let you know I received a message from User:Banner Making Competition wanting my password on Wikipedia earlier today. I replied back to ask for it in private for fear of using it as vandalism. All I want to is contribute and not be the victim of vandalism or may named impugned in any bad light. User:Sythriss has also dealt with this, but I wanted to let you know I am trying to do not wrong, just improve the Wikipedia site. Chris 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism Problems from Road Runner HoldCo LLC

Dear Sir,
It appears that there is a good number of IP vandals that uses the service of Road Runner HoldCo LLC, a company that provides internet service to millions of customers on the Eastern Seaboard. Should someone do something about this in general, or should we just leave it be? Arbiteroftruth 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Regarding automated reversion of good faith blankings

How is a bot to know if a blanking is in good faith or is simple vandalism? Regarding TommyTheGun, a good proportion of actual people on vandalism patrol probably would have reverted that too, as it was a totally unexplained blanking. I would wager that at least 99% of page blankings are performed in bad faith and should be reverted. --Cyde Weys 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The GraalOnline page

Hi Jim,

I don't known if you are aware of the issue with the GraalOnline page but your foundation is really becoming crazy just because a group of people have decided to vandalize the GraalOnline page helped by a mediator. Me and my company were attacked in the modified GraalOnline article so we have enforced the Wikipedia:Verifiability and deleted the section. Your assistant Danny have banned all my company accounts saying we have made off wiki threads because someone reported to him that we have banned someone from GraalOnline because he was involve on this propaganda war. This is completly false and this player was banned 1 month before for Credit Card Fraud... This story is now transformed in a private war between Daniel Bryant protected by some people on the wikimedia foundation. The goal is to now delete the GraalOnline content using Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules because all reason given previously to delete the article were not conform with wikipedia rules. Please have a look at my personal page User_talk:Graal_unixmad (blocked now) and also the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline and you will understand what i am saying.

I think you are the only one to be able to calm everyone down; this is really the credibility of your foundation that is involved in this story. This is a little bit simple to call me crazy Frenchman (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraalOnline) , because I am defending my company, my reputation and our main product GraalOnline


Thanks for your time.

Stephane. Graal unixmad 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my two bob is as follows: Danny is dealing with case, and has been for a long time. The information above is one-sided, just the like article which is about to be deleted. If I thought it was worth my time, I would explain every one of the above points, but I don't feel it's worth it. Because Danny and Brad are not accepting Graal's point-of-view on this matter for reasons which seem pretty obvious to the outside viewer, do not be slanted to accept the above statement over your experienced staff team who know all the facts. He has decided to come right to the top because all below you disagree with him, and I reccomend you seek Danny's and Brad's advice concerning what could be considered the whole truth before accepting the above statement. Thank you. Killfest2Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Jim, i think you will appreciate how this guy is tracking all my writting and coming after me. He is so confortable with what i am saying that he need to come after me and explain to others what they need to do or think about this issue. Look really close to this issue because me and lot of others think this is a serious issue and this guy and perhaps some member of your team have really broken lot of wikipedia rules and i will say broken also lot of basic rules of human relationship. We have taken contact with journalist and we are in the process to publish it so everyone known about this story and how wikimedia have dealt with this. 87.88.155.179 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Clever how you don't sign in when making edits which could get you banned. Is that the kind of deviancy we should be promoting around Wikipedia? I don't think so. And by the way, the only reason I came to this page in the first place was it was on my watchlist. Notice how I didn't actually see the comment until about a day after you made it? That was because I only come thru here every day or so. Give it up, Stephane. Killfest2Daniel.Bryant 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


User talk:Stephencolbert

Are we going to block the user Stephencolbert. Some admins are up in arms about it on the user's talk page. This is a decision I reccomend you or another foundation member make, as I would imagine it may come up outside of Wikipedia (in the press, elsewhere?) --Nick Catalano contrib talk 00:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? The account is already blocked, and admins are trying to confirm whether or not it's actually Colbert. If it is, and he wants to petition to be unblocked, he can do so (though, celebrity or no, the account has done nothing but vandalize the site and violate WP:AUTO). If it isn't, it's a WP:USERNAME violation. Case closed. JDoorjam Talk 01:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That isn't what I said. I know it is blocked, some Admins want to make it a perma-block. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the block was done to verify it actually is Colbert himself. Anyone could have created an account with that username, and if we get reasonable evidence that it is him, he may be unblocked. Titoxd(?!?) 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an imposter because it did not vandalize any articles about elephants. Anomo 01:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
View the skit again. He modified the Oregon part of the entry, as he intended to. Although I dunno if his staff knew it would be turned around so quick --Nick Catalano contrib talk 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Report Appearance

Jimbo, perhaps you could communicate to the Colbert Report staff that you would like to go on the show to represent Wikipedia? Just an idea --Nick Catalano contrib talk 07:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. It might be embarassing for him to do so however when administrators won't even allow the "Wikiality" segement on Colbert's show to be written about on wikipedia. They've essentially kept it off the Colbert Report entry, arguing that it is "not notable". Seems like biased bunk to me. Ivymike21 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, has anyone anywhere written anything about the term beyond simple reporting of its coinage? Powers 22:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It's alive and well in List of The Colbert Report episodes and the episode is referenced in truthiness.... it's just not in the main The Colbert Report article. (FWIW, I also think it would be a good idea to go on the show and explain the 'pedia to them man, face to face.) JDoorjam Talk 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of you appearing on the show, Mr. Wales, although I was thinking that Colbert seemed to be intentionally damaging our Wikipedia and was wondering if there was some way you could pursue legal action. After all, he did tell people to vandalize the wiki on television.Finite 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, so? Are they anything more than simple reporting of its coinage? Do they discuss the ramifications of the word's invention? Of its meaning? Of its import? And if they do, is the analysis sourced or is it original research? Powers 01:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert also told teenagers that they could make a lot of money by using liquid nitrogen and hammers to breaks chains to steal bikes and they should bring sissors to stab people who tried to stop them. Humor and free speech are both under attack and Colbert is one of the good guys. Don't blame Colbert for the behavior of idiots who act on a fucking joke. WAS 4.250 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that Colbert AGAIN mentioned Wikipedia, I think it would be very appropriate to go on the show. Just an opinion. (and don't forget, they are probably trolling the site as we speak, as we found out tonight) --Nick Catalano contrib talk 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't watch his show. Did he last night mention wikipedia again and what did he say? Anomo 10:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Watch and be enlightened. Btw, RIGHT ON WAS:>

WP Board of Trustees election

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

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

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

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

Highways

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

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

Am I missing something here? If this is a disruptive user and you're an admin, why don't you block him, and, if he continues such behaviour, add increasingly longer blocks? Presumably he has no special exemption from good behaviour which other editors are expected to adhere to. Tyrenius 11:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the wheel wars that has started. In the past, SPUI has been unblocked very quickly after being blocked by various admins. The current one might actually hold, though, as it's for probabtion violation. Time will tell. Powers 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some admin (usually the same ones) come to SPUI's rescue. Then you go and reblock and someone unblocks him. And then at the last ArbCom someone accused me of having a conflict of interest (although SPUI was clearly violating WP:ANI move restrictions). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add a few comments about SPUI and the whole situation, and his lack of respect for authority, copyrights, or other people in general:

Your intervention in a very important issue at the Spanish Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo,

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

Jimbo, two articles at two major Israeli news websites have been posted about this subject: at Nana and NRG. I did not tell the writers about this issue, and I did not ask anybody to post anything about this, but they found the information here at the Wiki by themselves and decided it's worth publishing. I think it just shows You how much us Jews are insulted by this userbox, and I believe You should also, as I would be insulted if I see a userbox saying "This user supports killing all Hispanos/immigrants/Arabs/homosexuals." I do not see any reason for this provocative userbox to stay. Somebody saying in his userpage he supports the party which killed 6 million Jews and 5 million people just because they belong to other cultures and religions just 60 years ago, should simply not be at a Wikipedia. Regards, Yellow up 01:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to your reply. Regards, Yellow up 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Being targetted; please help me

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


ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocking_User:HOTR_sockpuppets - the danger when people start dismissing things as "Wikilawyering" is that this is when due process and the rule of law dies, two things that are essential for a community to succeed. "Lawyerly arguments" is the sort of nonsense that apparatchiks in a dictatorship throw out against people they're sending to the gulags. User:HOTR04:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


How did the videos work out?

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



Sveasoft

"Lots of NOR violations, POV stuff

This was a pretty bad article. Let's build it again from scratch. REAL REFERENCES ONLY please, no digging up random accusations from web forums and so on.--Jimbo Wales 21:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)"

Wikipedia should be about facts, not personal vendettas. The Sveasoft entry is now a tug-of-war by the same folks that sparked the above comment and article wipe.

Live action graphic images

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

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

If you'd even looked at the image's description page, you'd have seen this text: "This photograph was taken by me using a Fuji FinePix 4700 digital camera on Jan 15 2000. The model is my wife (aged 29) and she has agreed to grant full rights to use the picture on the web. She is fully aware that the photograph is in the public domain and we release all rights." Of which part of that do you disapprove? Powers 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think it adds all that much to the article, quite the opposite in fact, I think it makes the article look kinda strange. It seems that a detailed illustration would have about equal educational value and would be far more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suppose we could deline the picture or something, but I think such an explicit photograph is really kinda disruptive for people who aren't expecting it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism on PBS idents

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

Angus

hello,

I believe that you are the owner of wikipedia no. I have understood that your you can clear an administrator of its functions, then this user I want that you see what puts: [4]

[5]

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

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

User Themindset trying to corrupt SMS.ac page again.

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

See Talk page for details.

Can you help me?

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

and

http://ps.wikibooks.org

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

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

regards Ahmad Najib Biabani Ibrahimkhel

Administrative Change

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

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

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

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

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

Sir,

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

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 23:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

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

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

Roman Catholic category

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

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

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

Brian Peppers

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

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

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

Stephen Colbert

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

Happy Birthday! :D

Hey Jimbo!

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

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

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

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

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


New messages on wfm

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

Happy Birthday! :D

Hey Jimbo!

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

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

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

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

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


New messages on wfm

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

Robert Steele

There is a thread on WP:AN about some recent comments of Steele - [6]. Since he seems to have talked to you about it at least in part, I thought it prudent to let know. JoshuaZ 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had a tough day wikipediaing

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2

is unfortunate.

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

WP Board of Trustees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basics

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

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

Details

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

At one point he uploaded a graphic of some sort which he intended to use as a “visual aid” when making his “case” (he clearly had no idea what the hell he was doing[7]).

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

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

When it did, SlimVirgin took advantage of IPFrehley's obvious lack of familiarity with WP:SOCK, because she told him to send his evidence to her via email so she could judge it privately and offline[8].

Here's where it gets interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Help with edit summaries

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

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

I'm sure Jimbo already knew this. Anomo 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you would assume that? There are a team of skilled developers making this software - Jimbo can't know about every feature. It looks to me like Cyde had a good suggestion and Jimbo appreciated it. Johntex\talk 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It was a totally serious comment by Cyde. Among top wikipedians it is well known that I am a clueless editor. :) --Jimbo Wales 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have something in common with Jimbo Wales...Sweet!--KojiDude 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Attack article

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

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz, née Bretschneider, is an illegal immigrant [1] from Germany living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She is known for filing a record number of requests under the United States Freedom of Information Act, for filing a large number of lawsuits, and for posting a large number of articles to Usenet newsgroups.
A quick review of this article shows that it is referenced and there are sufficient sources to provide evidence of notability, and the article has survived two discussions of whether it should be deleted - which means that the community has reached concensus that the article should be included in the encyclopedia. --Trödel 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The "community" that likes this article seem to be the individuals who are fair gaming her, I would guess because they think she posts too much to their Usenet group.Steve Dufour 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see my edits to that article. --Trödel 05:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. The article is much improved in tone. I have excused myself from editing it any more since I am too emotionally involved.Steve Dufour 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Wiktionary:User:Dangherous

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

He deleted the page with the edit summary going out with a bang, not edited it. The deletion would not show up in the history, but in the deletion history. Here is a link http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Wiktionary%3AMain+Page. Cowman109Talk 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Disenchanted due to high-level admin actions

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

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

Links of import on this topic:

What it basically comes down to for me:

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

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

Regards,

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

I think it's personal attacks, not insults. A tip here is not say they did something wrong or made the wrong choice because they will claim it is a personal attack. Anomo 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you see how horribly bad that is. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


User talk:MyWikiBiz

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

See here.--KojiDude 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


An Injustice Done

Why did you have to go and ban CapnCrack. All he did was try his best, you can't hold that against him. And then to go and ban another 190 people just because they were his friends is just spiteful. Talk about rubbing salt into a wound. The Capn was down there in the trenches with all of us, working for the common good of Wikipedia. Slowcheetah 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


SwedishConqueror

"Hi"

It says that you made this, so I was wondering if you could help me. I'd like to know just a few things:

  1. How do you make things go all black when you do the title of an article?
  2. How do you make the different section headlines go all black?
  3. How do you make certain words turn blue, and how do you know which ones to do this to?

Thanks

SwedishConqueror 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)SwedishConquerorSwedishConqueror 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. Three single quote marks on both sides of the title
  2. Two equal signs on both sides of the subsection title
  3. Two brackets on both sides of the name of an article that already exists in wikipedia

WAS 4.250 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Please Block

User:Jakinthebeenstalk because I messed up on the name and I changed it so that it is how I like it. Happy BirthDay... I think thats right.

--Jak 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Never mind. It redirects now.(?)

--Jak 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


POV maps

Han Civilisation.png

Hi Jimbo! Following up on the discussion we had earlier on POV maps. The featured map in question is which potrays the modern borders as claimed by PRC. A disclaimer on the image page claims:

The international boundary shown is the border claimed by the People's Republic of China. Compare the territories of the historical Han dynasty and the territories over which the modern Chinese state claims sovereignty.

This is unfortunately a POV as it does not make a distinction between:

  1. the area claimed by China, administered by India (Arunachal Pradesh), and
  2. Aksai Chin (claimed by India, administered by China.

The image talk page has a discussion about Pov and so too when I had put it up for removal Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Han Civilisation Delist, which shockingly editors found it to be a very minor issue.

India-locator-map-blank.svg

I'd also like you to compare it with the Indian version alongside where we've addressed all PoV claims.

Request for some comments on the issue (and on the image talk page) as the concerns of POV maps are not taken care of seriously in Wikipedia. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm Felix

Hi Jimmy, I'm Felix. It's nice to meet you. Felix 19:16, 12 August 2006


Very troublesome member

yes, this case has gotten so bad, that I have come to YOU for help with this guy. There is a user who goes by the name of User:Wiarthurhu. he first started stirring up controversy when he created the [now deleted] List of successful automobiles. The article was in massive violation of WP:POV and got quickly deleted. This led to lots of attacks from him. Please note that he has already been editing aircraft related articles for a while by this point, and has made a long list of enemies who edited the corosponding articles. He has since caused many flame wars and has made enimies of every member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Automobiles. He starts numerous flame wars, attacks everybody (and I mean everybody) who doesn't agree with him or endorse his edits, and has violated moe Wikipedia guidelines than I can count. he also attacks me and User:ApolloBoy because of our young ages (even though we make rational edits to Wikipedia and both are respected editors, heck I have two barnstars!) and claims that we are "wreckless vandals" because we revert most of his edits, as they are either POV, or they do not belong in the article or compromise the integrity of. We have tried going through the Wikipedia system with him, as there is a RfC for him, and there have been numerous Mediations to him (In fact, one mediater said that he refuses to do mediation cases with wairthurhu because of his behavior), but they have not even made him think twice about his actions. He is basically an emotionless machine if there is anyway to describe him. he treats Wikipedia like it is a giant battlefield, and he can't seem to make a single edit without getting in a battle with someone. In the Wp automobiles talk page, he makes numerous comments attacking editers, and tries to make him look like a saint and us satan, even though it is basically the other way around. he has even gotten me so mad with his countless attacks that he has gotten me to violate WP:CIVIL when responding him some times, which is something I just about never do. I have since overcome that though, as I know yelling at him is getting him nowhere. But, he has defantly crossed the line now, because he HAS MADE HIMSELF A WIKICOP, and is issuing citations to everybody he dislikes. (I know that nobody in their right mind would give him such privlages due to his disasterous edit history) and used the Bully article to pubically attack Wikipedia. This has gotten him blocked for a week. That is why I come to you, as since he is blocked, we can have a rational discussion without him interupting. (Many editors have to resort to Email to talk about what do do about his actions, as he will often abruptly interupt, attack us, and replace our comments with {{RPA}} tags, even it we didn't attack him. As one Admin summed it up "It will continue until Wiarthurhu ends up blocked indefantly or faced with the abritation comittee" and thats the 100% truth. he is acting like he is a holy warrier, waging war with Wikipedia, and nothing but an indefinate block can stop him. I would really appreciate your help with this situation. You can even look at his edit history, which is filled with nothing but personal attacks and flaming. Karrmann 00:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu has already been blocked for a week, and should his pattern of editing completely that length may be increased or he may be brought to arbitration. I don't think speaking with Jimbo is necessary for this. :) Cowman109Talk 01:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikibooks book donations, questions

Hello, this is wikibooks:User:Whiteknight, and I just wanted to drop you a quick note concerning en.wikibooks. I am currently working on 3 separate deals for the donations of e-books to the wikibooks project. Under the terms of these deals, the books would be completely released under the GFDL with no reservations, although some nominal mention of "Original Authors" may persist. Some users on wikibooks have mentioned that wikibooks is about the "creation" of new books, and not the consolidation of old books. However, many books on wikibooks, especially those in the core subjects, are lacking, and the donation of books in these core topics would help to boost our weaknesses in these areas. Currently, I am entertaining proposals to donate books from:

The first project listed is a UN project that maintains a number of ebooks that discuss topics of primary interest to developing coutnries. Partnering with that group would (in my opinion) be of some benefit to our project. I wanted to simply alert you of these projects, and ask if there are any issues/concerns/questions that i should be made aware with, before we settle, and transfer material to the wikibooks server. Please let me know on my en.wikibooks userpage. Thanks. --Whiteknight 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


New York, 14 November 2006

I see that you have a trip planned to New York on that date [9]. Is this for a conference or meetup? I'd love to attend one of those here someday. CoolGuy 03:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Proposal for a SF meetup

There has never in the annals of Wikipedia been a meetup in the geekiest region of the world. I'm shocked too.

I see you are in town this week. I would like to arrange a meetup. Will you kindly grace us with your company?

If so, what is a good time?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am having a meetup on Friday, about campaigns.wikia.com. Exact time and place not yet settled...--Jimbo Wales 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be there. Would you be interested in a baseball game? I have A's tickets for Wednesday evening.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


SWGEmu Article

Recently, an article on the SWGEmu was deleted for not being notable. I have made my arguments (and, as I regret, insults) in the Deletion Review article, but that is irrelevent.

Being as you are the Chief Tamale (I honestly have no better word or series of words), if you say that you do not believe that an article on the SWGEmu in it's current form is appropriate for the Wikipedia, then I will rest my case and let it rest. Ameise -- chat 07:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Trip to Delhi

Hello Jimbo. I saw that link (Local Meetup Schedule) and noticed that you are coming to Delhi on the 24th. From what I understood - does that mean that you will agree to a Delhi meetup if 5 people sign up? Actually there has been a long discussion on the Notice board for India-related topics. Can you clarify there? Thanks for taking the time. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Admin recall

Hi Jimmy, sorry to bother you, but you have spoken on this issue previously on the Wikipedia mail list. If you have time, would you be willing to review the policy proposal at WP:RECALL? I would not even bring this to your attention, but I was told in the Talk page that any such policy would be overturned if approved at the Foundation level, as certain admins are too important to the project. Thank you for your time. rootology (T) 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Use of Wikipedia to push hate

Jimbo, please take a break from patting yourself on the back and look around. Wikipedia is being used to push propaganda and offensive hate rhetoric. I'll leave you to do your own homework and find out what I mean. The article on CAIR so obviously crosses the line of 'defamation' and 'libel', that you're likely to be sued for it in the near future. You're responsible for the content that goes on your project here, and I'd suggest you demonstrate an awareness of that responsibility. His Excellency... 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


New concerns with User:MyWikiBiz

Hi, there. After you allowed User:MyWikiBiz to be unblocked, an edit of note concerned me, namely this one in which MyWikiBiz states, "I appreciate your suggestion, Deathphoenix, but I am not sure that I would even properly execute what you suggested (I could let you sign into my account to do it, though)".

This note would imply that MyWikiBiz is possibly a shared account, leading to further concerns over its use, considering the use of shared accounts, from what I've been told, is forbidden. As you were the one who allowed MyWikiBiz to continue with his work, I figured it would be appropriate to contact you about more concerns that are appearing with him.

There are also concerns that the concept of being paid to write articles itself is flawed, but that is another matter entirely (and he is at least making an effort to fall within Wikipedia policy and guidelines when it comes to articles). So, based on these new concerns, I'm asking if you could speak with MyWikiBiz further to clarify that its use will indeed fall entirely within policy. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I am awarding you this for creating Wikipedia! Jeffklib 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Is WP:NPOV more important than WP:V and WP:NOR?

The proposition has been raised here [10] that the NPOV policy overides the Verifiability and No Original Research policies.

Would you care to give a definitive settling answer. --Barberio 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. And happy birthday. --Barberio 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

His reply was:

"I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia. We know, with some certainty, that all three of these will mean that Wikipedia will have less content than otherwise, and in some cases will prevent the addition of true statements. For example, a brilliant scientist conceives of a new theory which happens to be true, but so far unpublished. We will not cover it, we will not let this scientist publish it in Wikipedia. A loss, to be sure. But a much much bigger gain on average, since we are not qualified to evaluate such things, and we would otherwise be overwhelmed with abject nonsense from POV pushing lunatics. There is no simple a priori answer to every case, but good editorial judgment and the negotiation of reasonable people committed to quality is the best that humans have figured out so far. :) --Jimbo Wales 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)" at Wikipedia talk:Neutral_point_of_view#According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." (provided by WAS 4.250 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Icon ads spam making it like Wikipedia promotes commercial sites

Regularly, ads icons are inserted in front of external links, that make it look like Wikipedia treats them special, promoting or endorsing those sites. This gets worse now with the templates used for external links to IMDb, MusicBrainz, etc.

We really could use a specific, explicit point of policy against this (and a direct WP:ICONAD or WP:SPAMICON or something), that could be immediately cited in the edit summary for removing or reverting this spam without long discussions with each "new user" doing the spamming for those sites. We could also mention it in bold as a NoInclude warning in the related templates, so as to remove plausible denial to future offenders.

-- 62.147.37.34 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikibooks book donations, questions

Hello, this is wikibooks:User:Whiteknight, and I just wanted to drop you a quick note concerning en.wikibooks. I am currently working on 3 separate deals for the donations of e-books to the wikibooks project. Under the terms of these deals, the books would be completely released under the GFDL with no reservations, although some nominal mention of "Original Authors" may persist. Some users on wikibooks have mentioned that wikibooks is about the "creation" of new books, and not the consolidation of old books. However, many books on wikibooks, especially those in the core subjects, are lacking, and the donation of books in these core topics would help to boost our weaknesses in these areas. Currently, I am entertaining proposals to donate books from:

The first project listed is a UN project that maintains a number of ebooks that discuss topics of primary interest to developing coutnries. Partnering with that group would (in my opinion) be of some benefit to our project. I wanted to simply alert you of these projects, and ask if there are any issues/concerns/questions that i should be made aware with, before we settle, and transfer material to the wikibooks server. Please let me know on my en.wikibooks userpage. Thanks. --Whiteknight 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)



Proposal for a SF meetup

There has never in the annals of Wikipedia been a meetup in the geekiest region of the world. I'm shocked too.

I see you are in town this week. I would like to arrange a meetup. Will you kindly grace us with your company?

If so, what is a good time?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am having a meetup on Friday, about campaigns.wikia.com. Exact time and place not yet settled...--Jimbo Wales 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be there. Would you be interested in a baseball game? I have A's tickets for Wednesday evening.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


SWGEmu Article

Recently, an article on the SWGEmu was deleted for not being notable. I have made my arguments (and, as I regret, insults) in the Deletion Review article, but that is irrelevent.

Being as you are the Chief Tamale (I honestly have no better word or series of words), if you say that you do not believe that an article on the SWGEmu in it's current form is appropriate for the Wikipedia, then I will rest my case and let it rest. Ameise -- chat 07:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Trip to Delhi

Hello Jimbo. I saw that link (Local Meetup Schedule) and noticed that you are coming to Delhi on the 24th. From what I understood - does that mean that you will agree to a Delhi meetup if 5 people sign up? Actually there has been a long discussion on the Notice board for India-related topics. Can you clarify there? Thanks for taking the time. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Admin recall

Hi Jimmy, sorry to bother you, but you have spoken on this issue previously on the Wikipedia mail list. If you have time, would you be willing to review the policy proposal at WP:RECALL? I would not even bring this to your attention, but I was told in the Talk page that any such policy would be overturned if approved at the Foundation level, as certain admins are too important to the project. Thank you for your time. rootology (T) 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Use of Wikipedia to push hate

Jimbo, please take a break from patting yourself on the back and look around. Wikipedia is being used to push propaganda and offensive hate rhetoric. I'll leave you to do your own homework and find out what I mean. The article on CAIR so obviously crosses the line of 'defamation' and 'libel', that you're likely to be sued for it in the near future. You're responsible for the content that goes on your project here, and I'd suggest you demonstrate an awareness of that responsibility. His Excellency... 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


New concerns with User:MyWikiBiz

Hi, there. After you allowed User:MyWikiBiz to be unblocked, an edit of note concerned me, namely this one in which MyWikiBiz states, "I appreciate your suggestion, Deathphoenix, but I am not sure that I would even properly execute what you suggested (I could let you sign into my account to do it, though)".

This note would imply that MyWikiBiz is possibly a shared account, leading to further concerns over its use, considering the use of shared accounts, from what I've been told, is forbidden. As you were the one who allowed MyWikiBiz to continue with his work, I figured it would be appropriate to contact you about more concerns that are appearing with him.

There are also concerns that the concept of being paid to write articles itself is flawed, but that is another matter entirely (and he is at least making an effort to fall within Wikipedia policy and guidelines when it comes to articles). So, based on these new concerns, I'm asking if you could speak with MyWikiBiz further to clarify that its use will indeed fall entirely within policy. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Barnstar

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I am awarding you this for creating Wikipedia! Jeffklib 06:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Is WP:NPOV more important than WP:V and WP:NOR?

The proposition has been raised here [11] that the NPOV policy overides the Verifiability and No Original Research policies.

Would you care to give a definitive settling answer. --Barberio 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. And happy birthday. --Barberio 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

His reply was:

"I consider all three of these to be different aspects of the same thing, ultimately. And at the moment, when I think about any examples of apparent tensions between the three, I think the right answer is to follow all three of them or else just leave it out of Wikipedia. We know, with some certainty, that all three of these will mean that Wikipedia will have less content than otherwise, and in some cases will prevent the addition of true statements. For example, a brilliant scientist conceives of a new theory which happens to be true, but so far unpublished. We will not cover it, we will not let this scientist publish it in Wikipedia. A loss, to be sure. But a much much bigger gain on average, since we are not qualified to evaluate such things, and we would otherwise be overwhelmed with abject nonsense from POV pushing lunatics. There is no simple a priori answer to every case, but good editorial judgment and the negotiation of reasonable people committed to quality is the best that humans have figured out so far. :) --Jimbo Wales 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)" at Wikipedia talk:Neutral_point_of_view#According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." (provided by WAS 4.250 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC))


Hello

Thank you for inventing a way for me to waste my time without wasting my time. --Dweller 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is going on?

I'm having a problem with my comlete layout of wikipedia, when I log in the background changes to yellow and the text is in Times new roman and the format is completly changed, what is going on here? Could you direct me to anyone that could help? Please answer, thanks -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! 04:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help Desk or Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). --Carnildo 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A "welcome question" to fr:Utilisateur:Jіmbo Wales

Hi Jimbo. I took the opportunity of you becoming a user on fr.WP to ask you a question about your presentation and the status of the foundation. The question is valid for your english presentation page and others as well.

I did post the question in french and english, so you won't need a translator :-) Alex lbh 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang ! Apparently it is not you but an impostor who created the account o_O Anyway, the question remains valid, I will just paste it here, as the page in fr:WP was deleted.
Hello Jimbo,
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. As your answer may be of interest for others, I would copy it to this page.
Thanks. Alex lbh 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (Bradipus Bla on fr:WP)

Meh.

Here's a ham and cheese sandwich for creating Wikipedia.

Mmm, tasty.

oTHErONE 08:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


Prayers unanswered

зарубка имеет большого кита, jimob кит, который! Бритье к китам!

Does the Great Jimbo ever answer our rambiling, pointless, insignificant and contradictory posts? Not that I can see. Perhaps he has a life outside of Wikipedia (unlike us). Does he even read them? If so why does he not answer? WHY DO YOU NOT ANSWER!?

They are like unaswered prayers. One day we may stop praying - and stop beliving.

Your rambiling and insignificant friend, Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw Jimmy at a meet-up today and at one point he casually mentioned that he's been working on his inbox which is now down to about "about 2500" messages. Can you imagine how many people are trying to get his ear? There are also many people who seem to answer questions for him on this page. If you listen to one of his talks (linked from his Wikipedia article) he often mentions how he resists getting involved in the running of the wiki unless he sees his involvement as essential. -- Samuel Wantman 09:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
But I broke my keyboard for him. Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 08:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


reminder

Hello. Happy birthday (whenever it was).

I while back (early May, I think?) I sent you this email to which I haven't yet seen a reply:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Jimmy Wales wrote:


> Remind me to invite you to a soon-to-exist new mailing list, "invite-l"
> where I'm going to invite 50-100 top english wikipedians to discuss
> privately the future of the project in english.

[ snip ]

OK, consider yourself reminded. I see that a couple of new
Supreme Court justices, the new pope, various politicians,
writers, scientists, artists, etc., are written about in Time
magazine on May 8th. I didn't notice whether Martha Stewart
made the list this time.

Any progress on this (e.g. does the list now exist)? Michael Hardy 00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see: it was August 7th. I'm late. Michael Hardy 01:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Status of the Bengali Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo, I missed out visiting the Wikimania (couldn't afford to fly from Champaign, IL ... :( ), but I followed your speech. You mentioned there that:

I mean, that would be very exciting to go and meet someone who wants to work in... Bengali, a very important language where we do very poorly.

I am the lone bueraucrat of the Bengali language wikipedia, and have been active in editing and promoting it via news medai (both in and out of Bangladesh) since early this year. I just wanted to give you a quick update on the status of Bengali wikipedia as of now:

  • Article count: 4501
  • Registered users: 704
  • Total edits: 34,363
  • Admins: 5
  • Bureaucrats: 1
  • Ranking among all wikipedias: 64 (up from 93 in May)

The progress is very promising, considering we had only about 550 articles back in March 30, 2006. We've added 4,000 articles in the last 4.5 months.

BBC Bengali World service has covered our early progress on May 2, when they broadcast a 5 minute interview with me on the purpose and progress of Bangla wikipedia, and wikipedia as a whole.

The number of people regularly editing Bangla wikipedia is around 12-15, spread all around the world. I've written small tutorials to give Bengali speakers a quick intro to Wikipedia. Bangladesh Open Source Network is actively promoting wikipedia back in Bangladesh, and plan to distribute leaflets and small booklets with the tutorial and other information about Wikipedia. A n informal workshop for newbies will be organized at a Bangladeshi University next week. We also plan to reach 10,000 total articles, and at least 1,000 full length articles by May 2007.


There is a big book fair in Bangladesh in February each year, in observance of Language Movement and International Mother Language Day. This is the biggest literary and publishing event of the country. We have plans to create a small distribution of Bangla wikipedia content, bundled with Ubuntu or other Linux liveCDs, and give them out to the people attending the fair. This is important as one of the biggest hurdles was to guide people in making the configuration changes in Windows XP to allow Bangla unicode rendering and Bangla typing. We plan to pre-configure everything in the Linux liveCD so that the users can just pop the CD onto their drives and get the Bangla wikipedia up and running.

Sorry for the long message, but I thought I'd update you on the current status of Bengali language wikipedia.

Thanks. --Ragib 07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC) web.

That's an interesting report. If you're willing to expand it a bit, the Wikipedia Signpost might be interested in an article; see User:Treebark/Table for their tentative schedule of reports from other Wikipedias, and post a message at User talk:Treebark/Table if you want to take it further. I'm not associated with Wikipedia Signpost other than being a keen reader.-gadfium 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


THE SPK

Why do you recommend deleting this article (Socialist Patients Collective)? Everything in it has been taken from books about the SPK such as Hitler's Children by Jillian Becker, or Televisionaries by Tom Vague. Its all based on sources and fact. Are you going to delete those books as well? All the information in it is verifiable and I dont understand why you would want to delete it. ~ Unfortunate.

Jimbo, you might want to look at Talk:Socialist Patients' Collective; they're talking about you there and attributing this deletion recommendation to you. Michael Hardy 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I made no recommendation about this article. The anon ip number should be ignored.--Jimbo Wales 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok sorry! ~ Unfortunate.


Accountability

Originally posted on the wrong page

Is there some reason you can not support accountability for editors on Wikipedia? I can see no reason to keep Wikipedia from being sued if you do not have a way to make sure editors are responsible for their entries. Attempts to avoid responsibilty for entries by claiming anyone can correct the entries are hopeless at best. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say "require" accountability. As long as people can edit anonymously there will be a problem. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackmail (band)

Originally posted on user page 05:24, August 21, 2006, taking the liberty of moving it here instead. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From: Suduser85,
Mr. Wales, I just wanted to inform you about the new page that I just created: blackmail. It's about a German band. I'm new as a user on Wikipedia, and I just wanted you to visit the page and see how I did. Feel free to make changes. Tell me what you feel on my User Page. Thanks!

Blackmail (band)

Originally posted on user page 05:24, August 21, 2006, taking the liberty of moving it here instead. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From: Suduser85,
Mr. Wales, I just wanted to inform you about the new page that I just created: blackmail. It's about a German band. I'm new as a user on Wikipedia, and I just wanted you to visit the page and see how I did. Feel free to make changes. Tell me what you feel on my User Page. Thanks!

Last name

Are you from Wales?
'FLaRN' (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he was raised in Alabama and currently lives in Florida. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Kreuz-Symbol

Hallo Jimbo, in der deutschsprachigen WP haben wir ein großes Problem: * und †! Es findet wieder mal ein Meinungsbild zum Thema statt - das ganze ist eher absurd. Du weist, es gilt "Nimm nicht an Abstimmungen teil", aber ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn es Deine Aufmerksamkeit fände ... Deutsche sind so Obrigkeitshörig! Meinungsbild: Verwendung des Kreuz-Symbols bei Biografien. Danke, Sei Shonagon 07:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Policy proposal re: WP:BLP and WP:NOR

Dear Mr. Wales, if I may ask you, could you take a look at my proposals on 2 Wikipedia policies WP:BLP[12] and WP:NOR[13]. I believe this will help some of the problems regarding biographical information. Thank you! --HResearcher 12:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)