User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27


Vandal identified as Kevin1243

After seriously reviewing the history of User_talk:Kevin1243 edits, tags, and AfD's on many topics, seeing a serial process of leaving misspelling, cleanup tags, and then nominating articles under construction for speedy deletion or AfD, the words SNEAKY VANDALISM comes to mind. The user screen name Kevin1243 can be seen at many other external web sites, including two other online encyclopedic resources. The most convincing external site found is Can an 18 year-old certainly have the vast knowledge stored to make edits of so unfamiliar topics? He may not. He is vandalizing the Wikipedia. The claim his administrative skill is browsing new articles for deletion seems more likely a brag of hacking any academic interest here. You may want to visit the user_talk pages of this individual, where you will find many others have left a history that shows a pattern of vandalism. So, I write. StationNT5Bmedia 03:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you mentioned this at WP:ANI?--Cronholm144 03:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is a bit of a dispute surrounding Non-synchronous transmissions, where it appears Kevin1243 has placed a couple of maintenance tags, suggested a merge, and most recently removed a bunch of commercial links quite properly. Looking at his talk page, he's done a lot of new page patrol, from the looks of things, and gathered the usual complaints about articles that were either deleted or later properly developed. I certainly don't see any indication of vandalism there, and StationNT5Bmedia's attempted tagging of Kevin's page with block tags looks a bit odd. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I was a bit flattered that he though I might be a muscled 18 year old from the UK, when looking at myself I only see an overweight middle aged Australian. As you say, RC and new page patrol does attract a lot of criticism. Kevin 04:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, well, in any case, this should probably be resolved elsewhere.--Cronholm144 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Having been contacted by StationNT5Bmedia I've responded to him with a rather lengthly observation of this conflict at his talk page. You may be interested in reading it. (This applies to those who have the time or interest. I feel bad enough posting this here since I feel it should not have been brought here at the start.) Cheers! --EarthPerson 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With some supporting evidence, this discussion is open at WP:ANI including a short poll of other users citing VANDALISM...more specifically SNEAKY VANDALISM. Since the user is not currently active, perhaps a short recess should benefit for now. StationNT5Bmedia 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question

Mr. Wales, I need your opinion on something: do you agree with this reversion? It seems to me that without humour the impact (?) of the warning is not softened, which I assume is why it was put there in the first place. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day Jimbo says we can edit his page and that reversion was me doing so, SqueakBox 20:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As was me reverting your humorlessness, Squeak. Two on one now. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Err that was two on two, Prodego was removing it too. Please get your facts right at least, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't look at it that way, Raven—Wikipedia is not a democracy. However I vehemently agree with you. ;) —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither is Wikipedia a revert battlefield, which is pretty much what the handsome comment is making it. In any case, I simply meant that two editors can revert more than one without breaking 3RR. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite not being Mr Wales, I'll say that I agree with the reversion. The humor was (is?) rather leaden. People should hesitate before attributing deletions of "humorous" material on the deleter's alleged "humorlessness": the lack of humor may at least in part be their own. There was a kernel of humor in the addition; but it needed wit to be rendered effective, and an emoticon is a pretty reliable sign of a deficiency of wit. -- Hoary 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed] $PЯIПGrαgђ  04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Hoary has recently been spotted climbing the Reichstag. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I am with Squeak. The joke in question is really not my style. :) In any event, it all seems nothing worth getting too excited about either way.--Jimbo Wales 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I looked a little closer. That's only visible when people click "edit" and it is pretty clearly not a not from me personally but rather from "the editors" to "the vandals". So that's a bit different. I would never joke about whether or not I am handsome (that seems weird to me) and so if it was on the visible page as if it was me saying it, I would find that strange and not in my own voice. But where it is, ehhhh, I don't care either way. :) --Jimbo Wales 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Jimbo's use of [witless combination of punctuation marks removed] proves his lack of wit. (Hoary's Law, also known as the Smileys Suck Rule) ;) --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me as a fairly lame joke. But considering it's only visible when editing anyway, it seems really ridiculous that we're all wasting so much time debating it. Don't we all have more important things to do? Like, for example, creating an encyclopedia? This talk page is getting awfully long, too - 124KB and none of it old enough to archive yet. Please, can't we give it a rest? Tualha (Talk) 12:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"What's all this attractive nonesense about?"
"Just what are you trying to say?"

Peace.Lsi john 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Jimbo wouldn't mind if we archived some of the resolved stuff. The real question is, what is he doing up at three in the morning or so (central time) editing his talkpage? (he knows it is past his bedtime) :) --Cronholm144 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, a bot archives it. Tualha (Talk) 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't he in florida? Wouldn't that make it 4AM? He could very well get up that early, my grandparents do :p Then again, Jimbo is a big boy. --Laugh! 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


You may wish to take a look at the on-going discussion on this article concerning its inclusion of a depiction of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It's a rather contentious debate and at least one admin is pushing for a "compromise" between those who want inclusion based on the fact that the image is informative and that Wiki is not censored and those who find the image is offensive. I believe that any "compromise" here is a violation of both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which is why I bring this issue up to you. --Strothra 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous/Tor editing, Solutions?

(Quick note: This is not only intended for Mr. Wales. I'm very much interested in hearing other people's opinions as well)
So, it seems as though at least a couple editors feel that they've been victims of de facto bans (not blocks, but bans), based on their desire to anonymously edit. More generally, editors are actively discouraged from using them, and may feel pressured to choose between exposing personal information or simply not editing at all.
(Incidentally, before anyone tries to argue that little personal information is at stake, the amount of information I could collect about myself with just the IP records of my editing in wikipedia is somewhat disturbing)
The fact is, there are numerous reasons why a person might want to edit anonymously:

  1. Local censorship. -China's the obvious case, but I don't know a single government I particularly trust.
  2. Stalkers -Real life stalkers, including ex-spouses. If I did have an ex-wife, and they suspected they might have figured out my username, the ip logs here could easily tell them what country, province, city, building, and even personal office I was in, as well as the time and frequency that I travel to the US. Some people really do have ex's who are just that bad.
  3. Online stalkers -Obviously, we know that certain somebodies on certain websites have tried to 'out' editors. Imagine what they could do if, in a matter of a day, they could get all that information I just mentioned, as well as full name, personal address and home phone number.
  4. Sensitivity of information/retribution -While although all material needs to be sourced independently, it still remains a fact that a person might tend to want to write about topics close to their own lives. As a token example, suppose a person working for a large industry knew of publicly available EPA reports (or other such content) that was verifiable and reliable, but not widely known. They may wish to make that information more widely available, but have to worry about whether or not it would cost them their job.

As it is, admins can edit even when their IPs are blocked, correct?
I know that some people have batted around the idea of possibly allowing ipblock exemptions (I forget the actual term for it) for editors who request it. That way, you can still block the anonymous IPs, to cut down on vandalism, but still allow people to edit with safety and confidence.
Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding why this isn't already an option. Sure, people could still vandalize, but they do that anyways. And it would be a simple task to simply remove the exemption after the first (and last) offense.
It certainly seems better than excluding people who want to contribute, solely to preserve the appearance of discouraging those who wish to be destructive. And it would certainly provide no less safety than is currently present with AOL users. Those users have all the anonymity of proxy users, but don't even have soft blocks.
What I (and others) am suggesting is not even blanket softblocks for these IPs, but rather some mechanism of simply allowing them to receive an ipblock-exempt bit. This would leave proxy editors as being held to a higher standard than AOL users currently are, so I don't see how vandalism could really be a concern.
Thoughts? Comments? Bladestorm 19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Wikipedia, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From my understanding, the developers added the feature that allows admininstrators to edit while their underlying IP is blocked with the intention that it be given to trusted users, but have not created an interface to allow the permission to be assigned, and at present it is given automatically to administrators. Perhaps we should ask the developers if they can create an interface for it at a special page, and let sterwards and/or bureucrats and/or sysops be able to use the interface. --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a wonderful idea. :) (Uh... happen to know how to contact the developers?) Incidentally, I think sysops could be trusted with the ability to assign that bit, no? It's hardly different in principle from blocking and unblocking. Bladestorm 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As the one who originally proposed that feature (bugzilla:3706), I can say my intention was to help trusted users (not only administrators, but also known non-vandal editors) who shared an IP address with non-logged-in vandals. The thought of using it to help trusted people bypass blocks on open proxies or tor outproxies (unless they happened to share an IP with an open proxy or tor outproxy) was never on my mind; in fact, such usage can be dangerous unless the secure server is being used (due to the possibility of password sniffing). I also never thought of a particular interface; my idea was that bureaucrats would be the ones somehow setting or resetting the flag. That this feature currently allow a sysop-only ability to edit via tor is an unfortunate side-effect (unfortunate due to it being sysop-only, not due to being able to edit via tor). --cesarb 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I do realize that password-sniffing is still a concern if this is to be done. (I have to suspect it's not a major concern, but there's really no reason to not address a potential vulnerability when investigating a new feature) It seems to me that anyone requesting the exemption would have to agree to use the secure server. (And, for that matter, the secure server would need to be advertised at least a little bit better. I had no idea it even existed until I read a question about it in one of the RfA's) Bladestorm 03:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone editing through any proxy (or on any network they don't have personal control over the security of) should be editing using the secure server, this is certainly true. (Realistically, I imagine most TOR exit node operators have better things to do than sniff the connection on the off chance they catch a Wikipedia admin's password, but you never know.) Bladestorm, and anyone else with an opinion on this situation, you're certainly welcome to join the discussion at WT:NOP, as currently exactly these questions are being decided there. (And Jimbo, of course, that includes you too if you'd like to drop in a word or two. :) ) Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought the secure server used null encryption? --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You know what? I have a degree in computer science, and all these details are still tricky to follow. I can't imagine what it must be like to absolute laymen. Bladestorm 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it currently uses AES-256, at least for me (I just checked). There's no way it can use only null encryption; Firefox, for instance, will not accept null encryption (check on about:config the default value for the booleans under security.ssl2 and security.ssl3). --cesarb 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I am so freaking glad I focused on AI and combinatorial optimization instead of encryption and network security. That's absolutely greek to me. :) Bladestorm 04:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Cesar, you may want to have a look at Bug 6711. Closed as fixed... maybe undergoing testing or awaiting release? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys might also want to take a look at this, which is the specific request to have this permission enabled on enwiki, including an extension that I wrote for it (Special:Makeipexempt). However, it seems to have stalled, and no one wishes to implement this (even though it'd be a very easy fix). ^demon[omg plz] 00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

/me prods Jimmy to prod the devs :) I can think of a number of happy campers should this fix go through sooner rather than later... Cheers, Daniel 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Whales, I would like the Comba-Tai page completely deleted because there was not adequate time given to the discussion of this page. It is my belief that there were some inflammatory ignorant statements made against this African American Martal art that are legally noteworthy. I am the proprietor of this system and I formerly request that the Comba-Tai page be completely removed. It is my belief that Wikipedia procedures lend to a high degree of biases which is unworthy of any martial art. By the way, there is no where stated in any Comba-Tai article that immigrant “Nights Templar” went to Jones County. Such ignorance is indicative of what I believe to be bias evaluators on this page. Also the “Asian etymology” of some of its techniques is evident in the Asian systems it practices. What are they talking about? Again this look’s like bias ignorance that looks really bad. I mention these areas because they were made by people who agreed to delete this page. 90% of the comments are opinion, none are based on fact. What encyclopedic value it that. So please remove any mention of Comba-Tai from what I believe to be an international disgrace. Thank you. -- 22:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To, I've place a header above your comment to separate it from the preceding comment. I would also mention that I could not find Comba-Tai, even as a deleted article. Can you provide better details? LessHeard vanU 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is here[1] Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that Jimbo, as well as, would thank you for that. LessHeard vanU 23:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but trying to get your article deleted from Wikipedia, on the grounds that you don't like Wikipedia, will probably draw a lot of attention to you...which in turn will force Wikipedia to have an article on you --Laugh! 19:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article was already deleted, I am going to take this as a request to courtesy-blank the discussion. By the way, in all similar cases, I encourage anyone to do courtesy blankings of such pages. When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity. The page could always be referenced or restored if it became necessary, but in the meantime there is no need to have a public page about how unimportant someone or something is.--Jimbo Wales 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you encourage blanking of all deletion debates similar to this, or only on request? --Deskana (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say we can be pretty casual about it. It's really no big deal, less than deletion even, and deletion is no big deal too. In many cases, there is no reason to blank, but if it is a living person or seems to be a "vanity" article where the person has emotionally defended inclusion, it seems courteous. Just depends on the context I guess.--Jimbo Wales 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for the direction you have provided. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Smatprt violations

There is an annoying user who has been complained about by at least six editors for obstructing the development of the Shakespeare project. I suggest a long ban. Testimony can be found here.Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#User:Smatprt_violations (Felsommerfeld 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

On second thoughts, maybe on reading those comments from editors he has learnt how distressing his behaviour has been to people and he can become a better person. So I withdraw my previous request with this hope in mind. (Felsommerfeld 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

If he keeps it up post on WP:ANI, they should help you. Otherwise continue improving articles.--Cronholm144 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Felsommerfeld has posted there, and on at least a dozen different admin and article talk pages. So far, the responding administrators have found NO reason for action and, in fact, have advised Felsommerfeld to stop deleting properly referenced material (that happens to disagree with his POV). He has also been advised to work things out at talk, instead of making false accusations of sock-puppetry (proven untrue) and the like.Smatprt 04:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Felsommerfeld's complaint-spree appeared after I filed an administrative incident report [2] against him for making mass deletions of referenced material. The administrator on that case has warned Felsommerfeld about this and posted advice to the other mainstream editors of the Shakespeare Authorship page (who keep deleting material there, too) here: [3] and here: [4]. Felsommerfeld's implied threats to retaliate on pages like this are here: [5] and here: [6] and here: [7] Thanks for considering this info. Smatprt 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On third thoughts, I don't think he's learnt anything and judging by this tirade will probably continue on his mission to rid the Shakespeare articles of all mention of the Stratford man, replacing him with the Earl of Oxford. It can't all be me if at least six editors have testified against him here!!! [[8]] (Felsommerfeld 09:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

This is definitely not the place to discuss this--Cronholm144 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case...

Someone's been playing around with TOR nodes tonight, and I've done a handful of blocks on those that I found being abused by at least a banned user. However, someone on a separate TOR node decided to point me to the conversation above, and has since been using others to replace the message and be a general pain in the butt. It's very likely that some other IP is going to bastardize this message or tack on a ZOMG ADMINABUSE to this, but I believe the message about you thinking no one should be using an open proxy (or a TOR proxy) to be editting Wikipedia holds in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was close.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbol wtf vote.svg zOMGadminabuse --Laugh! 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your user page

I hate to say this, but the edit count/summary/usage link in the top right is incompatible with classic skin, as it falls on top of the links to my use page, talk, preferences etc. Can something be done about this? – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be easy. I'll take a look. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OKI've fixed it in classic. Doesn't look too bad in Monobook, perhaps someone else would like to play with css a bit . If you do though, please check the classic skin (and the others) to make sure your changes do not look awful in the other skins. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn
Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SCOX Trolls

These accounts are at it again. How about some help Mr. Wales, if you have time. It may be a good idea for you to refer the entire mess over to the arbcom to sort it all out.

They have been repeatedly told to stay away from me, but have not gotten the message. I will be out of town until next Tuesday on business in Texas. I can be reached by email.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you gone through the typical series of steps to resolve this problem? Reasoned conversation, WP:WQA, WP:RFC, WP:ANI, WP:MC, WP:ARBCOM. --Cronholm144 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No, he hasn't. But he insists that most people who criticise him are trolling, and for some odd reason, people actually believe him often. -Amarkov moo! 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
He might have a case with Pfagerburg but the others don't appear to be trolls.--Cronholm144 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter know. Someone's blocked everyone involved except me, including these three. So they'll be reflexively unblocked, and we'll go to Arbcom really fast. Enjoy the circus, I have to figure out how to not be listed as a party to the dispute. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Mr. Merkey have some kind of power here? It seems unreasonable to block users at his beck and call.--Cronholm144 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind he got blocked too. This could make for an interesting case.--Cronholm144 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What does porn have to do with an Encyclopedia?

Why does Wikipedia allow porn?  Tcrow777  talk  02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't censored. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, but isn't that taking it to the extreme.  Tcrow777  talk  03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't like we host pornography, we just don't censor images relevant to an article. Usually, they are fairly tasteful. Is there a particular image that you are objecting to?--Cronholm144 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Technically, the Wikimedia Foundation does host porn because it is stored on their servers and is freely available. I object to all porn.  Tcrow777  talk  03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be unreasonable about it—it does not show explicit sexual acts (such as a facial actually happening or anal sex being done by two guys), and therefore is not pornography. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  03:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out fellatio, Spring. Or List of sex positions. An illustration is as bad as a photograph. But the fact remains, Wikipedia is not censored, and IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removal. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Information about sex is a part of "the sum of all human knowledge." We present it in an encyclopedic way, and I very much doubt that people come to wikipedia seeking the titillation that the word "porn" suggests.--Cronholm144 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

These illustrations do not show it happening. They show what does happen, but they do not show it happening. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  03:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Porn (and sex in general) is a very common field of human endeavor. Therefore, it makes sense for Wikipedia to document it. --Carnildo 04:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess a more relevant question is not "Why does Wikipedia host porn?" but "Why am I so obsessed with porn I feel the need to "take a stand" against encylopedically written articles on it?" Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, one might ask "Why do I reflexively and obsequiously defend a former porn king (Jimbo Wales) when the subject comes up here?".+ILike2BeAnonymous 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this editor should be blocked for violation of WP:NPA. I won't do it myself because I am personally involved.--Jimbo Wales 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sternly warned, if that is sufficient, GDonato (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Im Deutschen haben wir dafür ein Sprichwort: "Was stört es die Eiche, wenn sich ein Schwein an ihr reibt?" - in diesem Sinne - auf sowas gar nicht eingehen. Wenn man es beachtet, wird es erst wichtig. Marcus Cyron 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, since I don't speak German (and neither do many others here, no doubt, this being the English Wikipedia), here's a rough translation (very rough, rendered by of your comments:
In the German, we have for that a proverb: "What it disturbs itself the oak, if a pig at its reibt?" - In this sense - on such a thing do not go in at all. If one notes it, it becomes first important. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd translate the proverb as "What does the oak care when a pig rubs against it?" --Dapeteばか 09:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To which I would reply, "Why do you infer that by expressing an opinion a person is acting in defence of a third party on the basis that said third party may have or might have had an interest in the subject being discussed?" LessHeard vanU 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, because Bomis and Wikipedia have SO MUCH IN COMMON THAT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH US. They were both started by Jimbo Wales. They both have some content you probably wouldn't show your kids. 'Oh god, Wikipedia is a porn site!'
Please. We aren't censored, we aren't for little kids, and we don't want to be. The sum of human knowledge doesn't end at names and dates. Mike the headless chicken- Fucking, Austria- hell, pretty much anything in WP:ODD might not be something you'd find in Britannica, but they're sure as heck notable and interesting subjects. WP isn't meant to be a free Britannica, or a free Encarta. We're meant to be a free encyclopedia, and that's free as in speech, too. Unless you can provide a good reason why things that are probably the only reason you are alive right now are unencyclopedic, you should probably stop flinging crap. --Laugh! 13:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The wonderful thing about this encyclopedia is that it aims to cover EVERY single topic in the world in great detail. That's why it is so popular. It doesn't shy away from various topics for fear of upsetting people. Why should all articles with images of nice, juicy, blood dripping slices of meat be deleted just because vegetarians might riot on looking at them? The world's best encyclopedia covers everything and anything, going to any length to explain it properly. This is why this encyclopedia is (in that sense) the best there is and why it is used so much. Shouldn't all encyclopedias (other than children's encyclopedias) be like that? Lradrama 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How many pictures of Erections do we need to illustrate an article? And why do we keep both unused images and the editors who seek imaginative ways to display them to the unsuspecting? (Example problem - graphic) Note that the image in question was deleted from Wikipedia but re-uploaded to Commons. Rklawton 17:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there was a warning, but I clicked anyway. I wish I didn't, but I did. the_undertow talk 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave it how it is. After all, Wikipedia has lots of stuff that arn't in other encyclopedias. And there arn't any "porny" pictures even on the porn article itself. Assasin Joe talk 18:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

An answer to the question at the begining: Why not? It depends to live like to eat, to drink or to sleep. Not to talk (and write) about those things would be very bad. Sexuality, and this includes Pornography and Prostitution, is a normal thing, only the world dont want it to know or realize. Wikipedia will show the world. And Pornography is everywhere. And people who don't want to read about it musn't look out for these themes. Marcus Cyron 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images of Erection also have very odd liscencing. (An image the uploader took,... yeah right) If wikipedia is to have any images, then they should at least have correct liscencing that corresponds to Wikipedia's Fair-Use policy.
Fair use doesn't apply here because the photographers are wikieditors and released the image with a free licence. There is nothing strange about that, it is the normal situation on En.Wikipedia and the only situation on commons. BTW please always sign your posts so we can see who is saying what. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, might I reccomend that if you have a problem with wikipedias stance on censorship, porn and sex. you might want to check out this project which believes porn does not exist as well as many other controversial topics. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That project was deleted! I want Wikipedia to be safe for all users, an Elementary School user might be able to handle profanity (as long as G.D. is not mentioned more then it needs to be), but porn is something no Elementary School user should see.  Tcrow777  talk  08:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The deletion was the joke. Encyclopedia's are not meant for elementary school students(we have a different wiki for that). Another thing, what self respecting parent would let their child have unrestricted internet access, responsibility lies with them. Lord knows if the child searches "porn" he would be lucky to get the wiki article over the other stuff that is out there. Also, porn isn't the only thing on wiki inappropriate for young 'uns, so you propose censoring of a massive amount of material. --Cronholm144 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
TCrow, every elementary school student knows what a naked person looks like, and many of them have had some kind of sex education. A few images demonstrating (most of the sex ones are drawings and not even real images) sex or genitalia are not porn. Its the same thing you'd find in a sex ed class, health class, or a biology/human anatomy class. What elementary school child would be looking up what a Penis or the Kama Sutra is on Wikipedia anyways? You also seem to be showing a Christian bias with that profanity comment, Wikipedia is for all walks of life and what offends one person may not bother someone else at all, we don't have to view something we see as offensive; there is no need to censor the whole project. DarthGriz98 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? If I'd had access to Wikipedia in elementary school, penis would have been one of the first things I'd have looked up (as would fart, and poop, and...) --Carnildo 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
@tis true that children do have a natural curiosity about all things sexual and bodily functional. The nice thing about wikipedia is, that if their parents decide they are mature enough to use it, they will (we hope) find accurate and well written information as opposed to playground myths. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, now that I think about it, that is the first thing I would have looked for. Well, if they are actually looking for it, then why stop them? The point is that the information on Wikipedia is factual information on the subject of sex rather than overly pornographic like, well porn. Let's put it this way, if we were born naked, and nudity is all around us, what's the big deal if it's natural? DarthGriz98 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tcrow777, can you answer the following questions:

  1. What is your definition of pornography?
  2. What is your understanding of the mission of Wikipedia?
  3. Why do you believe that poronography does not fit with the mission of Wikipedia?
  4. What do you think are Wikipedia's obligations to parents and children?
  5. What criteria do you think should be applied to determine what images and what article text are "appropriate" for Wikipedia?

--Richard 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. Any picture showing anything.
  2. An Encyclopedia with all free content that anyone can edit and add to, anyone should be able to look up anything without having to shield their eyes. An Encyclopedia for all.
  3. It is unnecessary and the primary reason it is on Wikipedia is that it causes sexual atraction.
  4. Viewing porn on Wikipedia should be optional.
  5. Does it add important information? Could what the picture is trying to explain be better explained it text, pictures should be a last resort? Is the primary reason that it is there is because it causes sexual atraction?
 Tcrow777  talk  22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, ignoring your blatent religious views, why exactly must children be shielded from sex at all? It's something almost every adult does and something they too will do when they are adults. We don't guard our children from learning about cars even though they can't drive one, and cars are a hell of a lot more dangerous than bonking. I finished reading For Tibet, with Love today and Isabel Losada was describing how when she walking around Dharamsala, she saw nearly every kind of native animal - monkeys, dogs, goats - all at it in public at one time or another, and not one of the children who were running around was the slightest bit bothered. It's only when you try to conceal something that children get interested, and what is otherwise a universal fact of life becomes something obsessive. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate, for someone who thinks an image is pornographic, to replace that image with an image they think is not pornographic, but still enhances the article? (Sounds like a challenge to me.) (When I was an adolescent, I did look up the "naughty" words and pictures in encyclopedias and dictionaries. It was there in the public library, and my parents weren't looking over my shoulder when I was in the reference section. Parents have a lot more control over the internet in their own home, than they do the public libraries.) But seriously, if you think an image is pornographic to the point it doesn't contribute to the article, try making your own image. gnomelock 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair actions by an admin and a serious issue plaguing Wikipedia.

Dear Mr. Wales,

I, User:Altruism would like to bring to your notice the repeated abuse of admin powers by User:Blnguyen.

This is the second time in a fortnight that I've been blocked for 'violations' in Telugu script. Incidentally, this time User:Blnguyen not only unprotected the article (which was in deep conflict) but was also involved in "major edits", when he should have recused himself due to a "conflict of interest." He was not explicit in mentioning the reasons for the "major edits" in the "edit summary," only caring to mention "rm dubious pictures." This only shows his suspicion at those pictures. After I reverted his edits twice, another user reverted my reverts by explicitly mentioned the reasons in the "edit summary," which I respected. User:Blnguyen has been extremely hasty and violated the last guideline of Wikipedia:Copyright_violations as no appropriate warnings, nor any explicit mention of his reasons was made in the edit summary of Telugu script .

Please see my earlier conversation with User:Blnguyen. He is dangerously courteous and evasive in answering, when asked about why he was biased and hasty in blocking me. I strongly feel that Admin privileges are probably the last thing to be vested with such biased users.

I also have concrete evidence of User:Blnguyen supporting and succumbing to bait from a gang of users, engaged in widespread vandalism/trolling in several articles, especially those pertaining to Andhra Pradesh, Telugu script, Beary bashe, Belgaum border dispute etc. Plz. see a complaint of mine, which fell on deaf ears; a complaint of sock-puppetry.

I request your immediate intervention in this major dispute especially the users ganging up plaguing and disturbing at least several hundreds of users. I'm bothering you because I like many others had no other recourse anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The first block was for 5RR. After that it was brought to my attention that there were copyvios on the page, so I made my edits to remove these copyvios. Then I unprotected the page so that everyone could have an editing opportunity. Altruism decided to reinstate unsrouced pictures, which were already tagged as problematic on the caption on the screen. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried ANI or RFC?--Cronholm144 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... I figured as much. Can you two find some way to work it out?--Cronholm144 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did make 5RRs the first time I was blocked. But all I did was to keep the content intact before my request for re-protection was acceded. I requested unprotection in the first place, only in WP:AGF , in order to arrive at a consensus on Telugu script on the lines of Telugu language. I can definitely say that User:Blnguyen reacts to different users in very different ways, not uniformly, which is why he should be relieved of his "admin responsibilities." He is biased. I'd apologise to Mr. Wales for spamming his discussion page, but for the importance of the larger issue. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He might not even comment, and this kind of thing seems all to common here. I suggest you work it out between yourselves, or, if that is not possible, you seek help via the WP:RFC process. If that fails then go to mediation. These steps were put in place specifically for cases like these.--Cronholm144 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It just may not work because he's an admin, whose powers he's least hesitant of using.

My main message to Mr. Wales is to highlight the traumatic case of users ganging up and/or indulging in Sock puppetry and getting away, probably in collusion with some admins!! --AltruismTo talk 08:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

They are not socks, unless someone has the time and energy to create and maintain 5 very active accounts with a variety of edit patterns just to gang up on you. I think ganging up in this case might be WP:CON and you might want to try to work with them rather than against them.--Cronholm144 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To say the least, I've pro-actively tried to collaborate and do constructive edits. I've tried arbitration, but to little or no avail. At least 2 of the 5 mentioned may be indulging in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, one case of which was confirmed by an investigator, only to be cleared of the charges on the basis of User:Blnguyen and others' report. Is it appropriate to discuss this on Mr. Wales' page? Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 08:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?(I don't think you have gone to Arbcom have you?) that would be premature. It seems mediation WP:M is the correct venue at this point. Yes, this is semi-inappropriate for this venue, but it happens all the time anyway. --Cronholm144 09:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm open to WP:M but what about the damage already done. My unblemished track record in Wikipedia was spoilt not once but twice.

More importantly, what about the larger issue (different/same users ganging up) of repeated reverts, deletions by absolutely rigid users. Shouldn't this be examined by a larger audience, probably to block any loopholes that WP policy may have, currently. Could you throw any solutions? Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mediation. That leaves it open to a wider audience, where people will comment. If you feel it really needs lots of opinions, go to WP:RFC and create a RFC on either yourself or the admin. Mediation is definately the best option. Also, even if you were trying to do good, breaching 3RR is a serious offense. WP:AGF does not count in that case. Also, in the case of copyvios, it is normal to remove until investigation - having them online can cause major problems and/or legal troubles for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee does not deal with user conduct disputes. Therefore, if you were to file an RfM, the only thing we'd be interested in hearing about is the content issues, and would ignore/remove discussion about sockpuppetry, edit warring and blocks. To quote Essjay, former Chair of the MedCom and former Arbitrator, amongst other things:

I believe strongly that most user-conduct cases are a matter for Arbitration, where actual, meaningful decisions can be made about conduct and sanctions imposed where necessary. The Arbitration Committee is in a position to say "You are wrong and must stop." The Mediation Committee is, in most user disputes, completely useless: We can neither offer an analysis of the dispute, because we must remain neutral facilitators, nor can we offer any resolution to the problem, as we are completely powerless to even offer a decision, much less enforce it. We can't say "you are wrong" nor can we make them stop. In most cases, we can't even get the two sides to admit that their conduct might have been wrong; if we could, the Arbitration Committee wouldn't be anywhere near as busy as it is. When it comes to matters of behavior that rise to the level of formal dispute resolution, the parties aren't at a place where they can discuss it over tea and come away with an "I'm sorry."
I may be completely wrong in my understanding of the Committee and its place, but I see mediation as being the complement to Arbitration, not the preceeding step. (I take this from the description of the Commmittee: The role of the mediation committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all, and not simply a first step towards banning or for vetting candidates for the Arbitration Committee to ban. Mediation is instead an honest attempt to resolve the problem.) Arbitration doesn't handle content disputes precisely because the nature of the commmittee is to investigate a situation, come to a binding decision, and then enforce it upon all parties. Wikipedia content doesn't work that way; everything is subject to consensus, and the best way to determine consensus is to work together, not to have it decreed from the top. That's why Mediation is so well suited to content disputes between parties who have a good faith desire to solve them: We can be the neutral facilitator they need to work out a consensus position. The key to solving content disputes is to get people talking with each other who were previously talking at each other, and mediation does that spectacularly.

Just thought I'd drop by and give my thoughts :) Daniel 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't copyvio or something to that effect have been mentioned in the "edit summary." User:Blnguyen only says "rm dubious pictures." As far as the dictionary goes, it only indicates suspicion, which is why I reverted. But after User:Zamkudi mentioned the reasons, I stopped. Despite stopping, I was blocked by the same admin User:Blnguyen for the 2nd time in a fortnight. Yes, I did violate 3RR the first time. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[conflict] Well, the "larger audience" usually(hopefully) gets involved when you post at RFC or a a relevant wikiproject. As for ganging up, that is their consensus versus your lone view. Unless you can convince somebody or them that you are in the right on an issue, then your edits won't stand. I recommend using policy WP:V and WP:RS when in a content dispute and WP:AGF when in a personal one. Try to find some common ground and engage them on the talkpage with suggestions. You might consider making a sandbox that demonstrates what you would like the article to look like. This will avoid mainspace conflict. I think this is probably a good start anyway.--Cronholm144 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is probably much more to it than just 'consensus' and I'm not the lone person to feel this. I can assure you that there are at least several tens of editors, who feel the same as myself. In brief, the problem is that the "gang," is from a state in India, whose neighbouring states' editors feel wronged, mainly to due to their very unusual, highly systematic and efficient co-operation between them. Please see "Article historys" and decide for yourself. What else would or should be their reason to disgustingly interfere in all major articles pertaining to those of their neighbouring states? I'm not making a mine out of a molehill. What I'm saying is the "Gospel truth." I can provide the names, proofs etc. if needed. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I to understand that there is some ethnocentrism involved in this case? If so this might be a little more problematic(my recommendations stand however.) I advise that you gather your evidence and supporters and go to the mediation committee. ButOnly after you have tried one last time sincerely to work it out. There is not much more to say and this thread is getting rather long. So lets try to wrap it up on this particular talkpage. --Cronholm144 10:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm more of a pacifist than an aggressor (at least in WP). I've tried explaining and reasoning it out with at least some members of the "gang." This may not be with respect to different ethnic groups, but to people from different parts (unfortunately, only neighbouring states) of India, divided in this case by language, culture etc.. Why should anybody show an unusual amount of interest in removing facts (no citations), deletions, including objectionable portions etc.? Telugu script is a good example of this. I suggest that you please have a look at it, its contributors, their contributions etc. --AltruismTo talk 10:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look as time allows, I hope that you find a resolution--Cronholm144 11:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I eagerly look forward to an amicable resolution of the dispute. The last I want is animosity. Thank You. AltruismTo talk 11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like fighting windmills

Once I tried to change "Gravitation" to the way as it is now considered by the mainstream (Einstinian) science and consensus of editors (9:1), including one physicist, reverted it to the Newtonian version (with "attractive force", just read the first sentence of "Gravitation") thinking that what I tried to do was pushing my point of view on gravitation. Since Newtonian gravitation is what they still teach in high schools, editors (rather intelligent ones) are sure that this is right gravitation, possibly with gravitons mediating the "attractive force". So Wikipedia science is still about 100 years away from contemporary science and you want to make it into an advanced scientific thought. That's why I think it is a hopeless enterprise. It is not even a mediocre science it is awfully outdated one. I could predict that Big Bang will be the longest promoted in Wikipedia, while all physicists already switch to newer version of general relativity with stationary universe (as they should by now because of observational data). Until all old editors die out. They still, nearly 100 years after Einstein, believe in "gravitational attraction". Jim 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so until certain theories are published in accredited peer-reviewed journals(or some equivalently reliable source WP:RS) its inclusion in wikipedia cannot be allow because of our original research policy WP:OR. If you would like to address this concern further please use my talkpage as this does not seem to concern Mr. Wales directly.--Cronholm144 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • At the heart of a great debate, are the very nature, basis, and essence of your comments, Jim. When does consensus turn against the better good and the truth? Can a wiki / consensus based system ever be cutting edge; close to the edge? The answer is quite clear to me and it is no. There is the greater fool theory and the theory that there is always a more likely story. Therefore, everything here will be changed until it conforms to some ultimate neutral common man state. 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Doomed to mediocrity?

I was bouncing around Wikipedia and landed on regression toward the mean and it made me realize that Wikipedia is likely doomed to mediocrity unless something changes. To rise above mediocrity (the mean) requires that exceptional editors make exceptional edits. Wikipedia, however, has no effective means of noticing, validating, and protecting those exceptional edits or those exceptional editors. Therefore it is inevitable that the mob of mediocre editors will make a sufficient number of mediocre edits to eventually return even the best article to a mediocre state. Perhaps this process is forestalled a bit for featured articles that stay on people's watchlists for extended periods but I will wager that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles fluctuate around a mean of mediocrity (at best). The regression toward the mean article itself is a good example as, IMO, the earliest available version is, in some ways, better written than the current version. --Justanother 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} - CHAIRBOY () 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{{allofit}} and {{rightnow}}, too! --Justanother 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, this is what Citizendium is for. --Laugh! 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Featured article status and good article status is something of a buffer against this phenomenon. dr.ef.tymac 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that only authors capable of writing good articles are capable of recognising bad edits and protecting an article. In reality this is not the case. Even if it's true that only certain editors are capable of making better then mediocre edits (whatever that means), it's definitely not true that only they are capable of recognising these mediocore edits. In fact, I think the whole idea is a false principle anyway. Wikipedia never really arises above the mean. We have some good articles, some exceptional articles and a lot of mediocore or worse articles. The rate that more articles are being added is higher then or equivalent to the rate we are improving articles therefore we don't raise above the mean. But this doesn't mean we aren't getting an increasing number of good articles Nil Einne 07:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Regression toward the mean implies that each individual article gravitates toward mediocrity as well as the project as a whole. Statistically, and barring any protection of "exceptional" edits, the greater the number of edits or editors in any given article, the more likely that that article will be mediocre. Articles with fewer edits or editors have a better chance of being truly good or truly bad. I think that I could argue that the number of editors is more a factor than the number of edits. --Justanother 11:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Think of wikipedia as asymptotic towards more accuracy and verifiability. The reason your argument doesn't work in this case is because all of the positives add up and all of the negatives get reverted. This view is in keeping with the trend observed in studies regarding the quality of articles.--Cronholm144 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Incrementalism applies also. I was taught in a public administration graduate course that incrementalism equals mediocrity, but there are arguments against that view. Cla68 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No fear, due to our revision history system. Say that despite everyone's best efforts, due to the efforts of a hundred mediocre editors over six months, a good or featured article gets dragged down into the mire, so much that it is clearly worse. Finding the version at which it was marked good or featured and reverting to it, takes one editor less than six minutes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 07:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, to the degree that Wikipedia models a statistically random system, i.e. editors to any given article are drawn from a large random pool, then the laws of entropy also apply and the system and each article will tend to be more chaotic (less ordered). --Justanother 12:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Humans regularly "defy" entropy. Whenever we build something we are defying it, of course it is doomed to fall apart unless we maintain it(but that is what we are doing here at the 'pedia). --Cronholm144 12:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are mitigating factors. However, I think that we can see entropy at work in the continual creep toward WP:TRIVIA in articles. I am not talking a million monkeys at a million keyboards. I am talking the tendency of each article to move toward a somewhat chaotic mean of poor grammar, poor exposition, and a looooong "Trivia" section. --Justanother 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yikes, I don't know what articles you have been working on, but I very rarely see trivia sections anymore (I am a maths editor so I might be immune to this). As for the others, that's what we have the league o' copyeditors for!--Cronholm144 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. I rest my case. --Justanother 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a citation for itself. Therefore, you win, case closed. dr.ef.tymac 13:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow oh wow, I asked for that. --Justanother 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an inherent assumption at the core of your argument that I want to point out: mean=mediocre. The mean is NOT mediocrity. Mean is a measure of central tendency, i.e., a quantitative descriptor of a set. Mediocre is a qualitative descriptor of any number of things not necessarily related to mathematics. Just because something is average, doesn't mean it is mediocre. Would you consider the average salary of a professional athlete to be mediocre? Especially considering the fact that having a team that has 40 players making 200,000 a year and 40 making between 5 and 20 million a year? I'd say the mean certainly is not mediocre in that case.

My inherent assumption is that the large random pool of Wikipedia editors has a certain mean of perhaps an American college sophomore with concomitant command of the English language, understanding of complex subjects, and ability to see the "big picture". At best. And consider how the command of the English language of the average college sophomore today relates to what might be a standard of literacy of an educated man of 100 years ago. I do think that, for the population of Wikipedia editors as a whole, yes, mean = mediocrity. --Justanother 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and I once shared them when I first started out on Wikipedia. But, when you work on your favourite articles, properly, for a good length of time, you begin to see the Wikipedia community develops into certain groups, (i.e. Wikiprojects, etc) that work tirelessly to ensure that the articles of their interest are kept upto scratch. Any nonsense is quickly spotted and removes by those knowledgeable people. Infact, during my time, there's been a visible increase of people on PC Patrol, meaning vandalism and rumours and false statements are even less likely to remain on Wikipedia for long. Lradrama 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah articles of their interest but vandalism and such can happen with any article. Quite frankly I'm against unregistered users to contribute excluding talk pages. FMF 22:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


MYSELF: I am our club’s writer also no more sufficiently perfect in English (with a little help understandable?).

Halton Arp praised article's content of section TIRED LIGHT's but not the Englisch, Assis wished us good luck for our (well-known:) desperate fight...

Please apologize our faults and to involve you personally but we mean that objectivy is your sense.

wfc-k (IP see above) 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir or madam, I have restored your edit but be aware that this lengthy comment is not appropriate in the least bit for this talk page. Also it seems that your grammar and spelling suffer at certain points. While I do not mean this as an insult, such problems can lead to a misinterpretation of your intent. Please consider moving your comments to a more appropriate venue (like your talk page for instance). Thank you--Cronholm144 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Consider also enlisting a translator and posting at WP:PHYS. I cannot promise that they will appreciate such a long comment but perhaps you could pare it down to some key points. They certainly would be more well equipped to handle your concern.--Cronholm144 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right, we are Germans as mentioned, my personal English certainly (after too many years) worse than the German language, as User:Jimbo Wales has learnt (recently?).

As you will see, the matter (I hope understood by clear links) is a rather serious one for WIKIPEDIA.

wfc-k 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so hopefully we can avoid being involved in conflicts within academic communities by adhering to our policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS--Cronholm144 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
From above: Assis wished us god luck for a desperate fight (to put by him also supported Tired Light theorie in a more serious manner (a "shooting star" in searching this); AND "Talk pages of by us 2 involved Admins were promptly cleared." (no answer, to be found if you want). - Our common problem is: also WP:PHYS-members seem mainstream-"dedicated followers of fashion". Above meantioned well-known in WIKI-articles living physicians trying to correct THEIR matter were obviously affected by Administrators; we were accused to rv: "disrupted", "spam" (our old Astronom Dr.Kiesslinger linked 15p. offered payment for print cost), "krank physics" etc. was supported.

wfc-k (dyn IP, see above) 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, you have been reverted by the admins for creating articles outside the mainstream. If this is the case, then it would be best to approach those admins and give them specific sources establishing notability. Be warned that it will be difficult to create more than stub articles that acknowledge the existence of these theories until they are published in accredited peer-reviewed academic journals. (doesn't necessarily have to be "mainstream"). This is the system here, like it or not. --Cronholm144 15:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
sorry, an error, see below. We cannot talk for related named important persons, but
BTW I think you mean physicist not physician.--Cronholm144 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Cronholm: physicists of course! - Confusing basic words by decades of no practice and/or nervous?
sorry, Astro-friend did not find it wfc-k 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Imagine millions see and learn only one version (here of physics)

  Big hope: Clear links above speak quite clearly for themselves without words!
  • ANSWER: No Article(s) was CREATED, in Astronomy only Fritz Zwicky 80% enhanced since 3 months.
Please compare old version already enhanced formerly by an Astro-friend, quality:
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards in
with especially section
OUR FAULT: I personally confess that our Astro-club could no more be stopped, finally rehabilitating Zwicky enthusiastically finding always new papers, too much?. We regret with zwo of above named - in WIKI-pages related well-known - alternative physicists what happened. We feel a destruction of his main and our common work:
User:Duae Quartunciae was honored now (therefore) and put in WIKI-Project: He was allowed to disqualify (also) Zwicky’s, quasi naming his idea an error of physics. Until 1953 THE MAINSTREAM. Destroyed WIKI-chance. You find nearly 10.000 entries under "ZWICKY TIRED LIGHT" quite obviously his main work ("what have they done with my song ma")?, see newest part
REMINDER: Our section Tired light therein had tried to inform for the first time in WIKI more objectively about one of all more or less depreciated Non-Standard cosmologies: It was strange how we all found suddenly more and more that he was anyhow right. Above linked recent proofs show at least partially(!) significantly better given results for several effects than the Standard model. Searching TIRED LIGHT, it jumped before WIKI's not very objective Tired light. Indicating that people anyhow had found therein something not covered in the normal WIKI ARTICLE Tired light?
  • I personally had created - since I got DSL in March - one German WIKI article completely, had enhanced about 25 enhancemants or corr. in different fields; mainly not reverted, e.g. in
NEW 80% of (German Data recovery),
all of a former stub Geröllzyste, (initiated by my accident),
30% of German Arthrosis structured, my sections trans. Prevention, Therapy, and many simple corrections of old articles
Nearly all not reverted and something like "shooting stars" in relation to former ranks by completing most important things that people search...

wfc-k 18:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are making progress, yes? In that case is there a particular problem you would like to have addressed? Other than working towards consensus and always following the policies around here, I am not sure what else can be done/said. Just keep on trying to improve the encyclopedia in the spirit of our project, right?--Cronholm144 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


  • (by NASA) as newest internationally acknowledged,
  • something like most serious evidence that only old, not only here defamed Zwicky's Tired light must revive and seen more seriously?
  • simply much better called now "Downscaling photons"?
  • if only this can give until now a solution of the Pioneer anomaly?
  • Can it be that reverting WIKI administrators are unable to read such given links or will they not?
  • And do they not know quite generally that nearly never one theory could solve anything completely?
  • Is steadily experienced defamation about well-known alternatives - named by them e.g. NON-COSMOLOGICAL or NO MAINSTREAM !!! - not too unfair?
  • something like Feynman's cargo cult science?

PLEASE HELP A BIT IF YOU CAN... sincerely, wfc-k 10:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding community evolution

Hi Jimmy,

A company I work for has recently launched a wiki using MediaWiki software (thank you!) for the free, open development of a science fiction universe. The wiki is starting to grow rapidly, and I have some questions about how one should guide community evolution. I see the necessity in a community-governed, community-driven system, and am convinced that is what will make the wiki successful in the long term. However, I suspect that communities can occasionally evolve themselves out of existence, and I wonder if you've ever seen Wikipedia (in the early days) moving in that direction, and needed to take a more active role in guiding policy back to something that was going to provide for longevity of the community. In other words, has the community ever started moving in a direction that conflicted with your vision in such a way that you had to step in and say "While I appreciate your sentiment, these ideas will hurt the community in the long term, therefore, we need to follow 'x' course of action."? For example, if early on the majority of editors favored voting over the current consensus model, would you have acquiesced? Will you let the community decide something you think will hurt Wikipedia in time? I've asked a lot of questions here. If you are too busy to respond, I would also appreciate hearing from someone else who either is close to you and/or was with you near the Beginning. Thanks for your time. Archer904 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't here in the early days, but I'm experienced enough to tell you that, all to often, there are individuals who wish to pull off the normal running-course of things and go along their own path with their own ideas. However, most of the community stick firm by the rules that were set down originally anyway, and little comes of the incident. Sorry, but that's all I can offer, but I was so glad that for once, there wasn't a negative question on Jimbo's page that abused him or his creation (Wikipedia) or one whihc voiced their dislike over something. A welcome change. Lradrama 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That's very nice of you to say, thank you. I believe that a collective community voice is the strongest normative power, so it is easy for the community to defend itself against crackpots and (often) people who don't share the community's goals. However, I have a vision for what my wiki can become, and part of that vision relies on community evolution. However, strong minorities have torn apart some of the biggest institutions in history, and it is completely conceivable that the same could happen to my wiki, or to wikipedia. What if the community starts to evolve into something that Jimmy is convinced is going to ultimately diminish its scope and mission? Does he let it happen? Does he make convincing arguments and pray they are enough to sway public opinion and get a consensus going, a la Twelve Angry Men? Or does he do nothing and watch it happen? These are some of the things I'm grappling with. Archer904 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good question, and the answer that's best can only be provided by Jimbo himself. There are so many, many Wikipedians that affect change on this site, and together, we can be a very powerful force, but this is under Jimbo's ownership. He can decide what he likes and dislikes, and if we were to plan something he hated, does he have the ability to block us all as a last resort? I don't know really, but I'm very interested in the topic you've chosen to discuss - not that I am planning anything of the sort! I love it the way things are. We need Jimbo to comment. Jimbo? JIMBO! Please comment here! Lradrama 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is an interesting abstract question here, but fortunately it is more or less abstract. I have never seen the community as a whole drifting in the wrong direction, but then again, I and many other solid community members have been here communicating values and ethics and policies and practices daily for a long time, and most people are basically sane, and so really awful things never seem to take root. Obviously there are borderline cases, and complex disputes about deletionism and the proper role of polling/voting, etc., but mostly we feel our way forward in a reasonable way with patience and toleration. There are certain values that I believe in so strongly that I would gladly risk my role here to stand up for them, and whether or not I would win would be a very interesting question indeed. There is a board, but I am only one of seven board members. I have, completely separately, a traditional role within the English Wikipedia community as a personal "check and balance" on the power of the ArbCom and the process for electing them for example, a role which seems to be generally acknowledged as useful and which I try to carry out as a serious responsibility to be thoughtful, slow, and respectful. If I do something crazy, I imagine the the ArbCom will tell me to knock it off. (Probably personally and privately, of course.) There is a certain useful stability to formalism and tradition, and I think we will likely maintain that for some time to come.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And I have to say I agree with Jimbo. Has that settled your query Archer904? Lradrama 12:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It has. Thanks! Archer904 17:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators restoring and endorsing fake Wikipedia warnings


Dear Mr. Wales, I went to the user page of another editor with whom I have a little difference of opinion and was met with the fake Wikipedia 'new message' warning below:

I brought this to the attention of 2 Wikipedia administratiors, Kurykh, and Chaser, who both feel that "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message" as being perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. Link Link I deleted it from the user's page, and the administrator Chaser actually restored it to the user's page. I would hope hope that after the Essjay controversy and the other 'black eyes' like Sinbad, Seigenthaler, and Chris Benoit that Wikipedia would be more interested in protecting its reputation than in hijinks, but jokes and stunts and defense of such actions are apparently more important to 2 of your administrators! Maybe you feel otherwise. In the meantime I added the hoax to my userpage and talk page, and I encourage you to do the same. It's so funny! I changed the link in mine though, and might change it to link to the Wiki page. Would that be ok? Think if every user on Wiki had this fake warning on their user and talk page each with a different link? Wouldn't that be great fun? Especially for users like academics and historians who might really get a kick out of it! It would be a real 'barrel of laughs'! Don't you think? Thanks for your time. Bmedley Sutler 07:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You're complaining about user space banners that redirect you to a harmless quote? --Tbeatty 07:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have taken this matter to WP:ANI? Oh wait - you did, but didn't get the answer you expected. Note that users have a lot of latitude as to what they can do in their own userspace and 'joke' message bars (which I detest, personally), are borderline acceptable - Alison 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
He did to both AN and AN/I...but it matters not since he must want to joke now too...and has added the template to his page as well, only his directs the innocent to "Lobotomy".--MONGO 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
... containing pictures of Howard Dully's ice-pick lobotomy. Highly amusing, I'm sure - Alison 09:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Another sysop has removed the banner from TDC's user page and I changed the link for the talk page banner to "practical joke". I think this minor matter is resolved, and have marked it as such.--Chaser - T 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am not making up any policy on the spot here, so please no one quote this as if it is a decree. But I think such banners are immature, and do not put forward the right attitude of love and respect for others that make for the best within us. When people use such banners, they diminish themselves in the eyes of others I think. It might be different for me if it were actually, well, clever or funny in some intellectually interesting way. I see no reason to ban such things but neither do I wish for them to become common. We are Wikipedians.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy of speedy deletion

I think it is time to change the policy of allowing admins to just wipe articles off Wikipedia. This is giving them too much power, and can turn deletions into a popularity contest. I think that Wikipedia should allow for a discussion after the speedy deletion tag is placed in order for users to back their articles up. 4 times articles of mine have been deleted, and two were by non-admins who just blanked it. I am seriously getting PO'ed about this popularity contest, and it needs to change NOW. Shanem201 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the comment here about User:Blnguyen. This is a case which could be stopped with a little tweaking on the speedy deletion system. Maybe not a long discussion, but I think a verification by another admin would do. Shanem201 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how, there. User:Blnguyen (apparently) deleted a bunch of copyvio stuff. That's vital to Wikipedia. I wasn't really following that, mind. There are fairly strict criteria governing what can be speedied and it's not a simple matter of speedying what you like by shoehorning them into whatever CSD category suits. It doesn't work that way. Unless for certain categories (like A7, maybe), it could require a second opinion from any other editor before a admin speedies the article. That might work ... - Alison 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I'm getting at. Here's a little story which may help you see my point. Let's say one admin has someone they positively loathe and despise. As an admin, they could follow the user they hate, and speedy each article, causing a big dispute. If we limit one-admin speedys to vandalism and spamming, it will allow articles that could be useful a second opinion before being deleted, and hopefully clear up and abuse, such as in the case up above. Let's face it, I bet you have had disagreements with other admins about which articles should be speedied (not counting vandalisim or spamming). Shanem201 12:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Default to "Keep" aka The Common person rule

It might be wise to establish a general policy whereby, any article not blatantly violating policy and guidelines at Wikipedia, will be kept, unless and until a minimum number of editors and administrators have made verifiable attempts to improve same. (12, for example.) (i.e., Make it more difficult to delete. It should not be more difficult to revert a deletion than the deletion itself.) That element of this encyclopedia, in and of itself, is self destructive, in my opinion.

Sadly right now, a select group or "click" of very few administrators can be established to swiftly eliminate anything and everything here, with malice and the wrong motivation as a justification for such an action. "Speedy" deletions should only be allowed when any common person would know that such an article violates the spirit and policy of this project. Editors that do such a deed should be held accountable and lose their powers if it is later established and proven that they did not act in good faith, or as so stated above. Maybe this has been tried and it failed to gain consensus, but it sure seems simple to me. Why is there a hurry to eliminate information, when the whole basis for this project is to gather it and share it? 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There a number of very specific situations where speedy deletion can be used, found at WP:CSD. These are the only circumstances where administrators can delete content without a debate, where it directly contravenes or fits one of those policies. There is not group of admins banding together against new articles that do not break the speedy deletion policy. As long as each admin follows policy, there is little need for a second opinion, as the next admin will also follow the same policy. ck lostswordTC 14:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this to be interesting reading. Thank you for the information ! 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Speedy" deletions should only be allowed when any common person would know that such an article violates the spirit and policy of this project. - And how on earth are we supposed to make such an abstract determination in a "speedy" fashion? If we allow deletions because admins think a page violates the spirit (and almost all pages violate a policy if you look hard enough), that is much easier to abuse than the current system which gives very specific rules, formed by consensus. Why is there a hurry to eliminate information - The only hurry we have is to eliminate such things as copyvios, blatant advertising, attack pages, vandalism, nonsense, articles that don't provide enough information to be remotely usable, articles like "Joe Smith is the coolest person in Cleveland, OH. He invented oxygen", and similar things. Editors that do such a deed should be held accountable and lose their powers if it is later established and proven - We already do that, its called WP:ARBCOM, they need to do it multiple times with multiple complaints first, but if you think an article was deleted improperly, go to WP:DRV. If you notice a pattern of abuse, try WP:ANI (also see Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall). any article not blatantly violating policy and guidelines at Wikipedia, will be kept, unless and until a minimum number of editors and administrators have made verifiable attempts to improve same. (12, for example.) - You obviously have not seen some of our backlogs, nor the sheer amount of bad articles that come through Special:Newpages sometimes. A policy like that will quickly lead to some speedy deletions taking longer than WP:AFD, because nobody will want to review them. Also, most speedy criteria are already based on blatant violations of other policies and guidelines (WP:SPAM, WP:N, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NONSENSE, etc.). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abuse is an example of an article that was speedy deleted despite the people that supported the deletion having admitted that it didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. The main problems were lack of sources and lack of notability. A.Z. 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of which are criteria for speedy though it was correctly speedied as an attack page. We shouldnt be too welocming of new articles unless they can prove notability and wont present any potential BLP problems so i would have thought making speedies easier not harder is the way to go, SqueakBox 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my position that they are not criteria for speedy deletion. Please, tell me what BLP means. A.Z. 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP, its a policy re living people, SqueakBox 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, though this specific article is not about a living person, which means you think we shouldn't be welcoming of it because it can't prove it's notability and because you think it's an attack page. A.Z. 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, deletion is no big deal, and the speedy deletion policy is likely to become more inclusive over time, not less. I would welcome that, but it is not my decision to make.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If we had discussions on a speedy deletion request, then it wouldn't be a speedy deletion would it? The whole point of a speedy deletion is to get rid of an article that is considered vandalism as quickly as possible, so as fewer people end up reading it as possible. Discussions can be found on WP:Articles for deletion because consideration may be needed. If this was the case for SD aswell, think of the amount of extra time we'd need - it wouldn't be speedy at all. Only articles that are blatant vandalism should be given the speedy deletion tag. Lradrama 12:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh hemmmm ? All I said was "cool" in response to the above reply by Jimbo, and my comment was deleted. Nicht Vahr?

I was not remarking "out of the blue," (i.e., I was responding, following my comment above.) See what I mean about being speedy? Sometimes if I walk in your shoes for a mile or so, I might know you a little bit better. Then I will, perhaps, not be so inclined as to judge you so quickly. I understand more now, and I thank you. 13:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
message Werkbittt 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting insult. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it is an insult, exactly. Werkbittt appears to have created about 20 User pages that, like his own, consist of nothing but the this Barnstar. Are these all socks? Is this a problem? Bielle 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What he means by this I cannot say. Normally, I'd have thought this was just a classy way to proclaim "THIS EDITOR IS GAY!!!", but seeing s he's put it on his own userpage... Yep, definitely a problem, one of the Admins watching this page should speedy block. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What is Jimbo Wales's sexual orientation? A.Z. 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See Jimmy_Wales#Career for reference to his wife. Also see this section's header for how much that matters.--Chaser - T 23:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you think that doesn't matter. We disagree on that. There are other editors who think it's important, thus the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Jimbo would be on that list, if he were gay. We can't safely say yet that he shouldn't be on that list, though, since the fact that he has a wife doesn't mean he's straight. A.Z. 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Discuss that on other pages, not Jimbo's usertalk page, please. --Deskana (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[trimmed to allow for edit conflict with Jimbo below]I suppose, actually, that here WOULD be the best place to discuss such a thing - only Jimbo knows, after all, how he identifies: the subject has never come up in interview. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am heterosexual, but would not consider it to be an insult to be mistakenly identified, any more than I would find it an insult to be mistakenly thought to be from Mississippi or New York rather than Alabama. On the other hand, New York Magazine once said that I was at a fancy party wearing corduroy pants, when I own no corduroy pants and did not attend the party. That was much worse. Corduroy pants?--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! Let's go through the list of every notable Wikipedian and ask them the same question. Aha, BLP subjects at our factfinding mercy... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now the real question is, who's masquerading as Jimbo? (And as a side comment, why don't we have a WP:ONWHEELS page?) --Laugh! 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While Werkbitt's actions in particular seem questionable, isn't the intention of barnstars (Wikipedia:Barnstars) to congratulate editors who have worked hard and the intention of the various kinds to differentiate in what particular area or subject the editor is being commended on. The LGBT Barnstar is intended to congratulate an editor on working in areas related to LGBT issues or relevant to the LGBT community and in no way should be taken as any indication whether either editor is or isn't LGBT (i.e. it's irrelevant). Just the same as for example, the Jewish barnstar doesn't indicate either editor is or isn't Jewish. Not that there is anything offensive with being mistakenly identified either way as Jimbo said Nil Einne 12:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell is this discussion taking place on Jimbo's page? It is wholly innapropriate. Lradrama 12:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. An ironically self-inclusive statement, that simultaneously (wholly) declares both itself and Jimbo's response (on his own talkpage) to be inappropriate. I'll have to ponder the paradox of it. Peace.Lsi john 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?

  • Context... this appears to be Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) editing around a block from an IP and complaining about a series of blocks he received for violating his civility parole.--Isotope23 talk 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Was that huge and ridiculous title necessary, when it simply repeats the first few lines of your comment? Lradrama 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I cut it down. There's no point in discussing things using sections if we can all use headers! --Deskana (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette Link

Thanks for posting that link on the Pauley Perrette talk page. I added the info (gave credit/reference) to the page. Take Care....NeutralHomer T:C 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I know...'re not the Help Desk, but this issue seemed to be a more nuanced interpretation of policy than was appropriate for that forum. Awhile back, I did a big cleanup job on non-nude photography, and one of my final actions was to remove this image from the article. It seemed to me that it is uncertain (to say the least) whether these girls are adults. While I'm whole-heartedly in support of WP:NOT#CENSORED, sexually suggestive images of minors seems to cross the ethical line. What is your opinion on the possibility of deleting the image? All the best, VanTucky (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From the user talk page history, it looks like the uploader has a string of deleted copyvio images, and if you search on his claimed name, it looks like he's being given credit for Wikipedia photos that we don't have anymore. And that there is only one non-wikipedia-related hit on his name. He's only contributed once this year. He was asked back in February to present a model release from a parent or guardian, and has so far not done so, even though he edited in April. I think both those images[13][14] should be deleted. BenB4 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this to the ANI, since the model release issue is potentially serious. BenB4 13:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

They are up on IFD. BenB4 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ben. VanTucky (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to people's attention. I think it will surely be deleted soon.--Jimbo Wales 23:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope you will share your opinion at the IFD discussion, because it's no consensus at present. ←BenB4 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an update if you're interested: the images were deleted, and then this was undone and another IFD debate is on-going. VanTucky (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds just like the rape victims category (ie it gets deleted and then someone restores it). Excellent work, Van Tucky, SqueakBox 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And excellent work, Jimbo, too, in deleting the images, SqueakBox 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Squeak. VanTucky (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Jim, do you still live in the little rancher at 3911 Harrisburg, or have you moved? This was the original address of the Foundation -- that's how I know. --theodoros

I resurrected this abusive trolling question just to answer it factually and simply: no, I do not live at 3911 Harrisburg, not for a long time. I currently live with Osama bin Laden in a cave in an undisclosed location. We watch DVDs of Lost with Jimmy Hoffa.--Jimbo Wales 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And, presumably, Elvis? ck lostswordTC 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And that is another pointless question on this page, too many of which end up being in-depth discussions. Lets hope this one stops here. Lradrama 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's hope ;-) Someguy1221 03:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd heard Osama was a big DHARMA Initiative fan. Thanks for making me laugh out loud.--Isotope23 talk 20:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to judge the Wikipedia:Best User Page Contest next week?

I would like you to join us in the userpage contest on the first week of August to judge the tournament of champions. Please respond as soon as possible. Thank you. Marlith 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it extremely unlikely that Jimbo has time to waste on silly things like this, Marlith. --Deskana (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I must agreeMarlith 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't he seems to spend a real lot of time on Wikipedia anyway, well, that's what his contributions suggest. So I doubt he'd even think about taking part in that. ;-) Lradrama 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmph, I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. I read a lot, and answer tons of emails. I edit through meatpuppets mostly, ha ha. Anyway, I had best stay out of such contests, because there might be hurt feelings and so on. --Jimbo Wales 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Marlith, you might want to re-allocate the time you spend looking for judges, since this "contest" seems to be slouching toward the bit bucket. dr.ef.tymac 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jimbo, my wording was a bit harsh. If it wasn't for you, where would we all be now? Wikipedia is one of the world's greatest wonders! Lradrama 19:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections on Wikipedia

I wonder if you would take a moment to comment on the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections. This debate has been going on for a long time and the community seems to be split down the middle. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this debate but it has very far-reaching implications for Wikipedia, and your opinion could help to finally get things moving in one direction or another.

As the trivia guideline stands right now, it seems to be interpreted as saying that no article should ever contain a Trivia section, and any article that does is flawed. A template is placed on any page that has a trivia section, and it makes no mention of when the template itself should be removed — seeming to imply that only the removal of said trivia section constitutes removal of the template.

So I was wondering if you could review the for/against arguments and offer your opinion. As I said, this debate does not seem to be going anywhere, and your insight could really help. Thanks.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this matter...?

Hi guys. I am a relatively ne wikipedian and according to your username policy, one may not have a name of a celebrity. I did not know where to ask this it goes... Does this rule apply to me? I am aware that I am not above the wikilaw, but I would like to ask to be able to keep my username of WhiteyBulger for the following reasons:

1. It is HIGHLY unlikely tha Mr. Bulger, a fugitive of the US government, would post here.

2. Whitey just a nickname, not James J., his real name.

3. Mr. Bulger is not really a celebrity.

If this is a problem, which I hope is not, I would like to change my name. I just wanted to bring this by you preemptively, before an administrator complained.

Thank you very much for you time, WhiteyBulger 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Your name could easily be seen as the name of a living person, unless it's very common (For example, if the man was named John Smith, you might have a case) -- and given that you admit that you ARE named after him, yes, your username is inappropriate and bannable. Please create a new account with a name that does not impersonate someone --Laugh! 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you not get a beurocrat to rename your account for you? I agree with the above comment, users under the names of celebrities might be mistaken for the real person. And as for your comment saying that he is unlikely to ever post here, why is that? He has every right as the rest of us to contribute to this encyclopedia - you never know - if he got bored..... I bet lots of celebrities have edited here under names that means know-one will recognise them. So please do not use famous names. Cheers, Lradrama 10:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Bcrats will usually not change the names of new users-- especially considering this account seems to have been made JUST to insult the guy --Laugh! 10:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. He'll have to get a new account then. And no insults or personal attacks then please 'WhiteyBulger', there's a good chap. Lradrama 10:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

granting adminship by fiat

I would be grateful if you could drop a quick note here to show you are aware of what otherwise would look like an out-of-process granting of admin powers to User:Until(1 == 2). regards, dab (𒁳) 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I modified the link to reflect the name change of the header.--Isotope23 talk 19:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to believe that administrator rights have been granted to User:Until(1 == 2) inappropriately, based on the evidence I have seen. --Deskana (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We talk about principle, rather than this particular case. I would also like to know Jimbo's opinion. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons I have expressed in the thread that is cited, the practice referred is appropriate in a limited number of cases, including the one mentioned here. Continued discussion of this matter on-wiki is not in the best interests of the project. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I see here that Josh has undone your unblocking of User:Daniel Brandt, reblocking him for creating HM2. I just want to bring it to your attention, I dont have a clear opinion either way on this one, SqueakBox 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to be aware of this WilyD 21:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mr Wales, I know Daniel Brandt has a lot of real world clout and he can bring angry storms of criticism upon Wikipedia, but allowing him to edit is completely damaging to the project. He drives off good-spirited hard working volunteers and it brings everybody's morale down to see someone flouting other people's right to privacy and right to disappear like that. His contributions do not outweigh the destruction he does. -Nard 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The New Wikipedia Sexual Assault Outing Network

hard to believe this may survive deletion. Here on the right, bullet 3 and 4] would seem to juxtapose iteslf against this list. I certainly understand that some sexual assault vicitms may want to publicize their experience in the hope that it helps others avoid or cope with the trauma that is sexual assault but I don't see how Wikipedia is helping with a category that doesn't expand on that aspect of it. Also there seems to be huge BLP potential for abuse espcially "sneaky vandalism." --Tbeatty 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Days like this, I wish we did not have a category system. :-/--Jimbo Wales 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that is good to know! My take is that while if one goes to a bio page and discovers that a person has been raped that is one thing but a list of rape victims where readers can go and find out who has been raped is another and unacceptable, SqueakBox 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial

Just thought I'd let you know that some people do see Wikipedia as an excellent source of information, see this example Gnangarra 13:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Wikipedia IS an excellent source of information. Look at the only external link in my college's moodle website! It's Wikipedia! Lradrama 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


There has been a question raised at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, regarding the evolution of the five pillars. Since these things tend to be interpreted as "the principles of Wikipedia that have always been there", I thought you might have something to say. --Eyrian 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

factions are cancer


I've heard people say that leaving a message on your talk page isn't the best way to go, but well..

Would you mind writing/cowriting/putting your imprimatur on an essay Wikipedia:Factions are cancer? Man I am sick of it all...

So I guess it would be written by longtime Wikipedians, with some stuff thrown in by sociologists or sports psychologists about "cancer in the locker room" etc etc.

That's all! Ling.Nut 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing about leaving messages here is that you will get replies from about a hundred other editors before Jimbo makes it here. When you say "factions", how do you mean that? Cliques of editors? I think that, with such a wide array of people who edit here, it is natural for like-minded editors to gravitate toward one another. What are the concerns that you have with this, and how would you propose dealing with those issues? - Crockspot 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he means mob mentality. If an opinion is expressed that's unpopular with a particular "faction," they have enough voices that they don't really need a cohesive argument in order to force their way; they can back each other up without any effort. This is nothing new, in fact I'm pretty sure it's one of the most common criticisms of Wikipedia. I agree with it somewhat, as I've only just recently gotten a taste of it — I tended not to involve myself with AfD and policy issues before. 08:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with other editors replying is that I have zero-point-zero desire to discuss the issue (and so will not). But no. Not as described by Equazcion. More protracted, more personal, more widespread across numerous forums. Ling.Nut 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to at least take a clue from these responses as proof that the idea behind your proposed essay is unclear. You might want to discuss it with us just enough so that there's a more adequate description available for Jimbo to read/understand/decide on. 10:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


You might not see this or read it, but oh well- Smile! Hope you have a great day!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polarwolf (talkcontribs) 07:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I went ahead and standardized the interwiki links between all your accounts (a couple had full links, but others either had none or just a couple). Now everything links to everything else. Just dropping you a note. EVula // talk // // 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Godwin's RfA

Hi Jimbo, this might interest you: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. It's attracted a fair amount of controversy, with some people suggesting that you, as a steward and board member, should simply grant Mike Godwin administrator rights directly, rather than making him go through an RfA. There's also a thread on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Me and Cecropia have declined to speedy promote him. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. --Deskana (banana) 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved. Mike was promoted by Anthere at meta, and the RfA was closed. --Deskana (banana) 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Jimbo, by the end of the thread that editor seems pretty well convinced that the rumor was baseless. Perhaps he or she will follow up on some leads for Wikinews? I'd be glad to see that curiosity put to constructive use. Perhaps a few encouraging words from you would help in that direction. DurovaCharge! 01:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry for one of my friends vandalism on you userpage as i forgot to logout and i only knew about it from a message once agan sorry Richardson j 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell your friend to go attack User:Curps instead? Trynton Shines 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is why it is preferred, if you are a serious editor, not to have any one else around when editing Wikipedia and this would be especially important for admins - you never know what will happen.--JForget 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That is unrealistic but being responsible for one's own security is essential, if you dont trust people around you dont forget to log out! SqueakBox 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel or not?

Jimbo, I'd be very grateful for your input on a long-suppressed proposed edit to the Matt Drudge page. I cannot see the libel in it, but some other conservative (in every way) editors are unsure. Please either leave a short comment here, or there, or on my Talk page. Thanks. Skopp (Talk) 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit certainly looks better with the modifications made in response to criticisms, but it would perhaps be helpful if you weren't so transparently here with an axe to grind. I do not know the subject matter well enough to know whether the stuff you are seeking to introduce would be a violation of "undue weight"... keep in mind that WP:BLP is not just about libel, but about writing responsible and ethical biographies even of controversial people. A general dislike for someone's political opinions or whatever is no cause to write a hatchet job about them. At the same time, sufficiently newsworthy allegations do need to be covered. Whether these are, I don't know. And then of course if the subject has denied the allegations, then this needs to be explained clearly. As it reads right now, the paragraph seems to have Drudge admitting to gay "dating" but not sex, which strikes me as a bit of an odd thing to admit, even in a "smoked but didn't inhale" era of bizarre public not-quite-confessions. Is that really accurate?--Jimbo Wales 14:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Jimbo. I don't have an axe to grind. I've actually made hundreds of edits to that page, mostly for accuracy but some for balance, since the page initially read like a hagiography. The opposing editors, if you check their histories, spend most of their time policing changes to pages of conservative and GOP personalities, so there is a weird balance of sorts — a balance that would be completely lacking without me. My interests are not simply political, as you'll see from my edit history. I take it from your comment that 1) it is not libellous as it stands, 2) it must be newsworthy (since much of it was covered in newspapers, I think that it clearly is), 3) his denial must be explained clearly (I will adjust, adding another quote, more adamant). If you agree with my assessment of your opinion, please post here, and thank you again! Skopp (Talk) 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Skopp, that's a bit of a low blow, the way you characterized other editors in that discussion. I can only assume that you include me, since you and I have been the most active editors of that article for the past year. I called an RfC because you and I were not getting anywhere. I even approached SamiHarris, who has opposed me on other article like Soros, because I knew he would give a fair and consistent opinion, though he leans a different way than I. I could say a few things about your edit history, and the types of edits (in light of grinding axes) that you have traditionally made to the Drudge articles up until a couple of weeks ago. But I'd prefer not to go there. You have improved a great deal, and I want to see that continue. But taking a cheap and unfair shot on Jimbo's talk page is not the way to go about it. I thought that we had come to an understanding about the personalization of disputes. - Crockspot 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's keep this discussion elsewhere. But to answer briefly, your edits on liberal Bill Moyers strongly re-inforced my opinion of your agenda, yet I do not object at some level because I've come to believe that all editors, to an extent, have an agenda of some sort. Otherwise most would not bother editing, without pay, this website. I don't find what I have said above offensive, and even if I were on the receiving end, would not find it offensive. It's simply realistic. Perhaps you seek adminship and want a clean record of comments? Sorry if I'm fouling that up for you. We can have our agendas, but the trick is to be fair and see the opposing POV, giving it sway when it has a good argument. Skopp (Talk) 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Press coverage

I am persuading the New York Times to do a technology news report on the content of wikipedia. What is your comments towards its content? Also check your email. The sunder king 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Auburn University activities

During your undergraduate study at Auburn University, did you ever participate in the Auburn University Marching Band? Thanks, Dennibr 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No I did not, sorry. :) --Jimbo Wales 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia admin, arbitrator edits page of political opponent

Why is SimonP Simon Pulsifer editing the page of Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien he worked on the election campaign of one of O'Brien's opponents, Alex Munter? 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about it. Did you ask him? If you have a specific problem, I recommend going through the normal dispute resolution channels first.--Jimbo Wales 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1) I think you mean Larry O'Brien (Canadian politician) - Simon never touched the one linked to above. 2) Simon's only edit seems to be adding a vote distribution graphic.[15] Looks innocuous. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this as a conflict of interest at all, he never edited for policies about Munter and O'Brien and he mentionned in my talk page that he cannot, or should I say he wanted to refrain from editing the article (he mentionned at least Munter) in question, well at least as far as campaign policies and positions, for that particular reason.--JForget 19:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, it looks bad. He should stay away from Ottawa city politics entirely. 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Have a Great Day, Jim!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubyandme (talkcontribs) 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you dont mind

I placed a ribbon on your userpage Richardson j 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. No offense, but it looks awful. --Deskana (banana) 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Who are you to revert it? It's a user-page, let the user revert it! Pubuman 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
He's a Wikipedia editor, that's who. Anyone's free to edit Jimbo's user page. --Carnildo 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
He needs a awards page for things like that! I'm sure it would get full too fast though, everyone wanting to give him a barnstar. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
1- That ribbon is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen on a user page, and I've seen REALLY ugly user pages. 2- He's got one. Learn to use Special:Prefixindex --Longing.... 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I do know how, I just assumed it would be linked to in big text on his user page. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
All this talk for a ribbon huh Richardson j 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ribbons are serious business. 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep. And we don't have much else to bother jimbo about. He must get sick of the "New messages" bar. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanna see the ribbon! 05:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Link Hut 8.5 14:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly question

Hello Jimbo (Mr. Wales)! I have a doubt and I'm sorry to bother you about it, but I need to know; is Wikipedia a democracy? Best regards. --Rolf Obermaier 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. --Deskana (banana) 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Five Pillars

Would you say that the five pillars of Wikipedia stand on the same footing as policy? Are they similar but different? Above? Below? In a box by the door? Can they be cited as a reason for doing something like policy? --Eyrian 18:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Five Pillars of wikipedia, as said on the page itself, are a summary of policies and guidelines. As it also says, they are Wikipedia's fundamental principles. So yes, they're far, far, far more important than policy. Even if the dirty stinking inclusionists took over, the pillars would still apply --Longing.... 18:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the five pillars involves civility. "Dirty stinking inclusionists" does not appear civil at all. The Five Pillars seem to make little comment on inclusionism vs. DIMEism aside from saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." Apparently, hard drives have become drastically more expensive but I still do not see why you would use such a perjorative statement. Ursasapien (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice Needed

Dear Jimbo,

I need some advice, and don't know who to talk to; I feel like most Admin, and the Help Desk would just brush me off without actually hearing what I want to say. I don't even know if I can describe it, but I'll try. So, here goes:

I'm very upset with Wikipedia. I love it, I've met amazing people, and done great work with my time here; but I'm getting increasingly frustrated for over a year and half now. The problem lies in Wikipedians blindly citing Policy without discussing it, debating it, and I suspect actually reading it beyond the main title. There is no reasoned arguments, simply anal citation, and signature. New articles, Trivia, Pop Culture, etc. etc. the very reasons why I loved Wikipedia from the very start are vanishing in the name of mindless beaucratic regulation. Even when asked about Policies than inherently don't make logical sense in AfD, the retort is "that is not the current discussion" and "that doesn't matter". No one listens. I look at Recent Changes, and AfD, and am sickened; articles that should exist are deleted by users who don't know, realize, or care. The heartbeat of Wikipedia is gone, and in it's place, we are destroying ourselves.

Am I wrong in my belief that policy should guide arguments, not be the arguments? Am I totally wrong on Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil? Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you for your time. Zidel333 13:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should have been speedy deleted. At a bare minimum, it needs to be merged with some other article, and all information removed for which there are no sources.--Jimbo Wales 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that all you have to say? I had hoped you would speak more candidly.... Zidel333 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 :-) More candidly? Not sure what else I could say. Did you have a specific question? The article is badly written, on a totally non-notable topic, there are no sources. --Jimbo Wales 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
That particular AfD was just an example of a more general problem, which is what Zidel was hoping you'd offer your thoughts on, if I understood correctly. He described some ways in which people discuss article merit that he has a problem with. 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Well, I think it is quite appropriate to cite policy, tradition, and precedent with reference to specific cases. I also think it is inappropriate to treat each new specific case as being unique without reference to those long established principles. So, basically, I guess I disagree. Now, at the same time, of course it also can at times make sense to say of a particular case that it for some surprising reason does not fit with the norm, and to call attention to that. But in a case like this one, there is nothing interesting about the particular case, or anyway no one seemed to have mentioned anything.--Jimbo Wales 17:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As for my 2nd request, Equazcion was on the mark: it was for the Arguments question, and AfD in general. BtW, I'm a she, not a he. :) Zidel333 17:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad, Zidel, sorry for the gender assumption :) 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You have a point there. I also hate it on AfD when people just put a random vote when they are neither interested in or care about the article. I would also like to see more indepth dicussions, preferably kept to the subject's Wikiproject and the outcome would be much more fair. I hope something is done. Lradrama 14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you did a fine job of describing it; in fact that's a very articulate description of the problem. I'm encountering this myself at the trivia argument, which I see is one of your examples. And I agree that in many cases, the deletion of pop culture and trivia sections end up being a huge loss. They used to be the first parts of any article that I would read, and now they're first on the chopping block. There's also a trend I see now to delete new articles just because they're very short — which doesn't make any sense to me. 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of folks with solid academic background that were scared from Wikipedia exactly by huge trivia and pop culture sections. Like the one in Charon (mythology), which is way beefier than the relevant academic text. No other encyclopaedia is so lenient to triviacruft. It is annoying to stumble upon something like "In the game Civilization II, she is the female option for ruler of the Russians" in the middle of the article Catherine II of Russia. There are no definite criteria for inclusion of trivia into encyclopaedia entries, which are supposed to contain an assortment of most relevant facts, rather than a mess of stray notes added on a random basis by every passerby. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So rather than coming up with some definite criteria, we've chosen to ban all trivia sections across the board. I just don't see that as being the most enlightened solution. 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Change of views?

Jimbo, you now say that a page like Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager) should have been speedily deleted. But back in 2002, you apparently agreed with someone who said (emphasis added):

"Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? ... Hard disks are cheap.

What has changed in the past 5 years? Has the price of hard disks increased? Or are episodes of The Simpsons somehow different from episodes of Star Trek: Voyager? What is the reasoning behind this apparent change of views? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. It seems no one ever brings up any notability issues on anything Simpsons-related. There's an article for every character, every episode, etc, regardless of any of them being specifically notable. And while I don't want to put Jimbo on the spot by asking him to defend something he said 5 years ago, I would like to know what he thinks now, and whether or not his opinion has changed. It's possible that in 2002, Wikipedia still being in its infancy, the guiding principles that would have contradicted that statement simply hadn't been conceived of yet. 05:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm... Jimbo? I know you're a busy guy, but you've responded to other comments since I left this one. It would mean a lot if you could explain this apparent change of views. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to know someone else is still watching this discussion. :) Ahh, I still didn't get my advice.... Zidel333 19:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, I don't want to be a pest, but if you would be so kind as to respond to this I'd very much appreciate it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Same here. I think this deserves a response. It's a good question, you have to admit. 03:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the silence intrigues me. Zidel333 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of engaging in Kremlinology, perhaps we were misreading Jimbo's earlier comments. He said "The article is badly written, on a totally non-notable topic, there are no sources." At the time he wrote that comment, that was arguably true: the prose was ugly, there was original research and trivia, and no sources, and notability hadn't been established. I'm of the opinion that for a few television series (including The Simpsons and the various Star Trek series), every episode is notable, but that's just my opinion and the article didn't have anything to indicate specific notability when Jimbo made his comment. It would be interesting to see what he says now, considering that the article has been substantially rewritten, notability-establishing sources were found and the AfD decision was "keep". —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If every episode of a series is notable, that means all its episodes' articles should stay. They would just need to be improved. If an article on an episode of The Simpsons were badly written, no one would AfD it. Or at least if they did it would end up being kept. They would just put a cleanup or style tag on it. The question here is, can you really say across-the-board that all episodes of a series are notable? Jimbo seems to have thought so about The Simpsons at one point, but now for Star Trek he doesn't. Does that have to do with the 5 years that have passed or is there something about The Simpsons that's more notable than Star Trek? That's what I want to know. 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My opinion has changed to some extent, although the principles by which I reached my opinion have not. I seriously underestimated the difficulty of getting people to avoid original research and understand the need for proper sourcing. Most articles of this type have turned out to be basically crap, no sources, easily hoaxable, unmaintained and unmaintainable. That's a real shame, but there you go. I do think that there ARE episodes which we can responsibly handle, but I no longer think that having an article on every episode is really possible or desirable even for a show such as The Simpsons.
I regret that people engage in infinite Jimbo Kremlinology, but I am allowed to have opinions, and to change them responsibly in light of new evidence, I think. :) I certainly have no problem with sourced information in Wikipedia... I do have a problem with people writing totally useless and uninteresting and unsourced plot summaries. That is not what an encyclopedia should do.--Jimbo Wales 06:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, thank you very much for taking the time to reply and elucidate your thinking on this subject, and how it's changed. Yes, of course you have the right to change your opinions — I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind this particular change. And I agree that television episode articles should be properly sourced, and be more than a plot summary.
And I hope you realize that my "Kremlinology" comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Allowed to change your opinions? Ha! Jimbo, public figures in the United States are simply not afforded that luxury. You'll have to defend your statements to the bitter end just like the rest of us. ;) 09:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy & Religion

Dear Jimbo:

Did you grow up with any religious teaching? Has your objectivist philosophy ever come in conflict with an emotional need to have some form of faith?

I also noticed that many economics articles have leftist bent. Have you perceived this as well?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firmitas (talkcontribs)

You may want to see Jimmy Wales, the biography on Jimbo. Also, as for articles with a POV, see our POV policy. You can tag these articles by adding {{POV}} on a line of its own at the top of the articles. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


Earlier, you said that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Do you believe that this is a reasonable codification of that? --Eyrian 21:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start at least. --Jimbo Wales 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment from

Please restrict "Omnicron8" and all the other Wiki-trolls from sabotaging profiles.

You have no way of reporting abuse. It should be as simple as clicking their username, and clicking a report this user link. Flag. SOMETHING. It's really pathetic how these freaks have so much time on their hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have three or four ways of reporting editors. Comments like this are why it isn't that easy. --Longing.... 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is clearly valid. I have tried to help at User talk: Given the external situation I was able to google, I suspect that this is the user's first experience with Wikipedia after being pointed to vandalism by someone who was apparently harassing him at length elsewhere first. I'm pretty sure that there is little chance that he was familiar with WP:CIVIL or WP:LEGAL but I've asked him to read them. ←BenB4 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that didn't turn out very well. Don't we have something like a "What to do if your BLP gets vandalized" for newbies? If we don't we should. ←BenB4 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:ABIO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you --L--- 02:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, close, but I'm thinking of something for people new to the project who arrive for the first time steaming mad about something concerning them or their work. It's often just human nature to express personal attacks and legal threats in situations like that. For people who haven't been exposed to the policies, there needs to be a quick, maybe three-to-five paragraph intro that (1) welcomes with sympathy for the problem faced, (2) explains the basic rules of conduct, (3) shows what will happen if those rules are or are not followed (maybe with example cases), and (4) describes how to get help at WP:AIV, WP:BLPN, WP:OVERSIGHT, or WP:ANI. If we don't have an essay like that maybe I will write it. ←BenB4 05:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
People normally click "Contact Wikipedia" and end up e-mailing OTRS, which is probably the best way to get something done in a situation like this, if you don't understand the way Wikipedia works. --Deskana (banana) 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Update I just blocked this user for 24 hours for further incivility. It appears that they had ownership problems when a few unreliable sources (Yahoo!Groups, for example) were deleted from Sam Harris (singer). From there it escalated. I have posted a notice at WP:ANI# (same user) as well. Caknuck 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Accusations on a popular website like Slashdot that a prolific administrator is accepting money to make articles biased can affect Wikimedia fundraising efforts and deserve to be seriously dealt with and not ignored. I trust that you and your fellow board members are taking appropriate steps. I warned you early on that the Essjay thing needed proper handling and it was mishandled. I think this case needs to be evaluated by legal personel and maybe just maybe at some point the wikimedia foundation can announce that an internal investigation has revealed zero evidence of any such thing. I know that I have zero evidence of any such thing and I've followed this in detail. WAS 4.250 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am monitoring the situation carefully, and the communications committee is as well. The thing is: the story is so transparently preposterous that it is hard to imagine any serious journalist picking it up at all. Most of the people discussing it seem to be completely confused about the facts. If the question is: "Is SlimVirgin a pseudonym for someone who prefers to maintain a high level of privacy?" then the answer is a clear YES. If the question is: "Does Wikipedia sometimes oversight material when personal information is posted into the wiki?" then the answer is a clear YES. If the question is: "Doesn't this prove that SlimVirgin is a spy?" then, uhhhhhhh....--Jimbo Wales 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is pushing harder on this than he pushed on Essjay. Daniel Brandt's opinion is highly regarded by Seigenthaler, among others. Seigenthaler is highly regarded in the news business. Spy stories sell newspapers. This is not going away. WAS 4.250 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking to Daniel Brandt might be useful in ensuring that you are fully informed as to the claims and evidences; as you should be as the public face of wikipedia. I think that casually dismissing claims that she is a spy is poor strategy for many reasons. I think we should focus on wikipedia's objectively determinable concerns - namely that her on-line wikipedia behavior does not indicate being paid to bias articles. Whether more evidence than an in-house examination of her on-line wikipedia behavior is possible or desireable is I think a matter for her and our lawyers and such. At some point, if this got enough out of hand, she might welcome a certified clearing of her status based on a confidential release of financial information to lawyers (but maybe not - I wouldn't know). In any case, this needs careful handling and not ignoring or off the cuff comments. I'm glad I can count on you for that. Good luck with all your endeavors. WAS 4.250 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is a log kept of all Oversight actions, with clear and detailed summaries for every time the Oversight function was/is used? Cla68 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We are doubling in size every year. This requires a constant evolution of processes and procedures. I suggest that questions concerning oversight and other management issues are appropriate and useful. (Don't shoot the messenger.) WAS 4.250 22:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is set up correctly, all oversight logs are kept in a private directory on the server. All oversighted revisions stay in the database, and can be viewed or unoversighted by a developer at any time (within reason). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Should the logs be viewable by everyone? Cla68 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That destroys the point of oversight - The logs are viewable by the foundation, and that is all that is needed. Oversight is for removing personal information, and having logs viewable would show some of that information (especially if part of it was in the edit summary). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Then how do we achieve some level of transparency in our oversight function? Vague edit summaries ("deleted due to personal information")? Or is transparency not something we desire in our possibly more controversial administrative functions? Cla68 07:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia began with maximum public transparency. Public transparency has been compromised inch by inch over time as the need to do so for legal and moral reasons have surfaced and as we have gotten larger and accumulated people who bear us ill will. But public transparency is compromised as little as possible. WAS 4.250 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've observed that a couple of editors in good standing have formally requested on IRC that at least one oversight admin remove themselves from the project indefinitely because of questions about that oversight admin's impartiality and judgement related to this controversy. Perhaps that is a good idea that he or they do so while we weigh the appropriate transparancy of the oversight function. Who is/are the English Chapter's Wikipedia policy-making board that we can take this to for resolution? What, there isn't one? Why not? Cla68 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(<---) The Wikimedia Board of Directors is evaluating just that issue. See this message and the following thread. This is being handled in a very thoughtful deliberative way. I'm sure your input would be appreciated. Discussion and evaluation is expected to occur during August, so that we can move on end of august on the topic. WAS 4.250 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted Anthere's message, which was a general message about checkuser policy, not made in response to this or any other controversy, and certainly the board is absolutely not currently considering making any changes to who has checkuser. Within the English Wikipedia, and all Wikipedias with an ArbCom, the ArbCom decides who is and is not given checkuser access. The ArbCom, of course, is closely following this and all other controversies within English Wikipedia, and will act if it seems there is anything to be done.
However, as one of the few people with full access to all the relevant information, I can tell you that any change is extremely unlikely, based on what we know so far, and people should be really cautioned not to listen to luantic trolls about alleged conspiracies. :) --Jimbo Wales 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, I appreciate your reasoned response to my question but I have to ask, why isn't this an issue on any other language Wikipedia except En (English)? I assume good faith, but the controversy needs to be put to bed with open debate. Why are threads being archived so quickly on WP:AN when people still have more input and why are non-trolling comments being deleted from user pages so quickly? Some are obviously trolling but some questions are from editors in good standing. Cla68 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it is an very emotional issue with a handful of imperfect humans (as we all are) on the English language wikipedia who are individually and collectively a great asset to wikipedia. Our rules are not perfect. Our community is not perfect. No contributor is perfect. We are muddling though a process that is seeing us double in size every year. We don't want to kill the very process that created us by heavy handed top down control or letting outside forces decide our rules. On the other hand the latest emotion driven out of process behaviors decrease transparency, decrease perceived credibility to the extent we look like we are not taking admin COI and POV-pushing into account, drive out less protected contributors who feel bullied, and are a heavy handed mid-level down control inconsistent with the very process that created us. So we have to as a community cool down and talk to each other in measured tones. WAS 4.250 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
like this? - unsigned

(<---)You are suggesting the wikimedia community elect a body? We have. It's called the wikimedia board of directors. WAS 4.250 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings and an Invitation

Hola! Gnangarra suggestion that I contact you about my project featuring Wikipedia. I am an English as a Foriegn Language teacher at the college level at ITESM Campus Toluca, just a bit west of Mexico City. For my Advanced B class, which consists over very proficient speakers of English, the focus and goal of the course is for students to become members of the Wikipedia community, culminating in the contribution of a new full-length article in English.

Please feel free to browse my user page and the pages related to the project at:


Gnangarra also mentioned to me that you might be willing to speak to us if you are in the area. If you are really willing, I can make some inquiries here about bringing you in as a speaker, though I have no idea what the school would be willing to offer. Sure couldnt hurt to ask! Certainly would make for a buzz around here!

Thanks for your time and attention.

Thelmadatter 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Yes, I would be excited to visit your school. This would be especially good for next year, since in January, I plan to start studying Spanish. :) --Jimbo Wales 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Going to be learning Spanish? Fantastico. Let us know when you start (with a user box) and we can start writing to you in Spanish too, SqueakBox 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be wonderful! The only minor problem is perhaps the timing... The course I am giving based on Wikipedia is for the Fall of 2007 (Aug 6 - Nov 15). The Advanced B course is not available in the spring. If you could visit us during the fall sometime, that would be great. I can only imagine how seeing you would motivate my students! However, if you cannot come in person during that time period, I understand. Maybe a video greeting would work quite well! However, if you find yourself in the neighborhood, you are always welcome.
Thelmadatter 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter
I assume the decision to learn Spanish has nothing to do with an incident involving Steven Colbert and the Spanish WP? Confusing Manifestation 06:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Curious about your personal Licensing philosophy

Following a bit of a dispute on WikiNews over whether or not I should be allowed to release my own writings into the public domain, instead of being forced to license them under CC-By - I became interested in your personal philosophy. I read a few of the board's statements on the inherent "freedom" espoused by WMF, but wasn't able to find any exact statement (which would agree with my personal philosophy...) stating that "Public Domain is encouraged".

I know Wikipedia edits are automatically GFDL, since it would be nigh impossible to have an ever-changing article have every editor agree to PD edits, but with something "closed" like Wikinews (where articles are locked to preserve integrity after a week), I personally believe it should be up to the contributors, and if all the article's contributors agree, they should be allowed to license the article as public domain, rather than CC-By.

Isn't the very philosophy of freedom mean that the editors should be free to license their own contributions as PD, (and thus any completed work that is done solely by such users, the same) - rather than fit the narrow-minded ego of "No, you are not allowed to grant media outlets the right to use your work without crediting Wikinews, we demand credit!", when it's our work to do with as we please? I have trouble reconciling "free" with "not allowed to be public domain", and it's early in the morning and I'm going to cut off my rambling here, only to say that I am curious about your personal opinions on the matter, when you have spare time and feel like responding to a loon :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 12:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To be an advocate of the devil, there's nothing that prohibits you from releasing your work under PD, just do it on your own website. Projects like Wikipedia and Wikinews have chosen the various licenses they have, and that's what they have now. On a practical side, the only way your PD-self licensing would work on Wikinews is if you were the only author. I imagine Wikinews has an equivalent to WP:OWN, after all, it IS a wiki, so that would be essentially an assertion of ownership over an article during the editing phase. - CHAIRBOY () 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad point, though one that was addressed in the discussion - since any editor could freely remove the PD tag and the article would revert to being CC-By. It was simply for articles which were either single-author (common on Wikinews), or multiple authors who all agreed to release it to the PD. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole question is pointless since in most jurisdictions there is no practical way for you to release your work PD in the first place. CC BY is as free as you can get without some complexities. --Jimbo Wales 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm really interested in the answer to this question anyways - I released an image I made under a license that's inappropriate for Wikipedia (in addition to six that are, I think) - and although no one's thrown a hissy-fit yet, I've been half expecting it.

Regarding IP address edits

I'm rather concerned by the increasing bias against contributors who contribute via IP addresses. Rather than being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it's increasingly "the free encylopaedia that anyone can edit [assuming they have an old account so they can edit SPed articles, start new articles, list articles for deletion and their opinion actually be considered]", and despite indications that the foundation fundamentally doesn't want to block IP-address editors, slowly but surely the rights are being removed.

The AfC backlog - something that was an essential condition in blocking IPs from starting new articles - is now 15 months old and isn't going anywhere. Admins are increasingly misusing IP address blocks, giving indefinite blocks after 1 lot of vandalism and any attempt to be unblocked is denied as "Wikilawyering" or similar. Many editors treat IP address contributors as second-class citizens by being revert-heavy. Few people seem to actually care about IP address editors, leading to consistent removal of features and proposals such as this. Few registered members seem to want to stand up for the right of IP address editors, presumably based on the assumption that they're merely all vandals.

I feel this is a worrying trend that is likely to continue and I there should be some way of counteracting this bias and stereotype among long-time editors. I feel something must be done before the slippery slope continues and IP contributors are blocked outright. - 03:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just get an account?--Jimbo Wales 16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The AfC backlog is indeed pathetic, but it also appears, to my random glances, to be much worse than Special:Newpages, which is bad enough as it is. As much as I am in favor of anonymous editing, I wouldn't mind if the whole AfC concept was scrapped. ←BenB4 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it certainly makes a change for a post arguing the case for IP editing! This matter, usually against allowing the current situation, is a frequent visitor to the forums - and it rarely gets further than a few statements for and against, and then it goes quiet until the next time. As it is, ip editors have the same core rights as registered users - they can edit the encyclopedia. Any "further" abilities that registered users have is based around having a history and a means of one to one communication, as ip's can cover a group of individuals and edits.
Are registered users unduly harsh regarding ip edits? Some might be, but then they may be with other edits. As in all these cases, it is impossible to quantify how many people review an ip's edit, deem it appropriate and move on; sometimes it is only when a subsequent edit is reverted to an ip edit can it be determined it was good.
Actually, this perennial question does do some good - every so often someone comes along to knock the contributions by ip's, and a bunch of folk then reiterate both the principle of allowing ip editing and the benefits. Happy editing! LessHeard vanU 09:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think IP address users are more often being linked to vandalism, because most vandals simply tend to be anonymous. Not all of them, but most of them. I believe in IP addresses shouldn't be allowed to create articles, we already get too many articles getting created that are vandalism as it is. Creating an account is simple, and that user now has a username to which all their edits are assigned and it becomes easier to identify and praise their work (if they do it properly that is).
It is the same on RC Patrol, I'm sure most users look closely at edits made by IP addresses more than any other - and I'm sure edits made by established users (with an account) do not get even a quick look. Trust is the factor there. You see, IPs bring the image of 'newbie' - everyone starts off as an IP and that's where all the cock-ups are made before you become an 'established' Wikipedian. I hope you can see what I'm trying to get at here! Sorry if my comment was a bit confusing, but I think the system is fine as it is, however I rarely venture onto AfC - I'm more of an AfD and RC person, so I can't really assert myself too much here. Lradrama 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 2

If you want to come, I know it's a few hours drive from St. Pete. It's likely going to be somewhere between this Friday and Sunday. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I saw on VK35's talk page you and him got in a argument(I can't seem to find a better word). Do you know what made this happen? Also I AM NOT VK35. 20:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC) also User:Wiki-wikify

Proposal: add "An Encyclopedia" to the list of things Wikipedia is not?

After having had a look at a number of deletion reviews, something occurred to me. Of all the deletion discussions initiated under WP:N that I've seen, I've never seen a contributor change a "delete" vote to a "keep" vote after being provided with citations and references, where the WP:N review had been initiated under the (incorrect) assumption that no such citations existed.

I'm not saying my observations are indicative of a universal trend here on WP (I have not done a survey or exhaustive review), but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. This is especially troubling since this precise circumstance has popped up in a recent discussion regarding the deletion of an article about a popular Open Source software package cited numerous times in scholarly sources in the contexts of Education, distance learning, and accessibility; interests that (I would have thought) closely coincide with those of Wikipedia itself.

Nevertheless, WP contributors (at least some) seem to see things differently.

So I wonder, has a WP contributor ever changed a WP:N deletion vote from "delete" to "keep" based on the provision of references? If "no", or "yes, but only infrequently" one wonders if WP should really be calling itself an "Encyclopedia" to begin with? It would seem "discussion forum" or "essay repository" would seem more appropriate, and reflective of the varying and somewhat haphazard standards of inclusion and removal here. Standards that do not always mesh with the interests of scholarly credibility and completeness, or indeed, not even the interests and credibility of WP itself. Instead, standards seem often swayed more by the demographic cohort and the personal preferences of the contributors themselves (especially the WP "regulars" who constitute the preponderant influence in AfD discussions).

I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but I'd be curious to hear what ya think. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 08:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Most contributors would change their decision if you notified them on their talk page. Also, since AfD is not a vote, the closing admin would most likely put less weight to these invalid opposes, or even no weight in some cases. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I have seen people change their vote in light of new references several times. The majority of people don't watch the AfD pages they vote on, and the closers realize this. ←BenB4 09:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, anybody got a diff for an example? Not that I doubt what you're saying, it'd just be nice to see. dr.ef.tymac 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • See the recent AfD on Fudgie Frottage, where a majority of deletes and speedy deletes flipped to keep, including myself. - Crockspot 12:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) PS I would add that User:Benjiboi deserves full credit for singlehandedly saving that article from certain deletion. He worked his ass off for days finding and citing sources, and rewriting the article from gibberish to a decent article. I couldn't even figure out what or who the article was about the first time I read it. - Crockspot 12:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that I've recently flipped my own vote on an article after seeing references, I'd say yes. If you feel that most of the votes were provided without seeing notable sources introduced later, see WP:DRV --L-- 12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As was done in the Fudgie Frottage AfD, if significant improvements are made during the course of an AfD, I think it is appropriate to contact editors who voted delete and ask them to take another look. I have even been notified in the past that my vote would not be considered unless I indicated that I had reevaluated the article. I thought that was pushing it a bit, but I didn't see a major problem with it. - Crockspot 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • On another note, when I close an AFD, I look at those things. If editor X said, Delete - no WP:RS, and i look at the article and find that reliable sources were provided after the afd was initiated, I take that into account when closing an AFD. I am not saying I choose to arbitrarily discount votes however feel that common sense should prevail in those situations. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a whole essay about this, called WP:HEY. It's one of my favorites. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, an essay that I actually don't want to nominate for deletion! Cool. Though I might renominate some of those other AfD's. (kidding!) - Crockspot 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've seen it often as well. DS 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those who responded, (especially AnonEMouse). Even though this is purely anecdotal (including my initial speculation) this does provide a reasonable counter-balance to my original viewpoint. It's nice to see that people can (and do) reevaluate their perspectives once provided with new information :). Regards. dr.ef.tymac 00:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The instances that I am familiar with are not related to provision of missing citations and sources but to the general quality and encyclopedicity of an article. I will cite the instances that come to mind:

In all three cases, I was able to get Delete voters to change their minds by leaving them a message on their Talk Pages after I had improved the article to the point where it was worth keeping. I would say that the key is to proactively lobby the Delete votes. This has to be done with civility and humility and one must not pester Delete voters. However, if you have a valid case that the article has changed, it is reasonable to ask the Delete voters to review the latest version and reconsider their vote. The reason for leaving messages on Talk Pages is that editors don't always monitor the AFD pages after they vote.

--Richard 01:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And, as if we needed to toss out more examples, I saved Hannah's Gift from its AfD fate. Once I did some research and provided some refs,[16] it was a unanimous keep. EVula // talk // // 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Public Pedia Act

Greetings Jimbo Wales! I have been thinking of accomplishing an act on Wikipedia. This act will make every Wikipedian content and happy! It will be a type of discussion or should I say talk page. Wikipedians will solve problems and make friends with Wikipedians. It will be where Wikipedians will state opinions which will make Wikipedia a better site. To make your creation complete. To help you too wth new ideas. So all need sire I mean Jimbo is to see if you approve of this or deny of this act. I need your descision because I do not want go against your policies. You are the boss you decide.--Angel David?!?Presents 00:20 7 August, 2007 (UTC)

So you know, this would be better discussed with the Wikimedia board. Note that wikipedia is not a social networking site, so things entirely for friendship etc is not approriate. For suggestions, please feel free to propose them on the village pump, in the proposals section. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP check

Could you, or someone who monitors your talk page, come look at Michael Savage (commentator). I know you left a message on the article's talk page some time back and removed some content. This article will always be somewhat contentious, but I worry that some of the content is unecessarily inflammatory. For example, One postcard mentions his "thought of inserting my camera's lens in your A-hole to photograph the walls of your rectum." I would truly like to see this article move to GA status, but I do not see any way it can in its current state. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing should go to WP:BLPN. I will copy it there. ←BenB4 09:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Ursasapien (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

I just blogged about this. :-)--Jimbo Wales 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Wales, happy birthday! I 'm a Chinese who come from Hong Kong, and I'm now making contributions in the Chinese Wikipedia. I was born in August 7 too! Can we make friends? -- King of King Chaplin Discuss with me please! 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Best wishes, --Frank Schulenburg 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Jimmy! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 11:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's your birthday? Then have a great one! Gscshoyru 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday, Jimbo. Wishing you the best in your life. --Meno25 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthday eh? Well, happy birthday! Jmlk17 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you add 18 days, your birthday's the same as mine! Well, happy birthday, Susan Jimbo! — Malcolm (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Pile On Happy Birthday. I have no doubts in my mind that this editor is ready to become a year older. Congrats, Jimbo! --L-- 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Very Happy Birth Day! --Bhadani (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Happy Birthday aswell!!! My birthday is 8 days from now. James Luftan contribs 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy bir- oh wait, this date doesn't match your birth certificate! Bramlet Abercrombie 18:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case; a very Happy Unbirthday... LessHeard vanU 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

More secrets from you Jimbo or should I say, Susan! Why did you not mention your recent name change? (see picture) AndrewJDTALK -- 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy Birthday (although I am late). I am also curious to the name (and possibly gender, not to stereotype the name) change? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, Jimbo Wales, from someone who does not have a birthday template made! :) (Oh and whichever day it is, I'm right—it's August 8 server time and August 7 my time. :D ) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eat it slowly, as always! :)

Oh, and I'm also giving you another of the cakes I gave you last year. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, happy belated birthday, Jimbo Wales. :) Greg Jones II 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A very happy belated birthday to you, Mr. Wales! Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: not belated. ←BenB4 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps cookie.png Just a happy Birthday message to you, Jimbo Wales/Archive 26, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Happy birthday from the German wikibooks
--Sundance Raphael 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
btw. i have today also birthday ;-)

The birth certificate issue was raised at some point ... FWIW, people with subscriptions to typically can look up birth certificate registrations for people born in the U.S., which are taken from lists compiled by each state; even then, however, the registers sometimes have errors, and not everyone born in the U.S. is listed there, even for the years covered. Just mentioning it in case anyone with access wants to give it a shot. Ancestry even provides a model of how to cite the reference.Lawikitejana 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I saw that you did a courtesy blanking on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I note that User:Internodeuser, who is no longer a banned user, had requested in his own Arbitration that the only thing he wished was for it to be blanked, and deleted from the system. Since there has now been a history of a number of Arbitration requests being blanked for privacy, one in which the entire Arbitration was based on the user requesting privacy seems the most obvious of all to blank. I note that he also requests for the Request for Arbitration to be oversighted, now that that tool is available.

See your note here:

I urge you to consider courtesy blanking, if not entirely deleting from the database, all completed Requests for Arbitration, especially where there are serious privacy concerns.

P.S. I just noticed that Internodeuser's second account, User:Zordrac is currently banned, so I guess that that ban should be reviewed.

P.P.S. I also courtesy blanked the sub pages, as I noticed that you forgot to do that, and they can just as easily come up in search engines.

P.P.P.S. It looks like Zordrac's block was done by User:SlimVirgin against the community decision: . In light of recent events of proported invasion of privacy, perhaps this block should be overturned?

P.P.P.P.S. I noticed he is now running a forum for criticism of Wikipedia, but I won't quote it here as it is labelled as an attack site. He claims that Zordrac was never a sock puppet, but was an off-wiki agreement as a second account to use to cover the Peter Falconio situation, and that he now wishes to return to Wikipedia, using his normal name of User:Blissyu2 or his real name. I do not know if this is relevant, but it seems that that is his request. He says that he refuses to sneak in to Wikipedia, and is waiting for an apology.

P.P.P.P.P.S. I hope that it's okay to link to the site where he makes the explicit request. If it is not then please delete the link. The link is . Perhaps that will give more of an understanding in to why Internodeuser wants the Arbitration page to be courtesy blanked. 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, I reverted your edits to the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case pages. Please do not edit arbitration case pages after the case is closed. We discussed this courtesy blanking and are discussing others on the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Thanks for your interest. Take care, FloNight 17:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Jimbo didn't read this. Perhaps this can be brought to his attention more explicitly? It seems to me to be pretty darn important. 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems inconsistent to blank the Arbitration page, but not its associated talk page. --Dweller 11:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

an update from the "guy in Poland" :)

Re: NYT mention :) I have updated my stats, if they are right, we have improved slightly (~14%) our coverage of topics on Polish Wikipedia, but there is no noticeable change in creating the missing biographies (they are being created, but very slowly). The stats and discussion can be found, for future reference, here. I still hold them as a proof that Wikipedia needs about 398,000,000 more articles :D -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 398,000,000 :-0, but we still have loads of things to do.--Cronholm144 13:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An opinion from you please

Regarding with what was brought up here by me. FMF 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Academy in South Africa

Jimbo, I cannot find any additional info on «Wikipedia Academy» in South Africa to be held in November this year, which you mentioned during your closing speech in Taipei. Could you provide more details? Evgeny 11:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are not many details yet. 9th-11th November, South Africa. Are you able to help?--Jimbo Wales 11:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to. Where do we stay there? How exactly is this event organized? Evgeny 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Academy Idea

A "Wikipedia Academy" ... what a fascinating idea! If things go well with my Advanced B English class... maybe it can lead to bigger and better things. Id like to know more about what a Wikipedia Academy would do. Jim, did you see my response about the invitation to Mexico? Thelmadatter 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter


My apologies for bringing this up so many times, but I feel this is an important point of contention that needs to be resolved. Please comment here, with specific regards to this comment. I want to know whether what I'm doing is completely misguided, or trying to implement the original purpose of the encyclopedia. --Eyrian 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a new Wikipedia task force

I am probably overly smitten with my own cleverness in writing this edit. Nonetheless, I am hoping that it will put a bit of levity in your day. If it evokes a chuckle from you, then that's all I wanted. --Richard 07:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it made me smile, we need more comics like you to brighten up proceedings. Well done! With regards, Lradrama 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject recommendations

If you are interested in some new projects to work on, I would recommend the Welcoming Committee & Wikiproject Switzerland, both of which need some help. Please respond on my talk page. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

more birthdate nonsense

Is it somehow possible to resolve the issue about your correct birthdate once and for all? There is still a discussion underway about it on your bio article. Obviously personal anecdote doesn't meet WP:RS, but this is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. VanTucky (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people (not you) seem to have a hard time grasping humor. :) In any event, the quotes in the Oregonian are correct. The Current Biography article was riddled with massive errors, such that I had to send them several pages of corrections. Personally, I would never trust that one as a reliable source! --Jimbo Wales 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then happy birthday today! ←BenB4 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday! :-)  :-) Lradrama 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Happy birthday! :-) Greg Jones II 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh, this is humor, right? Can you get your mom to record an ogg file about what day you were born so we don't have to figure out your humor please? ←BenB4 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. VanTucky (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put on a totally disputed tag and removed any date whatsoever which kind of feels appropriate and nobody has reverted me yet. Perhaps if you are truly to be treated like our beloved The Queen (I believe you made some comment comparing yourself to her in terms of your relationship to wikipedia) you should get an official birthday as well! SqueakBox 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 :) Squeak, that's the best idea yet. :)--Jimbo Wales 11:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You can be our honorary Queen for now, at least. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Add "wikipedied" into the dictionary?

Dear Jimbo,

How long until "wikipedied" is added to the dictionary like "google" was?


Probably forever, because nobody actually uses the term "Wikipedied"? A much better suggestion is just "Wiki", but that's far beyond the scope of just Wikipedia. --Lucid 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Wiki" is already in the online Oxford English Dictionary[17], meaning it is likely to appear in the next printed version - 17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody uses it? Do a quick google search:


Exactly: just 248 hits. :) ~ UBeR 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention all that makes anyone think of is poor Wikipe-tan dying. That's just going to make Jimbo sad. Lucid 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised to hear such negative responses from you guys... I thought I would hear great support for it, especially here! Anyway, as for me, I hear it used in everyday conversation all the time... I would love to see "wikipedied" added to the dictionary, at least in some form... even if only 250 random bloggers use it now, I'm sure it will only become more popular as wikipedia does over time... J

The truthiness of it is, that's just the wikiality of the situation. ;P - Crockspot 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I've never heard of it before, despite being a Wikipedian for over half a year! Mind you, J K Rowling's muggle got put in the dictionary so who knows? Doubtful though. Lradrama 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not very common I don't think. Wikipedied is a bit tricky to say, and I've always heard people just saying "... look it up on wikipedia". AndrewJDTALK -- 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Muggle has been around since the 1920s. The definition J. K. Rowling uses has been around since 1996--she just popularized it. ~ UBeR 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wiki or maybe Wikipedia might be added to the dictionary. I doubt "wikipedied" will be. --Deskana (banana) 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Wiki it" is used in my area. Not as common as "google it," but still used. "Wikipedy it" is absolutely unheard of. Atropos 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my proposed definition for the term:

wikipedied (wi·ki·pe·died) (verb, past): To be falsely declared dead on wikipedia.
Usage example: I survived cancer but wikipedied last year in a bear attack.

Cheers. :) Abecedare 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I laughed at that one, much better meaning. AndrewJDTALK -- 11:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's ask Adam Savage what he thinks. 6SJ7 04:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I still prefer it being read as Wikipe-died --Lucid 05:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I say Wik it. Wik it good. --


Hi my name is Muhammad Imran Bin Kamil, and I m from Malay Wiki. If possible, can anyone distribute my idea of Wikitube. Wikitube is video content like Youtube. Oh one more thing, if anyone have adminship on Meta, can anyone unblock my account (User:Emrrans) which is blocked by (User:Thogo) please, please... thank you :) — Emrrans 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Meta user claimed he was a sock puppet master, requesting blocks against two accounts he claimed were his.[18] Checkuser found no relation between them.[19] Details here. Cringe. ←BenB4 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually think expanding Wikimedia Commons by adding a media player would be a valuable addition, but I'm not sure how easily it could be done - 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't YouTube fill it's purpose perfectly? Is there any need for another one? Lradrama 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content images, sound and other multimedia files. YouTube is a popular video sharing website where users can upload, view and share video clips. Much like the difference between Flickr and the Commons, adding a player to Wikimedia Commons may aide its, and Wikipedia's related projects, goal allowing embedded content into Wikipedia articles and easy access to Wikimedia Commons' content via streaming. This is the wrong place to talk about it, but it's certainly not a bad idea by any stretch. - 17:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any free video content available, any good quality that is. YouTube have a business plan based on stealing copyrighted content and to go down that path would be catastrophic, SqueakBox 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, see Commons:Commons:Media of the day at Commons for an example, plus I believe public domain sources, such as NASA, have a significant amount of PD content that isn't current included. Embedding such content in a readily accessible form may help Wikipedia - imagine being able to embed the video of the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake into the page, or even new content generated by users for events such as the I-35W Bridge Collapse by those with common mobile phones, let alone the benefits for Wikinews. - 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was done properly it could work but making sure we had free content and only free content would have to be a priority. Certainly if wikipedia acted the way YouTube does this editor would resign, SqueakBox 20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Imbeding videos in articles would require some fairly simple code changes however at the present time it is not felt that it is something we want to do due to formatting issues and the like.Geni 22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't really think we should be discussing this here, it seems to me there is a big difference between youtube and what the wikimedia commons aims for. I'm not just referring to our obvious free content goals here which many have mentioned. But the commons primary goal is for content that may one day be useful for our projects. We're not particularly interested in some random person's video blog or their (usually lame) attempts to be an actor etc. Such content is liable to be deleted, rather quickly I expect. I don't particularly think we should expand the commons to start welcoming such content. Whether a new 'free' content alternative to youtube is needed for this material is perhaps what Muhammad Imran is thinking about Nil Einne 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right Geni. Plus, what I m trying to say is, perhaps this project would be useful, for next time, I guess. Nil Einne, perhaps it is not as lame as you think. From now on, let's be done discussing here more further, hehe. So happy wikifying. — Imran Al-Sahih 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your poster boy administrator is on an attack campaign

Recently, Raul654 has declared he wants someone he disagrees with to be "banned from all global warming and all related articles."[20] This seems to me to be rather astounding, considering the user has a completely blank block log.[21] Regardless, Raul654 quickly took his campaign to the Community Sanctions noticeboard, trying to completely bypass the dispute resolution process, which would have immediately found Raul654's campaign as meritless. But not only was this frivolous, it was deceitful and malicious; Raul654 resorted to lying to put Childhoodsend in bad light.[22] The integrity of this encyclopedia is being challenged and tested by the very people who represent it.

Luckily, most administrators who noticed the campaign quickly rebuked or questioned the audacity Raul654 had to attempt to silence someone he simply disagreed with. Unfortunately, this is not the first such attempt at controlling those he dislikes. He has used the same lies and same the rhetoric in the past, including a long and tendentious campaign against me, which failed miserably as it has here.[23] The problem is that, without anyone to put his behavior in check, I fear he will continue his specious campaigns, personal attacks, and appeals to authority against the good-willed people here to build an encyclopedia, putting in jeopardy the already shaky reputation of the enforcement body of Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul is a very experienced and trusted editor, although he may get into occasional tussles with editors. The discussion at the community sanction board concluded that the two editors should work it out before going though dispute resolution, and that no bans will be sanctioned. You seems to be taking Raul in bad faith, quoting him as "deceitful and malicious," which he probably isn't. Appropriate actions will be taken if either of the editors continue to dispute over content (which, pray tell, won't happen). Singularity 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Luckily, most administrators who noticed the campaign quickly rebuked or questioned the audacity Raul654 had to attempt to silence someone he simply disagreed with. That heavily spun characterization distorts the shape of the discussion and overlooks a key request of mine, And to all who comment, if you're part of the content dispute please disclose it up front. I recommend UBeR exercise more discretion: posts such as the one above may be interpreted as forum shopping or Wikilawyering. DurovaCharge! 03:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Uber is a troll. He has a history of harassing admins he doesn't care for - William M. Connely in particular. Previous discussion on the ANI has established this. His comments here greatly distort the Community Sanction Noticeboard discussion, which is about par for the course for any comment made by Uber. Uber's smoking gun to show that I "lied" about CE is that in the half-dozen diffs I cited to show CE is constantly being reverted, I cited one where the next edit was a revert, but not of CE's edit. But of course Uber didn't tell you this, because it would undermine his already flimsy comments. Raul654 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not true--the whole discussion is there for people to see. As for the lie you made, even you admit the revert wasn't a revert of Childhoodsend's edit. Why show a revert occurring right after Childhoodsend made an edit when the revert wasn't of Childhoodsend edit? It's obvious you have to make things up to try to convince people of things that aren't true. But like I said, you can just apologize and live your life knowing you did the right thing, and that'll be the end of it. ~ UBeR 04:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not part of the discussion; I only skimmed the WP:CSN discussion and looked at several of the edits in question. My overall impression is: I would sure like to see a User Conduct RFC play out before anything is proposed for community sanction. It's not clear to me that Raul did anything intentional with the incorrect evidence; I suppose it's easy to make such mistakes when compiling a list of everything someone who's annoying you has done to annoy you. That kind of thing is error prone, so others should review it at the RFC before it's used as evidence for imposing penalties. And I think I hate the word "tendentious," as it's certainly subjective and seems to be used in place of "annoying" around here, even by the ArbCom. On the other hand, when people try to monopolize the talk page, and keep making new sections for the same discussion, that's a violation of talk page guidelines, I'd say slap a {{circles}} on the talk page and refactor the redundant sections into subsections of the first, and ignore them. Some people are just going to blab on no matter what you do, and letting them get to you doesn't solve anything. ←BenB4 03:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul, please do not make personal attacks, concerning the first sentence of your most recent comment. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And this is just five minute's time.[24][25][26][27][28] ~ UBeR 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


If I send you an envelope with paper, another envelope, and return postage in it, will you autograph the paper and send it back to me? (While I wait for an answer I'll think about what I'd have you sign. Obvious candidates are printouts of Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales, but if you have other suggestions I'd welcome them.) This may or may not seem strange to you, but I think it'd be pretty cool to have your autograph on the wall. (Granted, where most people want autographs from their favorite musicians or sports stars, I want autographs from Bjarne Stroustrup and Tim Berners-Lee...) Dr. Sunglasses 06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear Mr. Wales:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia (you know, founding it and all that), I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

I realize that, as the head honcho of this particular website, you will more than likely be too busy to be able to comment on the topic. However, since it is a policy or guideline proposal, I felt I would be remiss if I did not inform you of said proposal. Also, I had no idea who else would handle such a thing, so I figured "Why not go to the top?"

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.


Sidatio 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on the main page

Just wanted to let you know a debate about fair use images on the main page has erupted again Talk:Main Page#Fair use image on the main page?. Since your removal of the scobby doo image ([29]) often comes up in discussion, thought you might be interested Nil Einne 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. We have an edit war going on over today's featured article otherwise. [30] As you can guess, everyone involved is an administrator, some of long standing. It's embarrassing. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit war thankfully eventually died down but the debate has now moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA/Main Page exemption, revisited if you're still interested Nil Einne 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in with your views, Jimbo — it's greatly appreciated. However, what would be really useful would be if you could go into a little detail about the reasoning behind your opinion. How is the Main Page different from article space? Aren't there some subjects — such as paintings — in which the encyclopedic value of including an image is so great that it supercedes the "free content" mission? The discussion at Talk:Main Page yesterday shows that a lot of Wikipedians believe that such subjects do exist. If you want to change that view, it would be extremely helpful if you could elaborate on your statement. Thank you very much. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll second Josiah's question. Is your concern a legal one, or something else? ←BenB4 13:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no answer on this, as far as I can see. A few interesting points have been made at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#Jimbo's view, including the idea that the front page is part of Wikipedia's marketing, not part of our educational mission. I'd be very interested to see if Jimbo agrees with this assessment, and to understand his position better. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Appearnce on TV

Mr. Wales,

I saw you talking on CSPAN-2 the other day at what appeared to be a Commonwealth Club dialogue. I wanted to comment that you appeared very articulate and added a very personal touch to the rules on Wikipedia that many people unaccustomed to Wikipedia might find aggravating. It would be really nice if everyone understood the purpose of the rules and the mindset of editing Wikipedia as well as you. I hope you continue to work to make Wikipedia the way you envision it. 04:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an idea: an introduction video for noobs, that might help. ←BenB4 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We already have a tutorial. People just don't give a damn --Lucid 07:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it gets a lot of traffic, being linked from {{welcome}}, but I'm also sure more people would watch Jimbo read it than would click all those tabs, especially if there were illustrative screenshot animations. Without examples, Wikipedia:Tutorial is too inaccessible. ←BenB4 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If the video is too long though, I'm sure new users would be equally opposed to spending their time with it - no offense Jimbo, but that's what I can see happening. Lradrama 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia ia already sufficiently frustrating for those of us with no choice but to have dial-up accounts. Adding videos that are "required reading", as it were, or even adding videos at all, will drive away any user located outside of a major urban centre or too poor to afford the cable or high-speed options. If you want to link to videos off-wiki, go to. Just, please, don't incorporate them into wikipedia in anyway that makes viewing compulsory for understanding, or downloading compulsory for any reason. Bielle 15:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though, that a simple introductory video might be very nice. Certainly it could never be compulsory for a thousand different reasons. But a video can convey some of the sense of human emotion, of the sense that we are a charitable loving project of people trying to do something good in life, in a more direct way than text.--Jimbo Wales 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have a good point there. But it must only be a smallish one for all the reasons given in thus discussion. I'd also like to say that I really feel for users like Bielle who have to use dial-up connection, although I now use broadband, I used to have to put up with dial-up - it's horrible, it really is. Slow and expensive and unreliable. I hated it. Lradrama 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(conflict)If you are in favor of it, then let's move forward with logistics. Where, when, who, etc... I think it would probably be easiest to do during a wiki-meetup. We probably would want to script it, and maybe we could have different wikipedians talk about different aspects of wikipedia. Suggestions/volunteers? —Cronholm144 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia spinjobs.

What would you say to people (mainly, companies) that edit their Wikipedia articles to support their opinion, such as discussed here on SlashDot? I can think of how I'd tell them not to ("When word of it gets out [and it always gets out], it will harm your PR far more than help it"), but I'd like to hear your opinion Lucid 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's against both WP:NPOV and not recommended by WP:COI and WP:AUTO. I assume it would be treated like standard spam or promotion, and reverted/removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware that it breaks numerous policies, I'm curious about Jimbo's opinion on (major) companies that do this. --Lucid 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Corporations and individuals will edit here to enhance their public image. Das Ende, The end, Finet. 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that insightful opinion, Jimbo-in-China-and-not-logged-in-for-some-reason! --Lucid 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the Great Firewall will stay down after he leaves. ←BenB4 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It's worth noting that a company (or its representatives) editing their own article doesn't necessarily violate WP:NPOV (though it certainly represents a clear conflict of interest). It's possible for a company rep to write in a manner that is clear, factual, and balanced. It's important that we not confuse the need for our writing to conform to NPOV (as required by policy) with a need for all editors to hold or believe in a NPOV (if such a thing is even possible). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China? I pretty clearly said to support their opinion in my first post, which is the issue here. I don't think anyone cares about someone Wikignoming their own article, Diebold removing criticisms from their article or Wal-Mart changing criticisms to seem like good things are very interesting situations, and I'd like to hear Jimbo's opinion on the corporations that do this, and what he would say to them if he could --Lucid 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Albania Veneta

Dear Jimbo,

I appreciate very much what you are doing with your Wikipedia. It is a great gift to all of us. But there are some "points" that need to be improved, as you know.

One is the presence of nationalistic groups that in a coordinate way want to impose their points of view without regard of what write serious historians. They usually proceed to ask for help from "friendly to them" administrators and so obtain what they want. In Eastern Europe there are many of these groups (mainly ex-communists) and often are associated with hackers.

What do we have to do with these nationalistic groups? In my case I can pinpoint what is going on with the articles "Albania Veneta", "Zadar", "Istrian exodus", etc., where a group of known nationalistic fanatics (like one nicknamed in the english wikipedia as "Direktor") are erasing and damaging what write others with serious and proven references. They use the typical misinformation with "political pressure" of the Soviets in Eastern Europe.

May be you have a serious and impartial administrator, who can help? Regards.--Brunodam 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute about naming conventions and reliable sources. Naming convention disputes should be solved by determining the names most often used by English speakers and using them without regard to ethnic sympathies. Disputes concerning reliable sources should be raised on WP:RSN. When different reliable sources disagree, they should both be represented in the article with a description of the differences in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. It seems likely that both sides of this dispute have relatively equally reliably sources which conflict. Welcome to the Balkans. ←BenB4 00:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but in the case of Albania Veneta there are only the sources confirming the existence of the venetian community in the area. Not one single source has been given from the other side. This shows the need of an impartial and experienced administrator (with knowledge on the topic) to deal with the problem, in order to forestall another possible edit war....Regards.--Brunodam 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, welcome to the Balkans conflict (yep, it just moved from CNN to Wikipedia)... Allow me to give you the grand tour. Here you will find every imaginable ideology and the very worst national and/or ethnic tension Europe has seen for 62 years, all crammed into a tiny little region. But wait, there's more! it looks like the neighbors would like to join in, notably the (mostly north-eastern) Italians, that feel they may get their way by SLANDERING PEOPLE BEHIND THEIR BACKS (mostly me ;). I would just like it on record it was not my idea to drag people into this mess, but after what was written I feel I must respond. First of all, I am no nationalist(!), understandably so since I find the ideology brainless and revolting. Second of all neither I nor the "view" I represent are Communist (note the lack of logic in the slander above, to them I am some hibrid Nazi/Communist, the "united evil of the world"...). Furthermore, it is important to note the striking numerical disproportion between the people representing the Slavic and the people representing the Italian view on things.
I have frequently over the last few months found myself in the position to have to explain to various Wikipedians what kind of editors we are dealing with in these Dalmatia-related articles. I know I have a personal interest in the matter but let me point out these objective facts: There exists a certain group of persistant Italian editors, with a strong interest in these matters, that do not posses a very good knowledge of English. Because of these traits they are heavily involved in every conflict of oppinion, but are unable to do much more than CONSTANTLY revert, copy paste, and occasionally write a couple of sentences. Because of this inability (or perhaps their unwillingness to work harder than most of us in order to write English) they nearly never constructively debate the issues, and when they do write something on the talkpage, it is not with the intention to improve the text, but to vent their anger at those who have dared to work on it. We hope you will find that Slavic editors I am associated with are a level-headed bunch that is predominantly trying to protect articles against severe degradation by right-wing Italians. I know this all sounds biased, but if you look into the matter I think you may find we are not the radicals here. Recently, instead of debating they started pestering a large number of Admins (notably User:Isotope23) in order to find someone to back them. In this they have slandered me quite frequently in a cheap attempt to biase these people against me personally, as well as other opponents of theirs (often not even making sense in doing so). DIREKTOR 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the above post from Direktor tells it all about the mentality of these groups that do "Balkan wars" in the english wikipedia....and how it is impossible to write something with impartiality on the topic "Albania veneta", even with serious references. That clearly shows the need of an impartial and experienced administrator (with knowledge on the topic) to deal with the problem, in order to forestall another possible edit war....Regards--Brunodam 01:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I too believe the first post from Brunodam says it all about the mentality of these groups that take part in "Balkan wars" on the English wikipedia....and how impossible it is to write something with such POV on the topic "Albania veneta" and with such biased sources, without encountering resistance. That clearly shows the need of an impartial and experienced administrator (with knowledge on the topic) to deal with the problem, in order to forestall another possible edit war.... Regards, DIREKTOR 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Let a serious and impartial administrator decide if the many references written in Albania Veneta are "biased sources". Regards
I can't believe it!! We actually agree on something!!!! DIREKTOR 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
OK.Let's forestall another possible edit war.--Brunodam 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: Your friendly intervention

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

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

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

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

Because evidences are furthermore erased I personally ask you to take my last version as shown in [[31]] DeepBlueDiamond 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone understand what the request, complaint, or desired outcome is here? ←BenB4 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please look the first link. It is the same as the now second link, but it goes directly to the top of all instead. It is the last link now put to the top instead. 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. He wants people to stop reverting the WP:POV and errors in physics that he keeps inserting into physics pages. He wants people to stop being so brutally insulting as to suggest that his insertions might be in any kind of conflict with wikipedia guidelines or with basic physics. He also wants to counteract the flood of errors and distortions being put about by modern physicists who show their ignorance and bias by thinking his ideas are in conflict with basic physics. He thinks anybody who reverts his edits is an administrator and acting falsely. (I think acting falsely means daring to suggest that he doesn't understand basic physics.) He uses a dynamic IP cluster, and is hugely offended that anyone (me, as it turns out) would go to the trouble of checking for edits in the IP range 84.158.*.*, or mentioning this IP range at the WikiProject Physics discussion page as a source of many errors in basic physics.
In all seriousness, my own personal judgment here is highly suspect, as over the last two weeks or so I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to communicate with this editor, and suggest some of the reasons that his edits nearly always get reverted in short order by the next passing physicist who happens to notice the many errors in basic physics and English grammar he is adding. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
False pretentions continue:
* Errors in English, you're right! Sorry, we demanded help, not got. People like you should communicate in French, Spanish, German (partly Latin, Sweedish etc.). You pretended by no abilities in German e.g.: EN.WIKI says the same to photon's mass like DE.WIKI. You only contradicted by principle vehemently without any abilities in German (or in the matter). Then you was introduced in German: Both WIKI say the contrary! How can you realize old German physicists you need to reproduce something correctly? Learn to read seriously, then basic physics, not pretending only to know anything (reading makes no understanding). You are neither graduated in at least a similar matter but dare to reprimand serious knowledge of our old Fr. Professor, Dres.-physics and Univ.-graduated people. Some of them indirectly tried to teach you in vain to both a bit, linked. - Such behaviour of laymen is named hubris, ok?
* What would it matter - if really true (you could not prove only one) - to have perhaps even some little defects in physics?
* Much better than to need some (ten, until 30) "mysteries" for (your?) "modern physics" named Big Bang (BB). You confirmed at least: Dark energy needs a real "mystery"!
* Must physicists fulfil the bible confirming how God produced a Big bang, "there will be light and there was light" (we link following Original Big Bang section again to show that BB is mainly founded by the support of many religions, e.g how glad Pope Pius XII was)? Only a real God could make from nothing everything and a BB (by violating his own physics?), ok? Dobson meant this and reminded one little of many additional problems: How could time begin within a Schwarzschild radius of super-super-massive compressed BB if time stops at the Schwarzschild-radius of a black hole with much less super-gravity. He teach you at least real physics instead of all mysteries you need...
* In BB opposing articles dominate in Wiki pure OPINIONS of redactors (users, admins, e.g.: None-BB-physics are no more valid, obsolate, overruled by BB)! Meanwhile such impertinence is found even in prior sections. Shall such opinions induce pupils, students, laymen and experts by depreciating at first any non-BB-matter already by principle? That is WP:NOR supported by admins!
* Instead, fair criticism hs to be put in a last section CRITICS or CRITICISM as fairly in most other articles, that's ok! But obviously not exist any effective neutral control with such Admins WP-principles (any attempt to correct it was rv).
* Instead of our serious pure reproductions of papers, theories, links, biographies as we did, such unserious people try to violate the mind of readers by their own prejuctices' OPINIONS (meaning impertinently that their opinions are a fact and all have to believe). Unqualified tendentious depreciations dominate especially to opponents of BB-physics more and more instead of serious redaction - as shown in one bad example only, above.
* A mass-storage of a computer has an incredible capacity to store something. Is that not a big brain?
* The disk has no intelligence to proceed data. Only by real expert's programs make a computer work, by spending much time instead of only using (reading) an Computer. Beware beginners and laymen in programming. physics, medicine, chemistry... - please!!!
* What happens if such underqualified people get the of might to discipline real experts by steadily destroying their work here (a kind of mental torment abusing the little might to dictate the result? Abuse by hubris only?
* Readers of something dominated by any redactor's OPINIONS mean then to have understood the world but they haven't by ignorance. If you have read a theory you haven't really understood until having really worked with it in practice. Here, such laymen of physics meant only to have understood one and/or the other last real genius FEYNMAN or ZWICKY better than those who know that physics or even use their theories until now. But all with a here ignored real photons's mass (as known in the whole world, even by you, as you wrote us) have to invent many real mysteries - only to support a Big Bang? Poor believers of fashion... 03:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to place protection on your userpage

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

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

Open for anything...

We all know that Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. But Jim, I'm sure that this ( really wasn't what it was intended for. Looking back at the Chris Benoit/Wikipedia controversy, although wikipedia was created so that edits like this are allowed to happen, should we take something like the above edit (as well as seriously? Socby19 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh? It'a a sandbox edit. You know, a sandbox, where people can play! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and so is the rest of the internet. Like when Al-Qaeda, or any other terror cell makes serious posts about plots that actually follow through. I did say that I'm not sure what to think of it, but just in case, I have notified the FBI via their counter-terrorism tip submission forum. Socby19 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure it isn't just an odd joke about the movie Telefon? - 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have no idea. From reading the Telefon wikipedia page, I don't see any references to Disney (park, nor company) at all. The only connection I see is that the distributor is MGM, which, through this year, Disney has a license for the name MGM (Disney-MGM Studios). Besides, the ride page (Snow White's Scary Adventures) doesn't mention the movie. The Disney World ride is in Magic Kingdom, not Disney-MGM. To me, it's just a bunch of loose ends that may or may not mean something. Socby19 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

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

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

It's actually not unusual that people decide to leave Wikipedia, but the question is, can they actually stay away? Some can, some can't and some might even return under different usernames. It's sorry to see people go in this way, but it's not like the deathknell of Wikipedia, new users are cropping up all the time aren't they? I guess the main reason for people leaving is there are too many idiots operating on this website. It's sad, but that's the conclusion I've come to from what I've seen and witnessed in my 8 months working here. Lradrama 10:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that another user is leaving is not as important as the reason for which he is leaving. GizzaDiscuss © 10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I said before - too many idiots and vandals in operation. :-( Lradrama 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What is really sad is that it isn't that WP is too open, it is because too many editors are effected by the actions of vandals that is the reason for them abusing the system. If you don't want to deal with the idiots, then don't - concentrate on building the encyclopedia instead. There are those, bless them, that actively pursue and correct vandalism, there are those that deal with vandalism as it is found, there are those who ignore it, and there are those who are effected by it. I would hope that Wikipedia is large enough to allow all of the above to contribute according to their talents and preferences. I also regret any good contributor leaving, and I hope Targeman finds something else that rewards their skills and efforts. LessHeard vanU 12:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Many have left because of a few problems with Wikipedia. Read the essays they write on their userpages. Fix the problems, and Wikipedia will be a better place. Don't fix them, and Wikipedia will suck. --Kaypoh 01:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Your message is for all of us, Jimbo cant fix anything on his own, SqueakBox 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I myself enjoy fighting vandalism. Look on the bright side. Some things they put are funny ;-). Even if it does get reverted. Service with a smile! Lradrama 14:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)