User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 30


Official Office/WMF response to HD-DVD key controversy

Dear Mr. Wales, I am leaving a message on your talk page today to try to bring up a current issue of controversy across the web and which has crossed over to several articles on wikipedia. I am speaking about the HD DVD encryption key controversy or more specifically, HD DVD Night. Specifically many feel that the WP:OFFICE should put out a statement regarding this issue. Some editors have left a message on the Volunteer Coordinator for the office, Cary Bass, but those messages have been responded to on his talk page here stating, 'The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time.' I hope that I can bring further light to this issue and ask for a statement on this matter. Respectfully, MrMacMan Talk 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cary's answer was complete. You might also want to see Wikipedia:Keyspam for another view from some community members on the subject. --Gmaxwell 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that your own opinion stated in an essay you created? I don't mean to demean you it just seems like I wanted something from policy or an actual statement on the issue. MrMacMan Talk 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The first thing I wrote was "Cary's answer was complete"... I offered you the essay so that you could have another view to consider, not as an official response. You're not going to get an actual official statement ... it would be foolish for the foundation to provide one at this time. If you want an unofficial view from someone on the board, you can go see Kat Walsh's post on wikien-l or look at Jimmy's comment here. --Gmaxwell 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my own view is that people should basically relax a little bit. There is no hurry here. People who think the key should be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who think the key should NOT be in the article for editorial reasons have a point. People who are concerned about legal risks to the project have a point. People who think the risks are small have a point. So, what do we do? Take it slow, see how things are going, don't get weird ideas about either side oppressing you, try not to get nervous and depressed about strings of sekrit numbers. :)
To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and on this issue. I hope next time I come here it will not have to deal with a point of controversy. Thanks you very much, MrMacMan Talk 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise! The official policy regarding the key controversy is assume good faith!!! WOW!!! Who would have known? We actually had it figured out before hand! :P

Maybe a lot of speculation would have been saved if instead of the "Black List" message, editors who tried to post the number got a brief message introducing or reminding them of that key (no pun intended!) principle... How is that as a suggestion? --Cerejota 04:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Students required to edit Wikipedia articles

Have you noticed professors requiring their students to edit Wikipedia articles? I never did until just now. See, for example, Talk:Itasca State Park. Michael Hardy 19:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it before. A lot of them have to write an article about something which gets deleted for notability standards, or in violation of other policies. They seem to think of Wikipedia as a free web host for academic material. Unfortunately that's what its not. Last time I deleted an article that wasn't notable, and that was written as an assignment, I told the student her teacher could contact me to discuss the matter. That's about all we can do, really. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of us are aware of this and are helping the professors in many ways, such as making sure newly created articles meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination for more information. (Also see Category:Wikipedia articles as assignments.)↔NMajdantalk 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a good classroom assignment would be for students to take an existing article on a subject related to that class curriculum and take it to FA or A-class status. That would benefit both the student and Wikipedia. If we come across any professor that takes this approach, I think we should publicize it to reinforce this positive behavior. Cla68 23:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a good classroom assignment would be for a teacher to present three to five topics that are requested articles on WP, ask the students to choose one and write about it, then assign a group project for small groups to combine the content from the essays, using WP's standards, and come up with an article for each. Anchoress 23:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. Would it be instruction creep in your view, to have a policy, or at the least a guideline, regarding the use of Wikipedia in class projects? i.e. one that reiterates "don't vandalize, everything must meet the verifiability guidelines you can find at this link, this isn't a chatroom, etc." but also delivers a bit of information regarding the difference between primary and secondary sources, and the importance of citations? (For example, it would say something like "You should not cite Wikipedia as accurate research due to the changeable nature of it, but it is perfectly acceptable to use any references and citations found in wikipedia for your own research, as they should qualify as accurate external links, or peer reviewed information" and then a little bit on how to properly go about citing things?) Would that be too much instruction creep? SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Total Contradiction, whatchall thinkin?

Who in their right mind protected Jimbo's userpage? Can anyone tell me? It clearly states at the bottom, "y'all may edit this page." However, I must say I've tried this and it's protected. And I thought I was gonna do somethin' worthwhile. Ahwhell... ClaimJumperPete 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There are over 1 million article unprotected and nobody is stopping you making the project better than ever, SqueakBox 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Squeakbox, I think you're missing the point? He's saying someone PROTECTED the page so that no one can edit it. Michael Hardy 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Without making any judgemental comment whatsoever, you might look at the contributions to date of User:ClaimJumperPete in considering answers to this point.--Anthony.bradbury 22:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey Jimmy!!! You are awesome!! If you ever get the time, could you sign my user page? Kip the Dip 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He did that to me once. I'm not sure I liked it, though. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating an article on every human gene

Hi there, the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject is pursuing collaborations with the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and also The Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation to import content from several open-access databases into Wikipedia. This would focus initially on creating a stub on every single human gene, using the newly-approved ProteinBoxBot. The proposal is up for discussion in a post on the Village Pump. Your input would be valuable, particularly as this will raise Wikipedia's profile substantially in the scientific community. TimVickers 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Is this movie (sort of Documentary)>>Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (which stars our very own Jimmy Wales) really going to be made or is it just one of those IMDB's fake creations..--Cometstyles 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The movie is under production, and the production team was in Chennai when Jimbo visited the city in connection with a wiki-unconference on 25th February, 2007 - [1]. As far as I know, the team is moving with Jimbo around the world :) and a documentary of about two hours shall see the light of the day sometime in 2008. --Bhadani (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Few words more --Bhadani (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
By weird coincidence, the previous tennant of my apartment is the filmmaker, Michael Gibson. I've met him several times and we have friends in common, so I can vouch for his identity. I also received a fundraising letter for the film, so I believe the film is a serious effort. William Pietri 14:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's a documentary. Wikipedia need to be in a James Bond or Mission Impossible kind of movie. Who is with me on this? SakotGrimshine 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Angelena Jolie plays a character named SlimVirgin who is a secret spy for British Intelligence but is also a double spy for Israeli Intelligence who plants secret messages in Wikipedia for spies around the world. However Sean Connery playing Daniel Brandt is paid by the CIA to ferret out her identity but tries to cover up his single minded interest by pretending to try to out the identities of all admins. Meanwhile Jimbo, played by himself, disguises himself as Sommey, the leader of a gang of cyber-punks out to destroy Wikipedia, and arranges a secret meeting with Brandt (who is in a secret location in Peru) where Jimbo forces him to drink some Kool-aide laced with a drug that turns him into a nerd that cares for nothing except adding sourced information into an online encyclopedia called "Wikipedia". It ends with a sex scene. WAS 4.250 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that's more of Wikipedia Review. Make it more like a James Bond movie. There's some villain who has a plot to use Wikipedia to take over the world, destroy the world, or hold it for ransom. There will be a scene where the villain maybe saying "unleash the socks" or something will press a button and lots of employees will go to work on the Wikipedia bio of someone the villain wants to punish and it's lots of socks with new users, established users (they'll edit helpfully just so they can do those rare instances where they do the villain's biddin to alter an article), and hacked admin accounts (admins who were inactive and didn't watch their accounts) and then all of a sudden the villain is able to change someone's whole reputation. This is more James Bond fashion. Maybe there's a scene where instead of Blowfeld or whoever pressing a button to kill someone, they press a button to kill someone through their wikipedia bio and Blofeld doesn't kill them but leaves them to be killed by their bio. By the way I don't mean anything bad by Wikipedia bios, I'm just thinking of how a James Bond movie would go. The villain would be rich so he'd have henchmen dial up to ISPs all over the world to look like multiple people. Maybe the victim could hold Brittain hostage saying he's going to change their nation's history unless he gets one million dollars. SakotGrimshine 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... shouldn't it simply be a CGI rendered feature, with a bit of hand-drawn animation for the really tricky bits? For the arthouse crowd the final scene could always show live action puppets manipulating the computers used for the CGI. Oh, and lots of nudity since WP is not censored. LessHeard vanU 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chaser's War on Everything

Hey Jimbo, I saw Mr. Ten questions got you. You did fine Jimbo! Here's the questions again in case you missed them:

    1. How are you enjoying Australia?
    2. How do our computers compare to those in America?
    3. Why does everyone in IT look so Nerdy? You look like a day-time TV star.
    4. Mac or Windows, do you really give a shit?
    5. There are 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia how did you find time to write them all?
    6. Craig Rucastle is a bit unhappy with his picture on his article, can you upload a better one?
    7. My dog, he's got like, this scab thing under his chin, I don't know if you know the number of a local vet of something?
    8. Jessica Rowe and Peter Overton will at last?
    9. Cracked Pepper?
    10. How do you feel about the fact that when I looked you up this morning I changed your article to say that you were a 13 year old Drug Lord from Malaysia?

To which you answered:

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. A lot of coffee
    4. 17

Very nice! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Those answers don't make any sense...--ZayZayEM 10:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Pls note WP:IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, oh dear, that was so funny, Chasers War has to be my favourite show --JRA WestyQld2 13:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, mine too. Dfrg.msc 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd ArbCom case for Zero

Here we go again. Zero is before ArbCom for the 3rd time. Again he edit war and blocks "zionist editors". Does this sounds familiar ? it should since you said he should be de-sysoped in his 1st case. Here is the evidence: - once again ArbCom is going to "warn" Zero while kicking the "Zionist editor" out. Does this smacks of bias ? I don't know yet but it sure looks like something is not "Kosher" when only the zionist editor is blamed on edit-war while the overwhelming evidence points to violations by both sides. Zeq 07:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

btw, the arbitor Fred Bauder is again showing his strong anti-Zionist stance by placing what he claim is evidence against me. Anyone can check the so-called evidence and find out by himself that it is wrong. (no I am not inveting this just check it out) For example he maintain that I edited an article I was banned for while the ban exipred on March 5 and my edits or from 3 weeks later on march 24 after the ban was already lifted (on March 5: [2]. Agian, like in previous ArbCom cases involving anti-Zionsit editors (Suvh as Zero, Homey) Fred is trying to protect the anti-Zionists and kick out the Zionists. (in the case of Homey he offered Homey amnesty. In Zero's 2 previous cases he only propse warnnings to him while the pro-Israel editors were banned, kicked out or placed under probation. Zeq 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see this: [3]
    • btw, I have received several e-mails from editors who will remain nameless who told me that they are afraid to offer evidence in the case against Zero since they are concerned that such a move could get them to be banned from Wikipedia by Fred Bauder. Do you really want this encyclopedia to be ran under fear from anti-Zionists ? Does Fred has your backing for such behaviour ? Zeq 14:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Power abuse

Mr. Wales, I'm just an ordinary Wikipedia's editor, I'm not from an english speaking language but I think everybody here is equal, by principle. I would like to protest about a block I suffered from an administrator (and your friend as suposed by the photo at his users page)named Kjetil r and other arbitrary one, Lugusto, from Brazil.

I'm now blocked at Commons because I "dared" upload an OWN WORK of good quality, which was tagged as COPYVIO withou any reason, just a "doubt". Of course, I reuploaded the image and this administrator Kjetil r simply blocked me for one week, with a bizarre "death sentence": "user reuploaded a copyvio". What??? What copyvio?? Please, I ask you to read the actual discussion in my talk page at Commons[4] and help to a solution in this matter. I thnik administrators who block users based in their own will, without any true reason, must be punished. Thank you Machocarioca 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

I would suggest, before going to Mr. Wales, that you exhaust the "lower level" appeals processes first. If you disagree with an administrators actions in the Commons, you should post your complaint on the Commons Admin noticeboard ([5]). You should be able to post there even if you're blocked. If you can't, email one of the Commons administrators and let them know you want to appeal your block and they should allow you to do so. Cla68 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I can't do that, I'm blocked. When I'll be able to do that, the block would be expired. It looks like Cuba, maybe. I would like an answer from Mr Wales, the user in question is a friend of him. "Lowel Level"? I tought all users were equal here. Mr Wales and Mr John Doe too. There's a great injustice and power abuse in the situation. Machocarioca 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca
Just as a reminder, we don't "punish" people here. --Abu badali (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a semantic quibble. We deny folks access to resources. In some contexts that serves as punishment, or charitably, feedback for their learning systems. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Nobody is blocked as a punishment. For instance, if you there's no reason to believe some user would keep on doing disruptive behavior, there's no need to block. In the Commons case above, the user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material. --Abu badali (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the intent (i.e. to not be punishment), the action of blocking can feel to the blocked user like a punishment, as should be self-evident by the user's complaint. The fact that a person does not intend a consequence to be interpreted as punishment (i.e. you/Wikipedia admins as a whole do not intend blocking to be interpreted as punishment) cannot prevent an affected individual from feeling punished. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(Abu badali) said: "Nobody is blocked as a punishment". If you are blocked without support of any rule, you're being punished. "The user was blocked because he showed intention to keep reuploading deleted material". Yes, but why delected?? Nobody talks about that. Because a user "doubt" an own image is mine. Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again, this is not a nazi site . And of course I fell me punished. Machocarioca 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Of course it was reuploaded, and will be again, is exactly why you're blocked. Editors are not blocked for punishment, but because it's the only way to prevent them from being disruptive. WilyD 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To WilyD : Disruptive?? Who you call disruptive? An user who wants upload his own work?? I'm sorry, but are you kidding?? Could be disruptive, in your mind, an administrator who blocks an user who wants upload his own work or not?? And this arbitrary administrator blocked me before I say anything about reupload anything. Could you please answer this question? Did you read anytihng in this discussion before say what you said? Machocarioca 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Whether you're right or not is not really what being disruptive is about. When something is disputed in good faith by several users they need to resolve the issue before moving forward. Right or wrong, someone who keeps charging ahead against the grain without discussion is being disruptive. Pledging to continue to do so without trying to resolve the issue is definitely being disruptive. While a seven day block does seem somewhat excessive, the fact that you declared your intent to keep uploading shows it wasn't unjustified. Discuss and work out the problem, then proceed. Look, I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules and they're opposed to what you're doing. But you have to find a consensus. Of course, an Admin blocking a user who wants to upload their own work may or may not be disruptive - more context is needed to know. And I read the whole discussion before I wrote what I wrote, yes. WilyD 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with some points of your message but let me discuss some statements: "When something is disputed in good faith". The problem here is this, there isn't good faith on it but bad personal relationship. This is a problem that came here from another language wiki, envolving a known troublemaker in it, user Dantadd who came here to "doubt" about the work of someone about who he knows.......nothing. In other words, this guy called me desonest supported by an irresponsable ADM. The administrator (God knows how) Lugusto in question did not delet it in good faith, he deleted because this one, (his friend in another wiki) "doubted" about the ownership. Based in what? Nothing, as you can read at the discuss page. There wasn't a consensus to delect the image, just the will of an user because another one said "I doubt" (???)I want to resolve this issue, how can we do that? As you can imagine, I'm very upset with this situation.
  • I understand how frustrating other users can be sometimes when you're playing by the rules . Yes, I'm the one here playing by the rules, this ADM Lugusto is not, as you can read in the discuss. I apologize for all this thing, but this is a personal fight among users of portuguese wiki that was deployed here for two users, Dantadd and Lugusto. There's a huge discussion out there about fair use and these people took all this thing to a personal level. This is the root of all this thing here, I apologize for their behaviour. Well, I'm very frustated that an ordinary user of this wiki, only by personal feelings, have started this mess.

they need to resolve the issue before moving forward. Yes I agree but the issue was already resolved moving forward before anything, the image was deleted right? And when it was uploaded another ADM blocked the user. It was resolved, hã? Well, the bizarre question is: how can the owner of an image(me) upload it without being blocked or something?? What I have to say? I think I've said all. Thank you. Machocarioca 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Machocarioca: It was decided at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KEITHR.JPG that the image should be deleted. I did not participate in the deletion debate, and I do not have strong feelings about this image. But when you upload it again, and say that you intend to do so over and over again, you should be blocked. Seven days was perhaps too much, so I'll unblock you now. The block has now expired. You can write a note at commons:Commons:Undeletion requests, but please do not upload it again. Kjetil r 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC), changed 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Forgive me , but I strongly desagree . It was decided, for who? By one arbitrary administrator without any, repeating, any evidence to that, as you can read in the discuss page. The only messages there were from two users who say that they talked with me before and I said the image was really mine. Just that. No arbitrary users, just came to me to confirm. Agree? Please, read the discussion and find ANY evidence that suppports the deletion. So, there wasn't any accordance to that, just of the user who began all the process coming from nowhere to say he "doubted" about the ownership of an image placed here months ago.

I will write a note in the undelection request and wait to read the arguments against or not. I'm very upset with these arbitrary act, as you can see, by two irresponsable users from antoher wiki, Lugusto and Dantadd.

And you, sir, blocked me because I "reuploaded a COPYVIO". What?? Could you say me what copyvio were you talking about? I think you made a huge mistake supporting an arbitrary act of another one, in a "debate" (it wasn't) you neither participate. An this "expired block" was an absurd one, forgive me. Ok, I know you, administrators, will never block an administrator for arbitrary acts, you will ever suppport them, this is a problema here in Wikipedia and the reason of some many angry among the users. I just think this method doesn't work. Maybe is the real reason why Jerry Sanger got out. Anyone, who we do not know who is or his capacity to understand an especific mater can decide what he wants if he is an "administrator". The human being never fails... Thank you. Machocarioca 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

  • It's not just you, so don't sweat it. This sort of stupidity has become part of Wikipedia's culture. It's the reason I never bother contributing anymore, and it's the reason Wikipedia has been bleeding good editors for quite some time. (Anyone want to set an over/under on when this comment gets deleted?) 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Living people category in Chinese Wikipedia needs intervention

There is a heated deletion debate in Chinese Wikipedia concerning living people category. Please intervene even if you cannot enter Chinese. I can explain the English text to users there. Thank you.--Jusjih 15:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)(English and Chinese Wikipedia admin)

I can read Chinese and I edit the Chinese Wikipedia as well, but you want Jimbo to intervene to keep that category or to delete that category? WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I saw your post there. WooyiTalk, Editor review 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


I believe the user User:Rklawton is abusing his administative authority. Could you or someone else look into his actions. 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to make a request at WP:ANI, providing specific diffs or links to explain the problem. Do not reply on this page; nobody will help you here. Placeholder account 00:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Wikipedia

Do you regret not making Wikipedia a commercial site to sell some ad space? Obviously this could be bringing in a small fortune. Seems like a wasted opportunity. Acirema 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He has been quoted as saying making it a nonprofit was the smartest thing he ever did or the dumbest thing he ever did. If he had not made it nonprofit, then it may never have become anything ... but we'll never know. WAS 4.250 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added that often repeated quote to q:Jimmy Wales, sourced to SXSW 2006; does it date back further? John Vandenberg 08:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The history of Spanish Wikipedia may be of interest to you. NoSeptember 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It is important to recognize that I have always said that line as a joke. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
but there is nothing in the license used by Wikipedia IP (intellectual proterty, i.e. text, images etc) that precludes commercial use of the content, from what i understand, as long as Wikipedia allows other to distribute the content freely if they want to. Tristan Savatier

I dare you... take the Official "Are you a Wikipediholic" test. Then, tell me what your score is on my talk page. Good luck.--Dial 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleventy billion.--Jimbo Wales 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because "You are Jimbo." Your score fits the range! :-) Nothin' like a bit of fun on a bad day (all those admins' accounts being hacked). Ryan Got something to say? 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to trolling question

You can look in the history if you want to read the trolling question.

With respect to where the donated funds go, you can look it up. We publish audited financial statements. What you will see in those financial statements is that neither I, nor any of the board of directors, receive any of that money. There are some travel reimbursements (very little to me personally, since most of my travel is paid for by people who have invited me to speak, or by me personally). Anyway, we publish everything.--Jimbo Wales 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How long will this go on ? ("Protocols of Zion")

People start noticing [6] Zeq 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is customary, I believe, to wait until ArbCom have actually ruled before you appeal to the big man himself. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom has rulled twice and did nothing to stop Zero. (this is his 3rd arbcom apearnace) and Fred is again rail roading it again (even after he admit that he himself was rude againt me, that he made factual errors in accusaing me etc...) everything goes in order to help an anti-zionist editor like Zero end his 3rd arbCom case without any restriction (depsite overwhelimg evidence to his violations) [7] , [8] - this despite the evidence: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Dmcdevit Zeq 17:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred continues to taint the case with divisions to "pro-Zionist" editors: [9] It is time someone intevine and re-start thje case w/o Fred being involved it. He is rude and made false accusations such as the one about using propeganda sources similar the "protoclos of Zion". Fred is unfit to be judicial in this case.

My block

Thanks for the unblock Jimbo. I realize now that there's apparently some crazy stuff going on, even moreso than I thought when I first saw the main page deleted. My explanation for my unblocks is here. · jersyko talk 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all good. I just saw that you unblocked one of the problem accounts, and thought I would be cautious. But I got straightened out pretty quickly.--Jimbo Wales 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, if I was ever going to get a block log, I'm glad you're the one that did it instead of a rogue/compromised admin on a rampage. · jersyko talk 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, apologies

Hi Jimbo, I'm from Sunderland in the United Kingdom. Sorry about the questions on IRC (I never meant to troll) My apologies for the incident. Eaomatrix 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So You have no answer on this ?

the bottom edit: [10] Zeq 20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't necessarily comment on everything. --Deskana (AFK 47) 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I know. By silence and not taking action are speaking volume. Zeq 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He also doesn't read everything, and sometimes goes for days without visiting this page. So, well, it's hardly the dark signs & portents your message seems to suggest. - CHAIRBOY () 05:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
understood. Zeq 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually visit almost every day, and try to read everything. I find myself entirely unconvinced by Zeq in this case. That edit, the one you link to, strikes me as completely unproblematic. It is of course true that at some point, biased sources are not reliable sources. You may disagree with Fred in his assessment of your behavior (and I might disagree with him as well), but it is hardly problematic for him to disagree with you. So what's the big scandal here? Is there something I am failing to grasp? --Jimbo Wales 09:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
When an arbitor makes false accusation about an editor (the accusation that the editor is using sources similar to some of the worst propeganda source the world ever known) and is unable to back this accusation with facts. And given that this accusations was only offered to defend the other party to the arbitration (who did removed sources) this is not a fair judicial proces. The problem is compunded by both Zero0000 and Fred being anti-Zionists and Fred labaleing me as "zionist" (not sure if Fred meaning by that is similar to my understanding of the term). In any case justice need to apear fair and in this case it is not. Fred is ignoring the evidence about Zero's constant edit-wars (in articles I never eddited). If you will look deeper into Zero's edit you will see how Wikipedia rule of NPOV is violated by him again and again (mostly be deleting sources who oppose his own POV) > Thank you for your time looking into this case. Zeq 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC) btw, was it your intention to delete all this: [11] ? Zeq 10:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, you response is understandable because I think Zeq might be barking up the wrong tree (or for the wrong reason) here, but could you revisit that comment. While I never specifically referred to your old wikien-l post like Zeq has been, I'm now concerned that you seem to be repudiating the common-sense part that reads "we have a cardinal rule, that goes all the way back to the existence of sysop powers in the first place, that they must never be used in a dispute over content that we are personally involved in." In fact, one of the reasons I brought this arbitration case as a third party was because of Zero0000's blocking of an editor he was edit warring with (Zeq), and especially because of his previously desysopping of him, and this being his third arbitration case. I was already disconcerted to have Fred apparently deciding that blocking while involved is acceptable, but I sincerely hope that wasn't your intention. (In fact, I would appreciate it if you took the opportunity to reiterate this point, there or on the mailing list.) Dmcdevit·t 10:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong tree maybe. We are after all discussing here an admin who engage in massive amount of edit-wars with multiple users (including articles that I never editted) and when he does revert me his give these kind of reasons which show maturaity and sound judjment: [12] . Zeq 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking Jiang

Jimbo, please reconsider your re-blocking of User:Jiang. It has been confirmed that Jiang is back in control of his account, and he is already desysopped. Indefinite blocking seems a little harsh just for having a weak password.--ragesoss 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Checkusers have confirmed that the person in control of the account now is Jiang and the account is no longer compromised. Marine 69-71 has been unblocked under similar reasoning. While re-sysopping is a whole other bucket of worms, both Jiang and Tony the Marine are active and valued members of the community, and shouldn't loose that privilege because of a poor, yet common, choice of password. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No objection to an unblock, and I will do it myself right now to make sure the block log looks happy.--Jimbo Wales 09:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it, actually.--Jimbo Wales 09:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Not realy sure what made you "unhappy" (it was not my intention) in any case I wrote this specific words when the case strated:

"Only Zero's current behavior is standing on trial today. The pattern existed for years but the evidence on recent bahaviour is fresh. His on-going violations will are presented (recent edits: 2007, 2006). There is no other Wikipedian who behave with such arrogance toward those who disgree with him and with such sense of impunity – this will be clear from the evidence.(some just days old - zero continue this behavior even after this 3rd ArbCom case of his has started) Zeq 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) " . No one was making any attempt to paint something as something else. Zeros pattern of behaviour is similar to what he did when you suggested he should be de-sysoped. It really did not matter if you or anyone else said at the time but simply :It is clear that admins who are block/ban after being warrned not to block (and not to ban) during a edit-dispute lacks the minimal judgment and self restrain required of admins.

Zeq 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I removed the notice you placed here but have also substantially changed the article here. I am giving you the courtesy of letting you know, SqueakBox 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case likely to suppress information on the Falun Gong

If you have a moment, please check out a current arbitration case here:[13] and my response to Fred Bauder’s justification for singling out Falun Gong critics here: [14] I'm one of two critics of the Falun Gong who have just been banned from editing the article based on Fred Bauder's belief that I'm a "determined activist" seeking to push my POV, rather than an analysis of my edits. Falun Gong practitioners have aggressively deleted well-sourced and notable information from Wikipedia which they consider reflects badly on their group, yet none of these editors were singled out for a ban at the start of the Arbitration case. If this doesn't amount to unequal application of Wikipedia policies, I don't know what does.

I'm not asking you to intervene on my behalf, since I've already decided to leave Wikipedia for good. But there will surely be other editors who in good faith seek to introduce edits about the Falun Gong which Falun Gong practitioners object to and work to suppress. This particular arbitration action was flawed from the beginning. Thought you should know. --Tomananda 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: For a slightly different take on this issue, check out this post on the Arbitration Talk page from another editor who is neither pro-FG nor anti-FG: [15]

The problem is not the arbitrators want to suppress anyone, it is that anti-Falun Gong editors often disruptively remove sourced information from articles, I don't want to single out any editor, but removing sourced information based on POV is indeed disruptive. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's disruptive to delete sourced material...but that is not what I have done. For the most part, the edits that have been used to ban me are cases where I have re-instated direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi. I have only rarely engaged in deleting things on Wikipedia because I believe in the principle of working cooperatively. When in doubt: add something to a legitimate edit, don't just delete it.
If other FG critics have deleted sourced material, is it fair to make me accountable for their actions? To get a grip on how my ban is so unjustified compared to the sanctions of FG practitioners, please compare my edits on the evidence page with those done by FG practitioner "Happy in General" and you'll get the point. Happy in General reinstated what can clearly be considered a POV picture some 30 times, and for those actions she was not even given the lesser sanction of a revert parole. My edits were also the reinstatement of sourced this case direct quotes from Li Hongzhi on what he has said about his Dafa (Great Law of the cosmos) and how it is judging all beings. Those are direct quotes from the Master, who is considered an infallible god by the practitioners (although they deny it). So how in the world can I be banned for reinstating well sourced direct quotes from Master Li, while Happy in General gets off scott free for reinstating even more POV pictures of an alleged FG victim in China? My intent has always been to add quotes from Master Li which may make the practitioners uncomfortable not because I'm trying to embarrass them, but because they show a radically different picture of the FG from what appears in their edits. Now, it appears that the Arb Com has unwittingly given sanction to these same practitioners to control the content of these pages, censoring material which is relevant and well-sourced, but which they think reflects poorly on their group. Really, don't you see the profound injustice here? --Tomananda 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


See above. Emбargo 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Embargo, you need to let this drop, if you want a discussion on the matter, take it to WP:AN, this isn't the right place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Ryan. Take this to WP:ANI or WP:AN if you wish, but please do not start another post here. It isn't relevant, and the posts are getting extremely disruptive, especially as you seem to be canvassing Jimbo for support... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do not seek Jim Wales' support. I want him to resolve this once and for all and I hope he has the courage to speak up. Emбargo 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The community can decide this, we don't need someone from the top to comment on it. Please take this to AN or AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
On an issue this serious, on which which consensus has been reached too many times, I think I need a final say. "This user supports Hezbollah", is it allowed or not? Is it "completely inappropriate" and "inflammatory" or is it acceptable as the rest of the userboxes? I'm not asking you Postlethwhatever, I'm asking Jim Wales, the owner of Wikipedia. Emбargo 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you the head of wiki?

Are you the head of wiki? if not who is? thanks in advance, Dom58! 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Florence Devouard is the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am a trustee (board member) of the Wikimedia Foundation. Within the English Wikipedia I have a certain traditional role under our community system of governance, a role which of course changes over time as the community institutions grow and strengthen. This role is not assigned by the foundation, but by the community and our traditions.--Jimbo Wales 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is another answer to Why Fred should have recused

[16] By now, it is too late since Fred has tainted this whole process into a very clear direction:

Ignoring the multiple policvy violations of Zero as an editor while "admonishing" his misuse of the admin tools.

This is so remote from being fair.

Zero has edit-war (massivly) even in articles I never edited but it seems that as long as someone is editing only from a strongly anti-zionist POV he can violate wikipedia policy with impunity. This is Zero's 3rd arbCom case. He was warned before but again is going to end this case with no restrictions on his disrupptive edit practices. On the other hand the editor which the comitee (and Fred) label a "zionist editor" is removed, banned or severly restricted.

Jimbo, is this strike you as fair or as systematic anti-zionist bias ?

all I was asking is for ArbCom to look at the evidence (pleanty of it) before Fred starts dectating the proposed decison. Zeq 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only one who presented evidence which is totaly ignored by ArbCom Dmcdevit: [17] Armarouso: [18]

and there is more... Zeq 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki ads... ← The proposal.

I've created a proposal that I believe has the potential to be a large revenue source for Wikia, and in turn, Wikipedia. Should I just go ahead and start the site myself, or would Wikia be an appropriate framework? --Remi 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize that Wikipedia has nothing to do with Wikia? That you're posting this on entirely the wrong site? --Cyde Weys 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you do realise that this violates Wikia's terms of use? iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

interwiev Mr. Wales (Spain)

I am a Spanish journalist. I want to contact with Jimbo Wales -o with their press office - to make him an interview via e-mail, for a Spanish newspaper A greeting, ÁNGELES LÓPEZ <snipped to prevent spambots>

See Wikipedia:Contact us and Foundation:Press room. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Slurred Nicknames and Wikipedia getting into trouble

Newsgroups: soc.history, sci.lang, From: a_plutonium <> Date: 10 May 2007 14:47:20 -0700 Local: Thurs, May 10 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Wikipedia insistence on giving ethnic slurred nicknames to innocent people

Wikipedia delights in throwing darts at innocent people whenever they can find something negative about a person they delight in pinning it on the person and then they justify it by saying it is their rules.

For example, I am a scientist but the only scientist pinned with a nickname and a ethnic slur of a nickname. My real nickname is AP, but since the hatemonger Eric Francis wrote "Arky" in his book, Wikipedia wants to laugh alongside Francis by trying to pin AP with that ethnic slur in Archimedes Plutonium's Wikipedia page.

Arkie / Arky (U.S.) similar to Okie, except from Arkansas instead of Oklahoma.

I keep telling Wikipedia that a person owns his or her nickname and has control over it. And that a person has to *want* a nickname before it can be used in an encyclopedia.

But the Wiki editors are too obtuse for the most part and too much into gathering laughs than to have serious and objective pages.

So I ask the question. Is the word "Arky" a profanity in some foreign languages. I know it is a ethnic slur in USA.

And I ask if Wikipedia continues to saddle me with a ethnic slur of a nickname that it is a civil lawsuit in the making?

Thanks for any answers.

P.S. I am thinking of contacting the State Attorney's Office and send a letter of reprimand to the Wikipedia foundation for the harrassement of private citizens. That Wikipedia just does not have their act together when it comes to nicknames. And that the Wikipedia organization has too many obtuse editors looking for laughs and not for the TRUTH.

P.S. post this also to Wikipedia discussion pages to Mr. Wales and to the Archimedes Plutonium entry.

Archimedes Plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Do people from Arkansas constitute an ethnic group? Nigel Barristoat 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a No Legal Threats violation. *Dan T.* 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This edit, where xe is clearly employing legal threats in an attempt to have editors stop editing an article, is an unequivocal violation. Uncle G 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

the usage of wikipedia-only/non-commercial purpose materials in Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo.

I am a humble member of Wikipedia community participating mainly in its german part I write to you, because as far as I know, this prohibiting guideline comes out directly from you, so you are the only appropriate person to talk on this topic.

So, I consider this guideline to be a huge mistake, and I'm sure that many authors are agree with me. It is absolutely clear that a permission is needed, to use diverse materials, otherwise it would be unlawful.
But using the materials in question, we can make it available and useful for everyone, at least inside Wikipedia. Because of this rule nobody can use it, also those who are you caring of. You don't help them in any way by such prohibition, but it harms Wikipedia from my point of view. --Prandr 16:02 CET, 11 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Joe's page

I'm sure you're too busy to handle something as insignifigant as this, but if you get a chance, could you tell me if my user page has too much personal crap so that I can avoid a block?—Joe Jacard

I'll handle this one for you Jimbo, your userpage is absolutely fine - in fact, I like it! You really don't need to worry about a block, they don't get handed out willy nilly, it's only for very serious problems and as a protective measure for the encyclopedia. Keep up your great work :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does

There is no reason that the article should not be sourced, however the removal of the information was done under false pretenses given the citing of BLP for a deceased individual. The protection of the page under the reason of "Edit war" seemed a little brisk too, considering by no objective viewer could that situation be considered an edit war with only two reverts total. When you are debating someone citing one policy, when there are violations of other policies in doing so, which policy trumps the other? If the answer is to ignore all rules then neither policy matters. My only aim on that page was to re-insert information removed because it was obvious it was removed without the person having read the article itself as evidenced by the citing of BLP for a dead man, why the page was locked after not even remotely reaching 3RR is beyond me.

So in conclusion I agree the article needs sourcing, I disagree on the methods taken to force the sourcing and strongly disagree with the protection of the page over a non-existent edit war. –– Lid(Talk) 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong. --Jimbo Wales 01:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to see which part is wrong, I agree with you that the article needs sourcing but disagree with the quick protection and methods that lead to the protection. I know your view on article sourcing, which is a point we agree upon, but I am unsure of your opinions on the protection or the methods that lead to the protection due to your vague replies, can you be more specific? –– Lid(Talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty simple. If someone removes random crap from an article like that and asks for sources, cramming the crap back in is the wrong approach. Arguing that the guy is dead, and therefore BLP doesn't apply, is really a stretch. Quality matters. --Jimbo Wales 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I only did it in this case because of that stretch, although I will admit originally I saw it as detrimental and may have reverted at that time (though I felt justified in that during that period the editor in question was believed, and was also blocked for a period due to this belief, that they were a sock of a previously banned editor) I have since not ham-fistedly re-inserted information of this status back into articles excluding this single case. The quality does indeed matter, but also actually paying attention to what you are doing is just as important and I saw someone justifying their reasons with Biography Living Persons on a biography of a deceased person as simply ill-conceived. I won't re-insert the information, and in fact have no willingness to do so, I do however feel that the full protection should be lifted as there is no real dispute between the removal of the information, simply the reasons for the original removal of the information. –– Lid(Talk) 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

legal internships/externships (copy from meta)

Jimbo, does the foundation have any legal intern/externships? If I understand correctly, Brad left, and I'm not sure who to ask in the legal department: I emailed juriwiki-l. I'm a 1st year law student at American University, Washington College of Law (a top 50 school). I've worked in law firms for years from a file clerk to a research assistant, and I'd love to help you guys out. Also, conveniently I'm located in Florida (for the time being until I go back to D.C, though I spend my summers in Palm Beach Gardens), and I'm somewhat familiar with florida statute. Most importantly, I have quite a few contacts in Tallahassee from prior internships, lobbying work, and extensive family relationships in the legislature. I recently testified in front of the house commission on veterans affairs, and I've worked in the capitol as well. I hold a B.S. in political science from F.S.U. and a minor in communications. Let me know if this sounds like something you'd be interested in. I don't need to be paid, my family has plenty of ability to support me, and I'm financially stable. I just love Wikipedia and want to help it beyond my ability as just another en administrator. Credentials and information at my userpage SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered on meta. (Hi Jimbo) Anthere 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


A Barnstar!
Golden WikiAward

I, User:ISOLA'd ELBA would like to award you the Golden WikiAward for creating Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ISOLA'd ELBA (talkcontribs) 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical remarks on a case instructive regarding the concept of "consensus"

Please excuse me as these comments are informal, though I have done a bit of thinking regarding these issues over the last weeks. My thoughts are still somewhat inchoate, so I hope clarity succeeds at least. I certainly don't expect and don't ask for an opinion regarding the facts of this case, as I feel that would be inappropriate. But I hope to hear anything you might have to say regarding these phenomena; or correct me if I'm ignorant about something.

This website's policies are largely governed by consensus. This is wise for a variety of reasons. Also let me say that, as regards the subject of this note, the article for a nice woman named Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, my sentiments against its existence have been made clear and detailed, shall I say articulated, in the relevant discussion pages.
With that out of the way, I present for your observation my thoughts on what I think is a misapprehension of the concept of "consensus" that I witnessed in many users' comments during the AfD and deletion review debates for this wikipedia article. I stress that I characterize the problem pejoratively not because some users did not agree with me -- I can accept people who disagree with me, and enjoy writing detailed notes to and fro with users of different persuasions. But I feel this project would only benefit from a clearer statement of what constitutes a consensus-based decision.
I've characterized elsewhere my ideal: a decision made by an admin which is, poetically speaking, half himself and half his audience. In other words, it's a desire for stronger admins. Is it because I dislike indecision? Partly, but what I dislike more is emotional-decision making, because such rationales are very often inarticulate, and therefore inaccessible to debate -- which easily breeds edit wars, acrimoniousness, and like.
Now, when I read the article I've cited, I feel as if there's no reason to have it here -- one's man's opinion, of course (if shared by others). The various article deletion/review pages, which you can find on it's talk page, ended on a note of "no consensus."
I can certainly imagine instances when, in the face of genuine differences of opinion, an admin may step back and recognize it would be wrong for him/her to decide on a matter of sheer opinion -- but I think that, before one gets to such a point, and this would require the admin know Wikipedia policy (as it currently stands) backwards and forwards (as they supposedly should/do), before one gets to such a point it is necessary to dismiss out-of-place, erroneous or inapplicable rationales used in argument. In such an ideal procedure I think we'd all find genuine matters of "no consensus" are exceedingly rare.
To take the instant case: I submit to you that a decision of "keep" would be impossible in the face of no rationale for such a decision. And likewise, by the understanding of "consensus" I am arguing against, a ruling of "delete" is also impossible, because of the lack of "consensus". But this lack, or this difference of opinion, is a sham controversy. The most usual abuse is seen when users treat discussions like votes. This is the reason legal matters are decided by judges very well versed in the law -- because opinions must be educated, which is demonstrated in the text of the rulings judges arrive at.
Admins must have the necessary spine, to put it bluntly, to cast aside the clamor seen in emotional debates such as regard the article in question, and keep the discussion entirely policy-based. The widespread misunderstanding of consensus, as it stands, creates a circumstance where articles cannot be judged either "delete" or "keep", and exist by virtue of a sham "no consensus". Anything is preferable to this kind of non-ruling ruling, because an articulated decision keeps the debate, the dialog, going; whereas the "no consensus" adjudication ends with great uncertainty, and therefore stifles and invalidates, the discussion. On a public forum such as this, isn't keeping dialog going simply paramount? Pablosecca 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, or an appeal to popularity. 100 people citing WP:FRINGE derived references versus 1 person citing recognised impartial authorities (do I need mention Flat Earth vs. accepted scientific authority?) will result in the consensus going with the one. No consensus will result if both parties find good authorative sources to back their contention/interpretation. Unless an admin or 'crat can find a third authority which has already weighed the two arguments and has come up with a definitive answer then that admin/'crat must come to the verdict of no consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, then WP:NPOV demands that both viewpoints, properly referenced, should be included in an article. Where the existence of the article itself in debate, and an admin cannot decide on the consensus, then it probably needs to be taken to whichever area of dispute is appropriate and examined there. Again, this may not bring about a definitive result but that is always a possibility with a wiki. In the end, take issue to every forum possible until the processes are exhausted. If there is still no consensus then there is unlikely to be one.
Admins are part of the process, and not an entity that decides upon it. Being more or less brave is not part of the remit.LessHeard vanU 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote to an old conversation!

Post on my talk page a month too late!

Govvy, you are absolutely wrong in this. I will block if you continue to push this agenda. "At any time you shouldn't remove large amounts of information from bios even if it is wrong" is incorrect. The correct answer is "At any time you MUST remove large amounts of information from bios if it is wrong." Period. Wikipedia is not Myspace, we don't need shoddy crap. --Jimbo Wales 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, you just said you would block me "for pushing an agenda"! I have no agenda, I follow etiquette and rules. Firstly saying you would block me, is considered a threat. Secondly I was trying to get some etiquette from Burntsauce, who continues to never cooperate with the Wikipedia Wrestling Project. Removing of large amounts of data with no explanations is vandalism. Burntsause never posted on the Project, so every time he does so without explanation I consider it vandalism. I made the point several times. I am not going to repeat myself to you, you should of read more. Like so many people on Wikipedia, the communication level is terrible, you should inform a project if a large scale of information is wrong. Hence, he has failed simple etiquette rules, hence, why I was upset. Now for you, please do a little more back tracking before you start running your mouth. Thanks. Govvy 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat my warning to you.--Jimbo Wales 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking pedophile editors who are making trouble

Whilst an admin strutted in and blanked a huge (and sometimes worthy) discussion in which many editors opposed WP's banning of all self - identifying pedophiles, the one comment left by Jimbo in the remainder (accusing trolling) remains invalid and way-off regarding the good faith of the blocked editors (as pointed out by an admin who has experience with them).

I request that Jimbo makes it quite clear - that he endorses the banning of self - identifying pedophiles, regardless of their edit content. Otherwise, he should - by mandate - reverse an unethical, weak-mineded and discriminatory policy which states that for publicity reasons, various editors are not allowed to express what they are. JimBurton 23:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not again, isn't this supposed to be taken up with ArbCom directly by email if you have a problem? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It has already been taken up, privately. Although I cannot disclose my sources, I have good reason to suggest that no decision is being made by the WP hierachy, regarding this issue. All I am doing is refusing to bury this issue, and requeting an opinion that has not thusfar been disclosed. JimBurton 23:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Well might I suggest you do this privately with Jimbo if you wish to, this isn't the place for it. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Other Wikipedians might be curious about the answers, if any. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it's been on long enough for Jimbo to decide to not comment on it, members of the arbitration committee have made it clear that this should be done privately. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
For my reference, can you point me to where the ArbCom's said such things? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this is an ethical issue regarding the present and future policies of WP. Such a simple 'yes' or 'no' issue should be discussed in public. I will not allow a civil rights issue to be dealt with in private. That would be an insult to those claiming rights. JimBurton 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
From the lack of official response and what I have been privately told was a refusal to state any principle, it seems that private discussion has not and will not yield any results - even with the members concerned. All I want is a public statement of principle by Jimbo, and naturally, this simple action should be fulfilled in public. JimBurton 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Heres one response [19], all pedophillia issues go straight to ArbCom, or Jimbo - they can do the work, it doesn't need to be made public. This is something that the community isn't able to decide on - it's a potential legal issue for the foundation, hence - all issues go directly to the top. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The 'top' is sending any discussion of pedophilia right back down to the bottom, and attempting to (or unintentionally(!)) bury this controversial issue with a great deal of censorship, time and failure to comment. A short private discussion, followed by a public decision would be fine, but this is just crazy. JimBurton 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that Jimbo needs to make an explicit statement. This sort of blanket blocking of pedophile editors should be either endorsed or rejected by an edict, either by Jimbo or ArbCom. It is an issue that may affect the future of Wikipedia as a community, it's a decision that we the Wikipedia community as a whole shall choose between open-mindedness and intolerance, between whether our goal is to write a better encyclopedia or be engaging in bitter discord. This decision has to be made. WooyiTalk to me? 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can completely see it from the 'top's point of view, if indeed these are close to the real reasons they're using or the real circumstances of this subject (I haven't been following it but am interested in the official reaction or lack thereof for other reasons due to unrelated policies). There's no good press to be had from anything related to just or unjust or fair or unfair treatment of matters related to these topics. There's no way to respond to the topic in a way that will be seen as a good light. The simple fact of the matter is that it's unfair to everyone to even have you asking the questions and making a point of it. Of course this means it's not fair to you either, but that's really the point of the whole exercise. I wouldn't look for any kind of public statement, because if I were Jimbo or the Board or the ArbCom I sure as hell wouldn't touch it with a 40' cattleprod, especially not in public. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the size, richness, corporate power of WP, Jimbo should make a public statement on this issue, for the sake of ethical principle if anything. This is an issue where publicity should play second fiddle to ethical principle. We should endorse the free - speech rights of self - identifying pedophiles. --JimBurton 00:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has "free speech rights" on Wikipedia. The only pedophile editors that have been banned are those who posted disruptive notices or otherwise harmed the project. The ArbCom and Wales have both made it clear that they will handle inquiries about this via private mail. Pushing this issue further would verge on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and that's a bad thing. -Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a sensitive topic since it has been misshandled from the start and no one is willing to accept the fact that there was wrongdoing and take responcibility for it. On the other hand, if Jimbo goes out to say that he allows open pedophiles to write on wikipedia then the press would hang him, and if he goes out to say that he doesn't then he would lose the faith of many of the liberal users so its clear he won't do either, which Malcom already pointed out. I think the only possible solution is to look at it from a more general point of view: sexual orientation and simply state that wiki allows anyone regardless of their sexual orientation to edit on wikipedia. Then you can avoid explicitly "advocating" pedophilia, to avoid any bad press. V.☢.B 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assure you, we are already keenly aware of this situation as it is developing, and so can the entire civilized world be in short order using today's meadia, just stay tuned... Jimbo now has to make a clear choice ASAP, between on the one hand, his beloved pedophile friends and those 'liberal' users who would be offended for their sake, and on the other hand, the rest of the civilized world. If he really values his liberal child molestor friends so much, he can have them - but not the civilized world. He can have one or the other, never both. The rest of the world deserves to know "whose" platform this is turning into. Our watchdogs are now watching most interestedly and we are waiting anxiously for a response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I've got a suggestion. If you're here to improve the encyclopedia, go and improve the encyclopedia, and in a year's time, everyone will support you putting whatever you want on your home page. But if your primary reason for being here is to agitate for your 'right' to state that you have pedophillic desires, I will point out to you again that we don't need a specific rule banning people who cause disruption by announcing that they want to abuse children, we already have a rule banning people who cause disruption. We don't have and don't need a different version of that rule for every type of disruption that can be caused. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Two points to the original post; the entire discussion is still available via the History, and isn't silence in itself an answer? Jimbo posted on some other topics on this page while the first discussion was ongoing, so he evidently saw it and chose not to answer (as he did with other topics, again). If indeed the matter is ongoing elsewhere then it is perhaps better to wait. Certainly badgering folk is not going to help, and may be counter productive.
As for the admin blanking the discussion; it was a act made in good faith. I would have continued the debate if it still existed, but I recognise that it was becoming far more than a discussion relating to the original concerns. If you cannot agree that it is time to move forward and insist on bringing up the same points then it does indeed appear that you are only on WP to promote a cause. I would like to think that this isn't the case, and that you are keen to improve the encyclopedia (specifically in your areas of interest). In the meanwhile, I suggest patience. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about the press? A.Z. 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I do, and I think we all should. They don't get to decide what happens here, but we don't want to ignore them either. They can make our job quite a bit easier or harder if they decide to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
How many times does it have to be said? This site is not an exercise in democracy, and no one has any "right" to put anything on their userpage or anywhere else. It is a privilege extended to users to be able to make personal statements about themselves, and it is subject to the requirement that they exercise discreet judgment and not include material that tends to bring the project into disrepute. If your employer wouldn't let you wear a badge at the public counter saying "I'm a pedophile", I don't see why Wikipedia should let you make a public statement about it using its servers. Much the same reasons apply. If you want to be loud and proud about your minority sexual predilection, take it somewhere else. The internet has zillions of fora for debate about such things. This is not one of them. Metamagician3000 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia software bug reports

With apologies for approaching you directly, but please, where should I send any reports of apparent programming bugs in Wikipedia software? Anthony Appleyard 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're not sure that it is a software bug you might want to ask on the village pump first. A lot of stuff that you interact with in wikipedia is part of the content and not our software. --Gmaxwell 13:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ich habe die deutsche Version des Potals Biografien gemacht!

Hi Jimbo! Ich habe die deutsche Version des Potals Biografien gemacht! Wollte nur hallo sagen!


Benutzer Graf (Germany)

[20] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy on Dating?

Having seen a lot of sports sections, I thought perhaps a policy was needed on the use of dates when linked to events. For example, 1950 British Grand Prix and World Snooker Championship 2000. Perhaps, to make everything tie together, the year can go either all before the event, or all after the event? Does this sort of policy already exist? Alex Holowczak 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians are allowed and actually even encouraged to date, despite the damage that it does to our productivity.

Oh, you mean, like putting dates on things. ;-) Better ask someone else, I am sure there is a style guideline somewhere.--Jimbo Wales 12:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you say it damages our productivity? I've sometimes come here to learn about a subject so as to impress a date, and ended up improving the article. JamesMLane t c 12:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke, as in "to go out on a date", rather than putting a date on an article! :) Alex Holowczak 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, not the fruit then? :P LessHeard vanU 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Time interview

  • I just read your interview with Time (a month too late, I know ^_^). Just wanted to say you were eloquent and well-spoken. GJ :) JuJube 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered users - a question

I am curious about exactly why you let unregistered users edit Wikipedia. Of course, it takes less than a minute to create an account, and it doesn't even require an email address. No doubt you've heard this argument countless times before, but I am honestly curious about your reasoning behind your philosophy that this is worth the fight against vandalism.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak for Mr. Wales, but Infinite monkey theorem is a way to look at anonymous editing. Sean William 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at the amount of good work done by anon. editors. See also WP:PEREN#Editing. →Ollie (talkcontribs) 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
One way to look at it (and a lucky survival of an old featured article), but not perfectly valid in any sense. Firstly, the monkey theorem assumes that the monkeys in question are just typing random characters; whereas with vandals, they are deliberately entering unconstructive information.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Much vandalism is reverted by anon accounts, i.e. readers who know how to bring up the previous edit or just hit the edit function and remove the vandalism. Nearly everyone with an account did their first edit as an anon. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll comment in a civilised manner (see edit history for my rant). I honestly think that unregistered editing is a problem with Wikipedia, although I'm sure you'll find a reason to convince me that this isn't the case, as this has been done before. Maybe we could find consensus somewhere that users must be registered. I'm on Jimbo's page because I want his opinion on it - I want to know exactly why we should let unregistered users edit (I apologise for my previous rant in the edit history here) Wikipedia.
At least one anon is in the top 300 editors by edits. Anon is also a non-sequitur, we know more about anon editors than about editors who open an account and reveal nothing about themselves, SqueakBox 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But why is this anon in the top 300?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it is an ISP that many thousands of editors edit from...why does it even matter? --Iamunknown 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
An IP is not an ISP and many IP addresses belong exclusively to one computer solely used by one individual/family. The IP is in the list because of the number of edits they have made, obviously, SqueakBox 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. What I was saying is that the IP belongs to an ISP and is used by many, many individual people. And many of those individuals choose to edit anonymously. So blocking it would be silly (in my view). --Iamunknown 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get a last opinion from Jimbo himself. I await Jimbo's response. I do understand that the featured articles are not protected so that anyone can edit them, as a lure towards to contributing positively. Is that all it is, though? Could we not make the signup process much easier?

-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. These ip addresses are now removed by hand. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, SqueakBox 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist announces plan to "destroy Wikipedia"

I don't actually know where people knowledgeable about this kind of thing hang out, so I'm posting this here and at the Village Pump.

I doubt I'm the only Wikipedian to read Respectful Insolence, but I might be the first one to talk about this topic, so here goes:

Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, apparently annoyed that he can't edit Wikipedia pages to conform to his racist views, proposed a strategy for "destroying" Wikipedia. Apparently, according to white racists, Wikipedia is full of "Jewish bias," whatever that means.

White's strategy is the following (his own words, quoted here):

Write a dialer that interfaces with the broadband service. I am not as familiar with cell phones and other wireless devices, but I'm sure there is some way to have those devices' operating systems' switch IPs. Set it up so it dials in, loads Wikipedia, starts indexing links from a page, opens them, then vandalizes the original page, and repeates for each open page. Essentially, build a vandalism spider, a la the kind used to hack, say, the major forum software packages.
When the spider detacts it is loading a blocked Wikipedia page, have it disconnect the dialer, then redial. It will be assigned a new IP, and it can start its crawling vandalism again.
Most Wikipedia pages are small and load quickly so I don't see why a properly equipped machine couldn't vandalize all 1.7 million Wikipedia articles in a relatively short period of time, and do so repeatedly at a rate that the human users Wikipedia relies on to correct vandalism couldn't respond in time to find all the histories needed to revert the pages and ban the user. Given that one would only lose a few seconds reconnecting to the wireless network and getting a new IP, Wikipedia could be taken down forever.

Having done a little MediaWiki administration on my own sites, I can think of several ways to stymie this sort of trickery, but I'm not sure what would work best. (The solution would no doubt depend upon the sophistication of whatever war-vandalizer White and his friends manage to cook up.)

Anville 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard threats like this before. They've never amounted to anything. I'm more likely to laugh my head off than cower in fear. Good luck to him, because he'll need it since his plan sucks. --Deskana (AFK 47) 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just wanted to make sure people were aware (given that other people probably have the knowledge necessary to judge this better than I). Memo to self: when I am an Evil Overlord, I will not explain my plans on my blog for all to see. (-; Anville 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And it looks like this was already discussed at the relevant discussion in WP:ANI. Anville 21:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for the warning. My comment is that there may be cause to raise awareness of a potential risk, and that is that the individual chose a public forum to disclose a method to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Since it is likely the writer knows his words would be reported I believe that it serves two functions; i) that his message (including his bias) will get more widely circulated (and this post is a case in point resulting perhaps in some anxiety, and ii) misinformation. If he was planning a vandal attack (the possibility of which must be recognised) then misdirection is a classic tactic. My response is, vandalism is vandalism - so lets deal with it as and when it occurs, and not worry ourselves unduly if they are behind it. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The great thing about modern racists is that they are total frickin' morons. So, you know, whatever. Brion Vibber versus 100,000 Nazis? I know who my money is on. :)--Jimbo Wales 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The nazis right? Becuase brion doesnt have a second to waiste on nazis rather than working on mediawiki. He would be lynched by a mob of bug hating wikipedians if he allowed such distrations. :) -- Cat chi? 00:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already got my "Brion's Number One!" foam finger. Sean William 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Godwins law, Jimbo Loses! ;-) --Kim Bruning 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Though Brion might do rather well ;-)

At least they aren't Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois nazis. - CHAIRBOY () 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, please see WP:NPOV and WP:CIV. Your comments are very insulting to people who think they're better than everyone else because of a few genetic traits -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View does not apply to a person's opinions as expressed on a discussion page. If anything, Jimmy Wales knows the policies better than anyone because he watched all of them be born. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I meant to link WP:NPA. My fingers are just trained to follow certain paths on my keyboard, if it starts with NP, it ends with OV. Same reason why I almost always type bitchday instead of birthday -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh... that statement reminds me of what I did to Évelyne Thomas once (though it was eventually discovered and reverted!) 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo basically created those policies so... If people think they're better than everyone else because they're racists, they deserve to be insulted. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
did he create those policies before or after he wrote the 1.7 million articles? ;) daveh4h 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol he is not the first or the last trying to undermine wikipedia. And being someone with an extreme minority POV he aint going to have the success of Daniel Brandt, who, while arguably being our worst antagonist, has in some eyes strengthened (BLP etc) rather than weakened wikipedia. The idea that some rascist or paedophile coul;d undermine this project is laughable, SqueakBox 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at the guy's original post (my first mistake). Just another one of the "vast Jewish conspiracy" crackpots. Thankfully, if you ignore those, they usually go away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY, SqueakBox 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google of Wikipedia?

I must admit, I do find this hard, but I speak with respect towards you even with this argument.

Do NOT, and NEVER, create a search-engine version of Wikipedia! It will turn into the same F***ed up place this hell has become. Of course, there will be kind, sensitive, and truly great people, but there will be people like this to run everything for everyone.

I beg of you, do not do to search engines what you did here.

Please take what I have said into consideration, and thank you for your time. I shall be going now. Fredil 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, get rid of Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and Wikisource. Who needs wikis anyway? Seriously, though, I don't think the world needs an open-source search engine. Placeholder account 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to refrain from creating wikis due to vandalism, why have wikis at all? Not doing this for these reasons would be like saying "Oh, take down Wikimedia, it's pointless." Personally, I don't think a wiki search engine would be useful, since everyone uses google anyway, and it's not like an open-source search method is helping anyone. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of open-source search engine, but the issue is how to prevent vandal programmers from inserting malicious codes? WooyiTalk to me? 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Karmafist banned for administrative vandalism?

I'm curious about what kind of "subtle vandalism" did User:Karmafist engage in (administrative? editorial?). How would someone "subtly" vandalize Wikipedia? And what articles did he vandalize? I don't know who to ask, so I post this on Jimbo's talk page, I assume someone else other than Jimbo would respond, since it happens in most of the times. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't vandalize any article using this account but through sockpuppetry using many others, as stated on user page. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then why blocking his main account? WooyiTalk to me? 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This was a chronic, serious problem, including an arbitration case, in which I think the ban was really a last resort. The ban has always made me sad, because he gave me my first "welcome" message which is still on my talkpage, but at some point he became so unhappy that he just couldn't get along here any more. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? You think people can avoid all the consequences of their vandalism merely by doing it under alternate accounts? That's nonsense. Blocks and bans are handed out on a per-person basis, not a per-account basis. You vandalize under sock accounts, your main account gets blocked for it too. Pretty simple, really. --Cyde Weys 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but someone could do sockpuppetry covertly if they tried, and you guys might never know... :o What happened though, why'd that admin go off the deep end? DaGrandPuba 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

concern from a photographer (regarding english Wikipedia not accepting non-commercial photo licenses)

this is with reference to the article posted here:

i understand the concerns of wikipedia to a point, but i think if a NC-type license could allow commercial distribution of a media containing the work, it would be acceptable to wikipedia. as long as profits are not made by selling the content (i.e. intellectial property, in that case, photos), i would have no problem releasing my photos with such a NC license.

my concern is that if i license my photos with the "attribution" CC (i.e. allowing commercial use), magazines will be able to include my photos in any article that they publish without having to pay me any royalties for my work.

this is why i will not license most of my photos with GFDL license. to me, NC is acceptable and i would have no problem releasing many of my photos under NC license for inclusing in wikipedia. GFDL is not acceptable, since it means that all my work is free for all and i cannot make a living anymore.

this argument has not been mentioned in the article, and it is a very valid argument for photographers. Wikipedia seem to consider that photographers do not need to pay their rents and should work for free. that's not the case.

of course, there will be some photographers who don't care about money and will release their photos with GFDL, but the average quality of those photos is likely to be much lower compared to those from "professional" photographers.

i was contacted by the author of the Wikipedia article on the Semana Santa in Sevilla (spanish version), who wanted to include my photos of the event in the article, as he considered that they were among the best he had seen on this subject. i had to decline, unfortunately, because doing that would open a pandora's box for me, i.e. any magazine or post-card publisher would be able to use those photos without paying me any royalties for my work. in the end, i personally prefer making a living from my photography work rather than having my photos in Wikipedia.

the same situation arised ealier about the article on "dog meat" (i.e. eating dog meat). i have an excellent series of photos illustrating this subject, but i cannot release them with GFDL, since they are published by magazines who pay me royalties. in that case, my series of photos is linked in the external links (under the fair-use rule?). but apparently in the spanish wikipedia, it is not acceptable to even link an external website containing photos unless that external website have only GFDL photos, so the author of the "semana santa in sevilla" article refused to link my photos, claiming such an external link was against the rules of spanish wikipedia even though they are linked in the english version of the article.

in this article "User talk:Fastfission/Noncommercial", the author(s) only consider cases where the Wikipedia content might need to be involved with some commercial use. but what concerns me is that my GFDL photos could be used independently of any Wikipedia article, i.e. they could be lifted from the Wiki Commons and used with a completely different context (e.g. a magazine, or postcards), without me getting any royalties when it is used commercially. this situation is definitely not fair for the photographer. i would love to donate some of my photos to Wikipedia but this licensing policy prevents me from doing that, or robs me of the value of my work, if it gets used commercially by others than Wikipedia.

-tristan - -

Personally I share your point completely. I think it is wrong that all authors are being forced to release their works under GFDL licence. And you have brilliantly explained why. That's one more reason to take out this rule (see also my post on this topic above). Let us see if Jimbo is going to ignore this too. --Prandr 12:58 CET, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Just as a note, but many photographers do release their images with free or GFDL images. One of such users is User:Diliff. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The Use of a free license by Wikipedia is intentional, and a central part of our project. If you don't want your material to be used outside Wikipedia, don't expect to upload it to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm personally quite chuffed at seeing photographs I've uploaded being used in publications, despite neither Wikipedia nor myself being credited.--Alf melmac 12:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning you put forward, tristan, is absolutely sound, and you should not donate your photos to Wikipedia if doing so robs you of their commercial value. It may be possible to donate a low resolution copy if that suits you, but generally to meet its objectives Wikipedia has to make do with photos that are available on a free license. Some of them aren't bad, but in every case the photographer has to decide if any pleasure of seeing their photos used outweighs the commercial value of the photographs. Inevitably that tends to mean that professional photographers will not wish to supply pictures, quite rightly. ... dave souza, talk 13:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You write: "you should not donate your photos to Wikipedia if doing so robs you of their commercial value". But it seems that Wikipedia requirements on photo licenses practically forces photographers to give-up any future commercial gains from the photos that they donated to Wikipedia. This should not have to be that way. For example, the license required by Wikipedia could cover only the use of the photos by Wikipedia, rather than a broad GFDL license. Or there could be a NC-type license that covers the commercial distributions where someone would charge for the media. Of course i agree that one solution is to release only low-resolutions images with GFDL (e.g. less than 500-pixel, just large enough for web use but not enough for print), and keep the full rights on any higher resolution photo. But this seems to be a workaround needed because there is no better solution given the Wikipedia requirements. You write: "if any pleasure of seeing their photos used outweighs the commercial value of the photographs". Pleasure is fine, but it does not pay the rent. And the reason why i would give some photos to Wikipedia is not because of pleasure to know that it is used and seen by many. It might just be because i think doing so would be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I know that IP (Intellectual Property) donated to Wikipedia will not bring any revenue from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia should not make it unnecessarily hard for contributors to get other revenues from contributed IP, when those same contributed IP are used by other sources un-related to Wikipedia. -- Tristan Savatier May. 14, 03:43:29 UTC
Alf, if you are not credited, then both GFDL and CC-BY allow you to sue. :-)--Kim Bruning 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Tristan, Prandr: Wikipedia is intended to be a copyleft encyclopedia, with all the advantages and disadvantages of such. This is a conscious choice, which we are unlikely to reverse in future. One of the big advantages is that it means wikipedia can be distributed and shared by all, including (famously, among others) the OLPC project. One of the disadvantages is that it means we sadly cannot always accept all content. --Kim Bruning 13:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read this at first. --Prandr 16:02 CEST, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
I note that the GFDL may suit your needs better than you think. The GFDL is intended as a "strong copyleft" license, which means that you cannot use a GFDL work as part of an another work without also making the combined work, such as a magazine article, free also. Many commercial publications aren't willing to do this, and you still hold the copyright to the images to make other arrangements as you would like -- several photographers who contribute work to Wikipedia also sell their photos.
The idea of strong copyleft is that you make your work free as a way to get others to create more work that is free and increase the amount of material available for the public to distribute and use, but only if they are willing to do that.
Many other copyleft licenses, such as CC-BY-SA which Wikipedia also accepts, have similar properties. However, many people from Creative Commons interpret BY-SA as a "weak copyleft", which allows you to use the work contained in works that aren't themselves free, so long as you keep the work itself and to a certain extent, its derivatives, free. To what extent its derivatives have to be free is not always clear. Larry Lessig takes the position that CC-BY-SA does not obligate a journalist to free a newspaper article where a CC-BY-SA photo is used in this post, though he is wrong about the FSF's position on the GFDL recently clarified here. However, he also takes the position that setting video to music should be considered a derivative work.
Depending on your needs and goals, you can license your works under a combination of licenses; many people who upload their own works use a "dual-license", or even "multi-license" under a variety of free-content licenses so that people can use them in a variety of ways. The most popular combination is probably GFDL and CC-BY-SA. You also still hold the copyright to your work and can offer it elsewhere however you would like. If you upload to Wikimedia as GFDL, you must allow anyone to use it under the GFDL. However, if you want to give permission for some uses or to charge for some uses that are outside of those terms, you are still free to do that. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I just see this as bizarre. It seems a tad restrictive for Wikipedia to force someone to give their work unconditionally. Sure, I might agree with Wikipedia's use of the image, but the GFDL means that anyone can use it, for any means. I am like many unwilling to put good work on the Wiki, knowing others can simply take it and use it without authorization. After having a photo I created stolen and credited to a staff photog in a magazine, I can attest that this is simply bad policy. "Weak Copyleft" doesn't cover it all. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
David, is this a response to my post or was it written beforehand and posted after edit conflict? GFDL is not "unconditionally". (Actually, the usual complaint is that the conditions are too restrictive...) And under any license that requires attribution, having your work stolen and credited to a staff photog is not acceptable, and you can and should contact them about their violation of the license. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
After edit conflict, Mindspillage got there before I did. Having your work mis-credited to a staff photographer is not on, and I don't quite think that that's quite permitted under the GFDL. ;-) --Kim Bruning 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC) thinking of a certain "Weird Al" Yankovic song
From my point of view, nobody looks in the question deep enough. The supporters of this restriction claim that Wikpedia must be usable for everyone. But using the materials in question, we can make it available and useful really for everyone, at least inside Wikipedia. Because of this rule nobody can use it, also those who are you caring of. It doesn't helps them if we don't use them, IMHO it only harms Wikipedia --Prandr 13:32 CEST, 13 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
But that is not a choice we make. That's the choice made by the photographer.
Whatever the case may be, we're only paying over a million dollars per year to host fully free content.
Knowing that, if we have a choice between spending some of that money on hosting for instance a non-free photograph of a pretty flower (something we can also make ourselves, eventually); or if we spend some same amount on some like say ... the collected works of William Shakespeare (now in public domain); we can only spend the money once. Which should we choose? --Kim Bruning 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You have probably misunderstood me, because what you have written has nothing to do with what I had said. I was talking about that Wikipedia refuses to accept materials released for non-commercial/Wikipedia-only purposes. Prandr 01:07 CEST, 14 May 2007
I did, and expanded on that. This is the choice of the photographer, not of wikipedia. Photographers are free human beings and can do whatever they like. If that doesn't happen to correspond with the mission of wikipedia, wikipedia is equally free to choose not to use that work. :-) --Kim Bruning 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite this, you didn't understand me (now it's absolutely clear), so you're talking about very different point.
I said, that this rule was introduced for wrong reasons.Prandr 02:14 CEST, 14 May 2007
You're saying that because of this rule, no one can use the content, because the photographer won't donate at all, right? --Kim Bruning 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I say that we can still use them, independent whether "at all" or not. P.S. I am going to bed so good night. ;)Prandr 02:27 CEST, 14 May 2007
Guten Morgen. :-) Why can we use these pictures, according to you? --Kim Bruning 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
???Strange question. Because we have then permission for that.Prandr 16:06 CEST, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
We don't. We cant distribute them in print, and we can't distribute them via OLPC. That sounds like a bit of a limitation to me. --Kim Bruning 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it's better than nothing.Prandr 23:23 CEST, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
In theory, that would seem to be correct, but IRL we've seen that it can really really hurt a wikipedia, because all non-free content needs to be filtered out in some applications... and then it turns out that stuff you thought was done... actually isn't. :-/ --Kim Bruning 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So you admit that I am right? Because you don't try to defend the original reason (that wikipedia must be usable for everyone) for the rule any more, but trying to invent something else.Prandr 03:09 CEST, 15 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, I'm pointing out that if you allow pictures that aren't usable for everyone,then the wiki isn't easily usable for everyone anymore. --Kim Bruning 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see we are going to start from the very beginning ;)Prandr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, many professional photographers do release very high quality photos to wikipedia, and also to commons, which is even more restrictive (or less restrictive, depending on how you look at it). I presume that they find a balance between profit and pleasure, just as many programmers code for a salary during the day, then go home and work on open source projects. So there are many options. You might consider uploading just some of the photos you have. You might consider downsizing the photos. Some of the licences effectively prohibit commercial use by making anything they are used in equally free, as discussed above. Lastly, and this might address your concerns the best, under some circumstances it is possible to upload photos to wikipedia (not commons) as WP:FAIRUSE which means that wikipedia can use them without any giving away of copyright. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it prevents commercial use by everyone except the really cool companies ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ben, we don't permit people to upload photos to which they hold the copyright under a claim of "fair use". Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've realized one thing: we may duscuss whatever we want and so long we want, but until Jimbo himself understand, that he is wrong, nothing is going to be changed. He ought to understand, that if an encyclopidia is free (GFDL etc.) but content is sh*t (ok, I'm exaggerating, but that's the point), there is no use of it. And he wouldn't like to favour us with a piece of his attention.Prandr 03:31 CEST, 15 May 2007

Prandr, have you ever looked at the featured images and quality images on commons? If you want to call those "shit", that's your business, but I think that would be a rather inaccurate judgment call. And all of them are free content.
There are plenty of free-of-charge works available online. If that's all you want, Wikipedia may as well close up shop; others have already done that, and some of them even take user submissions. But that's not Wikipedia's only purpose. Wikipedia exists to allow a body of free-content work to be developed. It is a donation of your time and effort, the same way every word of text and every hour of editing and proofreading is also a donation, for the public good of having encyclopedic information easily available to use and distribute.
There's nothing wrong with getting compensated for writing or photography! No one reasonable is asking you to give up your livelihood. But what about the shots that you're never going to sell, where there's no market, or where they're no longer timely? What are you going to do with them? You could hope maybe someone will buy it someday, and leave the rights reserved, or you could release it under a free content license and see it become useful to many people, even if you never get paid for it. (Though it might still happen: my partner gets paid for his photos when the publisher does not want to use it under the terms of the license.)
The license is as broad as it is because there are an awful lot of good things you can do with the content that require that broad a use: creating DVD versions of the content, textbooks and curricula, edited and adapted versions, translations, multimedia presentations...
Even the restrictions on the content act to further the goal of giving access to the information to as wide an audience as possible: you must keep the resulting work free so that others have the same access to that information as you have. You are benefiting from others giving their work to you freely, and if you can take that work and have it not be free it stops the free flow of information that you got it from. Which doesn't seem very fair!
And maybe you don't believe in that goal, maybe you don't think the idea of having a reference work free to use and reuse for any purpose is a good one, and that's fine—but I think there should, and not to put words in Jimbo's mouth but I'm pretty sure he thinks there should. And to have one requires a lot of effort from a lot of people, who generally aren't going to get compensated for what they do here. Most of us do this in our free time, and we're here because we believe the goal is a good one. Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, English isn't my native language so I used expression that has fallen to me.
Aahh, you have misunderstood me slightly. I meant materials, which are already released for non-commercial/wikipedia-only purposes.
You see, I am writing an article about a band. I succeeded to get a permission to use photos from their Website in Wikipedia- and I must be happy to get any. Since it lawful, I uploaded it to Wikipedia, and was surprised, that I am not allowed despite that. This photo would be good illustration for my article and I consider it's better to use it with some restrictions than not to use at all. Because in first case, you can at least see it, in the latter you get noone use from then.
In addition I generally agree with what you had written. So I suggest to leave the rule to use free materials as strong recommendation. But I suggest to allow non-free photos if there is no free alternative. As soon as it appears it could replace the first. I think it would be good compromise solution.Prandr
According to Russian proverb "silence is the sign of agreement", so you admit that I am right? ;)Prandr 18:18 CEST, 19 May 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

but what if i want to donate some photo to Wikipedia *only*, i.e. i want to donate them with a license that allows Wikipedia (and only wikipedia) to use then for free? there is no way to do that! if i want to donate something to Wikipedia, i am forced to use a much broader license. i understand that the reason for that is a religious choice (i.e. something that cannot be discussed, since it is based on fundemental beliefs, not reasonning). i know that this will not change, and i find it sad. i'm pretty sure that there were other licensing schemes that would have preserved more of the photographer's rights on their donated work, without putting any strings on what Wikipedia can do with the donated photos. i am quite familiar with GPL for software, and i understand the analogy, i.e. Wikipedia wants all its I.P. (intellectual property) for be free (i.e. anyone can use if they keep the GPL-style license attached). i understand the idea behind that religious choice, since i have contributed GPL and LGPL code. i just think that is is very hard to enforce when it comes to photos, and that in many cases photographers would have their work used illegaly (and commercially) once it is posted (in hi-resolution) in the Wikipedia Commons, as was described by several other photographers in this discussion. this does not encourage giving more work to the project, at least in hi-resolution. Tristan Savatier 08:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think GFDL is a rational choice, rather than a religious choice. However, if you choose to "respect our religion", that's a good start :-)
If several photographers are getting their copyrights violated, then I think it's about time we start talking with the violators somehow, don't you think? --Kim Bruning 13:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) NC, All Rights Reserved, wikipedia-only, or GFDL; if someone uses content contrary to the wording of the license-agreement, they're still in violation each time. I think these people might well be lazy and try to get a free lunch, regardless of license.
I second what Kim said. First of all, people using your work illegally is probably going to happen if you put them out on the web, no matter what license you use, some through ignorance and some because they don't care. And even if you have specified a free content license, you are still able to and encouraged to do something if people are violating the terms! (The same way people can still take action when others violate the GPL: see the Software Freedom Law Center.)
And yes, GFDL is a rational rather than a religious choice. It is because there are so many other sites where they have control of the content but no one else does that Wikipedia fills a different niche. Creating a free content reference work, rather than one that is simply free of charge, is what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia set out to be something different because no one was doing that yet, and it seemed like a good idea.
I also don't see why this is so different for photography than for writing, or music, or programming. (As for myself, I am a terrible photographer—but I've written many articles and recorded several pieces of music. My partner is a good photographer and a good programmer who freely licenses his work, so between the two of us we've got most of the areas covered. :-)) We all contribute our work under the same terms for the purpose of creating a reference that is available to anyone to use freely. You don't have to agree that this is a good idea, but in order for it to work, everyone has to agree to the terms for the work they contribute. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use

we don't permit people to upload photos to which they hold the copyright under a claim of "fair use" -- Kat Walsh (spill your mind?)

Are you sure about that? Obviously, fair use doesn't mean "use this anywhere on wikipedia but nowhere else". But under the very precise circumstances in which fair use does apply, I don't see that the copyright holder should be less able than anyone else to upload a fair use image. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, users are expected to release theyr own works under a free license if they want them to be used on Wikipedia. Derivative works (such as photos of non-free statues and what not) are not considered user-created works in this context since the user doesn't have exclusive rights to the image in such cases. --Sherool (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sherool is correct. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"all user-created images must be licensed under a free license (such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license) or be released into the public domain (no copyright)."
If this sentence overrides fair-use then that would imply that no-one can upload a fairuse image that they have taken themselves. Clearly that's not the case. Fair-use and User-Created are two different types of uploads. I don't see why we should hold potential contributors to an all or nothing position, and not just because we have no way of enforcing this rule. If someone wants give us something, I don't think we should reject it as good, but not enough. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Haines City Auto Supply, Inc.

The page I created Haines City Auto Supply, Inc. was put up for proposed deletion yesterday (Tuesday), and when I got on today the page was gone. That's Administration abuse if you ask me because it had not yet be 5 days and even so there was an objection!!! That's what I have to say I hope you set things straight!!!--Hornetman16 04:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can contest a proposed deletion at deletion review. (And will take some comments to the editor's talk page.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
it was deleted under 'db spam', meaning it qualified as an Ad under WP:SPEEDY. if it is a page about your own business, please do not recreate the page, as it is a violation of WP:COI. If it is not about your business, please rewrite it in a neutral tone, citing reliable sources, and you might want to read the pages on creating a new article, although I don't remember them right now (use the search function!) -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
To be a part of the encyclopedia, it will need to meet the notability guideline for companies. The company should be the subject of multiple reviews from reliable sources, and these should be used to create an article with no original research. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
ALso, it appears as though the article made no assertion as to why it was notable, another important part of wikipedia articles, especially about companies or organisations. It appears to be a very valid speedy deletion to me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
To help keep an article you create from quickly ending up on any of the deletion forums, make sure you list all of your secondary sources used for the article's text, preferably before hitting "save page" for the first time. Cla68 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Dear Jimbo, I am writing concerning the entry on Archimedes Plutonium. He is a figure who, according to the opening of the entry, is "widely noted for his varied contributions to Usenet and his claims that the entire Universe is a single plutonium atom." The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both. The subject of the entry requested in March that the entry be deleted (see here and here, and also see this). It is very clear that the subject of this entry is not notable, and that this entry exists only because some editors consider its subject to be a figure of fun, if their motives are not indeed more malicious than that. I feel that the subject of the entry may not be in a strong position to defend himself, and I therefore request your intervention in deleting this entry. Thanks. FNMF 04:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The entry has been the subject of two AfDs, but has survived both." Clearly the community thinks he's notable enough to warrant an article, I've certainly read him before, so what exactly is the need so pressing that this article requires being brought to Jimbo to be deleted against the community's wishes? I fail to see it... FeloniousMonk 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, the Archimedes meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 05:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
An example of the content of the entry is the following: "Others defended him on the grounds that anyone who dubbed himself "The King of All Science" while talking to Nobel prize winners about pumping water from the Pacific Ocean to the Moon via a giant hose using osmotic pressure, more than made up for any perceived lack of academic credentials for the sheer entertainment that such things gave to the world." He is an utterly non-notable figure, and the entry is not only non-encyclopaedic but insensitive and malicious. Furthermore, the subject of the entry has requested deletion, and this request is entirely reasonable. If this kind of abuse of the defenceless is permissible on Wikipedia, it reflects poorly on the editorial culture. FNMF 12:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you intend to respond to the fact that he meets WP:BIO or not? JoshuaZ 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned he's completely non-notable, as I've mentioned in both of the comments I've placed. FNMF 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So explain how he's no notable. We have multiple (6 at least) independent reliable sources which focus on him. Nor is this a 15-minutes of fame situation but the articles are for a variety of different things in different years. Notability is not simply your being uninterested in the topic. JoshuaZ 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any sources that establish anything like encyclopaedic notability. FNMF 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The "The Dartmouth Murders" has an extensive discussion, there are at least two articles in The Dartmouth which are dedicated solely to discussing this topic and he is the subject of multiple others. He is extensively discussed in the Discover article ""Notes from Another Universe" as well as being discussed in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine for October of 1992. If you would bother to actually look at the article you would have realized this. We have many, independent, non-trivial reliable sources. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, you may well feel certain that Archimedes Plutonium is an important and worthwhile ornament to Wikipedia. I disagree, and I have given my reasons. You ask me to address your criticisms of my position and I have done so, though obviously not to your satisfaction. On the other hand, I have not seen any response to my claim that the entry is non-encyclopaedic, insensitive, and malicious. However that may be, please do not accuse me of "disruption" merely because you are frustrated that I do not agree with your position. FNMF 17:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
FNMF: ths is really not the proper place to discuss events that have followed Wikipedia process to the T. If the article has twice survied AfD, it is (as FM stated) clearly because the community feels it should stay.
Essentially, in refusing to accept the voice of the community and in continuing to try to fan the flames of a dead fire, you are being disruptive for disruption's sake. Let it go, move on to another topic, another article. Look, I don't think most of the school articles belong here, but since the community supports these articles, I'll be damned if I'm going to bang my head into a marble wall in protest. It's best to just move on, and keep ones credibility intact. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My belief is the following: there is no clearer case that I know of where a Wikipedia entry has the potential to cause harm to the subject of the entry. I understand that editors aware of this entry have twice chosen to retain it. I nevertheless believe this is an unnecessary and potentially harmful entry that is also insensitive, malicious, and non-encyclopaedic. By coming to this forum, I was not attempting to initiate a dialogue on the entry with those who wish to defend the entry. Clearly there are editors who believe this entry is justified. Of course, if the entry has been through 2 AfDs, then obviously I'm not the first one to object to the entry. Whether Mr Wales chooses to act in relation to this entry or not is his business, and I trust him with this decision. But nothing that has been printed in objection to my initial post convinces me that the Archimedes Plutonium entry has any place in this encyclopaedia. FNMF 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The latest comment by the subject of the entry is this. FNMF 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The even latest-er comment by the subject of the entry is this This situation is unpleasant and unnecessary. FNMF 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, there's a source, a book by Eric Francis. Seems to me that if Archimedes Plutonium has an issue with the source, he needs to take it up with the source. We just report, and given WP:NOR can't really engage in our own research to verify that the source was telling the truth (i.e., investigative reporting à la the media).
If you feel that the article needs cleanup, why not tag it and edit it? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if it's in a book somewhere, do we really need to list as his "nickname" something that he clearly doesn't like to be called? Perhaps, if there must be some mention of that name, it ought to be clearly noted as a name that was applied to him by others, not the name he chooses to be known as himself. (The legal threats and silly assertions by him are still ridiculous, and actually harm his case more than helping it, given that they make people angry who might have taken his side if he had been more reasonable about it.) *Dan T.* 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim, I understand what you're saying, but I would add this: the book, as far as I can tell (I admit, I haven't read it), is not really about Archimedes Plutonium. Rather, he appears in it briefly in the context of the book's theme, which is unrelated to the subject and unrelated to the subject's purported notability. In short, I don't see that the book establishes that the entry is encyclopaedic or notable. As for editing the entry, I can't see how to edit the entry to address the problems. The real issue is the existence of the entry, to which the subject has objected. And the real problem is that where editors are determined to retain the entry on grounds such as the existence of the book you mentioned, and in spite of the lack of notability of the subject, and in spite of the subject's objections, neither editing the entry nor yet another AfD seem avenues likely to address the real problems. FNMF 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Another contribution by AP. FNMF 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
And, just now, this. FNMF 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Wikipedia community from the top down has little interest in dealing with this malicious and non-encyclopaedic entry. Oh well. FNMF 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Wikipedia community from the top down has decided that there is no problem with this entry. JoshuaZ 01:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And if that is their decision, then it is a decision which, in my opinion, reflects poorly on the community and the project. FNMF 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that the guy has no publications, and no supporters for this "theories." There are absolutely no grounds for his notability. FNMF 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and Wikipedia

Hey Jimbo, I am a fairly new user here at wikipedia and I have been enjoying myself immensely. However, as I have made my way through the tangled web of talk pages, mediation pages, signpost news, etc... I have noticed that you are frequently quoted as if your words were wikipedia policy. I understand that you, as the founder, hold, and will continue to hold, a certain sway here. Still, this fact disturbs me, because it is my belief that wikipedia should be supported by a community of equals that has no overarching power center, which, for many wikipedians, is you. Don't misunderstand, I have found the majority of what you say to be very intelligent and farsighted. It is the fact that you seem to receive more deferential treatment than any other well-established administrator, bureaucrat, or mediator that gives me pause. This leads me to my question: What do you think that your role in the future of wikipedia should be? Should it be as a regular admin? Should the status quo be maintained? I look forward to your reply and the thoughts of the community at large. Thanks--Cronholm144 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Jimbo embodies the spirit of Wikipedia in that he founded the instsitution and provided it with its ethos. He created the basic rules that defined the operation and then allowed the community to build upon that. He is required to abide by the various rules, policies and guidelines that have since been adopted. However, as it is his original vision a lot of people check with him to ensure that what is being proposed and practiced still conforms to the original concept. It is a combination of WP:Civil and recognising he is the most experienced Wikipedian possible. Lastly, he has (with the blessing of the community) retained a "discretionary license" (fundamentally an open application of WP:IAR) to decide upon matters that are either unable to be decided upon by the usual processes or by direct appeal to him.
As I say, this is my take on the matter. I may be wrong. He may simply be a benificant meglomaniac (with a beard, possibly the worse kind! ;~) ) I feel most comfortable with my understanding. LessHeard vanU 09:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey, sorry it's taken me a while to get back with you from this edit. First it was finals, and then it was an omgsummerbreakfinally braindeadness-inspired wikibreak.

So, how much do you enjoy sailing? And know of anywhere I can source a left-handed statement? I figure you know what you've said in interviews best. :P

And (since I'm sure you noticed the Bomis editing) do you know anywhere that old Bomis Babes stuff is hosted to link to/cite for that section?

Thanks for your candid -- and unexpected -- offer to take questions. :) --Dookama 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Cold War?

Hi, Jimbo!

What do you think on how to deal with such things? [21]

It seems that established dispute resolution process cannot help here and such systematic bias indicates posiibility that a new Cold War II may span the Wikipedia.--Dojarca 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo. Regarding VK35, I'm not sure if whether VK35 is a physician is an issue. In fact, I am not even aware that the user was making such a claim. I became suspicious of VK35 because of nearly identical arguments made by VK35 and a confirmed sock puppet of banned user Dereks1x (Atlas87, if I recall correctly) regarding the proper way to handle banned users. I e-mailed Dmcdevit, who ran a check user on VK35 and confirmed that VK35 was using the same IPs as Dereks1x and his other confirmed socks. Whether or not VK35 was claiming to be a physician was never an issue. A previous confirmed Dereks1x sock, Doc United States, was making such a claim. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x for more on this user. · jersyko talk 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copy of message sent to Jersyko
Please unblock my user talk page. As a sign of good faith, I will not engage in conflict with you or seek to embarass you. In return, you should show good faith and stop trying to attack me, whether directly or by questioning anything related to me or the unblock. The question of a physician was not the central issue but there were other issues that do not appear online because of privacy concerns. VK35 20:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)(including issues related to Jersyko)
Well, let's assume he is not a sockpuppet, since he seems to be a legit physician. We can judge him on his own behavior, which I guess is not itself at issue. --Jimbo Wales 21:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As he is no longer blocked, I have unprotected his talkpage. WjBscribe 21:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. I'm curious as to why this user decided to try to prove he was a physician when it wasn't even an issue? Doesn't that actually prove he is a sockpuppet if he is attempting to legitimize the past actions of a different sock? Can someone who uses one sock in an attempt to bolster another sock's arguments, credentialed or not, then continues to use other socks to make the same and similar arguments possibly be someone we should assume good faith from? · jersyko talk 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Doc United States uploaded a picture of a medical degree and posted it on a website while the checkuser was pending on his connection to Dereks1x in an attempt to prove that he was not Deres1x. However, the checkuser confirmed that they were the same user. · jersyko talk 21:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The original "community ban" centered around allegations of falsely claiming to be a medical doctor in a content dispute about John Edwards. The original discussion is archived. The point is, if the original user was banned for falsely claiming to be a doctor, then it is relevant that this user IS a doctor. Checkuser can be compelling but is hardly infallible, as there are many cases where hundreds of people are editing from the same ip number. It seems safe enough in this case to judge the user (who is not falsely claiming to be a doctor, but is in fact a doctor) on his own behavior, which seems to exemplary as far as I have seen so far. He could just be collateral damage from an abusive user working at the same location, etc.--Jimbo Wales 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This user claims to be in Singapore - the banned user was not. This should be pretty easy to determine, shouldn't it? Tvoz |talk 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo about Checkusers not being the best way of determining if one is a sockpuppet (I have seen a user mistakenly blocked based off Checkuser results in the past). In a recent IP check involving Dereks1x, Dmcdevit even noted that he was unable to find an IP that would not result in collateral damage. I will trust Jimbo on this. Funpika 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser I refer to was via e-mail, not on Wiki. Checkuser was not, however, the only indication that this is a sockpuppet. First, VK35 created his account very soon after Deres1x was indef blocked. Second, VK35 made nearly identical arguments to confirmed Dereks1x socks regarding treatment of banned users. Third, VK35 noted in an RFA I served as nominator in that the administrator might be "dictatorial" (and another adjective I"m forgetting right now), exactly the same language as used by other known Dereks1x socks. I can provide diffs for these and other indicators later this evening when I have some time. Thus, we have corroborating evidence in addition to a checkuser confirmation in this case, not merely a checkuser confirmation. I understand Jimbo's concern that this user has presented some evidence that he is a doctor, perhaps indicating that something else is going on. However, I still think the evidence clearly weighs against unblocking at this point. · jersyko talk 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I wrote on Jersyko's talk page that I will not get into a dispute with him and that he should reciprocate by not complaining or attacking. There are other relevant issues some of which relate to Jersyko and some issues related to privacy that are not mentioned here.
One user noted that I falsely claimed that I was editing from Singapore. The idea that I was editing from there was first brought up by Jersyko and is false. Should Jersyko be blocked for lying? I have special knowledge of Singapore, including daily details like buying a car there (which is different from many countries). I never said that I am living there now. There are other points that I can bring up, some of them very negative facts about other editors and/or administrators. However, I strive for cooperation. Other editors should do likewise.
We should also give some respect and deference to Mr. Wales. He was not asked to unblock me although such action is appreciated.VK35 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm very curious as to what these "other relevant issues" regarding me might be. Please let me know. I'm certainly willing to discuss them on Wiki, and I will be happy to rebut them. · jersyko talk 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I asked for administrative input at the noticeboard. Given the length of my post, however, I have a feeling I may not get much of a response. I would appreciate it if you would review the post, however, and compare to any other information you might have. I will drop it completely thereafter. Thanks. · jersyko talk 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw Jersyko's post on WP:AN, and I have to say that I'm pretty convinced VK35 is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. Like Jersyko, I hope that VK35 will share "very negative facts about other editors and/or administrators." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to know what VK35 is referring to. I recall one or another of Dereks1x's identities using a similar approach of half-suggestion of impropriety on the part of the admins and editors who were providing evidence against him more than once - it is all very familiar. The timing of VK35's actions are also particularly disturbing and too much for mere coincidence. Several of us have been dealing with Dereks1x and his disruptive sockpuppets for a few months now, and I also remain convinced that this user and Dereks1x are one and the same. The checkuser result confirmed it, and his comments today seal it for me. This puppetmaster was not content to go quietly, as his 20+ uncovered puppets, and their false accusations of editors and admins, continue to show. Finally, I don't understand at all how this user presenting evidence of being a doctor is supposed to convince us that he is not a sockpuppet - most of the 20+ puppets had nothing to do with medicine - only the one who inspired the community ban of Dereks1x and all of his personas - are we to assume that VK35's raising the issue of being a doctor is a coincidence? It might be of interest that in talking about the checkuser clerk process this morning, I raised the subject of Dereks1x's masquerade as a doctor. I'd be interested in knowing how the timing of his credential presentation fits in with that as well. Tvoz |talk 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo,

Could you be interested by giving a speech in Paris for a world leading cosmetic company ?

Please contact me at nteil (at)

Best Regards,


Nickname Policy, please

Hello Mr. Wales, I have had a problem with the Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium. It just so happens that Wikipedia has some irrational policy over nicknames, and yours of "Jimbo" is a case in point. You may not feel that Jimbo is deprecatory, but to a scientist, these sort of things touches sensitive nerves. Scientists don't want nonsense but want seriousness. There is not a scientist that I know of in Encycl Britannica who is encumbered by some dumb and stupid nickname. Nicknames are fine for sports figures or entertainment, but for scientists nicknames smack of mocking. Arthur Rubin is a Wiki editor who insists on retaining this deprecatory fanname "Arky". The source which that was found is a deprecatory source in the first place and not a biography source. The people who discuss my ideas on the Internet have largely used the nickname AP. Nicknames are different from fannames. And a person has a say over what his/her nickname is. Others cannot give me a nickname which I reject. Arthur Rubin is acting like a bully on this nickname issue. He has never posted the full Wiki policy on nicknames, which leads me to suspect there really never was a policy and that the insistence on "Arky" is a form of mockery which the Wiki editors are delighted over.

I do not believe you have a policy for nicknames and that you do not have a definition of nickname versus fanname, nor does Wikipedia have a steadfast rule for nicknames as witnessed by scientist versus sports entries. So the evidence indicates Wikipedia is acting arbitrary on nicknames.

-- Archimedes Plutonium —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

  • OMG it's Archie Pu! Do you remember me? I don't suppose you do, but anyway whilste I don't accept that you have a say in a nickname given to you by many of your "fans" never the less I don't see the issue is important enough to fight over. You do know that you are not really a scientist though? Honestly you are not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And for this very reason, why isn't the man's bio (Archimedes Plutonium) tagged for speedy deletion? Looking at the TALK page, I see this was tried, but failed. Partly on grounds that if everybody else was doing it (Kibo lives in part to make fun of Archie), then why shouldn't Archie? Here again we see BLP being used as a dumping ground for bios that NOBODY else would print. Wikipedia is (among other things) a museum of collected previously-lost trivia about living internet cranks, crackpots, and eccentrics. I can do nothing about it, except to continue to point them out, until you all just cave in from embarrassment regarding what your own petrified BLP policies have created. Gag me. Jimbo, some serious bad karma is building up, here. Your BLP policies remind me of the slime explosion from Ghostbusters II. Eventually, when it all goes up or comes down, everybody who aided or abbetted keeping BLPs of people like Archie, are figuratively going to look like they've been hit with 10 buckets of dinosaur snot. Fair warning. SBHarris 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "Biographies that nobody else would print" — I can only assume from that erroneous statement that you've not done as you are supposed to and actually looked at the sources. One of the sources is a detailed account of this person that was printed by St. Martin's Press of New York, N.Y.. Uncle G 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are proven wrong by how scientists names quarks those stupid, silly names. SakotGrimshine 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never heard back from the person who I proved wrong. SakotGrimshine 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure if you really needed to be notified of this, it's not an especially important matter as of yet, but I think the similarities between this and the Daniel Brandt situation are oddly profound enough that you might wish to know about it. Basically, it's a case where an article was deleted, said deletion was contested, discussion re-opened on AFD, that closed, which lead to deletion, another review of deletion, and a third attempt at AFD, which once again, lead to an early close. FrozenPurpleCube 17:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was rejected by the Arbitrations; I recommended they accept it to investigate the wheel war that took place; oddly they did not. --Iamunknown 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute I believe it was someone else who said this place had "more bad drama than a community theater production of MacBeth." ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with them. Thanks for the link, Iamunknown 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? I think it's more like Othello or King Lear. But yeah, there's an RFC now, and given how that's gone, I don't expect a resolution there either. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking comments on proposed user guideline to personal security practices

I and others have developed this as a "proposed guideline" for improving the personal security of users on WP, but there are questions on whether it could be "actionable" in an administrative sense, or necessarily "followable" among editors. My intention in proposing it for a guideline was to get links to some version of it included in welcome messages to newbies, so as to provide fair warning regarding any possible negative consequences of sharing personally identifiable information, as well as outlining a course of action for dealing with incidents of stalking or other harassment involving personal information with minimal further exposure to victims through the encyclopedia. User:Radiant! thinks its worthwhile as an essay, but I think it needs to be somewhat more "official" without being "actionable" or "followable" in a sense that would affect editors who are ok with posting their real information or using real identities, etc.

I'm posting this here so Jimbo is aware of it, but I am not seeking an overt intervention towards making this a guideline... still, I'd like more constructive input on the issues behind it, perhaps towards dealing with them in a way that wouldn't involve an explicit "guideline" per se, if a "fair warning" message re: personal information could be included on the "welcome page" that appears when a newbie first opens a WP account. Regards,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is strictly necessary. I am sure people are aware by now that such dangers exist on the world-wide web and do not need to be warned as such. Besides unless you are a dick and abuse others, you won't likely be stalked; and if you are a dick and abuse others, the chances are that you will be outed by enemies/critics outside WP anyway! Perhaps minors need to be warned as unlike MySpace, there are no age restrictions in WP. Then again maybe it is the ordinary folk who need to be protected from minors in WP, rather than the other way around :-)Ivygohnair 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, people working the anti-vandalism patrol get harassed all the time... this doesn't have much to do with "behavior" per se, except in connection with personal information, for which it outlines a discrete course of action. The processes it describes already exist, it mainly puts already available information on one page. Dicks (or minors!) wouldn't be affected more than any Wikipedian, the idea is to popularize knowledge of what current practice is regarding these issues.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't look at it from this angle: you may have a point. But surely people working in such patrols will be admins or experienced editors who are well aware of the pitfalls you are warning about.Ivygohnair 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I am mainly concerned with "nipping the problem in the bud" and making sure newbies are aware of personal information issues before they do things like go on anti-vandalism patrol. There is nothing that can realistically be done for those who have already had their personal information exposed here or elsewhere, or don't care that it is, so this project is not concerned with them. (Except as WP:OVERSIGHT may be concerned.) Thank you very much for your comments, though.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wouldn't it be possible and in the best interests of Wikipedia if there was a prominent but brief warning re: posting personally identifiable information on every user's initial log-in page? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they say, and if this causes anyone to think before broadcasting personal details I believe it would make WP a safer editing environment for everyone. —ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has been involved in discussing this and related issues, I agree with this request. It would be a good idea to give this information to users up front and not depend on them reading one of several "essays" that exist on the subject. 6SJ7 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is an admin allowed to use foul language or violate policy, -just because he's an admin...

Is an admin allowed to use foul language or violate policy, -just because he's an admin? This matter needs to be discussed in the community. Who all has input? [22]

That is a total joke. --Deskana (AFK 47) 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is, then you certainly do not need to inform the reader. What now? Are you telling the reader "look here: You are too stupid to see what is good and what is bad, but don't worry. Good old Deskana will help you out." Let the reader make his/her own mind up.
Also, if it is so "stupid," then tell us exactly *why* it is stupid -and what you propose as a solution: Otherwise, it is best to remain silent.--GordonWatts 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should listen to your own advice? I certainly intend to say no more. --Deskana (AFK 47) 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
First: What? Second: WP isn't censored. Sorry. In the mean time, check out WP:DGAF, it might just blow your mind -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Contributions

What the heck is up with that deranged and horrible poetry? Did someone hack Jimbo's user account one day? Or did he do it himself (hard to believe)? Creationlaw 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You realize that's Jimbo wales and not Jimbo Wales, right? Metros 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
These poems should be posted on that guy's personal site, not Wikipedia, and he may be blocked for impersonating the chairman emeritus of Wikimedia Foundation, who is a living and famous person. WooyiTalk to me? 02:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
He was blocked about 2 years ago when these edits occurred. Metros 03:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, how was that user blocked twice[[23]]? I see no unblocking just two indefinite blocks. Does this mean a user can be simultaneously blocked by more than one admin? Gdo01 03:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it used to be the case that a user could be blocked while already blocked. The first block to expire removed all blocks. The software was changed to prevent this quite some time ago.-gadfium 03:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Those poems were clearly a product of a diseased mind. — MichaelLinnear 05:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation of Usernames

Mr. Wales,
I have requested an username usurpation, which was denied. At the time, the bureucrat in question stated that she would not perform the change, but that 'someone else may do so'. I brought the question to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, and the consensus that the policy against usurpation of accounts with edits stands, even though the two edits in question were tests in the sandbox. The reason behind the policy, as Tango states here, is that 'The GDFL (sic) requires all edits to be accurately attributed, while that isn't impossible to achieve when usurping, it is difficult.' As I seem to have exhausted all avenues available to me, I am turning to you.

Is the GFDL really relevant in the instance of a test edit? I am certainly no expert on the GFDL, but I am guessing that you are, and might be able to shed some light on this. Would it make more sense for the policy to reflect edits made to mainspace articles, rather than any edit whatsoever? I can probably live with not getting the username I want, but it is difficult for me to accept that the name I want is just sitting there, and the only thing preventing me from using it is two test edits.

Thank you very much for your time. I know that you are very busy, and that this matter probably seems fairly trivial, but I am nonetheless very grateful for any consideration. If you would like me to pursue this matter in another way, or drop it entirely, I will, of course, honor your wishes.

Sincerely, EleosPrime 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: if we periodically deleted the sandboxes (in this case, Wikipedia:Introduction), then edits made to these areas would cease to show up in users' contributions. I can't see that such deletions would be a problem under the GFDL, or for vandal tracking. Does anyone value old edits to the sandboxes? Are there likely to be external links to old revisions which serve any useful purpose?-gadfium 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would support periodic deletion of inactive sandboxes of inactive users, on the above basis. (Inactive sandboxes of active users is different, as they can be recycled by the user.) If this would also solve the problem encountered by EleosPrime then that is a bonus. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC) ps. I also support EP's request, if only because it was so damn polite!

Giovanni di Stefano

Hi Jimbo. I've never bothered you before but while reading through my latest copy of Private Eye I found you name-checked with your personal deletion of the Giovanni di Stefano article. Wikipedia is becoming more and more referenced in Private Eye (twice so far this issue and I'm only on page 9!), so I imagine it won't be long before the articles referred to in question become targets for not only vandalism but quotations from Private Eye itself. I'm not sure of your reasons for deleting this article, I would have thought the subject was sufficiently notable with claims of him being a defence lawyer for individuals such as Ian Brady and Jeremy Bamber and with desires to take over Norwich City F.C.. Your deletion would on the face of it, and as reported by Private Eye, appear to have ulterior motivation. I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, other than to let you know what's happening in the British press. The Rambling Man 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, never mind. The talk page of the article seems to contain a response. The Rambling Man 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee Nysted requests that his user page and talk page be deleted per policy and guidelines

Here is the letter sent to isotope23 and Yamla. It was also sent to Obiterdicta. It was also sent to the Wikipedia office. Mr. Nysted hopes this will end it.

If it does not, the letter will be posted from Aruba; on Mr. Wales' talk page. 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, May 22, 2007

My user page has been altered to reflect a charge of being a Puppet Master. Although the user that has chosen to make this a crusade may be well within his rights to slap the badge on me, I suspect, he could have left the other information about me on said page.

I am hereby requesting, per Wikipedia policy, that my said account and all information about said account, be deleted. I have mailed an appropriate number of people (herein) who can bear witness to this request.

I have been the subject of vandalism, harassment, as well as, slander and libel, on Wikipedia. My good name, Lee Nysted, and my business associates have been wrongly accused of being puppets of various sorts, shapes and sizes.

I admitted last year to having been involved with Wikipedia and in order to use my real name, I attempted to have my name unprotected and unblocked. That happened, only to have the whole thing start again.

It is obvious that vandals and various cabals of administrators are intent on making a mockery of the project so I will not attempt to use my real name or likeness on Wikipedia at this time.

Re: Wikipedia and Lee Nysted:

I think what started last year as a swarm of vandals from MySpace attacking an attempt by someone to write an article about me, has now taken on a decidedly different tone.

People have been accused of puppetry that have stayed at the same hotel or live in the same community in Beaver Creek Colorado as I do. "Billy Bob Steakhouse." ??? Come on people. People from radio stations and web sites have been accused of being my puppets. The whole thing is really quite insane. It appears that even teens from a local college are involved with this mess. My drummer even took down his web site because someone is harassing him and his team on Wikipedia. I suspect there are people in my community (Illinois) that feel a need to tamper with things on Wikipedia. I have daughters in Illinois. I am quite sure my daughters and their friends have been active in all of this.

I have been in Aruba and will return to the U.S. for a brief time May 30, 2007. One of my firms has been accused of being a sock puppet? How can 20,000 people be accused of being a sock puppet? (Please see IP addresses of accused puppets.) Am I in St. Louis at the same time I am in Aruba? How was that proven? It was not. You are advertising that it is established.

Please end this. I am working on finishing a new album project and I do not want to have this whole Wikipedia issue involved with that, in any way.

Truly yours,

Lee Nysted

Courtesy Copies:

Lee Nysted Senior Vice President, Investments A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, Illinois U.S.A. Established 1887 Over 700 U.S.A. Offices Offices in London and Worldwide Member N.Y.S.E.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC. Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin (U.S.A.)

Tierra Del Sol, Aruba Dutch Caribbean<><><><>

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq.<>

Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, Illinois U.S.A.

S.D. 5-22-07

Your account can't be deleted. However, you do have a Right to vanish. Sean William 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Can this be construed as a legal threat? Corvus cornix 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Yes. Tell him to send it to OTRS if he has a problem. Until then, he needs to be blocked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Can we perhaps delete the links in there that serve nothing more than to promote his music? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC) I think I got most of them yesterday. I would have thought that Nysted and his sock/meat puppets would have given up by now, but they tried to readd them less than an hour later. I'm simply fed up with dealing with this, hence the "crusade" (tagging a few accounts, filing a checkuser). He was banned months ago, but just won't go away. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Excuse me, please? I am just the messenger. Mr. Nysted sent this via e-mail. He is in Aruba. He does not want an article and wants nothing to do with Wikipedia. Please delete the account per his request. That is my final statement on this issue. 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming. End of problem. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Checkuser confirmed. I indef blocked WhispersofWisdom and blocked the IP for a week; the IP appears to be static and thus safe to block for a longer time, but I'd like input from other editors before extending the block--I don't want to cause undue collateral damage. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try blocking it for a month at a time. The problematic edits are pretty easy to spot. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right to Vanish Per Wikimedia and Wikipedia

If you have used your real name, or a longstanding pen name, on Wikimedia projects then in principle everything you write can be traced to that name, and thus to you, as discussed above. However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. They are:

If you have made fewer than 200,000 edits, change your username to some other name, one which is not directly associated with you (see Changing username). Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself). Delete your user and user talk subpages (contact an administrator). (1) Add a brief note indicating that you have left Wikimedia projects and asking that people not refer to you by your name. You should note that while these measures afford a degree of practical obscurity, they will not stand up to assault from a persistent investigator, and Wikimedia projects has no control over its sublicensees, or over archiving services such as the Internet Archive or Google. Further, these actions require a degree of co-operation from the other users of the project, so Wikimedia cannot make guarantees on this matter. However, a few users have taken advantage of these kinds of measures in the past, and appear content with the results, which is enough reason for us to continue to offer this service.

See right to vanish (meatballwiki)

(1) This is the right Mr. Nysted is expecting to have accomplished per his letter. 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No administrator is required to take administrative action. Nobody is REQUIRED to delete said page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) You know something? Our Lee Nysted Experience has really, really sucked. We are not just dots in a computer screen. Given this, extra demands are not really clever. Moreschi Talk 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I gotta say, I hadn't heard the name Lee Nysted before this saga, but you can guarantee lthought I now know it, the mention brings a displeasurable taste to the mouth. ViridaeTalk 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I just saw the email this morning (I have extremely limited connectivity right now) & sent it along to the foundation for their consideration because I will quite likely be almost completely offline for then next couple of weeks and the copies to his legal council would denote at least an implied legal threat.--Isotope23 17:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) From Aruba: May 23, 2007

Mr. Nysted has asked politely to have his user name, user: Lee Nysted removed/deleted

He has also asked that his user talk page be deleted. That is all that should be required, per policy. Anything short of allowing Mr. Nysted the right that Wikimedia and Wikipedia state above, is a violation of normal policy. 02:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please allow Mr. Nysted to have his user page deleted, posthaste. Thank you. 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I had a bit of time to consider the original request I received via email and I just courtesy blanked the user/talk pages per the WP:VANISH request, but I left the {{banned}} banners intact as an administrative note. I don't have any access to fully delete a username, so I leave that up to you and the foundation if you see fit to do so.--Isotope23 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Cross-posted from WP:AN/I:
For the OTRS volunteer who has to handle this, some explanation of the above may be useful. Nysted has some idea that "MySpace vandals" participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Nysted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nysted Music, even though the sigs on the deletes there are mostly (in some cases almost entirely) from the usual xfD crowd.
His charge that his drummer (I assume he means Matt Walker.) was harrassed on-wiki is simply bizarre. Walker's site has been down for some time, but AFAIK, this has nothing to do with anything that happened on Wikipedia. I do not know of Matt Walker editing Wikipedia, nor do I know of any editor from Wikipedia who has contacted Walker.
Checkuser has established a number of sockpuppets that were used by Lee Nysted. Pretending to be a family member when confronted with a charge of sockpuppetry is fairly common, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone actually blaming his child before. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted both the userpage and the talkpage per the user's request. If this individual is truly done editing Wikipedia, then eliminating a page that would link to his real name is appropriate. The deleted pages of course remain accessible to administrators and can always be reinstated if there is any inappropriate activity in the future. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Let's hope this ends it. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To me, that is as beautiful as the idea of time standing still while we are young and healthy. Tierra del Sol, Aruba 5-24-07 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jimbo: I just want to say that this is an amazing place. I discovered Wikipedia through an on-line BBC article about a month ago, and have been addicted ever since! I've only written a few articles so far, but I can see this fast becoming an all-consuming passion! For one thing, I love to learn about all kinds of things, and this gives me the perfect excuse to bury my head in piles of books and reams of articles (you should see my study at the moment) and to write -- two things I love to do. Anyway, just wanted to say THANKS for having come up with the idea. I've already made some pretty good friends from all around the world! MeegsC | Talk 18:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I say the same thing. I started the last year on the Spanish Wikipedia and I started to write on this one too a few months ago. Is amazing how everything you need is covered here. Plus, is fun to write and collaborate to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for inventing this! :) --Bolt 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm currently watching your interview on the Colbert Report, it's good to see you on television! Hope to see more interviews from you! Kntrabssi 05:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

that was great, but you got nailed User: Colbert for life

Wikipedian deceased?

I was saddened when I come across User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's page and see his last edit was a farewell message indicating illness and possibility of death. He has made no further edits. I added him to Possibly deceased Wikipedians. Further inquiry may be helptful, thanks! WooyiTalk to me? 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The indef blocked sockmaster has since made two other edits... It's best to ignore him instead of spending time on it, IMO. Fram 10:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he did some wrong actions when editing, but now he may be dead. Anyone dying is a sad thing, even a vandal. If it end up that he really died, we should abate all the alleged wrongdoings and hope him rest in peace. Also, I skimmed through his edits, he seems to be a constructive prolific editor, and should not be indefbanned. Maybe we should posthumously unblock him? WooyiTalk to me? 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wooyi,

First off, let me apologize to Durova for posting this message. She wrote on her talk page a while back that if I write her a nice letter in four months, she might reinstate me, and so I'm not trying to evade my block by writing here and on her talk page, but I felt it absolutely necessary to respond somehow to Wooyi as I was made aware of this editor's concerns for me. Anyway, if you see my talk page, I have updated it accordingly to indicate that my health has drastically improved. That's not to say that I don't still have some problems (I can no longer eat nuts, popcorn, seeds, corn, berries, etc. and my stomach doesn't look too good), but I seem to be over the really dangerous problems. I sincerely appreciate your kind efforts and concerns, as you seem to be a really good and kind person, but I do NOT expect to be dying any time soon. I am completely out of the hospital at this point. Thus, if you wish to discuss anything further with me, please do so on my talk page. If you were curious why I was blocked, it was because I created two other accounts (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? and Horace Horatius) out of frustration. So, you can see their edit histories to better understand Durova's intentions. I'm trying to respect her block currently and her note that if I don't create any new accounts or whatever in four months to maybe get another chance. Therefore, again, I'm truly sorry for using an anonymous IP to post this, Durova, as I'm doing my best to avoid creating any new accounts (I have not created anything after the Horace Horatius one) or anything else in the hopes that maybe several months from now you'll give me one more chance as you suggested a month or so ago, but I wanted to save you and Wooyi unnecessary trouble on my account as I should be okay. Again, your concern and efforts are admirable and really touching and I feel bad to have to use a friend's computer to reply and I hope doing so in this circumstance won't anger Durova too much, but I hope that this clarifies my situation and wish you all a pleasant day. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. -- 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr Steel

Why was the Dr Phineas Waldolf Steel page deleted everytime it was made? And is now locked out. I think this deserves an answer from the creator of Wikipedia.

No, it doesn't. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel. I'm sure you already have, but I thought I'd say it anyway. That page isn't coming back, accept it. --Deskana (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also a (recovered) Ayn Randroid

I love Ayn too, and have since childhood when I was able to see her on TV appearances, in spite of a slow drip of revelations of her personal shortcomings which got a big splash with my recent discovery of her statement that homosexuality was 'disgusting'. The main disillusionment though is much more fundamental and has to do with her position of relative ignorance and disrespect with regard to the philosophical tradition generally (c.f. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen which for its part is quite respectful of her). Not to say that said tradition is undeserving of such disrespect but Rand is inconsistent in that she claims to trumpet the individual intellectual and yet her analysis of the state of the western philosophical tradition is quite limited and superficial and she is limited to it (i.e.the West). In particular although a fan of science and technology she seems to be largely ignorant of it and attempts to reform philosopy to be a worthy ground for it. "Objectivist Epistemology" for example sounds great if you don't know anything about Russel, Tarski, Goedel, Husserl, etc. and it still has some value if you do, but basically it comes up short as a fundamental contribution to human knowledge.

Ayn was essentially a reactionary but one to put the others to shame (cf. my entries at everything2 The Age of Mediocrity).Lycurgus 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at wikinews

We have a user requesting accreditation to attend the G8 summit, see our accreditation page for details. A letter effectively stating they represent us is required, and this doesn't fit with our accreditation policy. Can you help break the impasse and get us some photos and news from the G8? It'd likely end up with our guy being interviewed by the mainstream press as the first "indie" reporter at the event. --Brianmc 23:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's that or tell Eloquence to get packed and go. ;-) --Brianmc 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusations in sockpuppetry


I want to complain about unfounded aquisations in sockpuppetry which became a well-known and widespread way to "win" discussions. I added the following link [24] to the external links section of the C++ article. Most of the links at this page (41 of 50) are links to free webpages. Other 9 links give a choice to open a free webpage, or links to (with refids). Is this a spam??

Immediately the administrator Yamla called me spammer and vandal, threatened to ban me, and removed the link. I asked other people to speak about the topic. People who spoke in my favour (AnAccount2 and User:Red_Baron) were called my sockpuppets by either User:Yamla or Xerxesnine. They convinced others that I create a lot of sockpuppets which is a lie. I don't create any sockpuppets in the wikipedia. Period.

(Xerxesnine also uses threats and insults against both me and people who support me. He uses words like "petulant comment", "hassles", "puerile threats" - [25], "since this person is an especially persistent nuisance, I would be willing to pursue it myself." [26] My complaint about this was ignored by administrators and erased.)

Besides, people are scared to say anything in my favour, because they will be called sockpuppets and insulted (Xerxesnine uses words like . Sockpuppetry acquisations seems to be an unfallible tactics to "make one's point".

I cannot prove that I have no sockpuppets. Here is what is written on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser page:

Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" - Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask.

My complaint to the administrator's page was promptly erased.

So, anyone can declare anyone else to be my sockpuppet for any reason (or without reason at all), and there is nothing I can do about this.

Mr. Wales, please feel free to check my IP or any other data. I even can give my name and RL data to any checkuser (or to you). I strongly believe that the problem of sockpuppetry libels is serious, widespread and needs urgent attention. It is not the isolated incident. During the 3 years or so when I am in wikipedia, I saw about 10 unrelated cases when somebody had been accused in sockpuppetry without any reason, or with idiotic "reasons" like similarity of nicks. I myself was previously called a sockpuppet about 2 years ago when I wrote about violation of human rights by Fidel Castro (with references).

(Sorry for my English.)

--Urod 09:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (reworded Urod 09:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC) and Urod 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

PS: forgot to mention, the page in question is not mine, and I am in no way connected with its owner(s).

Unless they're interfering with your ability to edit, WP:DENY them. If they are, ask another admin (just someone who you tend to edit the same articles as, they've probably noticed you) for help in mediating or reporting them. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is very unpleasant that people spread lies about me (that I create sockpuppets), and others may believe them. I don't know any administrator who edits the same page. Besides, administrators also believe that I create tons of sockpuppets, and I doubt that they would mediate. Finally, how can I talk to people who call my posts "hassles" and me "an especially persistent nuisance" which should be "pursued"? Probably I'll get more insults and sockpuppets acquisations. --Urod 15:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Urod. If this helps at all, let me say that I don't think you use sockpuppets. (Requestion 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Besides, it is not only mine but a wikipediawide problem. I find it absurd that sockpuppet acquisations are permitted unrestrictedly (de facto), but checkuser requests from offended parties are prohibited. --Urod 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps remind them of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You have to remember, in 90% of these cases, they're good people, but they're just jaded from doing it. They might not want to take a wikibreak, but they're overworked to the point where they become bitter at things. Trust me, i've had it happen to me, although I prescribe to a strong policy of "WP:DONTGIVEASHIT". -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Xerxesnine explicitly wrote that he/she doesn't assume good faith in my case. --Urod 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that they are interfering with their ability to edit, since Yamla removed the links, and likely will remove them again if Urod reverts the removal. A.Z. 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

admin abuse

the admin Fang Aili continuely deleted my artical titled "A2K5 Inc.", it's about my company, and blocked its recreation. there was no hint of advertising in any way, i only made it because i have a lot of people who check out my stuff and i decided to make an article on here about it, telling how it has grown up over the past years. i really wish for my article to stay active so i can add more on my company as it grows even more. and to let u know, i am not trying to sell a single thing through Wikipedia, i can do that for my self out of my own home, i dont need the internet for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenton (talkcontribs)

If your company is important enough, then later or sooner another person will write the article. The self-promotion articles are not well received. Bolt 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore, since it's blocked from recreation. SakotGrimshine 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who wants it recreated can make an article in their userspace and ask an admin to unsalt it. If there's cause for an article, someone will. WilyD 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps you can use this word for Wikipedians who are on here and writing and editing WAY too much, unless of course it's already on a humor article somewhere I couldn't find. Hmmm now we need a 12 Step Program for that one. WayneRay 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Well, there's Wikipediholism... — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 18:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SCOX messageboard

Jimbo, I reluctantly call your attention to WP:AN#Sophisticated anti-Merkey attack machine, WP:AN#Anti-Merkey poster claims passed RfA, threatens bio. You are probably well aware that I have nothing in particular to do with Mr. Merkey, but these developments are morally disgusting and hideously subversive. Wikipedia must not be a platform for harassment and defamation of living people. Strong action is warranted.Proabivouac 07:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

international symbols: fair use or copyright with permission?

This has once again been brought up by the International Symbol of Access debate. It's currently loaded as a fair use image, so it's used in one article, and every other article which wants to use it (plus userboxes) had been using a free alternative created by a Wikipedian: Handicapped/disabled access.

The discussion got restarted when the free alternative image was the template was changed to use unicode (the symbol is assigned codepoint U+267F) which now leaves most people seeing a ?.

see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is it appropriate to make people download a font to see an "unfree" unicode codepoint?

The discussion got back to whether or not we could use the actual image when I quoted the NEW RESOLUTION ON USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESS and said some disparaging things about wikipedia's handling of the matter:

"The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users."

I obviously both have strong views of why an alternative is not acceptable in the matter of the ISA, and I have strong views as on Wikipedia and the use of copyrighted images where permission exists. Which is at the moment, neither here nor there, as I'm primarily concerned that our policies reflect one thing, and that sometimes, our actions another.

For example: Euro images are uploaded under a special tag just for euros, that details both the copyright and the permission given. They aren't treated as fair use images, but used in multiple articles.

Apparantly the words, "regardless of their licensing status" in the EDP is what has kept any change from being made to policy--and if you agree that we should not make an exception for international images, I am fine to agree to disagree with you on long as it applies equally to all international images. I am very bothered by the knowing and willing hypocrisy of Wikipedia editors.

Since editors on both sides of this debate seem frozen by the EDP, I would appreciate it if you could clarify your stance on the usage of copyrighted internation symbols that we have the legal permission to use--so that we could either make the necessary changes to policy and create new usage templates and hopefully stop debating the ISA, or so that we could go through and clean up the places we are using copyrighted international symbols under the permissions granted (like the over 200 euro images).

Thank you, Miss Mondegreen talk  19:23, May 22 2007 (UTC)


Do not waste your time writing a message to me.

I am no longer in support of Wikipedia and have joined the ranks of those who oppose it.

--ElectricEye (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh kaaay. Anyone know what this is about?--Jimbo Wales 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This??? (Clutching at straws) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's not that, the user has been away since Jan 15th and came back today to withdraw support from wikipedia.... weird. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why would he write this on a banned sock users page because I remember this user said on IRC that he will send a letter of apology Jimbo Wales to unban him so that he could edit again a few days ago and then why is Electric Eye referring to that message unless he was one of the sock..Only god knows the answer to that question :)..--Cometstyles 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You're a Jimbotheist? 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good essay on BADSITES policy

Have you read this essay? I believe it addresses the issue very well and I think the community would be interested in your opinion on the essay and/or the policy that it discusses. Cla68 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Masha Allen


I have never written you before, but I am asking that you restore the Masha Allen article (as well as Matthew Mancuso). They were carefully and neutrally written about a difficult subject. Yet User:Phil Sandifer somehow felt they were an invasion of privacy (did she complain to us? He refuses to say) and deleted them without a vote.

I have never believed bad things people say about administrators, until now. Please help me keep my faith here. Wiki'dWitch 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you the pertinent details of this one. It is probably worth your attention. Phil Sandifer 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, I am a person who create russian article about Masha and I wonder why english verion was deleted. Russians are very sensitive on violence over russian childs in America and this deletion seems very dirty action. --Evgen2 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


May i know the reason why this user has been blocked. i didn't get the reason. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 13:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Usernames can't imply that the user is a real, specific person (except in the case where they actually are). WilyD 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[editconflict] Sushant, it's because this is the name of an actor who happens to be famous in the United States. Cult of the Sacred Or_nge

Follow up

Greetings Mr. Wales,

I noticed that my request was recently archived, but I never received a reply. If a decision has yet to be made, please just let me know that the request has been received.

Thank you.

EleosPrime 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's Jimbo's way of saying that he doesn't wish to comment on the matter, if you have a specific issue with usurpation, I suggest you take it to WT:CHU/U. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see... I was sorta blithely hoping it was more of a 'no news is good news' kind of a thing. :) Thanks for letting me know. EleosPrime 09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Censorship at Wikipedia

I just went through a frightening experience. I ventured onto the Anti-Armenianism page, did not agree with the presented thesis, but feared my comments would not be allowed to remain; Armenians and their supporters have hijacked Wikipedia to present their propaganda exclusively. I thought I would have no problem in the Talk section, and my basic point was that if someone studies the actual history of these events and concludes the events did not amount to a racial extermination policy, that in no way could amount to "anti-Armenianism," or racism. Literally minutes after my two contributions, someone named Aivazovsky did away with my thoughts, citing "Removing flame bait." (Please note the May 31 entries in this page's history section.)

This has nothing to do with "flame bait removal," but out and out thought control. It goes against the very core of what Wikipedia should be representing, the search for and presentation of factual information. And the speed with which this censorship was practiced was simply astounding. As if these tenacious thought control agents are lying in wake, guarding against any questioning of their version of events. (I believe this person even fixed it so that I could no longer contribute to this page. Not that I would want to; I would never be able to match this person's obsession, because I have a "life" to attend to.)

Mr. Wales, the majority of people naively have accepted the validity of the "Armenian genocide," simply because of such tenacity, censorship and thought control practiced across-the-board in most Western societies, where Armenians have infiltrated positions of influence. (Aided by an age-old prejudice against the accused party, the Turks.) But as you would no doubt be the first to agree, majority opinion can never substitute for the truth. The truth comes only from digging underneath the easy surface.

In case you have also been duped, I would urge you to look at objective sources to see what truly transpired during these tragic years of WWI. Real historians, and not one-sided, agenda pursuing "genocide scholars," have been intimidated away, because dogmatic believers such as Aivazovsky use underhanded tactics. Even if you have been among the many who have been seduced to believe in the validity of this supposed genocide (please read, for example, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide," a 2005 book written by a genuine scholar who considers all information, not simply the readily available propaganda. The author is Prof. Guenter Lewy, who also happens to be a Holocaust survivor; he has not whitewashed anything), and do something about this pro-Armenian mafia that has attained such incredible control at Wikipedia.

Not only are they chipping away at the credibility of Wikipedia, but think of the morality. They are accusing a party (in this case, a nation) of mass murder. What if they are wrong? They are getting away with a perpetuation of tremendous racism and hatred, enabling Wikipedia to be an accomplice in their evil. You must look into this, and you must take the control away from these thought-monopolizing pro-Armenians. Scannie 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason for the deletion of your comments. Refactoring of talk pages is done only in extreme cases. I have restored your comment in that talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jossi. Allow me to request of you to revert my second comment as well, under the heading "There is no anti-Armenianism." We will see whether such changes will be allowed to remain under the hands of those pharisees such as Aivazovsky, the policing of whom is a task in itself. However, the restoration of comments is nothing compared to the core problem. If Mr. Wales does not keep an eye on his discussion page, and if anyone is in the position of making him aware of the pro-Armenian abuse at Wikipedia, PLEASE bring it to his attention; it is that serious. Scannie 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You can restore your other comment yourself. The user that deleted your comments has apologized. As for your other concerns, you will need to address these with the editors engaged in editing that article. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have placed some pointers in your talk page so that you can become familiar with this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Scannie's objective seems to be to harass the Armenian editors on Wikipedia and his goal appears to be "cleansing" the Armenians from Wikipedia completely. -- Aivazovsky 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to escalate this and start a flame war here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice...

Hi Jimbo,

Ich lerne Deutsch auch, und ich werde gehen an Deutschland auf Sonntag lernen mehr davon! I'm a huge fan of both you and Wikipedia, and was hoping for some advice. My primary work is reverting vandalism and I was wondering if you could answer a few questions for me:

  • How do I delete images? I often see nonsensical and orphaned image on Wikipedia.
  • Is there a "standard" template warning to add to a vandal's talk page?
  • Is it bad faith to delete senseless discussions on articles' discussion pages?

Ich danke Ihnen sehr viel, --MosheA 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't delete images directly, but you can add template and an admin will look into it. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.
  • Starndard user warnings: WP:UW and WP:UWT
  • Deleting anything from the talk page is frowned upon, except vandalism and perhaps personal attacks. Offtopic discussion should probably just be ignored, or you could post "please stay ontopic" (or something).
--h2g2bob (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment (if I may edit this page).

Be proud of how far your project has come, and what you have done for free information for every person in the world. SalaSkan 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you can edit his user page doesn't mean you should. If you want to address Jimmy, this is the page to do it.--cj | talk 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia Reform

Sorry, I can't translate it.

Following is a Korean text about Wikipedia Reform:

    • 제가 사실, 영어를 잘 못해서 그러는데, 위키피디아 창립자가나 재단이 저작권을 잘 모르는 거 같습니다. 원래 위키피디아에서 공정사용을 차단하는게 원칙이고 예외적으로 개별적으로 허용할 수 있다고 한 건, 매우 어처구니없는 일이었죠. 전세계에서 다 공정사용은 기본으로 인정되는데, "더 자유롭게"를 표방한 위키피디아가, 전세계가 다 인정하는 공정사용을, "공정사용은 금지가 원칙" 이라고 프로젝트를 추진하였는데, 넌센스입니다. 가장 자유롭게를 표방하면서, 전세계가 다 기본으로 인정하는 자유를 "금지" 시켜버린...넌센스죠. 어처구니없는 일입니다.
    • 저작권옹호론과 반대되는 것은 카피레프트론이나 GFDL론이나 뭐가 아니고...원래 오래 전 부터...ko:저작권 사상과 반대되는 사상이 있었죠. 그걸 미국에서는 ko:공정 사용 사상이라고 하는데, 그건 미국인들 단어고, 전세계에 다 있습니다. 저작권과 반대되는 안티저작권...저작권자 허락에 상관없이 무단으로 저작물을 사용하는 자유...이 사상은 기본적으로 어느나라나 다 있는 거죠. 그걸, 가장 자유롭게 운운하면서 프로젝트를 출범시켜놓고, 다 막아놨죠.
    • 내가 보기엔, 위키피디아가 직접민주주의 비슷하게 운영되어서, 아무래도 미국 저작권 보호협회 알바생틀의 집단 투표와 주장에 ko:지미 웨일즈가 넘어간 느낌이 큽니다.
    • 아니면, 전세계 전부가 다 인정하는게 공정이용인데...이건? 미국꺼거든? 다른나라는 안되거든? 하면서 다 차단시켜놓은 거...쉽게 말해 미국만 공정이용이 되고 다른 나라는 안 된다는 소리를...좀 우회적으로 했는데...미국 저작권 협회쪽에서 작업을 건 느낌이 많이 듭니다.
    • 공정사용은 전세계 어느나라나 다 인정합니다. 막펌질의 자유죠. 어느나라나 다 인정합니다. 어떻게 아냐구요? ko:공정 사용에 대표적인 것이 ko:인용이죠. 인용이 금지되는 언론사가 세계에 존재한다구요? 넌센스죠. 공정 사용은 "기본값"으로, 전세계 어디서나 다 인정디는 "자유"인데...세상에서 가장 "자유"로운 프로젝트를 만들자고 위키피디아 프로젝트를 출범시켜놓고, 희한한 논리에 빠져서, "공정 사용"을 금지가 원칙이고 예외적으로 개별적으로 허용을 논의할 수 있다는 식으로...전세계에서 가장 비자유스런 정책을 만들었죠. 누가 들으면, 웃을 일인데...한마디로 어이없습니다. 제가 영어를 못해서 이런 일이 일어났는지도 모르겠군요. ㅎㅎ
    • 혹시 어떤 언어판 위키피디아에서는 논문이나 신문이나 저서의 인용이 금지되는 곳이 있다구요? 신기한 나라군요. 그리고 인용은 텍스트 인용만 인용이 아니라 사진 인용 동영상 인용 사운드 인용도 다 인용입니다. 그런데...텍스트 인용은 전세계 언어판 위키피디아가 다 되는데...그 외의 인용은 다 금지된다? 넌센스죠...이거 저작권에 완전 무지하거나, 아니면 저작권 옹호론자들의 궤변에 넘어갔거나 기타등등의 어이없는 일이 발생한 것으로 보입니다.
    • 원래, 텍스트 인용하는 거 금지되는 나라가 없듯, 사진이건 동영상이건 사운드건 뭐건...모든 저작물은 무단 인용이 됩니다. 그거 금지하는 나라는 없습니다. ko:북한까지도 가입한, 왠만한 나라 다 가입한 ko:베른 협약에서 명문 조항으로 ko:인용을 규정하고 있지만, 그거 가입 안한 나라도 인용은 다 허락됩니다. 미국인들의 공정사용이라는게, 쉽게말해 인용을 말하죠. 저작권자 동의없이 통지도 없이 무단으로 펌질하는 거...전세계가 다 인정합니다. 어느정도 제한을 두기는 하죠. 무제한이면 저작권이 존재할 수 없으니까요.

-- WonYong (talk contribs count logs email) 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Try, --h2g2bob (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Babelfish gives me:
o I cannot a fact and English well and that le place, up height blood D Oh establishment own house or the foundation does not know a copyright well and well! it is same. That height blood D above original Oh from it intercepts a process use to principle and it will be able to permit exceptionally individually, one case and very U wife it acts the day when it is not Uss cyo. From the whole world multi process use the place where it is recognized in basic, it professes "place height blood D baby whom more freely", the whole world multi the process use which it recognizes, "process use the prohibition propelled" as this project of principle, is the sense which spreads out. It professed most freely, the whole world recognizes in multi basic the freedom which and "prohibition" it made it threw away... the sense which spreads out cyo. U wife it acts it is one which is not. The o copyright support Ron and being opposed copy ley phu thu Ron or GFDL Ron or is not what... original long from before...ko: Copyright thought and the thought which is opposed Iss Uss cyo. That from the United States which it will hang the ko: As process use thought the place where it does, the case American wild word, all it is in the whole world. Copyright and inside being opposed, mote copyright... the higher officer without the freedom which uses the literary work with no permission... basically which country B all there is this thought to copyright sleeping permission, well! cyo. That it hangs, most freely the fortune canal it leaves it puts,, it closes all, a project and nwass cyo. The o I will see to, up height blood D baby direct democracy to be similarly operated, in group poll and assertion of the lifestyle frame which American copyright protection association will know anyway the ko: The impression which supremely beautiful Wales goes over is big. The o when is not, the whole world whole recognizes multi to the place where it is a process use... this case? The United States it put out and it helped? If the different country does not become? It does and multi it intercepts and it puts and and well!... it talks easily and only the United States becomes the process use and the different country does not become sound but... petty bypass... work case impression holds plentifully from the American copyright association piece. The o process use the whole world which country B multi it recognizes. Just phem question freedom cyo. Which country B multi it recognizes. It is how Oh nya nine bedspreads? ko: In process use representative thing ko: Reference cyo. Nine bedspreads where the press where the reference is forbidden exists in the world? The sense which spreads out cyo. Process use "the whole world where it stands but the multi human nature D" freedom "the place where is... from the world make a fortune project in head of a family" freedom ", up height blood D Oh leaves a project with basic price and", it puts, to the logic which it limits huy it falls in, "process use" the prohibition principle and exceptionally individually it will be able to discuss a permission with... Uss who a most non-freedom will make be policy from the whole world cyo. Cumulation it will listen to, the first person place where it will laugh... there is not U in single word. I could not English and like this day should have happened, it will not know. The o place height blood D which what kind of language it sells maybe Oh from nine bedspreads which are the place where the reference of dissertation or the newspaper or the book is forbidden? Energy one country army bedspread. And reference only text reference the reference knows photograph reference eastern image reference sound reference is multi reference. But... the text reference the whole world language is place height blood D baby whom it sells and the place... the reference of that outside is forbidden multi? The sense which spreads out cyo... well! is complete and ignorant in copyright, or it is not, with the fact that the day when U of the other etc. which it goes over in deceptive talk of the copyright support Ron sleeping field, or there is not occurs. The o original and text refers well! the country which is forbidden is not, the photograph the case eastern image case sound case what case... all literary works no permission reference becomes. That well! is not a country which it forbids. ko: Even until North Korea it joined, wayn the country enough multi joins the ko: which From Bern agreement with distinguished family provision ko: It provides a reference, inside the well! joining one country the reference is allowed multi. It is a process use of Americans to, easily to talk, reference under end cyo. Copyright sleeping motion also the notice phem quality does without without with no permission and well!... the whole world recognizes multi. It puts which degree limit under cyo. The copyright which when is limitless will be able to exist the bedspread.
Automated translation still has its problems. *Dan T.* 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Limitless copyright lets bedspreads exist? Cool. I love automated translators. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"...all literary works no permission reference becomes." Yoda discussing the Jedi Handbook after he's had too much to drink? 6SJ7 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I know using abusive sockpuppets are bad but is having more then 1 account? I play many games like runescape and its allowed i was just curious if its allowed here im sorta new and if I could get a link to the rules I've been looking but I must be blink ^.- heh

Sorry i didin't sign... 666god666 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Our sockpuppet policy is outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC opened on a dispute that you were involved with

Hi Jimbo! I've just opened an RfC about my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with late last year. Here's a link to the discussion to refresh your memory: [27]. The RfC is here if you'd like to comment or ask me any questions. CLA 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can articles really go unsourced since 05/2004?

I posted this with a help tag. where has help gone? and reposted to wp:assist

I stumbled across, House of Windsor and found a complete re-write of UK history. Other editors have seen the same problem. I cursed a lil left the offending sections on talk and deleted them. The only references were on a heraldry site and i think he had taken the info from wikipedia. The nonsense had been on site since May 2004 See Edit log and was posted by User:Garryq. Do I report it him? Can I ask that all editors on that site get a 24hour ban for unsourced articles? help plz Mike33 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just amazed! This is complete fantasy and nobody has bothered to notice? The Queen of England summoning parliament that she would style herself how she wanted? It has sat on that page with admins in and out restyling! NOT BOTS, ADMINS. Not a single sentence was queried.

I'd just wikiban every single editor who fell for it (including me) (24 hours enough) but articles like this suck and poor guys have quoted us on web pages. Mike33 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is generally done to protect the encyclopedia rather than as a punitive measure - see WP:BLOCK. Articles go unsourced if nobody takes any action about it, so thanks for doing so. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a new line@foundation

I have a better idea to replace "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." at the foundation wiki... try this line, or something like it:

"All my project; my thirty thousand men with their wives and children, are devoting themselves to the preparation of an "Encyclopedia Galactica." They will not complete it in their lifetimes. I will not even live to see it fairly begun."

-Foundation, chapter 1 section 6

I find the fact that Wikimedia has a heck of a lot more then 30000 people very funny. Copyright may be a problem though. W1k13rh3nry 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse

Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#FCYTravis to see whether his administratorship should be revoked?--Jorfer 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, he hasn't misused any tools, and for that matter, AGF should mean that you assume fCYTravis has done nothing wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The talk page message could certainly be seen as trolling, but there's no logical reason for a desysopping or any other action beyond JEF simply removing it if he feels so inclined. --BigDT 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that he acted outside official channels and he was caught in a lie (he said that he saw the anoynomous IP do it and then he made fun of it when the history shows he edited first.). How can such an adminstrator be trusted with blocking users? What if he is blocking users he doesn't personally agree with?--Jorfer 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about? FCYTravis, according to his userpage is in California, and the IP was in Pennsylvania, is that not proof enough that he didn't do it? Minor technological flaws such as that are not reasons to desysop an admin, you're disruption is borderline trolling now. — Moe ε 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
He said he saw your userbox and decided to comment on it. Not that he saw an IP vandalise your userbox and decided to comment on it. --pgk 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You can look at his admin logs with these links - FCYTravis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If he is abusing the admin tools by blocking users without cause, I would be the first to call for his removal. Simply having a point of view is not sufficient cause for removal. I am a born again Christian, but I respect even those editors with whom I strongly disagree. --BigDT 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, that is all I needed to see. You cannot expect me not to suspect such when the timing is so strangely coincidential. I misunderstood his story but he should not handled the userbox with the talk page post and accusations of bigotry; he could have just put it up for templates for deletion.--Jorfer 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Special indulgence sought

Last year, in an effort to get an article to better conform to reality, I (editing as User:WordBomb) violated policy by attaching an editor's real name to his Wikipedia username(s) and consequently was blocked forever and ever. Fair enough. Had I known the outcome would be so severe, I likely would have taken a more traditional approach. But I was new to the project and I didn't understand the consequences, and that's fine because there are worse things than being prohibited from editing Wikipedia.

What greatly bothers me is to now watch User:Cla68 one of the more exemplary editors I've ever seen on this project (and who currently finds himself in the midst of an RfC relating to the events leading up to his recent failed RfA), endure punishment as an accused "associate" of mine, when he is no such thing. In making her case to the contrary, User:SlimVirgin has dramatically mischaracterized several facts unopposed, because I alone can offer the "other side."

Problem is, I'm not allowed to do so.

I'm asking for a special indulgence to contribute to Cla68's RfC, in order to counter what I perceive as inaccurate (and easily proven as such) claims relating to me and any relationship I supposedly have with Cla68. I don't care about anything else and will not address any other topic and will go away once I've made my points. I come to you because I feel several members of the ArbCom are conflicted on this topic and cannot be counted on to act objectively.

If Cla68 would rather I not contribute to his RfC, I will honor his request.

Mr. Wales, I have nothing to gain or lose by requesting this, other than to satisfy my innate need to see people treated fairly. --Tabula Plena 23:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like Wikipedia join to this campaign

Hello, Mr. Wales:

Maybe I'm making a mistake but I think that Wikipedia must join to the campaign to free Emmanuel.

Emmanuel is the son of Clara Rojas, partner of Íngrid Betancourt, who were kidnapped by FARC in 2002. In captivity Mrs. Rojas got pregnant and gave birth a baby named Emmanuel. Since that day Mrs. Rojas and her baby are in somewhere in Colombia's jungle suffering a lot of pain.

¡This baby was born without freedom and must be freed together with his mom!

I propose Wikipedia to join to the worldwide campaign for the unconditioned releasing of Mrs. Rojas and her son, Emmanuel who, as I said above, are kidnapped by FARC in inhuman conditions in the jungle.

The world must know now who really are the FARC. They are not freedom fighters, they're only lawless, Godless and heartless criminals.


--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misconstruing the nature and purpose of Wikipedia if you think it's proper for it, as a site and organization, to "join" causes of any sort, no matter how noble and right they are. *Dan T.* 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia debe unirse a la campaña por la liberación del pequeño Emmanuel quien nació en cautiverio. Su madre, Clara Rojas, fue secuestrada junto a Íngrid Betancourt. Rojas tuvo un niño en cautiverio llamado Emmanuel estando secuestrada por las FARC y, por ende, ese nené nació sin libertad.

Propongo que Wikipedia se una a la campaña por la liberación unilateral y sin condiciones de Emmanuel y de Clara Rojas, su mamá, quienes están como rehenes de las FARC.

¡Libertad para Emmanuel y Clara Rojas! Que la humanidad sepa quiénes son, de una vez por todas, realmente las FARC.


--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is any body elses business. It is addressed to Mr Wales, so why do other users think they have the right to comment on something they know absolutely nothing about!

About WP:NOT

Hi, Mr, Wales I am one of the proud user here on wikipedia. And I am writing to you because I don't know who to turn to.

I am recently warned by another user about violation of WP:NOT#PUBLISHER and he threaten to have me blocked for that violation. What I did is just to update sport score a few minute before a game actually end. Now, is that violate the rule he point out. Since I feel I didn't violate the rule, and I am trying to maintain wikipedia, I try to reason with him about this. But he insist that I break the rule and threaten admin intervention. Now, as far as I know, WP:IAR states that rules should be ignore, if it is for the improvement of wikipedia. So according to this rule, what I did is not wrong. I await your opinion in this matter. and thanks for your time. Chris 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it is me again. I just want to tell you one more thing. User:Ksy92003 talks to an admin named User:Wizardman. I don't know if he is going block me for what I did because it seems to me he pretty much agree with him. All I want to say is that I know u are busy. When you see this message, please look into this matter because I am innocent and his action against me is wrong. I have been making some good edits here and I don't want to lose that because of a small problem. Thanks again. I want to talk to you especially because I feel like all the other dispute resolving methods won't work if he got an admin working his way. Chris 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to brother you. This issue is now temporarily resolved. Chris 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Can I have your Autograph?
Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

nice grey beard patch ya got there jimmy --AnYoNe! 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's intent confuses me

I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. Wikipedia seems not to be what you, yourself, intended at this point. There does seem to be an in-crowd who exert control; perhaps, without your knowledge, they are hired and paid by corporations to oversee certain sites. Indeed, I have found Wikipedia to be an unfriendly, contentious place for us newcomers. This, I suspect, is not what you want it to be. Alfred Legrand 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, please indicate what articles you are talking about so that we can check those accusations. But please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. This is a voluntary job, just like for all editors, and admins don't get paid for it. As a newcomer who has been around since at least september 2006, youy should by now know that articles need WP:RS reliable sources, so not things like Urban Dictionary, which you used in Mansiere. It is this kind of bad or absent sourcing that usually gets articles deleted, not payment by any corporations (why would any vorporation want the article on Mansiere to be deleted?). Fram 08:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

News media photos

Jimbo, there are currently two deletion review discussions taking place pertaining to news media photos that were being used under a claim of fair use. The first, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_30#Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg, while inappropriate, but rather benign as far as legal liability, is a photo taken during the Vietnam war. The second, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_29#Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg, is an AP photo from only a few years ago. In neither case is the photo iconic - they merely happen to depict an event relevant to the topic.

It is my view (IANAL) that, except for iconic photos like Iwa Jima, the Kent State shootings, etc, using news media photos without permission and without paying royalties constitutes a serious copyright violation that can get us into a lot of trouble and that no consensus can change this legal reality.

Would it be possible to have either a formal legal opinion from the Foundation or even an informal statement from you regarding the use of news media photos? If I am wrong, I would like to know that, and if I am right, it would be appreciated if someone in a position to say so could intervene in this issue. Thank you. --BigDT 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer too. FYI, photos as iconic as Iwo Flag Raising have been deleted for copyright. For example, Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald, which won a Pulizter just like the Iwo photo, has been repeatedly deleted from Oswald and Ruby articles, and JFK articles. The irony of this is great, inasmuch as the print quality used to ADVERTISE it on the net (for example at Amazon: [28]) would be quite good enough to use, as is, in Wikipedia. So where is the loss of revenue to the photographer, when widely available public net advertising level of detail is used? Beats me. But somebody has a bug up their fanny about this photo, and until they die or Wikipedia changes their mediation policy, you won't see it here. SBHarris 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You might want to consider that we have an article on the image Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but we don't have an article on the shooting photo. --Carnildo 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably we would if we could USE the &%$# thing! There's a fair amount of interesting history on how the Jackson photo was taken, as there is with any Pulitzer work, but there's no point in presenting it without illustration. So you're not going to be reading it here. SBHarris 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I really wish we could have a "thou shalt not" from the foundation or at least any response here. Even an "I don't care, but thanks for asking" from Jimbo would be better than nothing. The DRVs right now basically consist of "if I close my eyes and hum real loudly, then copyright problems will go away". Nobody questions the use of famous photos (provided that they aren't being used merely for decorative purposes in an article only tangentally related). But if it's just an ordinary photo that nobody who didn't read the newspaper has seen, we can't use it. It doesn't matter how much we want to. It doesn't matter how irreplaceable it is. It would be nice if we could get a formal imprimatur from the foundation saying as much. --BigDT 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
One of these, by the way, is back on IFD at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_4#Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg. Jimbo or anyone from the Foundation, it would be nice to have a Jimbo ex Machina statement here. If our processes are incapable of screening out obvious copyvios, then some kind of outside intervention is necessary. --BigDT 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice

It would be really nice if admins and editors currently involved in this ongoing dispute about WP:BLP and how to apply those policies, what to speedy delete, etc, would actually discuss policy first and agree to some better laid out rules, instead of deleting first and then getting into arguments about the deletions and policies after. I have not paid much attention to this dispute and I am completely neutral about it. But I feel that good faith editing is being speedily deleted as careless casualties of this dispute, when AfDs may have been more appropriate, or at least a "prod" tag. Some articles probably deseved speedy deletions, but I think we've reached a point in this dispute where admins are speedily deleting too hastily because they need to advance their side of the dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True I accept. There is a new admin ^demon, who has been on a deleting spree of fair use images using bots. There is no warning, no discussions, no deadlines for proving points. I strongly believe that the admin is at fault, however information is lost and is difficult to restore, lots of procedures. It would be great if the policy is made in such a way that atleast 1 day is given in notice before it is deleted. Just want Wikipedia to be a reliable place. Saravana Kumar K 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am more concerned about good faith and sourced editing being deleted without warning. I understand the importance of WP:BLP, but many of these articles that are being used as battlegrounds for this BLP dispute are not hoaxes and attack pages. What has happened is that articles are being speedily deleted and then listed for WP:DRV, with people voting to "keep deleted" because they think there's a lack of notability or because they think it's unencyclopedic, essentially creating a sort of AfD where we need to reach consensus to keep instead of consensus to delete. Realistically, these reasons such as notability should be cited at an AfD instead of at a DRV of a speedily deleted article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


A lot of people and I have problems concerning user User:TTN. We all need your help. He is callously deleting articles (escpecially episode articles) with little warning, and he is alienatng thousands upon thousands of Wikipedians. He and his supporters claim they're doing the right thing, but the other Wikipedians, including myself, say othewise. Angie Y. 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I checked his contribution log and I didn't find anything recent that would warrant Jimbo's attention. 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, diect him him to here and here. That should explain everything. I am SICK of TTN and his/her followers. Everyone I have ran into is freakin' sick of this--whoever. TTN doesn't even add anything to his/her userpage and is very stuck-up and arrogant! Angie Y. 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this matter here -- 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone...

Does anyone know how I can add the "[edit]" back on my page? I lost it when I reformatted my user page. And where can I find different pics for my navbar? Thanks, guys! Gdk411 02:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it. You had __NOEDITSECTION__ in User:Gdk411/Navbar. Having that in there causes pages that transclude that template to not have section edit links. --BigDT 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

When is his birthdate?

I wanna know! His Wikipedia page only says "1966" with no month or day.... Viper2k6 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a long story. Don't ask. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll spill the WP:BEANS. :) Jimbo says he was born on day X, but his written records say he was born on day X + 1. After a WP:LAME dispute between Jimbo and others, everyone decided to drop the issue. I read this at 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
…which is not usually very accurate from what I've read on it. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
They're right about the things that matter though. --MichaelLinnear 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A question about Primetime

My first message here ...

I was wondering, as a lowly common user--how would we go about getting Primetime banned by the Foundation? Perusing his history, I would think that if you've been banned for copyvios and have been proven to have engaged in harassment and you haven't been banned Wikimedia-wide, you'd better be. That's assuming the Foundation hasn't banned him already.--Blueboy96 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Smile For Jimbo!

Samir Patel 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreaterWikiholic (talkcontribs) 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


hello how are u? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About Turkish Wikipedia

Hi Jimbo. First I want to tell sorry for my bad english and this long letter. I am very simple user from Turkish wikipedia for nearly 9 months. During my first 6 months i didn’t join any serious discussion even elections. My aim was just spend my time for better and inform my people about soviet culture. Because i started to live in Ukraine from that time. Everything begun when i saw one user etrusk who has 30.400 edits and opened more then 20,000 page. 1 was blocked completely. And I decided to join to discussions. A lot of people were against about this decision. Because one night suddenly our bureaucratDbl2010 write a message and told he noticed that he was puppet of one old user who was also blocked mounts ago because of one other reason. And there was no enough proof even any. For me it was just `I did`. I didn’t have any relation with this blocked man but i thought i had right to know more. A lot of people told different things good and bad. I was just defending being fair because this execution punishment is very heavy punishment and there must be real and very strong proofs. For me bureaucrat didn’t show enough proof. I and a lot of people also thought like this. During this time I changed for worse with their manner. One administer told me wikipedia is not experiment of democracy. But i think we must comment on this as we prefer discussion in spite of voting. It doesn’t tell wikipedia is not democratic. What do we have to do if we think something is wrong. And then I received mail from same administer. She told that I hadn’t seem bad man but I had to believe them. I told there can be some doubts but as rule we mustn’t hang someone with feelings. And I requested for chekuser. We have only one active chekuser. She also told same things. She couldn’t find any similarity between their IP addresses, because other user was very old. And I complained this bureaucrat more than 1 moths ago because of blocking someone without enough proof. But still there is no decision about my complaint. During this time around this discussion a lot of people was blocked. They also was thinking and defending that this blocking decision was not right. Some of them also were blocked because of using and being puppet. And with this new blocking also new discussions started. And again a lot of people were blocked. Sometimes we all get angry and lose our control. Turkish wikipedia is out of control I think recently.

Such kind of things can be understood but at least one administer used word of 1 head of military coup "Should we feed them rather than hanging them". I want to explain you also something here; In Turkish language there are two words for "feed" for human and for animal. He changed this sentence and use word which is for animals. And then nothing happened the women who complained this administer was also blocked for one week. Because she told there is oligopedia in Turkish vikipedia. (Oligopedia was derived from words vikipedia and oligarchy). She was very angry also because of another reason. One other administer told before in public page that he really wanted her to leave vikipedia but he cant accuse her very strongly. And one day later i was also blocked because i told "i will tell there is oligopedia in Turkish vikipedia if i see such kind of behavings. Because i want better and better wikipedia." I have been already thinking to leave vikipedia becouse of these behavings. But I want to see the result of my complaint. After my complaint our bureaucrat showed some proves in complainting page. But these proves only started new discussions. One girl told that these two people are realy different. Because she knows them from real life. She was good user and nobody could tell that she had lied. When Dbl2010 was defending himself he also told that he was steward and he has a lot of rights even to change the mean page of meta. Do we have to always believe everything is right which he did because he is steward. Is it normal way to defend himself with telling `I am steward` I also wanted to establish Arbitration Committee. But only one administer was interested in this idea. But suddenly he also gave up. During discussions about how we will establish it, one other administer Noumenon told we are not doing right and we are doing just funny. I could find only one more way. And it is to write you. If you are interested in my problem I will be hope.

Best Regards.
Devrimdpt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this?

Could you please take a look at this, and give an opinion on the situation? User:H (was User:HighInBC) pissed off (from WP:ANI). It's getting really heated up. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For being Jimbo Wales atomicthumbs 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


This user would like to thank you for creating Wikipedia and making it what it is today. Thanks! Codelyoko193 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Star.svg Thanks! This is a Codelyoko193 Would Like to Thank You "Barnstar"

Oh, and can you sign here?. Thanks. Codelyoko193 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
thank you for makeing wikipedia you are a star Talktotheland 10:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For you'r idea of wikipedia its the best site in the Cosmos ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since evreyone is gieing you barnstars I thourght I would to. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up!

I have grave concerns about how this [29] decision will affect wikipedias public image. Hypnosadist 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears that the above images are ok then. Hypnosadist 04:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This topic has now been edited several times by at least two other editors, could someone please leave there opinion on if they think wikipedia's mascot should be depicted in this way.Hypnosadist 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They are now redlinked, could some-one please say something about this. Hypnosadist 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo did. 03:49, June 8, 2007 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:LoliWikipetan.jpg" (pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions) More here: --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jimbo! Hypnosadist 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Outlaw-halo.PNG The Outlaw Halo Award
This Outlaw Halo is hereby presented to Jimbo Wales in recognition of taking bold action to protect the 'pedia. Thank you for not allowing Wikipe-tan to be pimped. - Kathryn NicDhàna 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(about the award)